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 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
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.
The two types are Dna, and fossils
The two types are Dna, and fossils
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.
the answer is elemetary
why did the early scholars reject fossils as a mean to trace human evolution
Fossils are the preserved remains of living organisms arranged by age in rock layers. Paleontologists study fossils to learn about past life forms and the history of life on Earth. The study of fossils is important for understanding evolution and the changes that have occurred in Earth's ecosystems over time.
There are 5 that can be resurrected from fossils if you include their evolution forms as well.
Early man scholars rejected fossils as a means to trace human evolution because they held religious or cultural beliefs that contradicted the idea of human evolution. Additionally, fossils were not well understood or widely accepted as evidence of human ancestry at the time.
Fossils provide evidence of evolution by showing a record of past life forms, demonstrating the gradual changes in species over time. By examining the fossil record, scientists can trace the lineage of modern species back to simpler, ancestral forms. Transitional fossils, which exhibit characteristics of both older and newer species, further support the idea of evolution by showing the gradual changes that occurred over generations. Overall, fossils provide tangible evidence of the process of evolution and the interconnectedness of all living organisms.