Turkana Boy?
Yes. That nickname was included in Coyoteman's post, it's not like you figured it out on your own.
He was reconstructed by evolutionists from skull fragments unearthed in Kenya.
This is a bit more than "fragments", son, but then I'm used to anti-evolutionists grossly misrepresenting things:
You then go on to dig yourself even deeper:
Later reconstructions by researchers like Bromage and Dean removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits. See The rise and fall of Skull KNM ER 1470
WRONG!
Congratulations, DaveLoneRanger -- like almost every anti-evolutionist I've ever met, you know so little about these topics that you quickly reveal your incompetence to discuss them, but that doesn't stop you from trying to recklessly *pretend* that you're up to the task and that you're qualified to distinguish valid science from horsecrap.
That creationist link you direct us to describes ANOTHER SPECIMEN ENTIRELY, not the "Turkana Boy" skull designated KNM-WT 15000. The very title of your link should have tipped you off, since it clearly mentions specimen number KNM ER 1470, which even those with really poor reading comprehension should have been able to note is different than KNM-WT 15000.
Your mention of reconstructions by "researchers like Bromage and Dean" refers to the KNM ER 1470 skull, not the KNM-WT 15000 skull (nicknamed "Turkana Boy") which Coyoteman included in his post and which you incompetently are attempting to comment on.
You're talking about an entirely different fossil!!
You also include the link:
Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
That's nice, but it doesn't do anything to undercut Coyoteman's point, nor to dispute the material he quoted.
It does, however, contain material that CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM YOU JUST MADE, and SHOWS THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO FREAKING READ THE LINK before you included it in your post in an attempt to "dismiss" Coyoteman's post.
Because if you had bothered to read it, you'd have seen that it contradicts your own bone-headed mistake -- you (incorrectly) tried to say this about "Turkana Boy": "Later reconstructions by researchers like Bromage and Dean removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits." But if you had actually *READ* the links you mindlessly stuffed into your post in the hopes that they might, possibly, have some relevance to the discussion, you'd have noticed the following passage in the second link:
"...WT 15000 [now that *is* the "Turkana Boy" skull -- Ich.] is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. [...] In all vital respects WT 15000 was as human as you or I.Even YOUR OWN LINK blows away your attempted claim about the "Turkana Boy" skull.
You clearly DIDN'T EVEN READ the links you flung at us, because the first one IS ABOUT A DIFFERENT SKULL ENTIRELY, and the second one -- YOUR OWN LINK -- clearly and explicitly CONTRADICTS the claim you just tried to make about "Turkana Boy" reconstructions having "removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits". On the contrary, even your precious AiG in THE LINK YOU YOURSELF POSTED describes it as, and I quote, "as human as you or I".
So how did you do something so monumentally lame as including two links that not only didn't support your claim, but actually *contradicted* your claim? The answer becomes obvious when we Google for any reference to "Turkana Boy" within the popular creationist website "AnswersInGenesis.org": That search turns up ONLY TWO PAGES -- the two you linked. Obviously, you just Googled your favorite creationist site for the name of the skull Coyoteman mentioned, pasted in the links without bothering to see if they were actually relevant or helped "rebut" Coyoteman's post, then you smugly declared victory against evolutionary biology...
Please explain to us why you are using two links YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ in order to merely pretend to "support" FALSE CLAIMS you made about the skull Coyoteman mentioned? And since you were just desperately bluffing like a poker player with a busted flush, why did you feel justified in arrogantly dismissing it with your final line:
Next?
...as if you had blown away Coyoteman's post so utterly that he had to slink away, perchance to try again another day? What kind of dishonesty compells you to behave this way -- to posture and bluster and maybe even believe your own bull***t in such a foolhardy way that you tried to beat your chest using MATERIAL YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T READ well enough to even be sure that it supported your swagger, because NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT, it actually BLOWS AWAY YOUR OWN CLAIM!
Yes, "next" indeed -- you've done this sort of thing before, what will you do to yet again fall on your face *next* time?
Recently you wrote:
People often want to make it "creationists oppose science." Sorry, we oppose certain interpretations of science.Well, yeah -- you oppose the "certain interpretations" that involve talking about the *right* skull instead of the wrong one and the "interpretations" that involve actually reading and understanding the material you provide in alleged support of your claims... Unlike creationists, on the other hand, real scientists prefer the "certain interpretations" that involve knowing what in the hell they're talking about.
Now, do the honorable thing and ping to this post the ping list you used on your flawed post #512, in order to correct the false information you wrote and pinged them to. I'd do it myself, but I can't read the entirety of the ping list you used, it trails off to "..."
And speaking of honorable things, on your Freeper homepage you provide an out-of-context quote from one of my posts -- why don't you go ahead and turn that quote into a link to the original post, so that readers can see for themselves why I was saying what I did about you in that quote snippet, and that I documented my reasons for saying it? Why not do that, rather than leaving them with the false impression that all I did was some kind of empty ad hominem? Gosh, you wouldn't be trying to mislead your readers, would you? That would be totally uncharacteristic behavior for an anti-evolutionist... Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.
Do the right thing for a change and alert your ping list to this post, and turn the quote in your Freeper homepage into a link to the post from which it comes.