Did humans descend from other primates?otseng wrote: Man did not descend from the primates.
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.
Moderator: Moderators
Did humans descend from other primates?otseng wrote: Man did not descend from the primates.
Good guess, but nope.SailingCyclops wrote:A survivalist in the Ozark mountains circa 2001?otseng wrote:
Can anyone guess when it's supposedly dated to and who used it?
Nope again.AkiThePirate wrote:God, and 13.75 billion years ago?![]()
I brought up bifaces in post 260. Bifaces are typically associated with prehistoric man. But, this biface was found in Tennessee and dated to around 3000 to 500 BC. So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.Out of interest, what does that have to do with the topic?
I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption. Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated. Some are dated to the stone age, some more modern. Native Americans used the technology in very recent geological times. The reason I used survivalist in 2001 as my guess, is because creating a biface weapon/tool is a modern-day survival technique.otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.SailingCyclops wrote:I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption.otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated.
The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.The reason I used survivalist in 2001 as my guess, is because creating a biface weapon/tool is a modern-day survival technique.
Correct, the timeframe would be determined by other factors.otseng wrote: If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.
I anticipated your objection to carbon dating alone. That's why the "Evidence example I gave used Uranium-thorium dating.otseng wrote:As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.
An intelligent survivalist, or caveman for that matter would bury the wide end in wood, bone, vines, or leather, constructing an ax. hoe, knife, or spear.otseng wrote:The thing with a biface is that it is sharpened all the way around the edge. There is no spot to hold it safely to use it as a weapon or as an axe/hoe/knife. If I was a survivalist and had to create a tool out of chert, I would not spend extra time to sharpen the entire edge so that I would then cut myself when I used it.
You are correct.. The theoretical limit of carbon dating is 50,000 years, although very few labs will give a result if it's older than 30,000. However, there are other types of radiometric dating.otseng wrote:If you say that finding a biface at any location would not indicate any particular timeframe, then I would agree with you.SailingCyclops wrote:I don't think anyone here has made that particular assumption.otseng wrote: So, just because a biface is found, it cannot be assumed that it is an artifact of a stone age man.
As for carbon dating, the maximum it can date is on the order of tens of thousands of years.Tools are dated by the age of the strata they are found in, as well as by the technology used and any associated artifacts found in the immediate area/depth some of which can be carbon dated.
Please avoid making comments that don't add anything new to the debate (such as "I disagree" or "Well said") Also, repeatedly posting links is considered spamming, according to the forum's rules.dona123 wrote:Hi
Thanks for sharing this nice information.
Please keep sharing more and more information
Thanks
If we came over from Europe, how come we still have Europeans?PRESBYTERIAN wrote:If humans came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys!
This is a horrible creationist parody of what evolution says. It is so far as to what the TOE points out that it shows a deep lack of education about the sciences.PRESBYTERIAN wrote:Hi everyone
I am no scientist so please bear with me.
If humans came from monkeys then how come we still have monkeys!
All those 'shapes' of human are the same shape. There is a little difference in skin tone, and the shape of the eyes. However, from a morphological point of view, as wellWe have many different shapes of human ie black,white,chinese,asian etc.