🚀 go-pugleaf

Sam Bam wrote:
> Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
>> In article <LEfQd.1930707$B07.292002@news.easynews.com>,
>> Sam Bam  <sam@bam.slam> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Packman wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <SI5Qd.2155637$f47.378244@news.easynews.com>,
>>>> Sam Bam  <sam@bam.slam> wrote:
>>>> .......
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>>> What about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put
>>>>> together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide
>>>>> separation of Lucy's bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point
>>>>>
>>>>>> to a catastrophic scenario - such as a world wide flood?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> One does not generalize the findings at a single site
>>>> into a world-wide flood without more evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yet one narrows the widely scattered remains into a cohesive unit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, as others have pointed out, Lucy's bones were
>> not separated at all
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint/johanson1.html
> 
> 
> Lippard is a widley known uselessnet crank, and any letters to him are 
> suspect fromt he get go.
> 
> http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

Better read your own site.  Neandertal was NOT human as you or I.  It 
was human, but according to a study done in Germany with DNA taken from 
the Neandertal bones, Neandertal is NOT in our genetic makeup - meaning 
that Neandertal is a different sort of human.
> 
> But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the 
> University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he 
> thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and 
> that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and 
> therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the 
> meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so 
> some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from 
> Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered 
> about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered 
> (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away 
> (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it 
> belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and 
> dogs have anatomical similarities).

And you still haven't read either Johanson's letter of rebuttal.  BTW, 
how does your unfounded opinion of Lippard invalidate Johanson's work?

Try reading it, or even go check out Johanson's book "Lucy: The 
Beginnings of Humankind", published in 1981 and read that.

But you won't; you're a typical religious bigot.  Evidence isn't enough; 
you must have faith!

> 
> http://www.csinfo.org/lucy_isn.htm
> 
> According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the 
> best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so 
> incomplete that most of it is "imagination made of plaster of paris".1 
> Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about 
> what species Lucy belonged to.

Another pseudo-quote from a creationist site does not help your case.


-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian