What do scientists look for when studying fossils? Please explain?
401064
Scientists look for a great many things.\n\nScientists want to know what the Earth used to be like.  They look at fossils, among other things, to find out.\n\nPretty much every aspect of fossils is examined.  Given any on fossils, scientists will be trying to determine:\n\n* How the individual lived.\n* How it died.\n* What died with it.\n* What it says about the larger world.\n\nFor instance, scientists know that some Sauropod dinosaurs (ones like Brontosaurus) lived in herds because they frequently trampled on each other's tails.  Sauropod tails have large numbers of these minor injuries, suggesting such tail damage was common.\n\nA single fossil will be examined for bone damage to see what killed it.  Sometimes, they can identify the species of animal that attacked the the fossil.  They also look for traces of scavengers afterwards, and even decay processes!\n\nFossils of animal dung are examined to see what was being eaten.  These are called coprolites.\n\nFossils of "supersized" insects in the ancient past tell us that the oxygen in the atmosphere used to be much higher.  Today, an insect that large would suffocate.\n\nEvery aspect of a fossil is examined.  How big it was, how fast it grew (from growth lines), everything.\n\nIt's a detective story!  Come help us figure it all out!
840716
Pre-Cambrian life was mostly soft-bodied -- there were very few if any creatures with bones, skeletons, or hard shells, so there were very few fossils left.\n\nBesides, it was a long, long time ago -- and geological activity on the earth (volcanic action, subduction of continental plates, erosion, etc.) have wiped out a lof of what was the surface of the earth then. :)
465506
Geologists do a lot of things:\n- Study rocks and sediments to understand the source and composition \n- Explore regions for oil (petroleum geologists), minerals (exploration geologists) and water (Hydrogeologists)\n- Study past present and future climate (paleoclimatologists)\n- Study fossils (paleontologists)\n- Study the way rocks form and deform (Structural geologists)\n- Study earthquakes (seismologists/geophysicists)\n- Work for oil, mininng and governement agencies\n- Work for environmental organizations\n- Work for drilling, construction or development agencies\netc
377738
Fossils such as ancient shell fish, dinosaur remains or trilobites are best found by looking at areas where long buried sediments are being exposed through erosion.  Outcroppings along river banks are one of the best places to look, as erosion is continuous.  Going out shortly after a rainstorm is usually the best time.\n\nFor arrow heads, those have only been around for at most 10 000 years or so, and most of the ones found are much younger than that.  The best place to find those is actually in farmers fields in regions that were once inhabited by native hunters.  When farmers till the soil, it brings up the debris and items buried in the dirt, including arrow heads.
664010
carbon dating cannot be used for very old fossils. Radioactive dating is a better method used extensively by geologists. Carbon 14 is fairly reliable for fossils that are not too old.
756443
What kind of information do you need? \nTry this site it seems to cover for amateur to professional.... .\n\nPaleozoic.org is the place where professionals, amateurs, and enthusiasts trade news, information, and fossils. We are home to The Paleolist — a free email-based fossil mailing list and discussion forum for paleontologists, fossil collectors, and commercial dealers
1148811
Man, read up on decomposition, then read up on the conditions needed for fossilization/petrifaction.\n\nIf you have some time left over, either make a study of grammar, or learn to read aloud what you write to see if it makes any kind of sense.\n\nHomo sapiens shows up in the fossil record one hundred thousand years ago, not millions of years, you're off by an order of magnitude.
304118
Birds are the direct descendents of dinosaurs.  Many scientists will say they *are* dinosaurs.  As such, they are alive, so dinosaurs are alive.\n\nWhile it remains possible that some dinosaurs proper have survived, it is extremely unlikely at this point.  There is no physical evidence for it.\n\nYour second question is difficult to answer.  Are there prehistoric creatures that have survived?  Sure!  Pretty much every species on earth today (even humans!) is older than history, that makes it prehistoric!  Defining prehistoric any other way would essentially make prehistoric mean "not surviving today", so the answer would be no.\n\nWhat you mean, of course, is creatures to have survived from truly ancient times, such as from the Mesozoic (age of dinosaurs) or older, but again, it's difficult to answer.  There probably aren't any actual species that old, but it's difficult to tell if something in the fossil record is actually the same species as something alive today.  Consider, lions and tigers look and act very different alive and are certainly two different species, but it is very difficult to tell their skeletons apart.\n\nA lot of so-called "living fossils" really aren't.  For instance, we have no fossils of the Coelacanth.  It's closest relatives in the fossil record are in another family (as different as cats and dogs).  Cockroaches are often said to have been unchanged for millions of years, but it's not the case as the fossil record records them evolving continuously.  The first fossil cockroaches had three pairs of wings!\n\nBut some things have survived nearly unchanged for millions of years.  Six-gill and Port Jackson sharks are very much like they were in the age of dinosaurs.  The Tuatara is surprisingly like it's Mesozoic relatives.\n\nBut the king of living fossils is the Lingula brachiopod.  It looks like a clam and lives by filter feeding, but don't let it's calm appearance fool you.  These little guys are survivors.  They've been living in Earth's oceans almost unchanged for 550 million years!  That's almost as long as we have animal fossils at all!  Dinosaurs are hardly teenagers by comparison!\n\nAddenda:  The Komodo Dragon is NOT believed to be a dinosaur, at least not by scientists.  It is just a large monitor lizard.  Dinosaurs are not lizards, being classed among the Archosaurs with the crocodiles, pterosaurs and birds.
1016560
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. The totality of fossils and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils is called paleontology.\n\n \nFossil fish of the genus KnightiaFossilization is actually a rare occurrence because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.\n\nFossils usually consist of traces of the remains of the organism itself. However, fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint or feces of a dinosaur or reptile. These types of fossil are called trace fossils (or ichnofossils) as opposed to body fossils. Finally, past life leaves some markers that cannot be seen but can be detected in the form of chemical signals; these are known as chemical fossils or biomarkers.\n\nFossil sites with exceptional preservation are known as Lagerstätten. These formations may have resulted from carcass burial in an anoxic environment with minimal bacteria, thus delaying decomposition. Lagerstätten span geological time from the Cambrian. Examples are the Cambrian Maotianshan shales and Burgess Shale, the Devonian Hunsrück Slates, the Jurassic Solnhofen limestone, and the Carboniferous Mazon Creek localities.\n\nThe oldest known structured fossils are most likely stromatolites. Now understood to be formed by the entrapment of sediment by mucous-like sheets of cyanobacteria[1], the oldest of these formations dates from 3.5 billion years ago. Even older deposits (3.8 billion years old) of heavy carbon that are indicative of even earlier life are currently proposed as the remains of the earliest known life on Earth.
784785
I like to look at geologic surveys because in the building of\n    farms, sunhouses, pools, ponds, riding stables, many\n    gardens there is a demand that the area is comfortable.You \n    may find that keywords interest in specific ideals, once you\n    are on a regional site, or regional sites with lots of information\n    cover important points.  http://www.chamberofcommerce.com
1155861
Not only do I enjoy the ones that you listed, I also enjoy volcanism, geology, archaeology, paleo-archaeology, and astrophysics. Like everything that I enjoy, they allow me the freedom that exploration affords. They are evolving fields of study and each time some study reveals something that gets us to thinking differently than before, the things that we learn from them are a rewarding sensation. They are such complex sciences that you cannot possibly be bored.
426465
It is a huge question, but in general you would want to check paleoclimatology (for example, glaciation of Antarctica after opening of Drake and Tasmania passages), paleontology/biogeography (distribution of fossils and ancient migration of various animal groups).\n\nThere is a page with lecture notes which is very shorthand but touches on most things you may want to check:\nhttp://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/RogueComCollege/RCC_Lectures/ConDrift_PlateTec.html\n\nAnother link that touches on the subject:\nhttp://pgap.uchicago.edu/PGAP2000-1.html
712021
It's not a one to one thing, it has to do with filling niches and common ancestors.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
213634
you can probably research all three sources, and give an approximation,  YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ASK THIS QUESTION UNDER GEOLOGY, OR EVEN PALEONTOLOGY, but when you research stay away from evolutionary theory
413020
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. The totality of fossils and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils is called paleontology. Because fossils are by their nature old, the word has also entered the modern vernacular as a derogatory term for an elderly person. Fossils are like coal, oil, etc or u can try these:\n\n\nKind of fossils:\n1 Trace fossils \n2 Microfossils \n3 Resin fossils \n4 Pseudofossils \n5 Living fossils
564371
1. Because carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5,730 years.  So after 60,000 years there is not enough left to measure reliably.  That's why carbon dating is *not* used for fossils (despite what many people, including most creationists, think) ... there are dozens of other techniques used for dating fossils and rocks.\n\n2. Because it only works on things that were eating or breathing carbon ... i.e. things that were once alive.  (So it is useless for rocks, or asteroids, much less stars.)\n\n3. Because you actually need a sample of what you are dating ... so you could not use it to date things like distant stars or galaxies (the things that go back to the Big Bang).
738549
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.