Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts

Peter Ashby p-ashby at
Fri Oct 2 12:10:39 EST 1998

In article <6v2un2$4k2$1 at>, yuku at
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Peter Ashby (p-ashby at wrote on 2 Oct 1998 08:59:38 GMT:
> : ... I pointed out to you that there is
> : good evidence for the polynesians having gone through at least one genetic
> : bottleneck during their dispersal.
> Bottleneck is not a problem for me.
> : Such a bottleneck could quite easily
> : account for the lack of group B in modern polynesians (the only group of
> : polynesians open to blood group analyis). Apart from bottlenecks, genetic
> : drift and environmental selection can also account for selective loss of
> : an allele from a population. Long ocean voyages and the need to adapt to
> : island life impose strong selective pressures on a population. Random
> : events (such as a cyclone with no NZ airforce relief) can also act to
> : restrict the genetic diversity of a population.
> Fine, this is your speculation as to why Polynesians may lack group B. In
> other words, you've postulated an extraordinary event that would explain
> this lack. 

Stop twisting what I said. Any (or all) of the above could EASILY account
for the lack of Group B. YOUR problem is to discount ALL of these
influences in order to try and argue that lack of group B is definitive.
> But your problems certainly don't end here. Still you would need to
> explain why Native Americans ALSO lack group B. Another extraordinary
> event? That also happens to be _entirely unrelated_ to the previous one?
> Does this begin to sound like special pleading, anyone?

I don't have to explain the lack of B in Native Americans. YOU want to
postulate a relatedness so YOU have to explain away the factors I have
outlined in order to continue to argue for relatedness. I was pointing out
why blood groups may not be a good measure of relatedness in populations.
It is YOU who wants to use them, not me, so YOU have to explain away the
problems, if you can.
[Snip repeat of Heyerdahl]> 
> So this looks like very good evidence to me already.

As I have explained above, Blood groups cannot be used as good evidence of

> But what about your hypothesis? Do you have one? Please specify when and
> where your "extraordinary event"/bottleneck happened on your theory.
> Obviously it had to happen to the Polynesians very, very early indeed,
> before their dispersal throughout Polynesia. Where exactly? Would it have
> been somewhere in Melanesia, the area that has plenty of group B? Does
> this begin to sound like some sort of Ashby sci-fi?

I do not have to present evidence for the bottleneck (actually I have, one
of the papers I cited presents evidence for this), YOU have to present
evidence against it in order to use blood groups. You can't so you cannot
argue relatedness via blood groups.
> So what Ashby would need to explain is how his hypothesis, if he has one,
> would accomodate the existing evidence for group B distribution throughout
> Polynesia, i.e. absense of group B in the Eastern Polynesia, and the
> increase of group B in the Western Polynesia. Did the Polynesians continue
> to lose B factor gradually as they were approaching the American
> continent? But this is impossible and is beginning to sound ever more like
> Psychic Science. The neck of your bottle is beginning to look awful wide
> here, Ashby...

Yuri, your ignorance is now appallingly obvious. In future before you try
and argue biology with anyone I suggest you go away and get clued up.
Instead of trying to argue the science here which he doewn't understand
Yuri has latched onto one small part of my post and expanded into a claim
that I am proposing a whole new stream of evidence for polynesian
expansion. Yuri I did nothing of the sort, I posted an explanation to you
of why blood groups are an unreliable measure of relatdness. Another
poster has done the same. I do not have to say that ANY of the
possibilities happened. In order to continue to bang on about blood groups
Yuri has to discount these factors. He can't. So he cannot use blood
groups. it is simple Yuri. It is science, but then you aren't a scientist,
can't argue scientifically and run a mile from real data so I shouldn't be

> And also of course Ashby would need to provide some sort of a model for
> why the American Indians are also lacking group B. Good luck!
> However much he tries, Ashby cannot sweep all this valid scientific
> evidence under the rug.
> So this is my positive evidence.

What positive evidence Yuri? You need to provide DNA (read DNA not blood
groups) evidence showing sequence continuity of blood group genes in
archeological material between america and all parts of the pacific in
order to have a valid case. As I have pointed out, you cannot do this.
With present tools noone can do this. Without it you have no positive
evidence. Your inablity to see this only show your ignorance in sharper
> Now, on the other side of the ledger, if Ashby wants to make some sort of
> a valid case for the mainstream dogma, he would need to provide what I've
> asked him repeatedly, and what he failed to provide so far. 
> No, thank you, my memory is just fine. It is Ashby's memory and commitment
> to scientific method that are lacking. Because so far he COMPLETELY FAILED
> TO PROVIDE any recent mtDNA evidence WHATSOEVER that would invalidate
> Heyerdahl. I'm still waiting. Perhaps now it is good time for Ashby to
> give up his dishonest tactics?
> So where is any mtDNA evidence that goes against Heyerdahl? The only thing
> that Ashby provided so far is some evidence linking Polynesians with South
> China area, and showing that they may have ultimately derived from that
> area ca. 5000 years ago. But, as I've explained repeatedly, this does not
> really contradict Heyerdahl.

If you could READ Yuri you would realise that
 1. the subset of data which I found in the database is consisten with an
Asian origin for the polynesians. it is also consistent with the
mainstream archeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence.

2. The mtDNA evidence can in no way be interpreted as supporting
Heyerdahl. May I remind you that in response to my posting the mtDNA
evidecne YOU posted the blood group papers (1955 and 1972). It has been
explained to you ad nauseum why they are unreliable as evidence of
relatedness. your doged resitence in the face of the evidence merely shows
that you have no fallback position and are not man enough to admit when
you are wrong.

Until such time as you prove your abiltiy to understand the data in
general and genetics in particular I strongly suggest you drop this before
you get even more egg on your face.

Yours scientifically

Dr. P. Ashby BSc PhD

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

Reverse the spam and remove to email me.

More information about the Bioforum mailing list