A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of
the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the
organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus,
morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure.

Weiser meets a scientist:

Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological
similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical.

Weiser: They can't both be spherical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Er... Now these specimens are all similar due to their conical
shape.

Weiser: They can't all be conical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Hmm... finally, the remainder of these specimens are similar
in that they are all cylindrical.

Weiser: They can't all be cylindrical - THEY AREN'T THE SAME SIZE.

Scientist: Security... SECURITY

You are both a bull****ter and an idiot.

Uh huh. Try this:

Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to
morphological similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are
both spherical.

Me: True, the gross morphological similarity of the form is that of a
sphere, however, they are morphologically different because sample one is
two micrometers in diameter while sample two is two meters in diameter. This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism. Further,
while sample one shows a structure of a non-vertebrate bacterial form,
sample two shows the structure of vertebrate organism similar to a blowfish.

Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus
ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and
australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus
aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo
rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and
homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis?
"

They are hominids - human ancestors, early humans not human beings. It
says so in the web page.

Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which
clearly refers to them as "earlier humans."

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html

Give it up, you're beaten.

--
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

On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism.

There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid. You've done it
before, you'll do it again.

The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because
you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand.
Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that
morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be
independent of size.

I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done
that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My
master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured
an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The
structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions
are normalized out of the model.

Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils
are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples)
but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift,
drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless.
Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different
airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working
entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients.

In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about
Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been
causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has
claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens.
However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast
of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies,
microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in
"Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on
Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical
of the various species and types. She was able to show that the
H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were
closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_.
They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar.

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

You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of
morphology - PROVE IT.


They are hominids - human ancestors, ***early humans*** not human beings. It
says so in the web page.

Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which
clearly refers to them as "***earlier humans***."

What excising? You still can't read - a kindergarden kop pretending to
be an editor.

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong.

Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all
australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate
skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic -
THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead.

Give it up, you're beaten.

Speak for yourself, dickhead.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism.

There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid.

Not them, just you.

You've done it
before, you'll do it again.

The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because
you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand.
Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that
morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be
independent of size.

I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done
that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My
master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured
an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The
structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions
are normalized out of the model.

Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils
are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples)
but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift,
drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless.
Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different
airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working
entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients.

In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about
Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been
causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has
claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens.
However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast
of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies,
microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in
"Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on
Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical
of the various species and types. She was able to show that the
H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were
closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_.
They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar.

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

But that's a claim I've never made. I said that size is a component of form
and structure, which is clearly the case. There is no form and structure in
organisms without size, except in the abstract. I did not say that form and
structure were dependent on size. Thus, "morphology," which describes the
form and structure of an organism includes as a part of the description of
the morphology an analysis of size. I did not suggest that size was
determinative. You affirm my statement with your discussion of H.
florensiensis.

The root of this debate was the question of intelligent design versus
evolution and my quest for an explanation of why sharks have not changed
from sharks to something else in 400 million years while humans have
advanced remarkably in less than 2 million years.

You said:
We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick
rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in
skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens.

I said:
I disagree. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history. And how do you link, for example, Homo
Neandrathalsis to Homo Sapiens? Where are the intervening morphological
changes that show that one became the other? Sorry, but that record simply
does not exist. There is not just one "missing link," there are BILLIONS of
missing links. If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes that result
in the evolution of a species, one would expect to find a panoply of slightly
different specimens in different geological strata that would show the
evolution. Instead, what we see are a very, very few examples of fossil
remains that are morphologically distinct from one another, with no evidence
of the co-existence of different "Darwinian dead-end" variants. Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the
overlap is speculative at this point.

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.

I then broadened the scope by including other forms of humans to show that
there have indeed been morphological changes. Indeed, it's the morphological
changes in ancestral humans that cause scientists to give them different
names.


You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of
morphology - PROVE IT.

Simple logic proves it:

Premise: Organisms cannot exist without form and structure.
Premise: Organisms cannot exist without size.
Conclusion: Form, structure and size are required for an organism to exist.

Premise: Form and structure may be described without reference to size.
Premise: Size may not be described without reference to form and structure.
Conclusion: Size is a component of form and structure.

Premise: Size is a component of form and structure.
Premise: Morphology describes the form and structure of an organism.
Premise: Biometry describes the organism's size.
Conclusion: Biometry is a component of morphology.

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong.

Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all
australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate
skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic -
THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead.

Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate. At some stage
in evolution, the precursors to early humans did not walk erect, or so
evolutionary theory would have it. If evolution is true, then we evolved
from pond-scum and passed through a nearly infinite number of intermediate
forms that resulted in what we are today. Where are all those intermediate
forms, and why haven't sharks also gone through intermediate morphological
changes en route to some greater destiny?

Or, somewhere in pre-history, something sudden and episodic happened that
resulted in a change to upright gait, which is one of the markers that
scientists use to differentiate between lower primate forms and humans.

Is the change to upright gait a gradual shift that would suggest
morphological change through adaptation or is it a sudden and inexplicable
change from one morphology to another with no intervening intermediary
forms?

If the former, where are the intervening forms?
If the latter, what caused the sudden morphological changes?

Gamma rays?
God?

Speak for yourself, dickhead.

I always do, Netwit.

--
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

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

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

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.

If size was a critical component, 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.

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

Evidently, the Smithsonian disagrees with you.

Proof?

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.

Main Entry: 1form
Pronunciation: 'form
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English forme, from Old French, from Latin forma form, beauty
1 a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material.

Nothing in there about size.

Main Entry: 1struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past
participle of struere to heap up, build
Something arranged in a definite pattern of organization a rigid totalitarian structure
-- J. L. Hess leaves and other plant structures
a : The arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body soil structure
molecular structure
b : Organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole
economic structure personality structure
The aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other

Nothing in there about size.

You're fantasizing as usual.

Nah. Just returning to the fundamental question involved,

No avoiding the current discussion - you post bull**** and can't
be bothered to demonstrate that there are any real facts involved.


Because you want to limit the discussion to a single species

You keep insisting that I am limiting or restricting the discussion.
More of your bull****. I am simply stating a fact. You can't deal with
facts. Yo uprefer to be a vaque as possible and avoid being pinned
down on anything. That makes it easier for you to bull****.

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

Interesting that someone like you who claims to be correct can't ever
produce any evidence to back yourself up.

So we return to the start of this part of the thread:

Your "theory of evolution" - bull****.
Your claims about Newton and Galileo - bull****.
Your claims about flat earth beliefs - bull****.
Your claims about humans (modern or early) not walking upright - bull****.
Your claims about morphology - bull****.

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.

Mike

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