Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts
yuku at globalserve.net
Fri Oct 2 13:27:27 EST 1998
p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk (Peter Ashby) wrote on 2 Oct 1998 17:10:39
> 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
> > 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),
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.
> 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
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
How did it contradict Heyerdahl, you pathetic dishonest creature? When
will you stop lying?
> 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.
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
> 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...
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Law of Probable Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan
will not be evenly distributed.
More information about the Bioforum