In all, 406 human-fossil individuals which evolutionists feel are crucial in documenting the evolution of modern humans fall into the gap between radiocarbon and K-Ar dating and hence have uncertain ages.
Creationists have noted an interesting pattern in evolutionist writings regarding the dating of fossils.
However, these alternative methods have serious problems of their own.
However, the real seriousness of this problem seems to elude them, even when they occasionally refer to it in their writings. In the past 15 years, the major focus of human evolution has shifted from the origin of "all" humans to the origin of "modern" humans, and the very time during which modern humans are alleged to have evolved from their more primitive human ancestors is the period covered by this gap.
At least 406 human-fossil individuals are placed by evolutionists in this 40,000-to-200,000 ya time-period gap and hence are questionably dated. The inability of the radiocarbon and the K-Ar methods to cover this time period explains why many alternate dating methods have been devised to attempt to give coverage in this area.
This new method, announced in the journal, Science, involves racemization of amino acids in ostrich eggshell.
The amino-acid method was developed some time ago for dating bone material at archaeological sites.
It covers roughly the period known as the Middle Stone Age (MSA).
This coverage gap lies beyond what is considered the effective range for radiocarbon and prior to what is considered the effective range for potassium-argon.
Since the morphology of a fossil cannot be changed, it is obvious that the dating is the more subjective element of the two items.
Yet, accurate dating of fossils is so essential that the scientific respectability of evolution is contingent upon fossils having appropriate dates.
Anyone familiar with the paleoanthropological literature knows that this is not the way most of the dates for fossil discoveries in that time period have been presented.
This time period is critical for human evolution, and evolutionists have consistently claimed a degree of certainty in their dating which now appears to be unjustified.
However, because of severe dating problems which are seldom mentioned, this alleged sequence cannot be maintained.