🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6utr22$alv$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
|> Peter Ashby (p-ashby@nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on 29 Sep 1998 11:43:06 GMT:
|> : yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
|> 
|> 	...
|> 
|> : >So tell me, phoney, Have the Polynesians now developed
|> : >Group B in their blood since 1972? Why else would you dismiss this
|> : >evidence sight unseen?
|> 
|> : I have gone over this before but here we go again. Blood groups are a very
|> : coarse measure of relatedness for reasons I have explained to you before.
|> 
|> And this indicates to me that this evidence is being ignored by the
|> mainstream because of bias. 
|> 
|> Coarse is good. Nothing wrong with coarse if it provides clear answers.

But in this case, "coarse" means it doesnt provide clear anwsers.
Didn't Peter mention genetic drift?


|> : Besides they are no good for archwological material since proteins do not
|> : survive for very long. Even the sequence of the blood group genes is not
|> : very useful (but better than simple blood groups) since genomic DNA does
|> : not survive in archeological material.
|> 
|> This is irrelevant. Again, you're being dishonest. None of these arguments
|> invalidate this research IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

The results?  No.  the conclusion that they unambiguously support
Heyerdahl?  If one goes to the primary sources, It's not clear they
ever did: the resolution and specificity of the blood-group info is
too coarse.  (my that sounds achingly familiar by now).


|> : That is why mitochodrial DNA is
|> : used.
|> 
|> Used by who and for what?

By people doing DNA surveys. (well, lets not talk about noncoding or
drifting sequences in protists, OK?)

Dont you know the first thing about DNA surveys? Mitochondrial Eve?


|> : It survives well in old bones (cf Neanderthal results in Nature
|> : recently) and can be easily measured in modern populations.
|> 
|> Too bad that it does not support you, though...

Huh?

|> : Banging on
|> : about blood groups in lieu of a proper response to the modern evidence
|> : only serves to display your ignorance.
|> 
|> You're a disgusting hypocrite. None of your dishonest and silly antics
|> have done anything to invalidate this evidence.
|> 
|> Here it is again for those who may be interested.
|> 
|> [quote]
|> 
|> ...[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.               
|>                                                                           
|> [end quote]                                                               

The important part in the quote is
    ``Heyerdahl, EARLY MAN AND THE OCEAN''.

Have you read the original articles?  Is Heyerdahl's precis accurate
and complete?  We know his methods by now, Yuri.


|> I still don't understand how this data has been invalidated and by who.
|> Ashby only explained so far why this evidence _might_ lack validity. He's
|> never addressed the evidence beyond his usual wouldas-couldas.

Read the originals, read what Peter wrote, and think again.