Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts
yuku at globalserve.net
Thu Oct 1 13:29:39 EST 1998
Ross Clark (drc at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 1998 12:31:26 +1300:
: > ...[in 1955] R.T. Simmons, J.J. Graydon, et al. came back with a complete
: > study of the A1-A2-B-O, M-N-S, Rh, P, Le(a), Fy(a) and K groups concluding
: > that there is a close blood genetic relationship between American Indians
: > and Polynesians, and that no similar relationship is evident when
: > Polynesians are compared with Melanesians, Micronesians and Indonesians,
: > except mainly in adjacent areas of direct contact. This important
: > conclusion was finally confirmed in 1972 by an international work group
: > composed of E. and Anne Thorsby, J. Colombiani et al. (Heyerdahl, EARLY
: > MAN AND THE OCEAN, 1978, pp. 158-9)
: > Simmons, R.T., et al., A BLOOD GROUP GENETICAL SURVEY IN COOK
: > ISLANDERS, POLYNESIA, AND COMPARISONS WITH AMERICAN INDIANS, American
: > Journal of Anthropology, New Series 13 (4) (Dec., 1955).
: > Philadelphia.
: > Thorsby, E., Colombani, J., Dausset, Ja., Figueroa, J., and Thorsby,
: > A., HL-A BLOOD GROUP AND SERUM TYPE POLYMORPHISM OF NATIVES ON EASTER
: > ISLAND, Histocompatibility Testing 1972 (1973). Copenhagen.
: Well, you certainly are getting plenty of mileage out of those beloved
: old blood-group studies, Yuri.
Thank you, Ross.
: A couple of days ago you promised lots of
: osteological and DNA evidence connecting the Polynesians with the NW
: coast of North America.
Osteological evidence? There's plenty of such evidence indicating that
Polynesia was settled originally by more than one racial group. But this
research has been done early in this century (at that time it was
mainstream) and by now is basically buried into the ground by the
triumphant Dumbed-down School of Historiography.
Recent DNA studies have neglected this direction of research completely.
You must be proud of this, Ross. I'm sure that you, yourself, have done
your own part over the years to dumb down the modern Pacific
historiography, and should accept some credit for it... Don't be shy.
: Instead, you offered....Simmons et al.! Blood
As a Newager-at-heart, you obviously dislike any such precision.
Tea-leaves and crystals are much better for determining the history of
ancient migrations, no?
: I pointed out that these studies do not relate specifically to
: that part of the Americas.
This is incorrect. Heyerdahl certainly provides this information in his
AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC.
B and AB factors, very common in South Asia, are completely absent or very
low in the blood of Native Americans, as well as Polynesians. This is a
very important datum. This indicates strongly that Polynesians came from
the East, i.e. from America.
However much you try, you cannot sweep this fact under the rug.
Specifically, among the Kwakiutl, there is only .6% of of B, and no AB.
(p. 88, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC) This corresponds very closely
with Polynesians and NZ Maoris.
Moreover, these B and AB groups are actually _the lowest_ in eastern
Polynesia and NZ compared with Western Polynesia where they begin to
appear at low levels!
This should make it clear that Polynesians spread out from America, and
acquired these groups in a small way later through intermarriage with
Melanesians. In Samoa, B is quite high.
: I neglected to point out that neither are they
: or DNA studies.
Reason to celebrate? Only for those who are afraid of scientific
: May I take it from that that you don't know
: of any?
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
More information about the Bioforum