Wurzl@lemmy.zip to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agoFossilized 10,000-year-old mastodon tooth found by California scientistwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square19linkfedilinkarrow-up1114arrow-down13
arrow-up1111arrow-down1external-linkFossilized 10,000-year-old mastodon tooth found by California scientistwww.theguardian.comWurzl@lemmy.zip to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square19linkfedilink
minus-squareAbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoWould 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-up1·2 days agoIf the tooth are fossilized, they are fossils. So when the tooth tissue is replaced by minerals.
minus-squareAbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoMineralization 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.