Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts

Peter Ashby p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk
Fri Oct 2 03:53:17 EST 1998


In article <6utr22$alv$1 at whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku at globalserve.net
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Peter Ashby (p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on 29 Sep 1998 11:43:06 GMT:
> : yuku at mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> 
>         ...
> 
> : >So tell me, phoney, Have the Polynesians now developed
> : >Group B in their blood since 1972? Why else would you dismiss this
> : >evidence sight unseen?
> 
> : I have gone over this before but here we go again. Blood groups are a very
> : coarse measure of relatedness for reasons I have explained to you before.
> 
> And this indicates to me that this evidence is being ignored by the
> mainstream because of bias. 

Who said it is being ignored? It is not cited in every abstract because it
is not directly germane to mtDNA analysis. Yuri, blood groups are not
encoded in mitochondrial DNA, so they are not particularly relevant to
mtDNA analysis.
 
> Coarse is good. Nothing wrong with coarse if it provides clear answers.

Coarse is bad when it can be misleading.
 
> : Besides they are no good for archwological material since proteins do not
> : survive for very long. Even the sequence of the blood group genes is not
> : very useful (but better than simple blood groups) since genomic DNA does
> : not survive in archeological material.
> 
> This is irrelevant. Again, you're being dishonest. None of these arguments
> invalidate this research IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
> 
> : That is why mitochodrial DNA is
> : used.
> 
> Used by who and for what?

This is getting tiresome. Did you not read what I posted? or did you just
not understand it? Careful Yuri your ignorance is showing.
 
> : It survives well in old bones (cf Neanderthal results in Nature
> : recently) and can be easily measured in modern populations.
> 
> Too bad that it does not support you, though...

It supports me reasonably well, it supports you and saint Thor not at all.
But then you obviously don't understand modern genetics so I shouldn't be
surprised by that statement.
 
> : Banging on
> : about blood groups in lieu of a proper response to the modern evidence
> : only serves to display your ignorance.
> 
> You're a disgusting hypocrite. None of your dishonest and silly antics
> have done anything to invalidate this evidence.

And none of your name calling will affect the quality of the evidence
ranged against you Yuri. Next time you are in the library Yuri have a look
at a few scientific journal articles and see how much abuse you find
there. When you have finished, reflect on your own behaviour in the light
of your (unsupported) claim to be scientist. What conclusion do you draw?
 
> Here it is again for those who may be interested.

[Boring repost of blood group refs
deleted]                                                                          

> I still don't understand how this data has been invalidated and by who.
> Ashby only explained so far why this evidence _might_ lack validity. He's
> never addressed the evidence beyond his usual wouldas-couldas.

Repetition is not argument Yuri, but then you don't seem to be able to
argue without abuse.

Peter

-- 
Peter Ashby
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.
London

Reverse the spam and remove to email me.



More information about the Bioforum mailing list