genetic facts [was: Ashby, botanical facts
p-ashby at nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk
Fri Oct 23 12:28:34 EST 1998
In article <70q7bu$iig$1 at whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku at globalserve.net
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> Paul D. Roughan (pdr27 at csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998
> : 2)could you include the method and data parts of the Hagelberg article
> : in your web page. I for one, as an interested islander, would like to
> : see the actual data, which you have not included.
> Well, if someone will send it to me, I will include it. I don't have this
> data at this time.
> But more importantly, I have no problem with Hagelberg's methodology and
> conclusions. I'm certainly _not_ contesting them. All I'm saying is that
> his conclusions were widely misinterpreted as opposing Heyerdahl. In fact,
> logically, THEY DO NOT oppose Heyerdahl.
You are using some very strange logic then Yuri. For someone who claims
undergratduate philosophy your logic is very suspect. Logic is one of the
first things taught in an undergrad philosophy course.
> : 3)why would mtDNA be any less reliable than blood group data?
> I say no such thing.
> : At least
> : mtDNA is strictly maternally inherited, so easier to analyse for genetic
> : patterns.
> Agreed. I also have latest mtDNA research by Dr. Cann that provides
> support for Heyerdahl.
Yuri, do you think that no one else read Ross and Bernard's recent posts?
Or are you simply going to sail happily on spouting halftruths? The quotes
from Cann & Lum quite clearly show that 1. you have at best misrepresented
them and 2. They provide no support for Heyerdahl at all. The closest they
come is to call for more open mindedness, that is not a call to embrace
Heyerdahl. Repeating your falsehoods in the face of the evidence merely
serves to reinforce that you are not interested in the reality of the
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.
Reverse the spam and remove to email me.
More information about the Bioforum