Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts
drc at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz
Thu Oct 1 18:17:44 EST 1998
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 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.
OK. Let's recap. A few posts back, Yuri was taking great satisfaction in
the fact that the Watom skeletons did not show 9 base pair deletion.
There, he said, you see? Osteological and DNA evidence fails to support
your Lapita-Polynesian theory. I replied by suggesting that neither was
there any such evidence to support his Kwakiutl-Hawaiian theory of
Polynesian origins. Or rather I suggested that if he knew of any such
evidence he should tell us about it. After a couple of posts of bluff and
blustering, he has now effectively admitted that no, there isn't any. And
now, as the final, distinctively Yurian touch, he is going to blame me
for this unfortunate lack of evidence. Over to you, Yuri:
> 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
> : groups!
> 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?
OK, "dumbing down" and "new age" were quite cute when they were new
Catch-phrases of the Month. Now they're just jawflap. Find some new
> : 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.
What I asked for (you can read it) was evidence relating the Polynesians
_specifically_ to that particular part of the Americas, not to "America".
It's now obvious you haven't got any. Why not admit it? Heck, you can
even blame me again, if you want to.
> 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
> : osteological
> You're wrong.
I'm wrong? Blood groups are osteological?
> : or DNA studies.
> Reason to celebrate? Only for those who are afraid of scientific
Translation: I'm right here, but it's my fault.
More information about the Bioforum