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