🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <76r4ih$3hn$1@whisper.globalserve.net>,
  yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> G Horvat (gisele@connect.ab.ca) wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 1999 09:04:50 GMT:
> : On 30 Dec 1998 19:26:23 GMT, yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
> : wrote:

 (snip)

> : Genetic Polymorphisms in Prehistoric Pacific Islanders  Determined by
> : Analysis of Ancient Bone DNA.
> : - Hagelberg, E.; Clegg, J.B. (E Hagelberg; Univ Oxford; John Radcliffe
> : Hosp; Inst Molec Med; MRC; Molec Haematol Unit; Oxford OX3 9DU,
> : England).
>

>
> In my view, this whole area of study is extremely confused. It is really
> difficult to see what's going on here, and the reason, I believe, is
> because of all the dishonesty and cover-ups so prevalent among
> professional Polynesianists.

 Everything that doesn't fully support your view is some sort of conspiracy
eh? Did it ever occur to you the reason it's confusing is because you don't
fully understand genetics or simply there isn't enough data in support or
against currently? Instead of saying it's "confused", why don't you DIRECTLY
ADRESS the points Hagelburg raised

> I've already pointed out the BASIC IRRATIONALITY of arguing about "Express
> Trains" vs "Entangled Banks" while _at the same time_ accepting the Lapita
> origin of Polynesians without question. This perhaps represents in a
> nutshell the basic DISCONNECTION of modern Polynesian anthropology from
> the real world.

 You and modern don''t go along well, yes?  I saw that when you were quoting
books from the 1930s and one from the 1880s to try and disprove some
anthropological points about Polynesia.....


                                    ---Oscar Schlaf---






-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own