A science class is looking at the fossils in different layers of a cliff. They found fossils of fish in lower layers. Which conclusion is best supported by the presence of the fossils?
The conclusion best supported by the presence of the fossils is that the environment in the past was conducive to the presence of fish.
like wet :)
I need the Real answer
A science class is looking at the fossils in different layers of a cliff. They found fossils of fish in lower layers. Which conclusion is best supported by the presence of the fossils?
a
The climate in the area used to be much warmer.
b
The fossils were carried to the area by rain runoff.
c
The area was once a desert.
d
The area used to be underwater.
The presence of fish fossils in the lower layers of a cliff supports the conclusion that these fish existed earlier in time compared to the fossils found in higher layers. This is because the layers of a cliff are typically formed gradually over time, with each new layer being deposited on top of the previous layer. As a result, the deepest or lower layers of a cliff are generally the oldest, while the upper or higher layers are comparatively more recent.
To explain why the presence of fish fossils in lower layers supports this conclusion, we can consider the principle of superposition. This principle states that in an undisturbed sequence of rock layers, the youngest rock layers are at the top, while the oldest are at the bottom. Since the fish fossils are found in lower layers, it indicates that these organisms inhabited the area during an earlier period.
It is important to note that relative dating methods, such as studying the order of rock layers, can give us a general understanding of the relative ages of fossils. However, absolute dating techniques, like radiometric dating, are required to give precise numerical ages.