Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts
yuku at globalserve.net
Fri Oct 2 11:24:02 EST 1998
Peter Ashby (p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) 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
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?
The following rephrases what I wrote yesterday, based on Heyerdahl,
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 should indicate strongly that Polynesians came
from the East, i.e. from America.
Specifically, among the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, there is only .6% of
B, and no AB. (p. 88, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC) This corresponds
very closely with eastern Polynesians and NZ Maoris.
So this looks like very good evidence to me already.
But there's still more. As Heyerdahl shows, 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 confirm that Polynesians spread out from America. This
evidence suggests that Polynesians acquired these groups in a small way
later through intermarriage with Melanesians. In Samoa, B is actually
quite high. So my (Heyerdahl's) hypothesis accomodates this evidence very
easily indeed. On my hypothesis, Polynesians did not have B in their
homeland (British Columbia), and then acquired it later after arriving to
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?
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
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.
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.
Put up or shut up, Ashby.
THE KING IS NAKED!!!
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
More information about the Bioforum