A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

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

Wrongo. I state as a matter of fact that dimension is a component of
morphology.

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.

Not when it comes to analyzing organisms. One can analyze an abstract,
size-less, lifeless structure like a building or an airplane wing (though
Reynolds numbers do affect wing performance) but when talking about
organisms, which is what we're talking about, size is a component of
morphology.

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.

Evidently, the Smithsonian disagrees with you.

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****.

But....watching you rant, rave and foam at the mouth is so much FUN!


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.

No, merely that size is a component of the morphology of an organism. No
form and structure without size in living organisms.


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.

Nah. Just returning to the fundamental question involved, which you are
desperate to avoid and are evading through pettifoggery.


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.

Because you want to limit the discussion to a single species, while I'm
discussing the broader question of how A. ramidus became H. sap., or even
how H. ergaster became H. sap.

If evolution is the true method of species advancement, then there needs to
be an explanation for the morphological changes that take place between H.
ergaster and H. sap.

And there must also be an explanation of why the shark hasn't changed nearly
as much (if at all) in 400 million years while humans changed from
H.ergaster (and earlier non-human forms) to H. sap in less than two million
years.

One hypothesis is that as a result of intelligent design, sharks were meant
to remain sharks, while humans were meant to become H. sap. At the moment,
this hypothesis is as valid as that of evolution because you cannot explain
the disparate amounts of evolution evidenced in the two species. Sharks have
not even become "really smart sharks with hands," much less evolved into
something entirely different, while human beings are thought to have evolved
into upright-gaited, highly intelligent organisms from some theoretical
primitive primate ancestor.

Until you can explain this disparity, one hypothesis (or theory, if you
will) is any more the "Truth" than the other.

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.

Interesting that someone supposedly as scientifically advanced as you can't
deconstruct a logical syllogism any more authoritatively than by saying
"Ain't so."


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.

Which makes you the bull****ee, I guess.

Had your fill yet?

--
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