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