Many organisms live only in rain-forests.
It is very rare for an organism to be fossilized in the first place. They would have to die in perfect conditions, before decomposition, and not be eaten at the time of death. This is very rare, because usually the specimen has to be covered by sediment immediately. On top of that, animals that do not have hard body-parts wouldn't preserve well and many species were simply too fragile, small, rare, etc. Keep in mind, the amount of land that has been explored by professionals is a very, very small portion of the Earth, and many appropriate areas have been destroyed by fuel industry.
Because they decompose before they are covered with sediment or preserved in a certain fashion.
It takes the right conditions for organic material to become fossilized.
one is trace fossil and the other is fulgerties im really. sure about this answer too.
When we examine the fossil record we see that the Earth has not always had the same living organisms living on it that it has today, but rather, there have been many changes, some gradual and some abrupt, over the past few billion years, and those changes show progressive alterations of exactly the kind that evolution would be expected to produce. The fossil record tells us that yes, life has evolved.
Organisms with hard parts such as a mineralized shell, like a trilobite or ammonite, are much more likely to become fossilized than animals with only soft parts.
Because we have quite a lot of evidence of prehistoric life and we just need to put together what we have and know like a jigsaw to make a clear picture. However many pieces are still missing as fossilisation is quite rare and many species of life will not have been preserved. Pieces are also missing because we have not found all of the fossils on earth yet as we have not had the technology and time to yet. The fossil record is also like a jigsaw in the way that one little piece of evidence can just put everything together and make things much more clear.
The fossil record shows that there was many different species that were here on Earth millions of years ago and are now extinct. It also provides evidence about the past climate or whether the fossil was found in a shallow bay, and ocean bottom, or a freshwater swamp. Next time, don't ask wiki for answers to your homework. Do it yourself. ;)
one is trace fossil and the other is fulgerties im really. sure about this answer too.
The fossil record is incomplete because not all fossils have been discovered. In actuality it is unlikely that all fossils will ever be discovered given the hit and miss nature of fossil discovery which usually occurs through educated guess work. The fossil record will likely never be complete.
It took many years of evolution for complex, multi-celled organisms to develop. Single celled organisms were the first that were around to be fossilized.
The fossil record is incomplete because: A.) very few organisms were preserved as fossils. B.) organisms tend to decay before becoming a fossil. C.) animals with hard parts are preserved more easily. D.) geological processes may destroy fossils. E.) all of these. ALL OF THESE!
When we examine the fossil record we see that the Earth has not always had the same living organisms living on it that it has today, but rather, there have been many changes, some gradual and some abrupt, over the past few billion years, and those changes show progressive alterations of exactly the kind that evolution would be expected to produce. The fossil record tells us that yes, life has evolved.
I don't know by fossil record but I have a book called walking with the dinosaurs and it said 220 million years ago
All fossil found to date were missing link. Missing link is a non-scientific term describe new found transitional fossil. Any single fossil found and placed along the line of evolution would yield 2 new missing link mathematically.
the fossil record of change in earlier speciesthe chemical and anatomical similarities of related life formsthe geographic distribution of related speciesthe recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
Organisms with hard parts such as a mineralized shell, like a trilobite or ammonite, are much more likely to become fossilized than animals with only soft parts.
Because we have quite a lot of evidence of prehistoric life and we just need to put together what we have and know like a jigsaw to make a clear picture. However many pieces are still missing as fossilisation is quite rare and many species of life will not have been preserved. Pieces are also missing because we have not found all of the fossils on earth yet as we have not had the technology and time to yet. The fossil record is also like a jigsaw in the way that one little piece of evidence can just put everything together and make things much more clear.
Answer 1For Example, You find a fossil of a creature from a certain timeline, then you find the same creature with some changes in a timeline later than the previous and if you have enough fossils you can see how the organism appears at its earliest place in the fossil record( some organisms only appear in the fossil record once they have evolved in a way that makes fossilization possible eg shell, jellyfish are very rare in fossils because they are mostly water) and see the organism change over time into a completely different animal through a series of consecutive glimpses of the creature.Answer 2The absence of transitional forms (fossil record) is an insurmountable hurdle for all evolutionists.Answer 3The fossil record, with its many diverging progressions of traits and morphological intermediates, illustrates the changing of life forms as they diverge from their common ancestors towards more modern forms, matching seamlessly the nested hierarchies of modern morphology. Even without the fossil record, we would have had a pretty good picture of our evolutionary past - with it, we can give shape to the forms that came before us.
1.8 billion years ago