FALSE It's still a fossil because it's been preserved for millions of years (or whatever) using some kind of minerals. I think. I'm pretty sure.
a coprolite is a foosil
Coprolite is a valuable trace fossil for the archaeologist, but is NOT a mineral.A mineral must be of fixed composition, and have a fixed crystal shape.
No. Even fossil excrement, coprolite, is not a mineral.[Strictly a trace fossil, as it is an accessory of the animal.]
You can identify them by what IS the fossil. The 3 fossils are prints, coprolite, or smooth rocks corroded by gizzards.
Indeed: a Trace Fossil is that of a burrow, footprint, coprolite, etc that's not a fossil of the animal itself that left the trace.
Because there is no suitable alternative at present
Turn out that it is not present (OXYGEN in fossil fuels).
Preserved animal feces from a long time ago would be a fossil trace. Petrified human feces would be called paleofeces. However, fresh animal feces would not be considered a fossil.
A trace fossil can be anything from a coprolite (faeces) to a footprint. It is anything which proves the creature's existence without being the actual creature itself. For example, an ammonite shell is proof of its individual existence, but its faeces give us little information about its appearance. A fossil could be a cast, mold, or true form fossil.
This is called a mold, a mold is when a fossil has a cavity in a rock, it turns into a fossil when it becomes a cast, so technically yes it is a fossil
Yes! There are because fossil fuel have to be made up of decayed animal or plant parts. Some are not because they are naturally made differently. Others, are forged so, they are TECHNICALLY not real fossil fuels, though, some may consider them...
fossil fuels produce sulfur dioxide when burned because sulfur is present in them. things like coal which is carbon or gas which is a hydrocarbon are examples of this. fossil fuels are bad because sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. hope this helps :)