What is the term for a human skeleton that is taken apart?

Question

Anatomy question

Answer 1

Disarticulated

Answer 2

1) Evolution does not state any specific age of the earth. Evolution deals only with self replicating biological systems. The radiometric dating methods used to date the earth do not include radiocarbon dating which is only reliable up to a maximum of 60,000 years and which can only be used to date things containing carbon which could have absorbed C14 from the atmosphere, so generally only organic matter. So a no in this one. 2) There really aren't any human footprints in the same strata as dinosaur footprints. All such claims gave been dubious and fail to stand up to any scrutiny. Further the fact that humans and dinosaurs did not life at the same time is not based on the fact that we never find their footprints in the same strata so much as the fact that we never find their fossils in the same strata. The same could not be said of humans and chickens. So no on this one. 3) first of all it was a couple of scientists who went too far, the vast majority remained entirely unconvinced. Second the artist made the drawing on his own with no prompting or suggestions from any scientists. Third the tooth was mentioned in the scope trial but only incidentally. It did not serve as anything remotely resembling a deciding piece of evidence, and it only came up because the scientist defending evolution was one if the very few scientists who really believed it could have belonged to a hominid. So no. 4) The fossil Lucy was nicknamed for the Beatles song that the archaeologists who discovered it had playing repeatedly on a cassette player in their camp when they made the discovery. No scientist believes it is the skeleton of a pygmi chimpanzee. But it is a fossil of australopithicus afarensis. And yes the knee was find somewhere else but it belongs to another member of the same species. This actually how paleontology works. There's no fraud or scandal there. So another no. 5) If that fossil still exists it certainly is not used as evidence of human evolution. It's most likely there (if it really is there) as an exhibit about the famous Piltdown man hoax. So no. Context, man, context. 6) clearly you've never read Darwin's origin of species. This one's definitely a no. Scientists are actually just trying to accurately understand the universe. And they're doing a great job. If in doing so it seems as if they're trying to disprove god that's just further evidence against the reality of your perception of god.

Answer 3

Disarticulated

Answer 4

you mean like a cadava, or an anotomical human skeleton.

Answer 5

disarticulated

Answer 6

disarticulated

Answer 7

Bones??

Answer 8

a puzzle??