Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk (Peter Ashby) wrote on 2 Oct 1998 17:10:39
GMT:
> In article <6v2un2$4k2$1 at whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku at globalserve.net
> (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> > 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.

You're being dishonest again. Group B does not just disappear "easily". 

> YOUR problem is to discount ALL of these
> influences in order to try and argue that lack of group B is definitive.

No, I have no problem. It is you who have a problem explaining how group B
could disappear.

> > 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.

Because you can't?

> YOU want to postulate a relatedness

I already did.

> so YOU have to explain away the factors I have
> outlined in order to continue to argue for relatedness.

You're the one who postulates an extraordinary event, i.e. the
disappearance of group B in Polynesians. Occam's Razor cuts out your silly
speculations very neatly.

> I was pointing out why blood groups may not be a good measure of
> relatedness in populations.

You have a better measure?

	...

> > 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),

Duh!

I never said you should "present evidence for the bottleneck". I said you
should explain _when and where your "extraordinary event"/bottleneck
happened on your theory_. Can't you read?

	...

> > 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...

[snip silly rant]

> I posted an explanation to you of why blood groups are an unreliable
> measure of relatdness.

You have a better measure?

> Another poster has done the same.

Baloney.

> I do not have to say that ANY of the possibilities happened.

Because you're a Newager?

> In order to continue to bang on about blood groups Yuri has to
> discount these factors.

Which factors? You've only presented some outlandish speculation so far,
and when pressed for details you launched in an ad hominem harangue.

> He can't. So he cannot use blood groups.

Would you recommend Crystal Divination then? Pyramid Power?

> > 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.

But this is NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST HEYERDAHL. Are you so slow-witted that
you still don't understand this???

> it is also consistent with the
> mainstream archeological, ethnographic and linguistic evidence.

So do they agree with Heyerdahl then?

> 2. The mtDNA evidence can in no way be interpreted as supporting
> Heyerdahl.

False. There's some limited mtDNA evidence supporting Heyerdahl. Do you
have holes in your memory? Because you've posted this evidence yourself!

> May I remind you that in response to my posting the mtDNA
> evidecne

How did it contradict Heyerdahl, you pathetic dishonest creature? When
will you stop lying?

> YOU posted the blood group papers (1955 and 1972).

Correct.

> It has been explained to you ad nauseum why they are unreliable as
> evidence of relatedness.

You have a better measure?

> 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.

You're babbling.

> 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.

You're a dishonest hypocrite.

Now, Mr. Ashby, perhaps you would like to give me the real reason why you
think it would have been TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Native S Americans to
travel to Easter Island. Is this because of your racism that you're trying
so hard to disguise?

Be honest for once...

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

Law of Probable Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan 
will not be evenly distributed.