Ashby dishonesty and bias (was: botanical facts

Ross Clark drc at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz
Sat Oct 3 23:56:19 EST 1998


Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> Ross Clark (drc at antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 02 Oct 1998 12:17:44 +1300:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> : 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.
> 
> What kinds of games is Ross trying to play here? He's complaining that I
> didn't give him information relating "_specifically_ to that particular
> part of the Americas". But meanwhile, here it was below!
> 
> The only thing that I can say here is... Duh!!!
> 
> : > 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?
> 
> Double Duh!!! Osteological evidence was explained there in the same
> post!
> 
> : > 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.
> 
> It seems like Ross is coming apart here... A Newager confronted with all
> this solid weight of scientific evidence. Perhaps you should go back to
> crystals, Ross? This meat is too tough for you...


Well, let's see what we've got so far. Yuri was to present *DNA* and 
*osteological* evidence linking the Polynesians specifically with the 
Kwakiutl or other peoples of the *NW Coast* of North America. 

What has been presented?

DNA evidence: Nil

Osteological evidence: "indicating that Polynesia was settled originally 
by more than one racial group". Sorry, not what was promised.

and, as a bonus, (surprise!) Blood Groups: indicating that the Kwakiutl, 
*like every other Amerindian group* have a very low instance of B.

In sum: No evidence at all of the type promised. Wouldn't it have saved 
time just to admit it?

Ross Clark



More information about the Bioforum mailing list