A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.
Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.
I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size.
Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so
far.
You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly.
That you claim it to be so does not prove it to be so. You refuse to cite
any credible authority that defines "morphology" differently than Websters,
so I conclude that it's you that are full of bull****.
When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.
Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun
Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830
1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ńmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective
ńmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ńmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun
Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.
You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.
Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1
I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.
Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.
Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun
Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830
1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ńmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective
ńmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ńmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun
Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.
Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.
By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.
H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.
Not a claim I ever made.
On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.
And then there's the change to upright gait...
Bull**** again.
Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we
were discussing the precursors of homo sapien.
Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus
You've yet to post anything which refutes it.
Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.
Um...make me.
Not a claim I made.
Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.
Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...
It's implicit in your statements
And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.
And you still gobble it down like it was ambrosia. What does that make you?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|