Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Jim Foley (email@example.com)
12 Nov 1996 23:48:55 GMT
Since someone asked for Ed's crackpot claims to be refuted:
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ed Conrad <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
Ed, you *are* aware, surely, that apes and monkeys are different thing?
Apes are not monkeys, and monkeys are not apes. Lucy can arguably be
classified as an ape, as can humans, but no scientist would ever, EVER
be dumb enough to call her a monkey (quite a few creationists have,
>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
This misconception is based on creationist incompetence and ignorance.
Lucy was found within a small area. A knee joint found a year earlier
and about 1.5 km away was a separate find and has never been claimed to
be a part of Lucy, creationist claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Followups set to talk.origins.
Jim (Chris) Foley, firstname.lastname@example.org
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)