|
|
Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
19 Nov 1996 12:08:51 GMT
Dan Evens <junkmail@hydro.on.ca> wrote:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>> 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.
>Ed, this is a clumsy lie. For a description of the finding of
>the fossil Lucy that is understandable by the non-scientist,
>read the book _Lucy_ by Johanson (sp?). The skeleton was found
>in an eroding bank of earth, all within a few meters.
>This book was, for me anyway, a lot of fun to read. It communicated
>the excitement, the sense of wonder, the little-kid-on-Christmas-morning
>sort of feeling that the folks at the dig must have felt when they
>found this skeleton.
I'd feel like a little-kid-on-Christmas-morning, too, if I found a few
pieces of older ``monkey'' bones and realized, if I played my cards
right and added a bunch of miscellaneous unassociated bones
to make a skeleton, this could add up to some terrific international
notriety, elevated stature in my profession, a merit raise, additional
funding and -- in the writing of a book or two -- some big, big
bucks.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus!
|