Are you actually familiar with the database for evolution? So that you can, from your own knowledge, say "A couple bones from here a couple bones from there?" Or are you getting this from some creation website?
Here is an example which might help:
The fossil below is numbered "KNM-WT 15000" -- which stands for Kenya National Museum, West Turkana area, specimen #15,000.
There are a lot more than 15,000 now. There are a lot more areas in Kenya with their own numbering systems. And there are a lot more countries in Africa producing fossils. Further, there are a lot of fossils from other continents as well.
So much for your "couple of bones" contention.
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38
First of all, PROVE that was a human and not some type of extinct ape.
Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?
I see Coyoteman once again posted the often debunked chart of skulls. And Gaffer gave it all the respect it was due. HA!
Coyoteman if you are going to post the skull chart, you really ought to include the following disclaimers, because it's really dishonest not to.
The article linked above makes several interesting claims:
Below is an excerpt about the Custance findings
"There are a number of possible, even probable, non-evolutionary explanations for this diversity in the human species, and these are succinctly outlined in the works of Lubenow and Beasley.49,50"
"Also, Custance has argued convincingly that the so-called 'primitive' erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.51 On page 183 Custance finds that the 'primitive' facial and skull features have nothing to do with evolution, but are due to the eating of uncooked or partially-cooked foods, especially in childhood, thus strengthening the jaw mechanism, causing it to be- come more massive in structure, and this process deforms the skull by depressing the forehead, making the brow ridges more prominent, and forces outwards the zygomatic arch, thus accentuating the cheek bones. If these people also chewed hides and skins of animals for softening, this would also have had a similar effect. This effect is increased by the tugging of flesh from the bones, and might be particularly pronounced when the diet, especially of juveniles, is lacking in bone-hardening substances such as calcium. By mid-adolescence these features then would become 'set in concrete' as adult characters."
"Custance cites known examples, and points out that such authorities as Hooten, Howells, Hrdlicka and others were well aware of this.52 Thus, such a process, occurring in individuals, could well account for many erectus and Neanderthal features. Custance's works should be compulsory reading for all anthropologists, whether creationist or evolutionist."