one way is to see which fossil is deeper in the ground but it only tells which fossils are older it has no givem date
The three kinds of information can geologists gather from a study of fossils is amber fossil, trace fossil, and the carbon film. Wait a second, no that's not right. Those are just three kinds of fossils. Those aren't three kinds of information.1. Fossils tell scientists the types and sizes of animals that lived in the distant past;2. Tests made on fossils tell scientists approximately how long ago they lived;3. The types of materials in which fossils are found tell scientists the area where the fossil first died, the cooling rates of some different materials, and the times of lava flows, as well as other items of information;4. Comparing different fossils of the same type, from different areas, tells scientists the times of certain geologic events, such as an ice age, or a volcanic eruption;5. The layers of rock (or soil) in which fossils are found can tell scientists some of the geologic history of the geographical area in which the fossil was found. For example, sometimes seashell fossils are found in the rock of high mountains! That can only mean that the high mountain was once on the floor of an ocean or river. Over time, plate movement, volcanic eruption, and earthquakes have moved the old ocean floor (or river bottom) 'way up to the top of a mountainThere you go.
No, radiocarbon dating cannot be used to determine the age of dinosaur fossils because the half-life of carbon-14 is too short for dating objects that are millions of years old. Instead, other dating methods like uranium-lead dating or potassium-argon dating are used for dating dinosaur fossils.
No. Carbon dating is only effective for time periods less than 70,000 years. This excludes all the major index fossils, and is a very short geologic time span. Index fossils can be dated, however by their association in the geologic column with metamorphic and igneous rocks, which can be radiometrically dated.
Carbon 14 is useful for dating organic remains less than 60-70,000 years old. It is not useful for fossils as the vast majority are much older than that.
No, human fossils are among the rarest type of fossils. Fossils of plants and marine organisms are far more abundant and have been found in greater numbers than human fossils.
The older fossils are found deeper than newwer ones. :3 oh wow u just thought that up
Fossils show the progression of ancient organisms. By comparing older fossils with more recent fossils, we can see how older ones are related in body structure to newer ones, supporting the idea that new generations evolve from older ones.
From the law of faunal succession,older beds are characterized by fossils of older age and the younger beds are characterized by younger age fossils.But in some exceptional condition the younger fossils are reported in the older formation and those are termed as leaked fossils. whereas,Fossils of older age occur in younger rock are known as reworked fossils.They are derived from the older rocks by reworking ad recycling of sediments.
Fossils can tell us the climate and change in the future....
I think that fossils tell scientists what the animal was doing, what it was eating, and, how it moves.
this is an incoherent question that cannot possibly be answered
The fossils that are further up among the layers would be newer because they were formed before the others.When fossils are further down in the ground they are older because they had been covered up longer in time.
no because older fossile are more primitive animals.
Yes, they can show you life back then compared to now. Also the dirtier the fossil the older the fossil.By:Donny Heitler
The fossil on the bottom would be older because as time goes on rock builds up and buries fossils so the higher it is the more recent it is.
It would tell you that an ocean once existed there and then withdrew.
No. Trilobite fossils are much older.