>I guess I am just allergic to the conjecturing that is associated
>with this topic. I find the modern sources to eminently credible, as
>having no particular axe to grind.

whether they can admit it or not, everyone has their own particular ax to
grind, even the modern sources. no one is totally impartial so this should
not be used as a mark of credibility over someone else. conjecturing should
be challanged, but keep in mind that some conjecturing could very well be
true.

>I don't see how the theory can be
>proved or disproved, given the lack of interest (in proving or
>disproving it) on either side. I also don't think it makes any
>difference.

maybe by following the Nike slogan, "just do it."

>My sole objection is that the small size theory is not credible nor
>are its proponents.

why does it always have degrade to a level where we resort to character name
calling? the definition of credible is 1. Capable of being believed;
plausible. you acknowledge that it is theory we are discussing. where do you
get the assurance that your position is the right one if it is still
unproven? both sides are credible and should be given equal standing until
theory becomes fact.

>The first part, where he says that cell size variation *is there* to
>give a varied work force... this is completely speculative. Variation
>in cell size is mostly likely due to the fact that bees are not
>working with rulers and compasses, they are making cells about the
>size they need to be. A little larger, a little smaller, it doesn't
>much matter.

so if he wrote cell size variation gives a varied work force, leaving out
*is there*, what difference does it make? are you not being just as
speculative by saying it doesn't much matter? how do you know it doesn't
matter?

mark

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com