Re: Lucy's current status -- in the fossil record or out?

debra mckay (debra.mckay@utoronto.ca)
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
pygmy chimp.

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.

Deb

>
>
>--
>"Everything is under control" -- Wallace
>
>Michael J. Gallagher
>mikejoe@prodigy.net