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