A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 14-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

Exactly why does one use morphology? To analyse a single organism?
No, dickhead, that won't tell you anything. Morphological characteristics
are used to compare, contrast and categorize organisms. Hence you are
working with a class of organisms, not a single entity. One only looks
at the morphological characteristics of a single entity when one wants
to determine which category it belongs to - as in the analysis of
H. florensiensis.

Indeed. So what? Size is still a component of morphology.


If size was a critical component,

Who said "critical component?" Not me.

then you have a serious problem.
There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, few of whom are the
same height. If every height is a unique characteristic, then
there are millions of species of humans. In fact, there is only
one species and height is not a parameter in defining it. However,
other morphological characteristics are important - the shapes
of bones differentiates H sapiens from, say, gorillas or orangutans.

I never suggested that other morphological characteristics are unimportant,
I merely said that size is a component of morphology.


You still don't understand the concept and you still think you're
an expert because you misunderstand a single dictionary definition
of morphology.

Oh, I understand it just fine. You just disagree, but are unable to even
refute a simple logical syllogism.

No form and structure without size in living organisms.

And yet the size of the brain casts in analyzing H. florensiensis
as not a factor.

Don't be silly, of course the size of the brain case is a factor. Larger
brain cases mean larger brains, larger brains are a factor in species
morphology. The determination of "larger" involves biometry, which means
"size," which proves that size is a component of morphology.

There's nothing that you post of any value - you have proven that you
can't tell the truth or provide any references to back your ridiculous
claims.

And yet you keep on lapping it up.

--
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