edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3f36fa75.222645542@news.shenhgts.net>...

On 10 Aug 2003 16:29:20 -0700, rwalker@nycc.edu (Robert A. Walker)
wrote:

edconrad@shenhgts.net (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3f364af8.177715832@news.shenhgts.net>...

<

snip

As for your osteons, are you aware that petrification process
displaces osteons and leaves only the Haversian canals?

http://www.hunterian.gla.ac.uk/museum/dinosaur/images/ts1.jpg]

Yet another absolutely gorgeous photo of well-developed haversian
system in FOSSIL (yes, Ed, a fossil, a real fossil) bone.

Are you aware you are wrong yet?

Dertainly not,  Dr. Walker. But you are.

Yes, you have shown an "absolutely gorgeous photo of a well-developed
haversian system" of what you call "real fossil bone."

The problem is, you are 100 percent wrong  in claiming that this is
what the cellular structure of petrified bone should look like.

You're showing fossil bone -- NOT petrified bone -- and the difference
in viewing cell structure is like night and day.

Oh, really?

And what is that difference, Ed?

Ony the Haversian canals remain in petrified bone because everything
else is displaced. The petrification process can't make the Haversian
canals vanish because there was nothing there to displace them in the
first place.

Ed, this sounds pretty far-fetched.  In fact, it sounds like you're
making the whole thing up.

So why don't you explain to me (and to the other readers) this
"process" and how it might work.  It seems to me that your claim goes
against everything that is understood about the petrification process.

So by all means, Ed, explain how this process is supposed to occur;
and don't forget the references to peer-reviewed journals.