To: Sopater
It's kind of a badly-written article. While soft tissues are mentioned, it appears that this fossil is completely fossilized. What is rare is that soft tissues were also fossilized, which allows them to be studied. In most fossils, all soft tissues decompose before fossilization.
Having the entire animal fossilized will allow study of the structure of all that soft tissue, a rare thing in fossils. It doesn't mean that the soft tissue has not been mineralized (converted to stone).
3 posted on
08/29/2006 8:37:57 AM PDT by
MineralMan
(Non-evangelical Atheist)
===> Placemarker <===
5 posted on
08/29/2006 8:39:24 AM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Evolution is real, deal with it!)
To: MineralMan
The evidence goes a long way to justify what many paleontologists are having a hard time believing that Leonardo is as well preserved as Murphy says it is and how, after millions of years, that is even possiblean interesting sentence here...
To: MineralMan
Thank you for that clarification. It was not very well written.
susie
19 posted on
08/29/2006 9:19:01 AM PDT by
brytlea
(amnesty--an act of clemency by an authority by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individual)
To: MineralMan
While soft tissues are mentioned, it appears that this fossil is completely fossilized.
What this indicates is that the process of fossilization was either much more accelerated than what is typically assumed in this instance (and similar others), or that the decay process was somehow inhibited or greatly impeded for the soft-tissue to mineralize before being completely decayed.
28 posted on
08/29/2006 9:42:37 AM PDT by
Sopater
(Creatio Ex Nihilo)
To: MineralMan
Tuesday morning the scientists looked at the keratin forming Leonardo's beak, which, like cartilage, is usually dissolved in time.It is poorly written, but the above sentence seems to indicate they are studying the original un-fossilized beak material.
29 posted on
08/29/2006 9:45:33 AM PDT by
Drawsing
(The fool shows his annoyance at once. The prudent man overlooks an insult. (Proverbs 12:16))
To: MineralMan
it appears that this fossil is completely fossilizedNo chance of a Jurassic Park, eh?
To: MineralMan
42 posted on
08/29/2006 10:29:47 AM PDT by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: MineralMan
To me, it sounds like the beast was naturally mummified after death, like the bodies we find in peat bogs today. Once mummified, the soft tissues would not decay like regular tissue and the process of fossilization of the mummified soft tissue would be possible. The mummification process would have given the fossilization qualities of bone to the soft tissue. This must be indeed a very rare find!
60 posted on
08/29/2006 2:09:58 PM PDT by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: MineralMan
Also, mummified hadrosaurs have been found before in North America, but none so well preserved as the Maltese specimen (a precious, jewel encrusted "Big Bird" instead of a black bird :))
67 posted on
08/31/2006 8:44:52 AM PDT by
RightWingAtheist
(Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson