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

On 15-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

You _still_ can't offer any reference to back up your comments.

And yet you keep on lapping it up.

You're getting close to admitting you're lying. why not come
clean and maybe you can start working on telling the truth
for a change?

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

You _still_ can't offer any reference to back up your comments.

And yet you keep on lapping it up.

You're getting close to admitting you're lying. why not come
clean and maybe you can start working on telling the truth
for a change?

Mike

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT

You're an idiot.

No, yor stupid.

Well, he says you're a moron.

What does he know....he's a fool.

Well, he ain't as dum as you.

So's yer mother.

Bite me.

Eat me.

Sez you.

You don't know what I said.

You don't know what you said. Answer my question.

What question?

What are you talking about.

You're and idiot

Blah......

Blah......

Wolfgang
no charge for this one.

Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT


You're an idiot.

No, yor stupid.

Well, he says you're a moron.

What does he know....he's a fool.

Well, he ain't as dum as you.

So's yer mother.

Bite me.

Eat me.

Sez you.

You don't know what I said.

You don't know what you said. Answer my question.

What question?

What are you talking about.

You're and idiot

Blah......

Blah......

Wolfgang
no charge for this one.

Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT


You're an idiot.

No, yor stupid.

Well, he says you're a moron.

What does he know....he's a fool.

Well, he ain't as dum as you.

So's yer mother.

Bite me.

Eat me.

Sez you.

You don't know what I said.

You don't know what you said. Answer my question.

What question?

What are you talking about.

You're and idiot

Blah......

Blah......

Wolfgang
no charge for this one.

Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks! ;-)

This and most others. It's o.k. Nobody can make us read it.

Wolfgang
but where else can you watch serial self-immolation for free?

Wilko wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the
various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT


You're an idiot.

No, yor stupid.

Well, he says you're a moron.

What does he know....he's a fool.

Well, he ain't as dum as you.

So's yer mother.

Bite me.

Eat me.

Sez you.

You don't know what I said.

You don't know what you said. Answer my question.

What question?

What are you talking about.

You're and idiot

Blah......

Blah......

Wolfgang
no charge for this one.

Wolfgang, that's basically this whole thread in one post... Thanks!
;-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko, I was recently googling, and came across the name Scott B. who
apparently had quite an impact on you and some of the oldtimers here on
RBP. I would wonder if you could, for the benefit of us newbies, ever
feel free to share how that situation could affect your outlook of
paddling now. Some of the other oldtimers could probably pitch in if
you started a new topic. I really find the stories insightful about how
you all got to where we are now. I was also amazed at all the names
that I never hear now. I wonder if they are still out there lurking,
and would possibly chime in. For once, I would be glad to set back and
listen, I get sort of tired of the threads that break down into
nit-picking as highlighted by Wolfgang! TnT

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hey Michael, I have lost track what this particular discussion is
regarding, could you restate from your understanding what the various
contentions are. Thanks, TnT

You're an idiot.

No, yor stupid.

Well, he says you're a moron.

What does he know....he's a fool.

Well, he ain't as dum as you.

So's yer mother.

Bite me.

Eat me.

Sez you.

You don't know what I said.

You don't know what you said. Answer my question.

What question?

What are you talking about.

You're and idiot

Blah......

Blah......

Wolfgang
no charge for this one.



Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh.

Ken

"No Spam" wrote in message
news:4%3_d.7236$FB6.2452@trndny09...

Thanks -I had a bad day and that was a good laugh.


You should read more Usenet.

Wolfgang