Re: Lucy's current status -- in the fossil record or out?
debra mckay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:28:20 GMT
"Michael J. Gallagher" <MIKEJOE@Prodigy.Net> wrote:
>Susan S. Chin wrote:
>> "Michael J. Gallagher" <MIKEJOE@Prodigy.Net> wrote:
>> : >Is the hominid fossil known as "Lucy" still considered a part of the
>> : >fossil record of human evolution? If not, when did this change and why?
>> I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if Lucy is still
>> considered a possible human ancestor, a part of the hominid lineage
>> leading to modern Homo sapiens? ...
>Sort of. A friend of mine told me recetly that Lucy had been "debunked," and was
>no longer considered a real fossil, much less a candidate ancestor. So I wanted
>to get the skinny from anthropologists, paleontologists, and archeologists, over
>whether this was in fact the case.
Did your friend tell you where they heard this? The only place I've heard
it is in creationist circles, where some of them claim that "Lucy" is a
Never fear, though--"Lucy" is very real; whether she is an "ancestor" remains to
be seen in the sense that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
be able to say that this *particular* *species* is definitely an ancestor to
anything else; but Australopithecines as a broad group are probably part of
the human lineage.
>"Everything is under control" -- Wallace
>Michael J. Gallagher