the answer is elemetary
why did the early scholars reject fossils as a mean to trace human evolution
There are 5 that can be resurrected from fossils if you include their evolution forms as well.
Early man scholars rejected fossils as a means to trace human evolution because they held religious or cultural beliefs that contradicted the idea of human evolution. Additionally, fossils were not well understood or widely accepted as evidence of human ancestry at the time.
fossil evidence is when scientist study fossils to figure out how the animal died how it evoled
Fossils!Fossils are the 'remains' of plants and animals (including humans) which lived in the past. Millions of fossils have been found all over the world. They show clearly that different species of plants and animals lived in the past and that they changed over long periods of time. Older fossils are simpler than younger fossils and we can work out the sequence of evolution from these fossils.For example the oldest vertebrate (backboned) fossils are fish. Younger than these are the first amphibians. Then reptiles appear as fossils, followed by birds and mammals.See:http://animals.about.com/od/evolution/a/vertebrateevolu.htmhttp://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage01.htmlhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/Ifossil_ev.shtmlhttp://www.fossilmuseum.net/
Fossils or natural selection
They can learn about evolution, as many living fossils have changed quite a bit over time.
He noted the changes in the fossils over time, thus providing evidence for evolution.
The study of fossils represent the evolution of species by the time period between when they became fossils and what the ancestory line is
Yes. There are many flaws like carbon dating. It is only accurate for thousands of years not millions. Also fossils don't prove evolution because we don't know if these fossils had babies or not. Fossils don't come with tags to explain itself.
No fossils disprove evolution, but support it