So where's the distinction between mineral and animal? Animals are made of atoms. And we count parts of animals, such as a leather jacket, as animal for these purposes. So a fragment of bone would count as animal, even though it's just a big pile of calcium atoms. So what about a single atom removed from that bone? Is that animal, while an identical atom removed from a rock is mineral? If we say that both atoms are mineral, then the difference between animal and mineral must lie in the form rather than the matter. But then a dinosaur bone has animal form but is made of mineral matter that was never part of the animal. Chalk is clearly a mineral but is made of what was once animals. In fact, given the existence of the "rock cycle", in which volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks all turn into each other - and into animals and plants and back again - with slow but ineluctable regularity, it seems that there is no objective dividing line between any of our three categories, and it's all just arbitrary.

[Breadmaster] It's only a game!

Going back a bit, I did apply to load the revolver in that Derren Brown thing. I got as far as having to do an audition tape but it never went further. Probably I was just too strange.

[BM] If it is alive/dead but the components thereof have not sufficiently decomposed to the point where it would be considered a mineral by geological standards, then it's animal and/or vegetable. A cricket ball, e.g. is both animal and vegetable. Bone, if that were the object in question, I would list as animal and mineral.

Or they just found the idea of Darren and Derren on stage at the same time to be too disturbing...

[BM] All sounds a bit quantum, to me.
What you're trying to do is draw definite lines along fuzzy boundaries, which looks OK from a distance but when you look closely, well, aren't.

[Darren] "Only a game"? You won't win anything with an attitude like that, my lad!