On 12-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively
assume.

But that's a claim I've never made.

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here.

That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick.
[...]
morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure.

You are claiming that morphology is based on dimension even though the
definition that you provide does not even contain any reference to dimension.
You have claimed that within morphology, you can't have form or structure
without dimension.

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology.

I have given many examples of scientists and engineers using morphological
characteristics without _any_ reference to dimension. Morphology is
_independent_ of dimension. Form and structure are independent of size.
It is only when one moves from the study of a class of forms to the
study of an individual instance of an entity that one invokes size and
hence biometry. The problem is that you can't distinguish between classes
of objects and instances of objects. Morphology is about classification
and biometry is about measuring an instance of an object independent of
its class. Two different activities with two different objectives.
They are not the same thing and are not done with the same objective.
One is not a subset of the other.

It is you that does not understand the slightest thing about morphology
and biometry, nor about science. You insist in claiming expertise because
you misunderstand a dictionary entry. Why don't you actually _study_
something about the topic instead of continuing to post bull****.

You affirm my statement with your discussion of H. florensiensis.

And yet at every point up to now you've tried to claim that size
is important.

You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains
during the entire history of Homo Sapiens."

I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in
recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger
brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than
earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size
differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit
the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that.

Yes - you tried to change the topic. Every time you get stuck, you try
to change the topic instead of address the facts presented.

There are morphological differences because they are in different classes.
Each is a separate species, dickhead. Within a single species, changes
in structure are extremely slow to occur - my point and one you don't want
to hear.

Simple logic proves it:

You prove nothing. See above. If you want to prove this, try finding
a reference that agrees with your ridiculous claims.

Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate.

No, I'm addressing the fact that _you_ do not bother with facts and
that _you_ will post anything that comes to your mind even if it
nothing but bull****. Stop changing the topic. You are nothing
but a bull****ter.

Mike