|
|
Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Rohinton Collins (rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk)
9 Nov 1996 21:35:00 GMT
These types of posts are really infuriating. Please could you stop posting
to sci.anthropology.paleo (or for that matter sci.anthropology and
sci.archaeology). This newsgroup is for palaeoanthropologists, or people
interested in palaeoanthropology, their theories and ideas. If you want
controversy please post to talk.origins or talk.evolution or whatever.
Newsgroups starting with sci are for scientific discussion, not
non-evidenced, creationist ravings.
As a tip (not you Ed), if your newsreader supports screening, configure it
not to download any posts sent by Ed Conrad, as I am about to do. Oh and
and to that list add Stephen Boltinghouse. He has spammed this group twice
recently, to my knowledge, with one of those 'Make $50,000 in 4 weeks'
scams.
Regards,
Roh
Ed Conrad <edconrad@prolog.net> wrote in article
<562101$98n@news.ptd.net>...
>
> 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)).
|