Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Paul Myers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 09 Nov 1996 13:04:07 -0500
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> Newsgroup question:
> > Is Lucy a Monkey?
> Damn right it is!
> ``Lucy" is nothing more than a member of the ``monkey" family,
> with no connection -- none whatsoever -- to early man.
> The dreamers and hallucinators who led the ``expeditionary" team
> are well aware of the fraud they had attempted to perpetrate by
> claiming it to be a missing link.
> Fact is, the few bits and pieces of what they called ``Lucy" -- to go
> with the vast majority of manmade bonelike additions that were used to
> fill the many gaps -- weren't even found in close proximity.
> Truth is, ``Lucy" is a mosaic of a few bones that were found over a
> square mile.
> To put it rather bluntly, ``Lucy" is a mockery of scientific
> integrity (if some still exits in the field of physical anthropology,
> which I sort of doubt)).
Another conradian spam. followups redirected to talk.origins...if you
must, follow it there, but otherwise please ignore this clown.
Paul Myers Department of Biology
email@example.com Temple University
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/ Philadelphia, PA 19122