is the rare fossil called bananabana bobana a real fossil?
549251
so rare that it doesn't exist
93944
The oldest fossil evidence for life on Earth is found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Along with rocks of similar age in South Africa these are the oldest well preserved sedimentary rocks known. The evidence for fossil life takes the form of: \n\nstructures called stromatolites which are believed to be the fossilized remains of laminated structures built by colonies of micro-organisms. Modern examples of such colonies are found in Shark Bay in Western Australia \nmicrofossils of individual micro-organisms. \ncarbon isotope ratios indicative of biological activity. \nSome recent results include the discovery of 3.45 billion year old stromatolites by scientists of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, and the reporting of microfossils from a deep sea hot spring deposit of age 3.2 billion years by Birger Rasmussen of the University of Western Australia.\n\nWhile controversy surrounds many of the reports of fossils of this age, it is generally accepted that there is sufficient evidence to be reasonably sure that life was well established on earth at about 3.5byr ago. Older rocks at 3.8byr age in Greenland are too greatly deformed to preserve fossils but have been claimed to show evidence for life in their carbon isotope ratios.\n+\nFUNGI and algae first teamed up to form lichen 600 million years ago, according to newly discovered fossils from China. This makes them slightly older than the first fossils of complex soft-bodied animals, and far older than land plants.\n\nLichens are the product of a symbiotic relationship between algae, which produce food, and fungi, which provide moisture, nutrients and a protective framework. The new fossils come from south China, and were laid down in shallow seawater (Science, vol 308, p 1017).
138564
These fossils are from when the flood took place. The water and the sudden pressure perfectly conserved these pieces of bone. We believe in dinosaurs just not evolution. Watch the videw "Answers from Genesis" this guy is excellent teacher
988056
Nope, not a dead issue at all. The few biologists who take the tale seriously theorize that Big Foot could be a surviving species that existed on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. Reconstructions based on the numerous fossils of this creature show it to be a good candidate for Big Foot. The ancient creature was named Gigantopithecus. See this website for more info, plus a great picture of what it looked like (about 1/2 way down the page) -------- http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/comp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html&h=402&w=215&sz=11&tbnid=AYXB1v_DV49rHM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=64&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgigantopithecus&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1
44664
Yes, I live in a suburban area close to the coast in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Some years ago, excavations were made in order to install sewers (believe it or not, we were not connected to the public sewer system then!) and the workers dug up large fragments of fossil whales. I only have a fragment that could be part of a humerus, but more complete whale skeletons often appear when people around here construct large swimming pools. \nThese bones are not of much paleontological interest, though. They're much too "new" and do not correspond to any uncommon or interesting species.
160097
Interesting facts about Camarasaurus: it was a herbivore. Its name means a "chambered lizard". It lived in the late Jurassic period, about 155 milion years ago. It probably travelled in herds and cared for its young, as fossils suggest.
1064232
The oldest living species that we can positively identify is the Ginkgo tree, which is physically indistinguishable from specimens from 140 million years ago.\n\nThe oldest living animal species is the Goblin shark, known from fossils some 80 million years ago and last recorded alive around 100 years ago. The species may currently be extinct, but it is assumed to be alive.\n\n\nIt is almost impossible to say which species is the oldest, since there can be considerable variation within species and likewise different species can appear physically almost identical. That means that we need a lot of really good fossils to determine whether a fossil organism is the same species as a living one.\n\nOne thing we do know for sure is that no cockroach species is the oldest living species. We just don’t have enough cockroach remains of high enough quality to make such a claim.\n\n>>>EDIT\n\n\nLook people, no single SPECIES of Coelacanth or horseshoe crab has been around for more than about 2 million years. Those GROUPS have existed for long periods of time, but the living species are only relatives of the fossil specimens. They are not the same species. If you believe other wise then tell us which specific species of Latimeria or Horseshoe crab was alive at that time, and what the fossil number is.\n\nIf we are allowed to include entire groups of organisms like "horseshoe crabs" or "coelacanths" then by far the oldest organisms are sulfur bacteria which have existed as a group for over 2.5 BILLION years.\n\n>>>Variety is the spice of life.\n\nYes, and accuracy is the soul of science.
241677
You may be interested in this site: it lists the many fossil homonids.\n\nSome of the more famous fossil homonids include the Taung child, Turkana boy, Chellean man, Heidelberg man, and of course Lucy.  The site provided gives information on these and many other fossil homonids.  It also has interesting rebuttals to creationist arguments that these fossils are false, made-up, non-human, not as old as they seem they are, etc.  Definitely worth the read if you're interested in this topic...\n\nhttp://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm#args_piltdown\n\nIt is also good to remember that not all homonid fossils are "human ancestors", the Homo genus "family tree" has many branches.  There's a good article on Wikipedia explaining this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution\n\nHope this is helpful :-)
881313
Basically none of the animals on the endangered species list is the rarest because animals once thought to be extinct keep getting rediscovered.  There is no way to know exactly how many of the rediscovered animals there actually are.  i do know that the Stegodont was rediscovered in Asia.  There was a television show about it and then I found this website http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.gne.html\nSince they are so large there are probably less of them than any other ex-extinct animal, but you never know.
1111297
It wouldn't be a rock it would be bone... made up of calcuim and prob covered in whatever layers of soil it's gone through over millions of years...\n\nFossils (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 Fossil 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.
549181
as the flintsones is a documentary using actual footage it is 100% plausible. Dino is a purple dinosaur, who would probably morph into a chinchilla to live in the modern world
178643
People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, probably even thousands of years. There are references to "dragon" bones found in Wucheng, Sichuan, China (written by Chang Qu) over 2,000 years ago; these were probably dinosaur fossils.\n\nMuch later, in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but was probably from a dinosaur. A report of this find was published by R. Brookes in 1763.\n\nThe first dinosaur to be described scientifically was Megalosaurus in 1824, by William Buckland a British fossil hunter and clergyman who discovered some Megalosaurus fossils in 1819 and named the reptile in 1824. It was the first dinosaur ever described scientifically and first theropod dinosaur discovered (this is all in hindsight, because the dinosaurs had not yet been recognized as a separate taxonomic group - the word dinosaur hadn't even been invented yet).
599017
Thye lived a long time ago, and the closest living relative to the dinosaurs is the crocodile.  Crocodiles have remained unchanged for 1000's of years.
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
304666
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have \nbeen around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years. This is based \non fossils of that age that have been compared under high-powered \nmicroscopes to existing species of these bacteria. Other bacteria that \nare about as old are the archaea, which thrive in acidic, high- \ntemperature, or high-radiation environments. \n\nAnother ancient organisms are the stromatolites, mounds of algae and \nbacteria that today grow in the Bahamas, Shark's Bay Australia, and a few \nother limited environments. They have been around, also largely \nunchanged, for over 3 billion years and at one time were the Earth's \ndominant form of life. \n\nOn the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingula is probably the \noldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years, and \nthe horseshoe crab (limulus) has been on the planet for several hundred \nmillion years, too. Since the average "lifespan" of a species is only a \nfew million years, having such ancient species around is very impressive. \n\nA good book about the earliest life is "Cradle of Life" by J. William \nSchopf. He is one of the premier scientists doing this sort of research. \nAt a more advanced level, he has edited two scientific books, "Earth's \nEarliest Biosphere" and "The Proterozoic Biosphere", which should be in If you are a "separator" (I’m not sure if that is the correct word), instead of a “grouper” there are a LOT of things you could see as very young species. For instance, marine iguanas (are they called green iguanas?) are very different depending on what island they live on. Some people see those as separate species so there are some that are still in the process of adapting to changes that are seen to be becoming a new species. Also, a lot of migrating birds can reproduce with different species to form new species that are not barren like mules or anything like that, they can become their own species I guess. But I think a grouper would say they are all the same species if they can interbreed and have offspring that can reproduce. Like, all green iguanas are one species.
573949
try wikipedia, search fossils
951088
just go in ask.com on type in fossils