• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fossils & Fossilization (How Do They Form? Are There New Fossils?)

A

Anonymous

Guest
Has anyone here got enough scientific knowledge to confirm the fact that fossils aren't being created now? And can anyone explain why fossils of trees have been found when the tree should have rotted away in the time it took to create the fossil. It seems that the scientific understanding of fossils is inaccurate and the evidence is pointing more towards the fact that all fossils on this planet were created at the same time. Can anyone disprove this theory?
 
Fossils probably are being created as we speak, it just happens very slowly and usually underwater...and wood rots a lot more slowly than flesh...
I think, if rock is made the way they reckon it is made, then fossils are very much spread out over time.
You been watching the God Channel again...?
 
No, no please... don't label me as a creationist! I was just interested in this idea that scientists got it wrong about how fossils were made.
 
Has anyone here got enough scientific knowledge to confirm the fact that fossils aren't being created now?

Er, no but I'll have a go at explaining anyway.

Fossils are indeed being created all the time - why do you think they're all the same age?

As IJ said, it's a very slow process which by it's very nature tends to take place hidden from view (and corrosive elements) - under still water or sand for example. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of fossils are of very small creatures - nice big dinosaurs and petrified forests are the exception, not the rule.

I did a google search for "fossil" and "date" but most of the results are not fit for young inquiring minds :D . Maybe someone with more skill than me can help?

Jane.
 
But how on earth do little bugs and stuff get fossilised when the process is supposed to take.... well, a really long time. Surly there bodies would be long gone in this time... or am I missing something here?
 
If you ever go to Lyme Regis, a man called Dr Colin does fantastic fossil hunts along the beach - he can explain it all.

When we were there, bits of the cliff collapsed and fossils popped out that must've been within the cliffs for many thousands of years. Possibly more.

I think a lot depends on local conditions, weather etc, etc. The right conditions can preserve things for much longer (including little bugs and the like). For example - some of the burials found in the Atacama desert in Peru are amazingly well preserved because it's so dry, whereas elsewhere they would be dust by now. Also, if a creature gets covered in something like sand, then mud, it acts like a plaster cast, and though the creature itself might decompose, its imprint is preserved. :)

(Clearly I'm no expert, but I think that's what happens).
 
Nail. Head. Wallop. Plaster cast. Exactly. Used to be something of a paleantology buff when I was a kid. I have a million books with diagrams of the fossilization process in them.
You get a dead thing, cover it in mud, the mud gets packed down by more mud, and you get a mud-cast of a dead beastie.
 
Only a very small fraction of living things become fossilized. As you said, Adam, most dead things just rot away to nothing or are eaten by scavengers.

Fossilization only happens in very rare circumstances, such as if an animal dies on a river bank, then gets covered by mud from a flood before it can decay. Makes you wonder about the species we'll never know about because not one of them was ever preserved.

It's an ongoing process. The LaBrea Tar Pits still claim the odd squirrel or stray cat.
 
I recall watching a program about this a while ago where they explained about fossilised bones ( I think it was Time Team in the UK ).

What happens is the body gets stuck in mud or sand and is covered ( which prevents scavangers from eating them ) and then the mud/sand prevents oxygen from reaching the carcase so it is slow to decompose.

As has already been mentioned, the surrounding mud/sand effectively seals in the object and forms a shell around it. In the case of larger animals the flesh will typically rot away and the mud will cover the remaining bones.

The body will eventually decay, but the minerals in the surrounding mud/sand ( and eventually stone ) will percolate through and eventually will replace any decayed material. Bones tend to decay into a matrix-type material which is filled with other minerals and which supports the calcified bone remains.

What we eventually see as a fossil is the shape of minerals that have replaced the original flesh and bone - a bit like a jelly mould but using cement :)

If the process was very common then everywhere we looked there would be fossils in the ground, but the fact is that the conditions are quite rare and this is reflected in the frequency with which they are found.

Sea shells and hard bodies aquatic creatures are quite likely to survive as they fall to the sand and mud and can be covered by storm driven turbulance. Other land creature fossils are much harder to come across as they are less likely to find the environment which will preserve them, although the likes of tar pits or gulleys during flash floods are possibilities.

With timescales of millions of years it is no wonder we have trouble seeing this process in action.

thanks

Uncle Bulgaria
 
Well, you've already said everything now. But I justw ant to mention when I was 9 years I was in Sweden and visited a mine. I don't remember much about it, but there was some guy who had died down there just a 100 years so so ago. Due to some special conditions, he has gotten fossilized or so already. The same with a christmas tree down there.

It's a long time ago so don't hang me for any of this.

BTW naturally made mummies also show that not everything rot away. If we had let them be instead of diggin them out they wouold probably turn into fossils.
 
That sounds like the kind of mineralisation you get at Mother Shipton's Petrifying well, in Knaresborough, Yorkshire... I'm not certian that is classed as fossilisation....

8¬)
 
I'm also not sure it was a real fossilisation. But it was 10 years ago, and maybe they exaggarated a bit. But I think it was a closed silver mine in Dalarna in southern Sweden. A place for tourists.
 
Ok, thanks for your help. It appears that science has gotten the best of me this time.
 
Xanatic said:
BTW naturally made mummies also show that not everything rot away. If we had let them be instead of diggin them out they wouold probably turn into fossils.

Like the velociraptor and protoceratops that were killed, still fighting, by a sandstorm.
 
Ancient Creature Fossilized By The Bacteria That Ate It

High in the mountains of Antarctica, Ohio State University geologists unearthed the fossil remains of a 180-million-year-old clam-like creature that was preserved in a very unusual way: by the ancient bacteria that devoured it.
And only yards away, they found the first fossil evidence of a completely different kind of bacteria that scientists were unsure even existed as fossils that long ago.

The first find answers one of the most fundamental questions in paleontology - why some creatures fossilize even though they lack the mineral-rich bones, teeth, or shells that are normally required for the process.

The second find corroborates other evidence that a particular type of bacteria has a very ancient history on Earth.

Loren Babcock, professor of geological sciences at Ohio State, and his colleagues used a scanning electron microscope to examine fossils of tiny arthropods they collected from Antarctica, and discovered that the arthropod fossils were actually composed of clumps of even tinier bacteria fossils.

The scientists suspect that the bacteria feasted on the dead arthropods, then absorbed minerals from their surroundings and turned to quartz, preserving perfectly the shape and texture of the arthropods.

"In essence, the bacteria self-fossilized, and replicated the body of the animal," Babcock said.

They also examined limestone deposits they found nearby, and identified fossils of a different kind of bacteria called archaebacteria. Genetic studies of modern archaebacteria have suggested that this group has existed for billions of years.

But fossil remains of archaebacteria have rarely been found, and never been found as fossils in Antarctica, until now.

The geologists presented their results Wednesday at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver.

Babcock's longtime goal has been to understand a phenomenon called "exceptional preservation," in which soft creatures such as insects and other arthropods - which normally cannot fossilize - are somehow preserved. Now he's re-examining other unusual fossils and finding that ancient bacteria were responsible for those cases as well.

"Now it seems almost every situation of exceptional preservation tells the same story," he said.

The story begins 180 million years ago, when lava flows and hot bubbling pools made parts of Antarctica resemble Yellowstone National Park more than the frozen wasteland it is today.

Thermal vents heated some of the water pools to temperatures near boiling - as high as 80 degrees Celsius (176 degrees Fahrenheit) or more. Only the archaebacteria, which fed on sulfur in the water, survived in that environment.

Nearby, in pools that cooled to 20-30 degrees Celsius (68-86 degrees Fahrenheit) - temperatures somewhere between a good swim at the beach and bathwater - lived the arthropod, along with bacteria that were similar to normal eubacteria living today.

Babcock and his team have identified the arthropod as Lioestheria disgregaris, and it appears to have been a bivalved arthropod similar in shape to modern clams. Its shell was made of chitin, a soft, fingernail-like substance that should have disintegrated after the creature died, long before it could fossilize.

But the arthropod had no predators, so when it died of natural causes, the eubacteria decomposed it, forming a gooey coating that reproduced even the tiniest features of the shell. When the bacteria died, their bodies absorbed minerals from the muddy water and turned to quartz.

Later, a volcanic eruption produced lava flows that covered the pools with a layer of basaltic rock. The pools weren't completely obliterated by the overflowing lava, but rather were sealed in pockets that preserved the chemistry in these isolated locations.

Today, only a few sites around the world offer fossils of insects and other soft creatures, and Babcock said that they all share two characteristics: in their time, the creatures had few if any predators to eat them, so their bodies remained intact after death; and some extreme events or special chemistries at the sites enabled the soft shells to change to rock.

With that in mind, he and his colleagues ventured to the Kirkpatrick Basalt in Antarctica in late 2003, betting that conditions there long ago were right for exceptional preservation.

"We didn't really know what to expect," Babcock said. "What we found was the weirdest limestone I've ever seen."

At a mountain site called Carapace Nunatak, about 100 miles from McMurdo Station, they came to a cliff face which had thrust out of the ground, exposing layers of brown volcanic rock with a bold ribbon of tan limestone snaking in-between.

Though the scientists could see arthropod fossils exposed in the rock as they gathered their samples, it wasn't until they returned to Ohio and put the limestone under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) that they saw the fossilized eubacteria. The bacteria look like millions of tiny spheres forming the shape of the arthropod.

When he saw the SEM images, Babcock immediately thought of another experiment in his lab. One of his students, for his thesis project, observed how a dead horseshoe crab decomposes in a water tank. As the horseshoe crab rots, a slimy film of bacteria and fungi forms around it.

Babcock put some of the slime under the SEM, and the arrangement of the modern bacteria looked nearly identical to the fossilized bacteria.

The Ohio State scientists got another surprise when they looked at the limestone under the SEM - and saw fossilized archaebacteria. Scientists have found living archaebacteria only in very extreme conditions, such as surrounding hot hydrothermal vents at the ocean bottom.

The bacteria's tolerance of heat and its taste for sulfur make it a good candidate for life on the early Earth, and genetic studies have suggested that archaebacteria may have been one of the first forms of life 3.5 billion years ago.

The sample the Ohio State scientists found in Antarctica dates back 180 million years, and is the only example of fossil archaebacteria ever found in Antarctica.

Working on this project with Babcock were Alycia Rode, formerly a postdoctoral researcher at Ohio State and now an assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio University; Steve Leslie, an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Lara Ford and Katharine Polak, both undergraduate students at Ohio State; and Luann Becker, a research scientist in crustal studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The National Science Foundation funded this project; Ohio State's Technology Enhanced Learning and Research division funded Lara Ford's participation through its "Research on Research" grant program.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzzzo.html
 
Back
Top