🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Ashby (p-ashby@nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on 2 Oct 1998 20:07:08 GMT:
: In article <6v35uf$9bv$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
: (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

: > You're being dishonest again. Group B does not just disappear "easily". 

: I didn't say it disappeared easily, again stop twisting my words, other
: people can read you know. I said that the disappearance can be easily
: *accounted for* that is an entirely different thing. The disappearance
: takes time obviously, although selective death on a voyage could EASILY do
: the same thing quite quickly.

Obviously you're postulating an extraordinary event here. But as always,
you refuse to provide a clear historical scenario for such a
disappearance. This is your weakness.

[Peter:]
: > > I don't have to explain the lack of B in Native Americans.
: > 
: > Because you can't?

: No, because I have no interest in native americans in this context

What???

You have "no interest in native americans" in the context of discussing
possible Native American derivation of Polynesians? How's this for logic?

: and I
: do not postulate relatedness.

But I do.

: But if you insist I am quite prepared to
: suggest (suggest note) that the self same processes of genetic drift could
: easily have resulted in no group B there either.

Two such extraorinary events that are _completely unrelated_? How's this
for logic? Occam's Razor, anyone?

: Anyway the whole debate
: is sterile simply because we have no good evidence that the ultimate (note
: ultimate) ancestors of both groups HAD group B.

Yes, it is also quite possible that the Asian source population of Native
Americans did not have group B at the time peoples migrated to America. In
this case there are limited number of possible scenarios that should be
pretty easy to itemize, and among which the most likely should be
relatively easy to select. 

The fact that you describe this debate as "sterile" adds weight to you
being a Newager who is trying to run from the scientific deductive method.

	...

: > > I was pointing out why blood groups may not be a good measure of
: > > relatedness in populations.
: > 
: > You have a better measure?

: you know damn well I do.

No, you don't.

: Anyone else care reminding Yuri about mtDNA
: because I'm finding it tiresome.

Except mtDNA certainly does not contradict Heyerdahl. This is your big
problem, and you're still trying to dance around it, instead of admitting
it honestly.

: > 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?

: I don't care when, where or even if it happened.

So you're being evasive on purpose?

: The point is it is
: entirely possible it happened,

Happened twice?

: we don't and can't know the blood group of
: ancient peoples and so the whole blood group debate is ultimately
: pointless.

That's because you've lost it?

	...

: > >  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???

: But neither is it FOR him Yuri.

Fine, perhaps not. 

Since nobody to my knowledge has yet tried to investigate this particular
connection using mtDNA, it is not surprising in the least that no clear
confirmation exists. But it just may come if and when someone decides to
investigate?

Meanwhile, if you have any familiarity with scientific method, you should
know that such negative evidence as you have on your side has very limited
significance.

: > False. There's some limited mtDNA evidence supporting Heyerdahl. Do you
: > have holes in your memory? Because you've posted this evidence yourself!

: As I pointed out at the time (and don't call me a liar Deja News can prove
: it) it is inconsistent with Heyerdahls scenario of pacific colonization.

This is false. Please present evidence for your claim.

: The numbers are against you.

How so?

	...

: > 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?

: I have never (note: never) said it would have been, even simply,
: impossible.

Fine, I stand corrected.

: In keeping with my rationalist philosophy I said It was the
: least probable scenario. 

I would like you to explain this. Which other valid scenarios have you
considered? On what do you base your opinion?

: I think this because the totality of the
: evidence leads me to that conclusion.

Please explain.

: Until such time as you come up with
: some evidence

Evidence for Ancient American navigation? Here it is

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/tran/tnav.htm

: worthy of the name or a descent, abuse free, refutation of
: modern genetics

Obvious red herring. Is this all you have to support you? 

I have the highest regard for modern genetics. And yet it does not help
your case against Heyerdahl. How many times do I have to repeat the same
thing for it finally to sink in into your biased brain?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
                                                           
Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of   
politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre