Well, no, not really

Meet ‘Alesi’, the 13-million-year-old baby monkey which scientists say is mankind’s earliest ancestor

As we’re really pretty sure that this did not have any descendants at all.

18 thoughts on “Well, no, not really”

  1. Maritime Barbarian

    That is amazingly pendantic but nonetheless logical.
    Not a monkey either, if it’s related to our ancestors then it must be an ape.

  2. It’s like the medieval monastery that had the skull of John the Baptist. “Isn’t it rather small?” asked a visitor. “It’s the skull of John the Baptist as a boy.”

  3. dearieme…the skull of JtB is in Amiens cathedral. I saw it some years ago when I was living in Corbie and my first thought was “Cobblers! Far too small to be a human skull.”

    Either it isn’t a human skull or 2000 years ago the Israelites were invaded by Amazonian headshrinkers.

  4. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The article calls it a monkey in the hed and an ape in the lede. Still, it’s in your super soaraway Telegraph so what can you expect? With that nasty glossy ink you can’t even use it to wrap chips.

  5. dearieme, I think you have read The Name of The Rose (Umberto Eco) or seen the film with Sean Connery miscast as William of Occam …

  6. But…but…but… They’ve left out the most important facts. Did it identify as LGBTQC orX.
    Oh, right.
    Would be.

  7. Insofar as I recall, there are two skulls of John the Baptist on display. And 27 Nails of the Cross in Italy alone.
    Somebody, somewhere has been lying or is dreadfully mistaken.

  8. Who was it who said “there were twelve apostles and the relics of eighteen of them are in Spain”?

    I’ve giggled it: seems to be a paraphrase of Luther. He knew a thing or two, did Luther.

  9. And enough fragments of the true cross to build an ark.

    Maritime Barbarian
    I tried to find out some time ago about the nails and drew a blank. The question being, three or four? The Romans actually used four but artists favour three as four gives an undignified pose. (A foot either side of the upright) Twenty-seven I can’t help noticing is nine sets of three. Do you have any further info you can point me at?

  10. Quite often, it says on the internet, the Romans didn’t use nails for crucifixion, they just tied the poor sod on.

  11. I was taught in Sunday school (yes, I am that old) that nailing was considered ‘humane’ as the victim died more quickly.

  12. ‘the 13-million-year-old baby monkey which scientists say is mankind’s earliest ancestor’

    Not even close. That honor goes to a late-Cambrian proto-fish.

  13. “…the Romans didn’t use nails for crucifixion, they just tied the poor sod on.”

    Would a nail through the palm bear the weight of a human body? The nails would surely have to go through the wrists, or the arms were tied to the cross before the hands were nailed to it, to prevent the body falling off the cross.

  14. Theo, the nails going through the wrist is one of the “proofs” of the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

    And I seem to recall seeing the skull of John the Baptist in the mosque at Damascus about 15 years ago.

    At least modern relics are harder to forge. I recall seeing a chunk of an arm bone in Salamanca cathedral a few years ago. A victim of the Spanish civil war had been sanctified by JP2. With the current pontiff, we will probably end up with condoms in reliquairies to remember our millions of new saints by. (a sentence construction devised mostly to get on dearieme ‘s tits)

  15. Maritime Barbarian

    RLJ – the nails- sorry, I can’t give a reference for the 27 nails. It was in an Anti-Catholic book I read many years ago.
    The link here mentions 30, and details 9, but not just in Italy.
    I learned something: that if you believe 3 nails were used you are a Triclavian.

  16. Examples where the Romans used nails have been found, but they are rarer than where they used rope. At least amongst the samples that are still available.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *