The Dating Gap
by Marvin L. Lubenow, M.S., Th.M.
Evolution places severe demands upon fossils used to support
it. A fossil in an evolutionary sequence must have both the
proper morphology (shape) to fit that sequence and an appropriate
date to justify its position in that sequence. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. This problem period may be even larger
because: (1) some dating authorities believe that the effective
range for K-Ar doesn't begin until about 400,000 ya, and (2)
many of the older fossils are found at sites that lack the volcanic
rocks necessary for K-Ar dating and hence cannot be dated by
this method at all.
Although young-earth creationists challenge the legitimacy
of all of the dates obtained by the long-term radiometric methods,
even evolutionists are beginning to admit that this dating gap
presents a problem for them. However, the real seriousness of
this problem seems to elude them, even when they occasionally
refer to it in their writings.[1]
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.[2] 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. However, these alternative methods have serious problems
of their own.
Of the 84 anatomically modern Homo sapiens fossil individuals
dated by evolutionists beyond 40,000 years, 59 of them (70%)
fall into this 40,000-to-200,000 ya gap. (Anatomically modern
Homo sapiens fossils that are dated more recently than 40,000
years of age are not of great significance for evolutionary
purposes and are not under consideration here.)
There are four Neanderthal fossil individuals that are dated
more recently than 40,000 years. They are the Amud I and Shukbah
remains from Israel and the Saint-Cesaire and Arcy-sur-Cure
remains from France. All other Neanderthal remains, some 300
fossil individuals, or approximately 98.6% of all of the Neanderthals,
fall into the period covered by this gap. (It is well known
that another reason why many of the Neanderthal fossils are
poorly dated is because they were found long before the importance
of documenting fossils in their geological context was fully
appreciated.)
The relatively new fossil category created by evolutionists,
the "archaic Homo sapiens" category, contains at least
64 fossil individuals. Twenty-eight of them (44%) fall within
this time gap. Nineteen of the 222 Homo erectus fossil individuals
(9% of the total) likewise fall into this time gap. 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. Shortcomings of a
dating method in current use are not generally acknowledged
by evolutionists. Only when they feel they have devised a better
method for a specific time period, do they publicly admit the
weaknesses of the method they had been using previously. The
result is that the public assumes the dating methods used at
any given time are adequate, whereas the dating specialists
working with those methods know that this is not necessarily
the case.
The latest illustration of not admitting the uncertainties
of older dating methods until newer ones have been developed
centers around a new method proposed for dating human fossils
in this 40,000-to-200,000-years ago time period. 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. Because bone is porous, it is subject to ground-water
leaching. Hence, the method fell into disfavor because it gave
questionable dates. However, because ostrich eggshell is thought
to be a rather closed system, it is claimed that items found
in association with it can be dated more accurately by the amino-acid-racemization
method.
The admissions now being made about the dating methods that
have been previously used by evolutionists to cover this time
period are particularly interesting. These admissions have profound
implications for human evolution. In the Science article
on ostrich-eggshell dating,[3] the authors state that many of
the dates assigned to human fossils in this 40,000-to-200,000-years
ago period based on the older methods were only "provisional,"
and that all such dating is "uncertain." These are
remarkable admissions. 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.
The author does not wish to imply that the ostrich-eggshell-dating
method is a legitimate one. The point is that, for evolutionists
to claim they now have a "better" method for dating
human fossils discovered in the future does not correct the
inaccurate dates of human fossils that were discovered in the
past. The dating flaws of the past cannot be rectified because:
(1) many of those fossil sites have been destroyed or altered,
so that reconstruction to allow for redating of fossils after
the fact is not possible; and (2) to find ostrich eggshell that
can be shown to have been in unquestioned association with those
previously discovered fossils is virtually impossible.
The uncertainty of fossil dates in the Middle Stone Age is
just the tip of the iceberg. For evolutionists, the problem
is far more serious, but few are willing to acknowledge it.
William Howells (Harvard University) states that the dating
problems involve the entire Middle Pleistocene (100,000 to 700,000
ya, according to evolutionists). This would involve many more
fossils than just those in the Middle Stone Age. Howells writes:
"It cannot be too strongly emphasized how much uncertainty
attaches to placement of all but a few of the fossils, absolutely
or relatively, especially for the Middle Pleistocene."[4]
Creationists recognize that the problem is far greater than
even Howells suggests. But it is refreshing to know that some
evolutionists are speaking frankly about the dating problems
involving the human fossils.
Human evolution demands precise dating of the relevant fossils.
Evolutionists now admit that the dates for the human fossils
in the significant Middle Stone Age period and elsewhere are
uncertain. It means that there is no such thing as a legitimate
evolutionary fossil sequence leading to modern humans. It also
means that evolutionists cannot make accurate statements regarding
the origin of modern humans based on fossils discovered thus
far. Their continuing to do so reveals that their statements
are based on a belief system, not on the practice of a rigorous
science.
-- References --
- Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological
and Cultural Origins. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1989): 254, 292.
- For charts listing all of the fossils in this time period,
see Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992)
- A. S. Brooks, P. E. Hare, J. E. Kokis, G. H. Miller, R.
D. Ernst, and F. Wendorf, "Dating Pleistocene Archaeological
Sites by Protein Diagenesis in Ostrich Eggshell," Science
248 (6 April 1990): 60-64.
- William W. Howells, Homo erectus:—Who,
When, and Where: A Survey,
"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology" 23, 1980
(Supplement 1 to the "American Journal of Physical Anthropology"):
8.
* Professor of Bible and Apologetics at Christian Heritage
College in El Cajon, California.
This article was originally published October, 1993. "The Dating Gap", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/373/ (accessed November 21, 2008).
Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.