Fossils themselves prove nothing.
However, in comparing fossils from earlier, later and much later times, we see such similarlities accompanied by differences; we see creatures remaining as they were, and then suddenly developing into others, sometimes disappearing, soemtimes living alongside them.
The fossils show us a small picture of basically what was alive at that time. We know that for example, some apelike creatures existed in one place at one time, and then later on they moved "here". Then we see that they start becoming fewer and fewer, while a similar - but different - creature becomes more common. Then #2 becomes rarer while another very similar but different animal becomes more common. And then #3 starts getting less common...
Sometimes at each stage, we find there are several animals which are all different, but all similar to the ones before. Sometimes we only one, immediately replacing its predecessor. As explained by evolutionary theory, this is what we expect, and this is what we see.
The changes seen in the fossil record are not random, inexplicable changes, they fit into the kind of pattern that would be expected to happen as a result of the evolutionary process. Species change in a progressive manner, changes building on previous changes. The fossil record is very complex, and it certainly includes major events such as the extinction of the dinosaurs which was not caused by evolution, but by the impact of a comet, but nonetheless, you can still see evolution taking place. After the dinosaurs became extinct, there were new ecological niches available, which mammals evolved to fill. The fossil record is very clear that evolution has been taking place.
The two types are Dna, and fossils
The study of fossils represent the evolution of species by the time period between when they became fossils and what the ancestory line is
There is strong support for the theory of evolution due to fossils that have been found by archeologists. The fossil records show evidence of evolution over billions of years.
Fossils give a record as to what organisms lived throughout different time periods. Generally speaking, the lower layers of soil show the oldest fossils, which aids scientists in following the progression of evolution of an organism. Also, radioactive carbon dating is used in dating how old a fossil is by finding the amount of carbon^14, and then calculating how many half lives have passed to reach this amount.
Fossils can be used as evidence for evolution because they can show the development of a species over a long period of time.
evolution
The two types are Dna, and fossils
The two types are Dna, and fossils
The two types are Dna, and fossils
No, of course not. Evidence does not prove evolution - it validates the theory.Evidence which Darwin had included limited fossils, and observed apparent speciation in birds.
Yes. There are many flaws like carbon dating. It is only accurate for thousands of years not millions. Also fossils don't prove evolution because we don't know if these fossils had babies or not. Fossils don't come with tags to explain itself.
Fossils show the past history, bacteria and viruses show that it's still active.
Archaeology is the study of 'human activity' and palaeontology is the study of 'fossils'. Meaning that whenever someone found bones/fossils, palaeontology has helped use DNA to find how long the bones/fossils have been there for. Archaeology has helped prove what palaeontology found out.
the answer is elemetary
why did the early scholars reject fossils as a mean to trace human evolution
fossils
why did the early scholars reject fossils as a mean to trace human evolution