Wurzl@lemmy.zip to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 天前Fossilized 10,000-year-old mastodon tooth found by California scientistwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square19linkfedilinkarrow-up1114arrow-down14
arrow-up1110arrow-down1external-linkFossilized 10,000-year-old mastodon tooth found by California scientistwww.theguardian.comWurzl@lemmy.zip to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 天前message-square19linkfedilink
minus-squareAbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 天前Would a 10,000 year old tooth even be considered a fossil? One technical definition defines fossils as remains “‘not demonstrably postdating the beginning of the Holocene” (i.e., older than 11,700 years).
minus-squareTigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 天前If the tooth are fossilized, they are fossils. So when the tooth tissue is replaced by minerals.
minus-squareAbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 天前Mineralization is a slow process, and the photo in the article could pass for a fresh tooth—which is why I looked to see if there were more precise definitions.
Would a 10,000 year old tooth even be considered a fossil?
One technical definition defines fossils as remains “‘not demonstrably postdating the beginning of the Holocene” (i.e., older than 11,700 years).
If the tooth are fossilized, they are fossils. So when the tooth tissue is replaced by minerals.
Mineralization is a slow process, and the photo in the article could pass for a fresh tooth—which is why I looked to see if there were more precise definitions.