Is there a difference between fossilized and petrified wood?
444771
A petrified wood is one that has been replaced with minerals. A fossil is any evidence of life that has been preserved in rock. Petrified means fossilized.Minerals replaced once living material, such as wood, creating a rock replica\nFossils: remains or traces of plant or animal life found in rocks\n\nPetrified: process in which once living things turn to stone
465462
OK, first geography is NOT geology *sigh*\n\nLook up carbon dating; you can either tell by the degradation of carbon or by basic layering (what's on the bottom is older than what's on the top).
142267
I think there is some over-generalizing going on here. \n\nThe short answer: Granite is going to be more susceptible where its crystalline grain structure can be attacked by mechanical weathering. Limestone is going to be more susceptible where its softness is a disadvantage to mechanical weathering. For many types of mechanical weathering there is going to be little difference. \n\nHave you ever been to Yosemite? Half Dome, in the famous photographs by Ansel Adams is a perfect example of exfoliation of granite in sheets. This is a mechanical weathering process related to pressure release. Granite might be more susceptible to this (I am speculating) but only because it is often being unburied from much greater depths. Jointing in limestone is often related to pressure release. \n\nTo answer this question properly you need to consider the different types of mechanical weathering. I will compare the ones I can think of.\n1. Exfoliation caused by pressure release:  From my own field observations in areas where glacial unloading has occurred I would say that this affects both granite and limestone in a similar manner. Both will break off in sheets or blocks. \n\n2. Exfoliation is caused by temperature change: I have no quantitative proof but my opinion based on observation is that limestone is less susceptible to this because it is held together by cement and internal porosity probably has some ability to absorb differential expansion. Granite on the other hand is composed of crystalline grains that have different expansion rates and are likely to split apart. \n\n3. Freeze-thaw: Limestone does have bedding planes, and often has jointing as well, that is susceptible to this.  Some limestone has open porosity that also will be subject to some freeze expansion. Probably limestone is more vulnerable to this. Granite is going to be slightly susceptible to this only to the extent that water can penetrate it or to the extent it has been jointed or weakened by exfoliation. \n\n\n4.  Abrasion: Wind erosion affects both limestone and granite. Limestone is softer so windblown sand grains are more likely to erode the limestone. \n\n5. Salt-crystal growth: This is very common in coastal settings and sometimes in desert settings where moisture in the air is likely to contain some salts. Many of these salts will expand as the moisture that carried them evaporates. Heat will also cause them to expand.  I would say that granite is again more susceptible because of its crystalline grain structure. However, there is a special situation for limestone that few people who have never been in a cave have ever observed. Limestone often contains small deposits of anhydrite within the limestone. Anhydrite is unstable under surface pressures and tends to absorb water becoming gypsum. It expands as it does this and causes the limestone to break, often in sheets, but sometimes in blocks.  In many caves this is a primary cause of ceiling collapse and it can even result in stoping (raising the ceiling of the cave upward). \n\n6. Trees, plants: I doubt that there is any difference here. Some granite might provide more nutrients from chemical weathering to plants than limestone does, and so encourage its own destruction by plant roots, but both rocks are going to be susceptible. \n\n7. Tectonic and regional jointing: Tectonic events can cause fracturing in both types of rock. Limestone might be more flexible and be less susceptible to fracturing from mild folding. Regional jointing is related to pressure release and depends more on the burial and unroofing history than the type of rock. I don’t think either one is going to be more or less susceptible in most situations. Limestone often exhibits joints that can be traced for tens of miles that are related to regional stress regimes (both shear and extensional) and I believe that granite will produce similar joints.  You might be surprised to learn that the shear strength of granite and limestone are very similar
476231
"petro-" basically means "stone" (you've heard of the "petrified forest"?)\nA "glyph" is just a mark or symbol (remember the hieroglyphics in Egypt).\nSo, petroglyphs are marks or symbols carved into stone. There are several places in Hawaii, for example, with pretty famous petroglyph sites.
740251
It depends on the climate. I think the Petrified forest in America is in Arizona or New Mexico, I been there it been about 10 years ago. There it a Drier Desert type climate with more sand and over many, many years the wood Petrified. In Arkansas where there more rain and trees and Dirt, wood just rot and termites eat it.
225141
None at all. A geode is just a not so ordinary rock. Although some not so ordinary rocks such as petrified wood, are protected in some places, I don't believe geodes are.
131284
To summarize the above the answer, no they are not made of fossilized wood.
76913
Carved from red cedar trees. Red cedar is the best choice because it is a soft wood with a straight grain and it grows large enough in diameter.\n\nAlthough it depends upon what part of the country your in.  There are totem poles utilized by different tribes around the world including small tropical islands.
241077
They are cheap enough to buy. And they are safer, especially if you plan to take in on a river or ocean.\n\nIf you are on a deserted island, well, that's a different story!!!!\n\nNot sure what would be the best wood to use.  Most would get water logged and lose its bouyancy
861869
The major lines of evidence are:\n1) the paleoenvironments the species lived in, as evidenced by the sedimentary rocks and other fossils\n2) analogy with related species\n3) functional morphology\n4) taphonomy and trackways\n\nThings you might look up are ammonites, trilobites etc
581145
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\nFossilization 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 petrified 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, as opposed to body fossils. Finally, past life leaves some evidences that cannot be seen but can be detected in the form of chemical signals; these are known as chemical fossils (for lack of a better term).\n\n\nThe oldest known structured fossils are most likely stromatolites. Now understood to be formed by the entrapment of minerals by mucous-like sheets of cyanobacteria, 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.\n\nRarity of fossils\n\nBecause fossilization requires the relatively quick preservation of bodily remains, fossils are relatively rare. Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.\n[edit]\n\nPermineralization\nA permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii\nEnlarge\nA permineralized trilobite, Asaphus kowalewskii\n\nPermineralization consists of organic remains being to some degree impregnated by minerals derived from the surrounding sediments or waters. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. Once covered with sediment, these layers slowly become compacted and cemented into rock, and the organic remains are slowly replaced with hard minerals. This is a form of diagenesis.\n[edit]\n\nReplacement and compression fossils\n\nIn some cases the original remains of the organism have been completely dissolved or otherwise destroyed. When all that is left is an organism-shaped hole in the rock, it is called a mould fossil or typolite. If this hole is later filled with other minerals, it is called a cast fossil and is considered a replacement fossil since the original materials have been completely replaced by new, unrelated ones. In some cases replacement occurs so gradually and at such fine scales that no "hole" in the rock can ever be discerned and microstructural features are preserved despite the total loss of original material.\n\nCompression fossils such as those of fossil ferns are the result of chemical reduction of the complex organic molecules composing the org
1062671
I'd say totum poles, but I think those are made from tree trunks and include animal forms.  Sorry. I don't know this one.
548776
u've taken both the feathers nd the bricks as 1ton. the answer is in ur question only. both r 1ton tht is they r equal. the only difference v can make out is their quantity.
955424
Almost certainly copper, which can be found as the native metal, and in ores which are so easily smelted that they could have been discovered accidentally.  Wikipedia suggests 7500 BC, compared to 4000 BC for silver and gold, and noticeably later for iron.\n\nYou could get an argument from somebody about carbon, because charcoal was being used for painting and decorating caves at least 30,000 years ago, and it's not got a lot of impurities compared with pure carbon.
573949
try wikipedia, search fossils
850240
What you describe looks as if it is a gum from the tree(usually)which has settled on the rock and has the natural salts of the rock diffused into it . If you are still in trouble then go to the nearest research Lab to get the exact details of the elements present in this specimen.
381630
According to the BLM's website it can vary state to state.  I now that any vertebrate fossil is illegal to collect.  Best thing to do is ask your local office.