Ah, Scorpion, you continue displaying the 'cleverness' of the cornered Fundy. No matter what evidence is brought forth, you find ways to let yourself dismiss it. This is precisely the modus operandi of the good Jehovah's Witness, and the good Young-Earth Creationist.
: Still waiting for more of those Turkana boys to be unearthed so we know the lone one was not constructed by someone with an agenda.
The likelihood of finding more than one fossil of a particular creature in a particular spot is low. Nevertheless, assemblages of fossils of ancient hominds have been found. The famous "Lucy" -- a 40% complete Australopithecus, including significant parts of the skull, legs and hips -- was found alone but many other, but more incomplete, specimens have been found, some in the same location and strata. As for Homo erectus type specimens, which "Turkana Boy" was classified as until recently (some paleontologists now call it Homo ergaster on physiological grounds), these have been known since the famous "Java man" skull was found more than 100 years ago. In the 1930s many skulls were found in China, and specimens have been found also in Europe and India.
How much more evidence do you want? The simple fact is that if tomorrow another Turkana Boy were unearthed, you'd find excuses to dismiss it, probably demanding a third, then a fourth, and finally just ignoring all of the evidence.
: Kinda reminds me of the missing link, or maybe Bigfoot, what about the Lochness Monster?
Big difference, dorkbrain. No one has ever brought back verifiable physical remains of such supposed creatures. Turkana Boy has been examined by a number of respected paleontologists and forensic scientists, casts have been made of the bones and distributed around the world, the original bones are in a museum vault in Kenya, and many papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Only a few YECs -- not even JWs -- have the stupidity to question such evidence. But even the most notorious YECs, like Duane Gish of the ICR, are not so stupid as to question it. They simply claim they were not human. What an apish/humanish skull is doing on top of a human skeleton, they don't trouble themselves to comment about.
Of course, we all know that even if a group of YECs were given the opportunity to examine the bones, they'd figure out any number of ways to dismiss the evidence.
: I went back to the two sites you posted about the Turkana boy and read them 'again'.
Very good, but you should have examined a lot more websites. And you have yet to look at the published written material I told you about. And you have yet to comment on the actual evidence.
: I do not see how this find proves evolution as far as one living species turning or evolving into another.
It doesn't. The point is that it fits into a pattern that proves that an evolution of body plans has occurred. This evolution of populations is a fact that is shown by the fossil record. Go back and read my comments to Utopian Reformist on this. I carefully explained that this fact of evolution of populations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of why the populations evolved. It could be due to "mindless evolution", to use a popular term. It could be due to a Supreme Creator creating and destroying species after species.
Get it through your head, Scorpion: the fossil record proves an evolution of life; it says nothing about the mechanism of that evolution. You can console yourself by thinking, "God did it."
The problem for obvious YECs like you is that you can't admit that God might not have created everything by fiat some 6,000 years ago. The problem is not necessarily in the Bible itself -- many Christians have no trouble accepting a God-directed evolution -- but in the fact that you people are tied to ancient ideas that you've learned since infancy. You can no more give them up than a JW can give up the notion of a spirit-directed Governing Body. At least, most of you can't. It's purely an emotional thing and has nothing to do with real evidence.
: What if they found the buried skull of someone with the head of the Elephant man (John Meric)(sp), would these individuals that found the Turkana boy try to link the elephant mans skull to evolution? I wonder!
Of course, such a finding would turn the paleontological world on its ear, if it were found not to be an aberration. So would finding human fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. But since nothing like that has ever been found, and all fossils I'm aware of are reasonably consistent with the standard evolutionary picture, such speculations are moot.
Your question is like asking, "What would scientists do if someone brought a living T-Rex to the Bronx Zoo?" Well of course there would be a great deal of reorganization of paleontology and other subjects. But such speculations are completely useless in determining the history of life on earth.
So, Scorpion, when are you going to present some evidence as to why anyone ought to think that Turkana Boy might be a hoax?
AlanF