relative dating uses to estimate how old a fossil is.
How can we help make our relative dating more accurate? How can we make it more scientific? I’m curious to know your thoughts on this.
The general idea is to use the known dates and the known fossil to estimate the age of an unknown fossil and use this date as the starting point for dating the fossil. This process doesn’t work well if the unknown fossil is from a large-scale event, like the Cambrian explosion. Because the unknown fossil is from a small population at the time of the explosion, it’s difficult to use the known dates to estimate the age of the fossil.
The problem is that the known dates are estimates, and thus will be wrong. It’s just like the same way that estimates of the age of a specific person are off by several million years. The only way to get the correct age is to go back in time to the beginning of the Cambrian, and the best way would be to go back in time to a particular time in the Cambrian, when the Cambrian fossil was still new.
To get the correct age, you need to go back in time to when the fossil was still new. That’s because, for example, when the Cambrian fossil is new it’s still in its pre-ice-age stage. If you go back in time to when it was still new, you’ll find that the fossil looks older than it actually is.
But, the fact is that that the Cambrian fossil is the most recent one ever, if not the oldest, so any date that you can determine from when the Cambrian fossil was still new is the most recent date you can go back in time to. The best you could do is go back to a time when the fossil was still new, and if you go back to a particular time in the Cambrian, you can use that as a starting point to estimate how old the fossil is.
Relative dating is basically a dating technique that uses the relative lengths of various body parts and the fact that fossils are more likely to be of higher quality. For instance, a piece of bone that is longer than a bone of the same species would be indicative of an older fossil. A pair of teeth that are more than two times the size of the average human teeth would also be indicative of an older fossil.
That’s how relative dating is used in our study of fossilized fish. We have two species of fish that are nearly identical but one is the biggest. The bigger one, in fact, was probably a juvenile and therefore a younger fossil. However, the other is a smaller specimen of the same species, but the teeth are much smaller and therefore older.
We’re using relative dating to estimate the age of fossils. As the name implies relative dating is comparing two fossils, one of which is a relative of the age of the other. We can use it to estimate the age of very old fossils. For our study, we compared fossils from the Early Cretaceous period, which is roughly 400 million years old, to fossils from the Middle Cretaceous period, which is roughly 200 million years old.
We found that fossils from the Early Cretaceous are between 150 and 300 million years old while fossils from the Middle Cretaceous are between 60 and 150 million years old. This means that relative dating can be used to estimate the age of fossils.
This may sound like just another method of dating fossils, but it’s really not. In actuality, relative dating involves comparing known fossils with fossils that have already been discovered. This includes measuring the length of bone segments, which is a fairly standard way of determining the age of a fossil.
