🚀 go-pugleaf

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> : 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.
> 
> : That is why mitochodrial DNA is
> : used.
> 
> Used by who and for what?
> 
> : 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...
> 
> : 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]
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yuri.
> 
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
> 
> If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can sure
> make something out of you  -=O=-  Muhammad Ali

Well, you certainly are getting plenty of mileage out of those beloved 
old blood-group studies, Yuri. A couple of days ago you promised lots of 
osteological and DNA evidence connecting the Polynesians with the NW 
coast of North America. Instead, you offered....Simmons et al.! Blood 
groups! I pointed out that these studies do not relate specifically to 
that part of the Americas. I neglected to point out that neither are they 
osteological or DNA studies. May I take it from that that you don't know 
of any?

Ross Clark