First of all, how do they know it's Lucy's baby? Even criminal investigators have no way of knowing who the parents of a skeleton were unless they can match it with the DNA of a relative. :rolleyes:
36 comments
Well, I assume this fucktard is talking about the extremely old child skeleton that was recently discovered, which was dated to around Lucy's lifetime, and the first child skeleton we have of that time period. But NOBODY ever said it was Lucy's fucking baby. And if it was, guess what? We DO have Lucy's DNA...we have her skeleton, you half-wit! Do you think we just imagined a hominid named Lucy and put it in the goddamned papers?
"Because hobbit geneaology was exhaustively mentioned in J.R.R. Tolkein's Holiest of Holy Books, the truly unreadable; The Silmarillion."
Hey, now, I 'like' the Silmarillion. I also find it readable.
Calling it "Lucy's Baby" was a profoundly stupid move by whoever came up with that nickname, precisely because of this kind of confusion (as well as the fact that the child had lived some 150,000 years earlier ).
That said, of course, Carico is an idiot for being unable to figure this out herself.
~David D.G.
Napoleon
In case you're not being sarcastic:
Lucy is a fossil of a primitive homonid
found in the 60's that is remarkable for its completeness.
Recently a fossil of apparently the same species, but a 3 year old girl was found, also remarkable for its completeness. It was nicknamed "Lucy's baby". Carico seems to think scientists claim that it's literally Lucy's baby.
Actually, the fossil nick-named "Lucy's Baby" is about 150,000 years older than Lucy -- but that widely reported fact would also be lost on mental midgets who believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old.
Hey Hadanelith, I also like The Silmarillion. And actually, Julian got it wrong -hobbit genealogy is discussed extensively in the appendixes of LOTR, but not in The Silmarillion, which contains a lot about Elfic and Man genealogy but next to nothing on hobbits...
Ok, I better shut up now.
The article itself explains that it isn't Lucy's child, in fact, it was dead long before Lucy was born, but was the same species and also significant. Learn to read the article.
>>Actually, the fossil nick-named \"Lucy's Baby\" is about 150,000 years older than Lucy -- but that widely reported fact would also be lost on mental midgets who believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old. <<
And, assuming that the kid had at least one sibling who survived to have children of its own, what we've been calling "Lucy's Baby" is really Lucy's great-to-the-nth-aunt (much as Lucy herself is to us).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.