Fossils

New Hampshire was the 9th state in the USA; it became a state on June 21, 1788.

They are called index fossils.

Lucy is an early man fossil. She is part of Australopithecus Afarensis. She was named Lucy, because when she was found, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" by the Beatles was playing.

New Hampshires capital has been in Concord since 1808, but before that it was in Portsmouth [1679-1774], Exeter [1775-1781] and several others between 1781 and 1808.

First, a thin layer of sediment hardens and forms a mold. Then, what is known as a cast is when a new layer of sediment fills in the mold breaking down the creature/ animal/fossil.

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.

Early organisms lacked skeletons and other hard structures that are most likely to be fossilized.

carbon films can preserve the delicate parts of plants leaves and insects, and preserved remains can preserve entire organisms.

Because very specific conditions need to occur for fossils to both form and also survive through to the present day. Most dead animals and plants are not fossilized and many that were must have been subjected to erosion and other destructive processes. Many fossils which have formed and survived just haven't been found.

Shells are much more materially, and specially, dense [with Ca++] than are the thin spines and even thinner ribs of uncommon fossils - from the paleontologist's point of view, they last longer.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. Yes.

in the tug hill plateau

Sediments are tiny pieces of earth that travel by being carried by either wind, water, or ice. they are involved with the process of fossils since it covers and buries an organism when it dies and eventually settle under great amounts of heat and pressure.

Paleontologists in common with archaeologists - both excavate and study animal bones.

Arrowheads are not fossils, they were made by the Native Americans to use on the tips of their arrows.

This is a controversial question, with different people advocating different positions.

Pronuclear people assert the idea that nuclear plants do not pollute. They sometimes say that the plants have no carbon footprint, though this is technically not correct, because the calculation of the carbon footprint should include the construction of the plant; mining, refining, enriching, and transporting fuels; decommissioning; and dealing with waste. Also, there is occasional radioactive material lost from nuclear plants, and there is the possibility of accident, both from the reactor as electricity is generated, and from waste products, which will have to be stored for thousands of years at least, if they are disposed of by storage.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, produce large amounts of carbon dioxide at the very least. They can also produce sulfur emissions, mercury emissions, and other pollutions, depending on the specific fuel used. At the very most nonpolluting, we find natural gas powered turbines, with waste heat initially trapped for secondary electric generation, and secondarily used to heat buildings. Pollution from natural gas is almost entirely carbon dioxide.

If we compare the two, taking all the carbon emissions of both nuclear and natural gas, the estimate is that nuclear has a carbon footprint about 40% of that of the most efficient natural gas. This does not allow for the use of waste heat from nuclear plants to heat buildings, because nuclear plants are not normally built near cities.

Nuclear power has potential for radiation releases, which fossil fuel plants do not. To understand how bad this could be, consider the Chernobyl Disaster. This was a bad accident, but a worst case scenario would have been considerably worse. As it is, there were agricultural losses in Scotland and losses of entire herds in Finland, both over a thousand miles off, and normally thought of as upwind. Losses of land use went to thousands of square miles, roughly a quarter of the area of New England, for many years, and many square miles of land are considered permanently lost. The cost has been estimated as high as a trillion 1995 dollars for Eastern European real estate. High level nuclear waste is more poisonous than uranium ore (which is not particularly safe) for about six million years.

The short answer I would give is nuclear is better if nothing at all goes wrong for a time so long most people cannot imagine it. Otherwise, as bad as global warming is, fossil fuel is better.

The good news is that there are many, many other forms of fuel available, we can get to a point where the choice between nuclear and fossil fuel is moot because no one is using either.

You have to have the dead remains buried quickly and then never distroyed

any other artifact or geological strata and compare it. Go to tables with similar artifacts.

The first plants with spores, which indicates that they were land plants, appeared in the Middle Ordovician period, about 470 million years ago. First records of tetrapods, or land animals, show up in the fossil record around 370 million years ago.

Sedimentary rock is where we look for fossils.

I think it's Radioactive dating, I've been reading for my homework and I can't seem to find carbon dating anywhere in the chapter which I've reread about 3 times so I'm going to assume its radioactive because relative dating is the estimation of a fossils age compared with other fossils.

it can be matched to another fossil that can be visually identified as being from the same animal, and then can be matched up to the period the animal lived...or the second method would be to do a radio carbon dating test....but the fossil would have to be fairly old because the carbon dating can tell you how old something is within a few thousand years.

it must have lived through a long span of time

1.)They provide an ancestral linkage to modern species. For example, the chordates (which includes we humans) can be traced back to our common ancestry to sea squirts! The fossils record is database for evolution.

2.)They sometimes can explain the ecological roles and modes of life of past organisms, which can be correlated to modern species.

3.)hey can tell us what types of sediment deposits were present, by determining what fossils are found. i.e. marine fossils present indicates it would be a marine sediment and not a land sediment.

p.s. i see u right now