🚀 go-pugleaf

I congratulate Peter on acceptance (provisional) of his team's research by
a respected journal. For all I know, Peter may be quite good in his own
narrow area of genetic research. But unfortunately I will have to continue
to point out more errors in his posts. These errors are based on Peter's
apparent bias, and also perhaps on his lack of familiarity with wider
issues.

Peter Ashby (p-ashby@nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:53:31 +0000:
: In article <6vtlt8$1ir$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
: (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: > I accept that genetic drift is relevant. And yet this does not address the
: > question of likelihood of this being the cause of the phenomenon in
: > question -- of the lack of group B both among the Polynesians and among
: > Americans.

: The likelihood is not really the issue now is it?

The likelihood is very much at issue here. We're talking about real groups
of people in a clearly established chronological period. The probability
of a mutation that would account for the lack of group B both among the
Polynesians and among Amerindians can be calculated quite well, and it
seems extremely low.

Again, Peter doesn't seem to be able to grasp the complexities of the
situation at hand.

: You finally admit that
: genetic drift could have played a role, yet you want to diminish it

False. I merely wish to place it in a realistic context.

: so you
: bring up this hoary old chestnut. I reply again, unless you can show that
: NEITHER population was exposed to genetic drift, using blood groups is
: unreliable since you cannot rule out convergent evolution. 

This is nonsense. I accept the genetic drift, and yet I doubt it can
account for the phenomenon in question adequately.

: > You incompetence is very clear now. I have just reread Pelmont's post. In
: > his post he says NOTHING about the "ease" of such a change. OTOH, he
: > merely suggests a mechanism which _could be_ at work for such a change to
: > take place. In other words, Pelmont suggests that such a disappearance of
: > group B is possible, and outlines a mechanism for this. He says nothing
: > about it being "easy" or even probable in this case. His mechanism, as
: > outlined by him, was purely hypothetical, and he said nothing about it
: > being adequate to clarify our problem.

: Wake up to reality Yuri,

Been awake right from the start, unlike you.

: you are very nearly there. One further point,
: even if the blood groups are the same I would want to see the sequence
: data underlying the genes responsible since it is perfectly possible for
: two independent mutations at the DNA level to result in the same
: phenotype.

Nobody is stopping you from doing so.

	...

: > No, Peter, this is not how science works. You've made an assertion that
: > blood group evidence does not survive in archaeological remains. I've
: > challenged you on this, because I believe you're wrong. So it is now up to
: > you to show why your assertion is correct. Good luck.

: I made no such assertion as anyone who can read can tell.

So then you agree that blood group evidence survives in archaeological
remains?

So we don't have an argument then...

: > What's there for me to show? Your assertion seems nonsensical on the
: > surface of it. You mean like only new blood or tissue can be tested? Like
: > dried up blood or tissue from last year cannot be tested for blood group
: > identity? Where is your basic science?

: Where is your evidence?

Where's the problem with what I said?

	...

: > No, friend, this is not evidence. This is merely a ref. I along with Dr.
: > Cann do not consider this research as evidence that really contradicts
: > Heyerdahl.

: Yuri the reference reported results, data, this is evidence which is
: admissible in court unless you can find some fatal flaw (apart from 'I
: don't believe it'). You are however providing wonderful evidence for your
: not understanding the nature of scientific evidence.

Dr. Cann found problems with Bonatto et al's research.

	...

: > And also, I've already asked Peter to clarify some of the terribly
: > uninformed (and perhaps even arguably racist) things he said or implied
: > about Native Americans. Peter dismissed out of hand the navigational
: > abilities of Native Americans -- the abilities that are so amply attested
: > in the archaeological record. For some reason he declined to provide an
: > explanation...

: I have never stated or implied anything about the navigational abilities
: of Native americans.

Oh, good... So then you accept that it is probable that they came to
Easter Island?

: I have however said that I do not consider the
: evidence you have provided to be sufficient to show same.

Then please point out the problems with my evidence as you see them.

: Those are two
: completely different things.

???

: I don't believe that Native Americans flew to
: Mars in pre colombian times.

Red herring.

: Is this racist?

I certainly think that the bias against Native Americans is at least in
part responsible for the refusal of mainstream scholarship to accept the
truth about Native American sophistication as ocean sailors.

Now, Peter also wrote:

"You had a number of very knowledgeable people post detailed biological
reason why it is rather easy to change blood groups by genetic drift."

This is more of Peter's pseudo-science. Of course nobody except Peter
claimed that "it is rather easy to change blood groups by genetic drift".
It is not easy at all, and especially _on the time scale that is being
considered now_. And especially as relevant to group B.

The idea seems strange on the surface of it. So this whole tribe has group
B. How can a non-group B tribe derive from it? A freak mutation in one
individual can well be imagined. But if so, his offspring is back with
group B, since the freak mutation presumably did not affect his wife? What
kind of nonsense is Peter spouting?

His statement is absurd, because he needs to postulate a whole series of
extraordinary events for such a change to take place _in two unrelated
population groups_ in the relatively short time span (ca. 5000 years)
being considered. Hence pseudo-science.

In his post, Dr. Pelmont outlined how such an event _in one population
group_ might be possible. He certainly did not say it was probable or
likely in a short time span. He did not say that these events can happen
easily _in two unrelated population groups_.

And this is how he qualified his contribution:

"Probably blood group statistics must be used with extreme care before
conclusions be drawn about human migratory events, but I am aware that
other facts I do not know may exist and contradict this."

Because he's a real scientist, and unlike you he does not edge into
pseudo-science.

Speaking specifically about group B, now. Dominant genes like blood group
B, according to Mendel's law of inheritance, cannot totally disappear from
a family where they had once been present. Hence, events such as you
postulate, i.e. a disappearance of group B among the Polynesians, are
highly unlikely in a short time span, if at all. 

Group B is abundant in Melanesia, and this would go against the current
mainstream dogma that Polynesians derived from Melanesia.

Can I make it any clearer for you?

Also, other evidence supports me. Such as, it would be out of the question
that a parallel bogus "micro-evolution" also took place with the M-N-S,
Rhesus and all the other blood groups and physical features which combine
to form the Polynesian type and set it so markedly apart from the peoples
of the West Pacific.

You're spitting in the wind, Peter. You cannot stand against all this
weight of scientific evidence. That you would even try doesn't speak well
for your intelligence and/or professional competence.

All the above was simply meant to defend Heyerdahl's previous research.
This research was solid, but it was ignored by the mainstream. But now we
have the new mtDNA research as published by Dr. Cann et al that also
supports Heyerdahl.

Admit it, Peter, you don't have a case.

Regards,

Yuri.

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

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith