🚀 go-pugleaf

Wade Workman (wade@kuentos.guam.net) wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 1998 02:07:43 +1000:

: The primary problem with discussing the initial introduction of plant
: species in Eastern Polynesia is two-fold: (1) there is no conclusive
: evidence of outward bound influence from South American _human_ travelers to
: account for the presence of these species; 

This is circular logic, Wade. The plants are themselves CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE. Much other evidence also exists. So what kind of other evidence
do you need?

: (2) there is no conclusive
: evidence of Oceanic voyagers reaching the New World then returning;

So?

: and, (3)
: there is no palynological evidence for introduction of the plants in
: question before human settlement of Eastern Polynesia.

How do you know? I think you're wrong.

: The essence of science is to eschew belief in favor of what is observable.

So give up your silly beliefs then! Because they collide with reality.

: At present the data most strongly supports a progression of colonization and
: diversification in Oceania from the west. 

False.

: While it is perfectly acceptable
: to say that South Americans might have colonized Eastern Polynesia based on
: proximity, the cultural material, inferred sociological, and linguistic data
: make such a possibility highly unlikely -at present.

I think there's only racism that still stands in the way of accepting all
this abundant evidence. The bias against Native Americans and their
cultural achievements.

: While I understand Yuri's zealousness, I fail to understand his inability to
: accept other possibilities. 

That's because you're biased.

: Archaeology is not about the search for truth,
: that is not possible given the cognitive distance of contemporary cultures
: and the lack of sufficient technology to travel back in time and make direct
: observation.  All "we" can do is state what we belief in the face of
: verifiable and accepted evidence.  If, in the future,

The future is NOW!!!

: reliable data
: indicates a South American origin for the people of Polynesia I will test
: it, question it, and report on it in the same way as I do now for the
: current _best guess_ of settlement from the west.  This is not a question of
: any one person's ego or belief, this is a question of what can be best
: supported.  Theories are constantly in flux.  Arguments based on defense of
: one's belief is not science, but simply a roadblock to understanding.

You must be looking in the mirror, Wade...

: That Thor Heyerdahl is mistaken is, given the current weight of
: archaeological and linguistic data, almost a given. 

False.

: Polynesian languages in
: no way shape or form resemble the indigenous languages of South America.

And nobody said they do! You see how ignorant you are?

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?