No I'm saying the so-called Lucy does(pygmy)...
Dyslexic?..;) Them pygmys been around for at least a coupla hundred years.. Get over twenty years and it all gets a bit spotty for me.. Prognosticating 200 years I'm at my far limits..
No problem; archaeologists, paleontologists, and paleoanthropologists are used to working with large time depths. We'll check out the terrain and get back to you with the results.
An australopithecine and a modern pygmy? Now, I don't have a pygmy skull handy, but if it looks anything like an australopithecine--that is, if you're right--it should be--but isn't--closer to a chimpanzee than to human. Bipedalism came before most of the other changes. Lucy was fully bipedal but not very far along in the other stuff. She would have looked something like a very upright standing and naturaly bipedal chimp. The skull is very chimp-like. She was short, but would not have looked much like a pygmy in any other way. Thus, I have trouble believing there's much basis for your assertion.
Now, I don't like arguing from PC, playing the "race card." I've been on a thread where creos were asserting that Neanderthal morphology was too apelike to be human. I posted some pictures of some people somewhere (not pygmies) with small chins and distinct brow ridges. The creos hit the "abuse" button and my posts vanished.
Cool way of supressing evidence. I was only showing that Neanderthals are far closer to human than ape, not trying to argue that anyone around now is subhuman or whatever.
There's a known range of variation in H. sapiens morphology. The australopithecines are well outside of it. The pygmies are well within it and very far from Lucy.