However, because of severe dating problems which are seldom mentioned, this alleged sequence cannot be maintained.
To present the fossil evidence as a relatively smooth transition leading to modern humans is akin to intellectual dishonesty.
Absolute dating provides a numerical age or range in contrast with relative dating which places events in order without any measure of the age between events.
In archaeology, absolute dating is usually based on the physical, chemical, and life properties of the materials of artifacts, buildings, or other items that have been modified by humans and by historical associations with materials with known dates (coins and written history).
It is impossible to give an evolutionary sequence to the human fossils because there is a coverage gap involving the dating methods which evolutionists believe are the most reliable—radiocarbon and potassium-argon (K-Ar).
This gap is from about 40,000 ya (years ago) to about 200,000 ya on the evolutionist's time scale.
Popular presentations of human evolution show a rather smooth transition of fossils leading to modern humans.
The impression given is that the dating of the individual fossils in that sequence is accurate enough to establish human evolution as a fact.
A submethod within biostratigraphy is faunal association: Sometimes researchers can determine a rough age for a fossil based on established ages of other fauna from the same layer — especially microfauna, which evolve faster, creating shorter spans in the fossil record for each species.We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth.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.