🚀 go-pugleaf

Gerard Tromp (tromp@sanger.med.wayne.edu) wrote on Sun, 04 Oct 1998 17:51:01 -0400:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

: 	Could someone please summarize, succinctly, the genetic data in these
: arguments.

Dear Gerard,

I repost my summary further on.

The discussion about Heyerdahl's hypothesis re: human settlement of
Polynesia has been going on forever in sci.arch. There are many hundreds
of posts. Plenty of other evidence has been brought forward to back it up.
Especially the hypothesis about Easter Island to S America links has now
been basiclly confirmed. The best substantiation is botanical, but there's
a lot more of course, such as similar art styles, architecture,
ethnographic support, etc.

But the discussion of the genetic evidence is still quite new to us in
sci.arch.

: On the one hand we have some reference to a low
: representation of B blood groups (genetic isolates tend to have these
: biases),

This may be so. But in this case, do we assume that the Polynesians, and
the Native Americans are _both_ genetic isolates? Is such an assumption
justified?

: on the other some mtDNA evidence that I seem to have missed
: (perhpaps my newsfeed did not pick it up).

Well, Ashby did post something in sci.arch a while back. It is up to him
to summarize that evidence briefly. Why should I do his work for him?
Since that evidence hardly supported his extreme claims, perhaps that's
the reason he's slow to summarize it?

: What comprised the mtDNA
: data? What were the conclusions from the mtDNA data (I infer that it
: provides a link to the Asian population rather than that of the
: Americas). 

Your inference is correct. But this data certainly did not contradict
Heyerdahl's hypothesis.

: 	We seem to be getting an awful lot of hot air about this. As has been
: pointed out, allele frequencies at a particular locus are rather poor
: evidence of relatedness due to fluctuations over the time spans
: involved,

Well, maybe I don't have the best evidence of relatedness on my side. But
I maintain that what I have is better than what he has.

: one would have to take frequencies from a whole array of
: nuclear genes into consideration to ensure that selection at a given
: locus was not influential. Even then founder effects _could_ play havoc
: with the outcome when comparing distant relationships  in a pairwise
: manner (i.e. over long periods of time), and without intermediate data.

Sure, the founder effect needs to be considered. But, again, we are
postulating two extraordinary events (i.e. the loss of group B genes
happening twice in two populations) that are also supposed to be entirely
_unrelated_? This does not seem too easy to accept.

: As has also been pointed out, mtDNA evidence tends to be more useful for
: establishing distant relationships since it is prone to fewer selective
: pressures (most of the selective pressures occurred during the
: developement of early eukaryotes when mitochondria lost a number of
: genes whose function was assumeed by nuclear genes, leading to a rather
: minimal, asexual genome), and is transmitted linealy without
: recombination from mother to offspring.

Sure. But mtDNA evidence that disproves Heyerdahl seems to be conspicuous
by its absense so far.

Here are one summary and refs:

...[in 1955] R.T. Simmons, J.J. Graydon, et al. came back with a complete 
study of the A1-A2-B-O, M-N-S, Rh, P, Le(a), Fy(a) and K groups concluding
that there is a close blood genetic relationship between American Indians 
and Polynesians, and that no similar relationship is evident when         
Polynesians are compared with Melanesians, Micronesians and Indonesians,  
except mainly in adjacent areas of direct contact. This important         
conclusion was finally confirmed in 1972 by an international work group   
composed of E. and Anne Thorsby, J. Colombiani et al. (Heyerdahl, EARLY   
MAN AND THE OCEAN, 1978, pp. 158-9)                                       
                                                                          
Simmons, R.T., et al., A BLOOD GROUP GENETICAL SURVEY IN COOK             
ISLANDERS, POLYNESIA, AND COMPARISONS WITH AMERICAN INDIANS, American     
Journal of Anthropology, New Series 13 (4) (Dec., 1955).                  
Philadelphia.                                                             
                                                                          
Thorsby, E., Colombani, J., Dausset, Ja., Figueroa, J., and Thorsby,      
A., HL-A BLOOD GROUP AND SERUM TYPE POLYMORPHISM OF NATIVES ON EASTER     
ISLAND, Histocompatibility Testing 1972 (1973). Copenhagen.               

And here's another summary of mine:

From: yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 2 Oct 1998 16:24:02 GMT

The following is based on Heyerdahl, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC.

B and AB factors, very common in South Asia, are completely absent or very
low in the blood of Native Americans, as well as Polynesians. This is a
very important datum. This should indicate strongly that Polynesians came
from the East, i.e. from America.

Specifically, among the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, there is only .6% of
B, and no AB. (p. 88, AMERICAN INDIANS IN THE PACIFIC) This corresponds
very closely with eastern Polynesians and NZ Maoris.

So this looks like very good evidence to me already.

But there's still more. As Heyerdahl shows, 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 confirm that Polynesians spread out from America. This
evidence suggests that Polynesians acquired these groups in a small way
later through intermarriage with Melanesians. In Samoa, B is actually
quite high. So my (Heyerdahl's) hypothesis accomodates this evidence very
easily indeed. On my hypothesis, Polynesians did not have B in their
homeland (British Columbia), and then acquired it later after arriving to
Western Polynesia.

So what Ashby would need to explain is how his hypothesis, if he has one,
would accomodate the existing evidence for group B distribution throughout
Polynesia, i.e. absense of group B in the Eastern Polynesia, and the
increase of group B in the Western Polynesia. Did the Polynesians continue
to lose B factor gradually as they were approaching the American
continent? But this is impossible and is beginning to sound ever more like
Psychic Science. The neck of your bottle is beginning to look awful wide
here, Ashby...

And also of course Ashby would need to provide some sort of a model for
why the American Indians are also lacking group B. Good luck!

However much he tries, Ashby cannot sweep all this valid scientific
evidence under the rug.

So this is my positive evidence.

Now, on the other side of the ledger, if Ashby wants to make some sort of
a valid case for the mainstream dogma, he would need to provide what I've
asked him repeatedly, and what he failed to provide so far. 

No, thank you, my memory is just fine. It is Ashby's memory and commitment
to scientific method that are lacking. Because so far he COMPLETELY FAILED
TO PROVIDE any recent mtDNA evidence WHATSOEVER that would invalidate
Heyerdahl. I'm still waiting.

So where is any mtDNA evidence that goes against Heyerdahl? The only thing
that Ashby provided so far is some evidence linking Polynesians with South
China area, and showing that they may have ultimately derived from that
area ca. 5000 years ago. But, as I've explained repeatedly, this does not
really contradict Heyerdahl.

Best regards,
                                                                        
Yuri.                                                                   
                                                                        
-----                                                                   
Here you will find solid archaeological evidence for Easter Island to   
South America links in ancient times, including some very revealing     
images:                                                                 
                                                                        
http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku                                        
                                                                        
So why are so many professional scholars afraid to deal with this
evidence? What do they have to hide?