🚀 go-pugleaf

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> 
> > Peter Ashby (p-ashby@nimr.MAPS.mrc.ac.uk) wrote on 5 Oct 1998 21:03:48 GMT:
> >
> {Yuri said}
> > Rebecca L. Cann and J.K. Lum are the scholars who are supporting
> > Polynesian -- American links recently based on DNA. They have studied the
> > DNA of living Pacific populations and compared their findings to the DNA
> > of native Americans. They found that several mitochondrial DNA lineages
> > occur both in the Pacific area and among Amerindians.
> >
> > Bonatto et al. actually AGREE with Cann & Lum on this. So this is very
> > significant.
> 
> Yuri, I can make no judgement from this. References please. Title,
> Journal, date, volume, page number.
> 
> >
> > And thus, your game is up, Peter. Certainly the latest DNA finding cannot
> > be seen as contradicting Heyerdahl. Supporting him is more like it.
> 
> Yet again you demonstrate your fundamental misuderstanding of the nature
> of evidence and proof. You even admit yourself that they can be
> interpreted in more than one way. I really am almost ready to give up on
> you. I originally entered this debate because you cross posted to
> soc.culture.new-zealand and your use of science was so appalling I
> couldn't let it pass. I thought (naivly) that I could point out the error
> of your ways and improve your reasoning. It is obvious that my mission has
> been doomed from the start. There are none so blind as them who will not
> see.
> 
> Yours pessimistically
> 
> Dr. Peter Ashby
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> again with a library.:
> 
> J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
> and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
> *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.
> 
> The bottom line is that both mt-DNA and STR data support an Asian origin
> for Pacific Island (including Rapa Nui) populations. The end of the
> abstract says: �These results are consistent with an initial settlement of
> Remote Oceania from island Southeast Asia [New Guinea, Australia] and with
> extensive postcolonization male-biased gene flow from Near Oceania.�
> 
> As usual it is always nice to read the original source rather than
> someone�s tendentious summary. There is no evidence that Cann supports
> Amerindian migration to Oceania. What is needed is a direct quote to that
> effect from Cann.
> 
> --
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano


Thanks for the more recent reference, Bernard. I've had a chance to look 
at a couple of the papers referred to earlier, and I thought I'd add some 
quotes since Yuri is now talking as if this research "supports 
Heyerdahl".

J.Koh Lum, Olga Rickards, Clara Ching and Rebecca L.Cann, Polynesian 
mitochondrial DNAs reveal three deep maternal lineage clusters. Human 
Biology, August 1994, vol.66, no.4, pp.567-590.

[From the Abstract] Major Group I lineages are common in Remote Oceania 
and include about 95% of the Native Hawaiians, 90% of the Samoan, and 
100% of the Tongan donors in our sample...This group also contains 
non-Polynesian individuals, such as Indonesians, Native Americans, 
Micronesians, Malaysians, Japanese and Chinese....Group II individuals 
are seen at low frequency (<10%) in Hawaii, Samoa and the Cook Islands 
and may represent the predominant maternal lineage group of Papuan 
Melanesia. Major lineage group III, not found in Hawaii, tentatively 
links Samoa to Indonesia. Our observation of deep maternal genetic 
branches in Polynesia today confirms the notion that during the 
colonization of the Pacific, mainland Asian immigrants mixed with 
Melanesian peoples already inhabiting Near Oceania and carried a complex 
assortment of maternal genotypes derived from two distinct geographic 
sources to isolated island archipelagoes.

[And an interesting passage from the text:]

Finally, the South American sweet potato is found throughout Polynesia, 
raising the question of two-way voyaging from Polynesia or drift voyaging 
from the west coast of South America.... The presence of flotsam from 
North America in Polynesia and demonstration rafting from South America 
indicate that some limited contact may have been possible between eastern 
Polynesia and the Americas. Currently, there is a lack of compelling 
evidence from archeology, linguistics, or genetics that supports this 
idea. (582)

J.Koh Lum and Rebecca L.Cann, mtDNA and language support a common origin 
of Micronesians and Polynesians in Island Southeast Asia. Am.J. Phys. 
Anthro. 105:109-119 (1998)

We interpret these results as support of a rapid colonization of Remote 
Oceania by a closely related group of Austronesian-speaking populations 
from Island Southeast Asia. Following this initial settlement extensive 
gene flow occurred between these recent migrants and neighboring people 
from Island Southeast Asia and Papuan speaking Melanesians without major 
impact on the established linguistic relationships. (117)


Sandro L.Bonatto, Allan J.Redd, Francisco M.Salzano and Mark Stoneking, 
Lack of ancient Polynesian-Amerindian contact, Am.J.Hum.Genet. 59:253-256 
(1996).

Therefore, all the shared sequences between Polynesians and Amerindians 
are much more likely explained as a retention of ancestral Asian 
sequences by both descendant populations than by an ancestral or recent 
post-divergence admixture.
...
In conclusion, the presence of the B lineage and the matching of three 
other sequences between Polynesians and Amerindians probably reflect a 
shared Asian origin rather than direct contact. Nevertheless, these 
results do not rule out the possibilities of still-undetected minor 
contact and nonmaternal genetic exchange. (255)

R.L.Cann and J.K.Lum, Mitochondrial myopia: Reply to Bonatto et al. 
Am.J.Hum.Genet. 59:256-258 (1996)

...the question of whether there was limited gene flow between Native 
Americans and Oceanic populations is unresolved. Rather than make 
dogmatic statements, we feel that it is better to encourage the open 
exploration of this debate, with more genetic markers and the use of data 
already in the literature. (258)

-------------------------------------------

To sum up what Cann & Lum and the other researchers seem to be saying: 
- The mtDNA studies support the conventional view of Polynesians as 
coming from SE Asia with some Melanesian genetic input. 
- Connections between Polynesian and Amerindian groups most likely 
reflect their common Asian origin rather than recent contact.
- The possibility of more recent contact cannot be absolutely ruled out, 
but at the moment it is not clearly supported by any positive evidence.

Ross Clark

In article <362C0E6A.476@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>, Ross Clark
<drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> > again with a library.:
> > 
Snip Data> > 
> > --
> > Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> 
> 
> Thanks for the more recent reference, Bernard. I've had a chance to look 
> at a couple of the papers referred to earlier, and I thought I'd add some 
> quotes since Yuri is now talking as if this research "supports 
> Heyerdahl".
> 
Snip Data> 
> To sum up what Cann & Lum and the other researchers seem to be saying: 
> - The mtDNA studies support the conventional view of Polynesians as 
> coming from SE Asia with some Melanesian genetic input. 
> - Connections between Polynesian and Amerindian groups most likely 
> reflect their common Asian origin rather than recent contact.
> - The possibility of more recent contact cannot be absolutely ruled out, 
> but at the moment it is not clearly supported by any positive evidence.
> 
> Ross Clark

Thankyou Bernard and Ross, our library doesn't carry Am.J.Hum.Genet. and I
couldn't justify using lab funds for an interloan. It is always nice to be
able to read original quotes rather than someone's interpretation. 

So Yuri, it seems that Cann & Lum were arguing for an open mind to be kept
on the subject pending more data rather than agreeing with Heyerdahl. I
can only heartily agree with them as that is what science is all about,
going with the majority of the data but being prepared to keep an open
mind for WHATEVER new data comes along. Whither now your much vaunted
genetic evidence Yuri?

Peter

-- 
Peter Ashby
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.
London

Reverse the spam and remove to email me.

In article <70jba0$k2c$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote on Mon, 19 Oct
1998 15:40:20 -0500:
> 
> : Peter,
> 
> : Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> : again with a library.:
> 
> : J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
> : and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
> : *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.
> 
> Very nice of you, Bernard. But you've missed the very same reference being
> posted here already a few times, both by me, and by Peter, who apparently
> forgot about it right after he posted it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yuri.
> 

The point is that you were misquoting the reference. Cann and Lum do *not*
support the god Heyerdahl.
Regards

> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
> 
> "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
> if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
>                 -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

-- 
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

In article <362D3ECC.4090@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>, Ross Clark
<drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:

> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > 
> > Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote on Mon, 19
Oct 1998 15:40:20 -0500:
> > 
> > : Peter,
> > 
> > : Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> > : again with a library.:
> > 
> > : J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
> > : and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
> > : *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.
> > 
> > Very nice of you, Bernard. But you've missed the very same reference being
> > posted here already a few times, both by me, and by Peter, who apparently
> > forgot about it right after he posted it.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Yuri.
> > 
> > Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
> > 
> > "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
> > if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
> >                 -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"
> 
> 
> Yuri, you'll have to be more careful if you are going to try to score 
> cheap points. A search of deja news indicates that the paper cited by 
> Bernard has not been mentioned by anyone previously in this discussion -- 
> not by you, not by Peter, not by anybody else. Citing literature without 
> reading the papers would be par for the course, but I thought at least 
> you would read the citations....

Thanks, Ross

> 
> Now about the content of these papers: You will stop saying they "support 
> Heyerdahl" now, won't you?
> 
> Ross Clark

-- 
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote on Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:40:20 -0500:

: Peter,

: Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
: again with a library.:

: J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
: and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
: *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.

Very nice of you, Bernard. But you've missed the very same reference being
posted here already a few times, both by me, and by Peter, who apparently
forgot about it right after he posted it.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
                -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote on Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:40:20 -0500:
> 
> : Peter,
> 
> : Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> : again with a library.:
> 
> : J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
> : and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
> : *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.
> 
> Very nice of you, Bernard. But you've missed the very same reference being
> posted here already a few times, both by me, and by Peter, who apparently
> forgot about it right after he posted it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Yuri.
> 
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
> 
> "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
> if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
>                 -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"


Yuri, you'll have to be more careful if you are going to try to score 
cheap points. A search of deja news indicates that the paper cited by 
Bernard has not been mentioned by anyone previously in this discussion -- 
not by you, not by Peter, not by anybody else. Citing literature without 
reading the papers would be par for the course, but I thought at least 
you would read the citations....

Now about the content of these papers: You will stop saying they "support 
Heyerdahl" now, won't you?

Ross Clark

Ross Clark (drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:54:20 +1300:

: Yuri, you'll have to be more careful if you are going to try to score 
: cheap points. A search of deja news indicates that the paper cited by 
: Bernard has not been mentioned by anyone previously in this discussion -- 
: not by you, not by Peter, not by anybody else.

My mistake, Ross, sorry. I was careless in my reply. Actually Bernard
posted the most recent ref of which I was unaware.

Of course, knowing Bernard's track record, I will not expect him to
apologize for his false accusation that I did not supply adequate
references previously. I certainly supplied such refs.

: Now about the content of these papers: You will stop saying they "support 
: Heyerdahl" now, won't you?

Yes, you're right again. To be more precise, I should have said "Dr.
Cann's research provides support for Heyerdahl". This is the situation as
I see it.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

Reality is that which, when you stop believing 
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

> In article <70jba0$k2c$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
> (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> > Bernard Ortiz de Montellano (bortiz@earthlink.net) wrote on Mon, 19 Oct
> 1998 15:40:20 -0500:
> >
> > : Peter,
> >
> > : Obviously Yuri did not want to give you a cite. I finally got connected
> > : again with a library.:
> >
> > : J. Lum, R.L. Cann, J.J. Martinson, and L.B. Jorde. 1998. �Mitochondrial
> > : and Nuclear Relationships among Pacific Island and Asian Populations�
> > : *American Journal of Hman Genetics* 63:613-624.
> >
> > Very nice of you, Bernard. But you've missed the very same reference being
> > posted here already a few times, both by me, and by Peter, who apparently
> > forgot about it right after he posted it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Yuri.
> >
>
> The point is that you were misquoting the reference. Cann and Lum do *not*
> support the god Heyerdahl.
> Regards
>
> > Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
> >
> > "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
> > if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
> >                 -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"
>
> --
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

  I have to agree. This from 'Civilization', the magazine of the Library of
Congress (mar-april 1996).  The article is titled "Mapping the Past"
 "Slowly but surely, researchers like Kolman are rewriting history. In the
Pacific, scientists are tracing the genetic trail left by the ancient mariners
who settled Polynesia, finding evidence of a journey that began in Southeast
Asia nearly 4,000 years ago- and sinking for good the widely publicized theories
of Thor Heyerdahl,  who sailed the balsa raft Kon Tiki from Peru to the Tuamotu
Archipelago to "prove" that American Indians had settled the Pacific. And, in
disproving Heyerdahl, the geneticists have found evidence of the Polynesians'
traditional sagas, which speak of their ancestors' frequent voyages between
Hawaii and Tahiti in huge ocean-going canoes."
  So, while the genetic evidence against Heyerdahl is strong as to origins and
directions of migrations,  the same evidence seems to support Heyerdahls
estimation of the maritime abilities of ancient Polynesians. The next paragraph
of the article is haunting.
          "Archaeologists kept saying that it was impossible, that it was just a
story people told," says Rebecca Cann, a geneticist at the University of Hawaii.
"But by doing a very fine analysis of the DNA, we've seen that there is in fact
one very common cosmopolitan lineage that's spread throughout the Pacific,
[which] could only have happened if people were in constant physical contact.
The idea that these islands were so isolated is really a foreign invention.  The
Polynesians used the ocean as a superhighway."
  Computer simulations (Levison, Ward and Webb, 1973)  heavily indicate that the
colonizations were purposeful. That this "cosmopolitan lineage" was in constant
physical contact is also shown by G. Irwin (1980) who noted the radical shift in
canoe technology from ocean-going, to inter-island about 1000 AD. As he noted,
"we are faced with the situation that once every scrap of land in the Pacific
had been settled, the process (colonization) stopped."
  Is there any reason, given the purposefullness and maritime prowess of this
Austronesian lineage, to suppose that Easter Island was the easternmost point of
their voyages?
                                                   Duncan

In article <362FCE0B.8E9E17@king.cts.com>, Duncan Craig
<dunkers@king.cts.com> wrote:

>   So, while the genetic evidence against Heyerdahl is strong as to origins and
> directions of migrations,  the same evidence seems to support Heyerdahls
> estimation of the maritime abilities of ancient Polynesians. 

Heyerdahl was certainly *not* the pioneer or a controversial advocate for
the navigating and sailing ability of *Polynesians*. This was and is quite
the *establishment* view. What Heyerdahl and his disciples here advocate,
and are disputed, is the sailing capacities of *South Americans*

-- 
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> Ross Clark (drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote on Wed, 21 Oct 1998 14:54:20 +1300:
> 
> : Yuri, you'll have to be more careful if you are going to try to score
> : cheap points. A search of deja news indicates that the paper cited by
> : Bernard has not been mentioned by anyone previously in this discussion --
> : not by you, not by Peter, not by anybody else.
> 
> My mistake, Ross, sorry. I was careless in my reply. Actually Bernard
> posted the most recent ref of which I was unaware.
> 
> Of course, knowing Bernard's track record, I will not expect him to
> apologize for his false accusation that I did not supply adequate
> references previously. I certainly supplied such refs.
> 
> : Now about the content of these papers: You will stop saying they "support
> : Heyerdahl" now, won't you?
> 
> Yes, you're right again. To be more precise, I should have said "Dr.
> Cann's research provides support for Heyerdahl". This is the situation as
> I see it.
> 

Well, the distinction between "supports Heyerdahl" and "provides support 
for Heyerdahl" may need some explaining.

Ross Clark

In article <362EBB23.779B@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz>, Ross Clark <drc@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> writes:

[snip]

|> Well, the distinction between "supports Heyerdahl" and "provides support 
|> for Heyerdahl" may need some explaining.


Um. If you started with the beleif that Heyerdahl's theories are
already "proven" by the diffusion of sweet potato, and then read only
the with a jaundiced eye, it might, perhaps, be taken that way...

In your web page, you present Heyerdahl's qoute:

     ...our expedition doctor, Emil Gjessing, sampled blood from all
     those islanders who, according to Father Sebastian [the long
     time island priest who was very knowledgeable about the history
     of the island], were of pure local lineage.

You then contest Hagelberg's tests on the basis of their being of
late-period skeletal remains.

However, Heyerdahl has only 'a very knowledgeable' priest to rely on for
the racial purity of his samples.  I wouldn't trust the priest more than
the skeletal remains.  I have several questions:

1)why are there no 'old' skeletons left?
2)could you include the method and data parts of the Hagelberg article
in your web page.  I for one, as an interested islander, would like to
see the actual data, which you have not included. 
3)why would mtDNA be any less reliable than blood group data? At least
mtDNA is strictly maternally inherited, so easier to analyse for genetic
patterns.
4)What is your interest in EI and SA?  Are you SA in origin, or closely
affiliated.  I sense a strong motivation for your posts, and am
interested to see how it has arisen.

Regards
-- 
Paul D. Roughan
Department of Plant and Microbial Sciences
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch, NZ
Ph: (643)348-2567
Fax: (643) 364-2083
email: pdr27@student.canterbury.ac.nz

Has anyone seriously proposed a hypothesis of polynesian origins in SE
Asia, travel to SA, and subsequent return voyages?

Or:

SA arrival at EI first, followed by polynesian arrival,
warfare/assimilation and continued contact with the rest of Polynesia.  
EI (to this amateur) seems impervious to one-origin analysis - 'South
America OR SE Asia'.  Of course, its a lot harder to falsify this sort
of hypothesis, which may be too close to 'ad hoc-ness' for scientific
enquiry.

Regards
--

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:

> In article <362FCE0B.8E9E17@king.cts.com>, Duncan Craig
> <dunkers@king.cts.com> wrote:
>
> >   So, while the genetic evidence against Heyerdahl is strong as to origins and
> > directions of migrations,  the same evidence seems to support Heyerdahls
> > estimation of the maritime abilities of ancient Polynesians.
>
> Heyerdahl was certainly *not* the pioneer or a controversial advocate for
> the navigating and sailing ability of *Polynesians*. This was and is quite
> the *establishment* view. What Heyerdahl and his disciples here advocate,
> and are disputed, is the sailing capacities of *South Americans*
>
> --
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano

  I'm sorry if I gave that impression...should have said 'navigating and sailing
ability of ancient peoples". I was refering to Dr. Cann's metaphor of the Pacific as
a "superhighway." There are a few episodes of experimental archaeology;  the attempt
to replicate St. Brendhans crossing of the Atlantic in a skin raft; the scandinavian
recreation of the Chinese monk Hui-sen crossing the Pacific (Tai Ki), the journey to
Tahiti and back of the Hawaiian canoe Hokule'a, as well as Thors' reed boat
journeys. ...all had their genesis in oral or written sources that were outside the
"establishment view".  As much as I may disagree with Heyerdahls theories, he, and
the men of the aforementioned voyages, have valuable contributions to make to
archaeology.  Men who put their theories and asses in flimsy archaic watercraft and
sail the oceans are bound to attract disciples, especially in an established world
fixated on safety and comfort.
Duncan

Duncan Craig (dunkers@king.cts.com) wrote on Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:30:03 -0700:

:   I have to agree. This from 'Civilization', the magazine of the Library of
: Congress (mar-april 1996).  The article is titled "Mapping the Past"
:  "Slowly but surely, researchers like Kolman are rewriting history. In the
: Pacific, scientists are tracing the genetic trail left by the ancient mariners
: who settled Polynesia, finding evidence of a journey that began in Southeast
: Asia nearly 4,000 years ago-

Fine by me. I see no problem with this.

: and sinking for good the widely publicized theories
: of Thor Heyerdahl, 

One more example of clued out journalists who have not done their basic
homework. If this nerd only bothered to read Heyerdahl, he would not be
spouting such nonsense. Because Heyerdahl _accepted_ the ultimate Asian
derivation of Polynesians. He only suggested that they first came from
Asia to America, following the currents and winds prevalent in the area.

: who sailed the balsa raft Kon Tiki from Peru to the Tuamotu
: Archipelago to "prove" that American Indians had settled the Pacific.

His trip alone certainly did not prove so much. But his scientific
research, that goes mostly unread, is a different matter.

: And, in
: disproving Heyerdahl,

False.

: the geneticists have found evidence of the Polynesians'
: traditional sagas, which speak of their ancestors' frequent voyages between
: Hawaii and Tahiti in huge ocean-going canoes."

Non sequitur. Nobody opposes this.

:   So, while the genetic evidence against Heyerdahl is strong as to origins and
: directions of migrations, 

False.

: the same evidence seems to support Heyerdahls
: estimation of the maritime abilities of ancient Polynesians. The next paragraph
: of the article is haunting.
:           "Archaeologists kept saying that it was impossible, that it was just a
: story people told," says Rebecca Cann, a geneticist at the University of Hawaii.
: "But by doing a very fine analysis of the DNA, we've seen that there is in fact
: one very common cosmopolitan lineage that's spread throughout the Pacific,
: [which] could only have happened if people were in constant physical contact.
: The idea that these islands were so isolated is really a foreign invention.  The
: Polynesians used the ocean as a superhighway."

This is what Heyerdahl has been saying for a long time.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he 
will pick himself up and continue on -=O=- Churchill's Commentary on Man

Paul D. Roughan (pdr27@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:25:16 +1300:
: In your web page, you present Heyerdahl's qoute:

:      ...our expedition doctor, Emil Gjessing, sampled blood from all
:      those islanders who, according to Father Sebastian [the long
:      time island priest who was very knowledgeable about the history
:      of the island], were of pure local lineage.

: You then contest Hagelberg's tests on the basis of their being of
: late-period skeletal remains.

: However, Heyerdahl has only 'a very knowledgeable' priest to rely on for
: the racial purity of his samples. 

Paul,

You're right to pick up on this apparent weakness in this research.
Myself, I see some problems here as well. The problem seems to be that
both the long-ears and the short-ears ultimately derived from America as
per Heyerdahl. So why focus on separating them for the purpose of these
tests?

: I wouldn't trust the priest

But we can go even further and say that ultimately this whole distinction
may be irrelevant -- regardless of whether the priest was correct.

: more than
: the skeletal remains. 

And here you have the false antithesis. In fact, these are different sets
of data that are perhaps unconnected and/or incommensurable. In other
words, Hagelberg's conclusions, as such, even if correct, in fact _do not_
oppose Heyerdahl.

: I have several questions:

: 1)why are there no 'old' skeletons left?

None have been found?

: 2)could you include the method and data parts of the Hagelberg article
: in your web page.  I for one, as an interested islander, would like to
: see the actual data, which you have not included. 

Well, if someone will send it to me, I will include it. I don't have this
data at this time.

But more importantly, I have no problem with Hagelberg's methodology and
conclusions. I'm certainly _not_ contesting them. All I'm saying is that
his conclusions were widely misinterpreted as opposing Heyerdahl. In fact,
logically, THEY DO NOT oppose Heyerdahl.

: 3)why would mtDNA be any less reliable than blood group data?

I say no such thing.

: At least
: mtDNA is strictly maternally inherited, so easier to analyse for genetic
: patterns.

Agreed. I also have latest mtDNA research by Dr. Cann that provides
support for Heyerdahl.

: 4)What is your interest in EI and SA?  Are you SA in origin, or closely
: affiliated.  I sense a strong motivation for your posts, and am
: interested to see how it has arisen.

Oh, I'm just attracted by all the controversy. Unless it's controversial,
I'm not interested... 	:)

I do various areas of ancient history. This is one of them. No special
connection otherwise.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.    
Oh, let us never, never doubt    
What nobody is sure about.       
         -- Hilaire Belloc       

Paul D. Roughan (pdr27@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:27:26 +1300:

: Has anyone seriously proposed a hypothesis of polynesian origins in SE
: Asia, travel to SA, and subsequent return voyages?

: Or:

: SA arrival at EI first, followed by polynesian arrival,

This is actually what Heyerdahl is saying!

: warfare/assimilation and continued contact with the rest of Polynesia.  
: EI (to this amateur) seems impervious to one-origin analysis - 'South
: America OR SE Asia'.  Of course, its a lot harder to falsify this sort
: of hypothesis, which may be too close to 'ad hoc-ness' for scientific
: enquiry.

The whole area of Pacific migrations is exceedingly complex. And
Heyerdahl's proposals are also very complex. It is very easy to
misunderstand Heyerdahl's research even for those people who have read
him. But unfortunately, in my experience, hardly anyone has read him -- I
mean more academic works of his, not the popular stuff -- and very few
suspect that besides being an adventurer, Heyerdahl is also a competent
scientist who researched his theories diligently for many years. 

One can find problems with his research, true. Is there any scientist who
is perfect? But in my view, on balance, his research stands up well to
facts.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.    
Oh, let us never, never doubt    
What nobody is sure about.       
         -- Hilaire Belloc       

In article <70q7bu$iig$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net
(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:

> Paul D. Roughan (pdr27@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998
14:25:16 +1300:
> : 2)could you include the method and data parts of the Hagelberg article
> : in your web page.  I for one, as an interested islander, would like to
> : see the actual data, which you have not included. 
> 
> Well, if someone will send it to me, I will include it. I don't have this
> data at this time.
> 
> But more importantly, I have no problem with Hagelberg's methodology and
> conclusions. I'm certainly _not_ contesting them. All I'm saying is that
> his conclusions were widely misinterpreted as opposing Heyerdahl. In fact,
> logically, THEY DO NOT oppose Heyerdahl.

You are using some very strange logic then Yuri. For someone who claims
undergratduate philosophy your logic is very suspect. Logic is one of the
first things taught in an undergrad philosophy course.

> : 3)why would mtDNA be any less reliable than blood group data?
> 
> I say no such thing.
> 
> : At least
> : mtDNA is strictly maternally inherited, so easier to analyse for genetic
> : patterns.
> 
> Agreed. I also have latest mtDNA research by Dr. Cann that provides
> support for Heyerdahl.

Yuri, do you think that no one else read Ross and Bernard's recent posts?
Or are you simply going to sail happily on spouting halftruths? The quotes
from Cann & Lum quite clearly show that 1. you have at best misrepresented
them and 2. They provide no support for Heyerdahl at all. The closest they
come is to call for more open mindedness, that is not a call to embrace
Heyerdahl. Repeating your falsehoods in the face of the evidence merely
serves to reinforce that you are not interested in the reality of the
evidence.
 

 Peter

-- 
Peter Ashby
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics
Nat. Inst. Med. Res.
London

Reverse the spam and remove to email me.

In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02 
GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...

[snip]

> 
> One more example of clued out journalists who have not done their basic
> homework. If this nerd only bothered to read Heyerdahl, he would not be
> spouting such nonsense. Because Heyerdahl _accepted_ the ultimate Asian
> derivation of Polynesians. He only suggested that they first came from
> Asia to America, following the currents and winds prevalent in the area
> 
The book you referred me to, and one other slightly later book I read by 
him, clearly argued for an African/Middle Eastern source. Where does he 
recant this?

To quote the exchange we had on this:

> 
> : I looked up Heyerdahl today.  I don't know why you gave ma a 1952 
> : reference instead of his 1976 Early Man in the Pacific, although it looks 
> : as though the citations for for this are probably the same as in the 1952 
> : book as none seem later.
> 
> : In Early Man in the Pacific Heyerdahl appears to be putting forward the 
> : hypothesis that people from the middle east and Africa (Hittites are 
> : mentioned) came to SA around 5000 years ago,
> 
> Wakie-wakie, Doug!
> 
> You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
> this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
> clued out...

That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation 
for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.

Doug
-- 
 Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
 Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
 Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
 Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

In sci.archaeology Doug Weller <dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02 
: GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...

: [snip]

:> 
:> One more example of clued out journalists who have not done their basic
:> homework. If this nerd only bothered to read Heyerdahl, he would not be
:> spouting such nonsense. Because Heyerdahl _accepted_ the ultimate Asian
:> derivation of Polynesians. He only suggested that they first came from
:> Asia to America, following the currents and winds prevalent in the area
:> 
: The book you referred me to, and one other slightly later book I read by 
: him, clearly argued for an African/Middle Eastern source. Where does he 
: recant this?

: To quote the exchange we had on this:

:> 
:> : I looked up Heyerdahl today.  I don't know why you gave ma a 1952 
:> : reference instead of his 1976 Early Man in the Pacific, although it looks 
:> : as though the citations for for this are probably the same as in the 1952 
:> : book as none seem later.
:> 
:> : In Early Man in the Pacific Heyerdahl appears to be putting forward the 
:> : hypothesis that people from the middle east and Africa (Hittites are 
:> : mentioned) came to SA around 5000 years ago,
:> 
:> Wakie-wakie, Doug!
:> 
:> You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
:> this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
:> clued out...

: That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation 
: for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.

: Doug
: -- 
:  Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
:  Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
:  Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
:  Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

Hi Doug, 
In American Indians in the Pacific, Heyerdahl seems to be claiming (I'm
only part-way through the book) that the Polynesians came from Asia with
/as part of the American Indians (specifically Kwakiutl) and then came
to Polynesia from there. By contrast he has the earliest Easter
Islanders coming from South America to be later overrun by Poynesians.
The Hittite connexion is that he has culture bringers from the middle
east teaching civilisation to central and south americans who then take
it on the road and bring "High Culture" with them to Easter Island and
later extend their cultural influence to Hawaii and Marquesas.
So he seems to have them genetically coming from asia via north america,
and then a separate emmigration from south america bringing culture
derived from Hittites.
-eav

Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:25:02 +0100:
: In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02 
: GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...

: > Wakie-wakie, Doug!
: > 
: > You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
: > this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
: > clued out...

: That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation 
: for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.

Now what?

Doug, the Big Archaeological Know-It-All, is not aware of the fact that
Hittites were based primarily in Asia Minor? Gimme a break...

And this is the guy who never tires of lecturing everybody about how many
books about archaeology he has read???

Now, to be sure, myself, I do not endorse the view of Heyerdahl that all
these cultural elements came to S and C America from Asia Minor. Being an
independent inventionist, I think a lot of this stuff was invented
independently in America. So Heyerdahl may have been wrong about this.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare  
to us the things to come -=O=-  Isaiah 41:22         

In article <70vgco$k9c$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 25 Oct 1998 15:33:43 
GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...
> Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:25:02 +0100:
> : In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02 
> : GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...
> 
> : > Wakie-wakie, Doug!
> : > 
> : > You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
> : > this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
> : > clued out...
> 
> : That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation 
> : for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.
> 
> Now what?
> 
> Doug, the Big Archaeological Know-It-All, is not aware of the fact that
> Hittites were based primarily in Asia Minor? Gimme a break...
> 

I know where they are based, Yuri.  I also know that when people talk of 
Asian they don't usually mean Hittite or the area usually referred to in 
archaeology as the Ancient Near East.  But then, I'm sure you knew what I 
meant when I wrote this, and just used it as an excuse for one of your 
emotional outbursts.

> And this is the guy who never tires of lecturing everybody about how many
> books about archaeology he has read???

Neat twist, Yuri. You've complained that I haven't read enough books, 
you've said you've read more books on theory than I have.  But you've 
never seen me lecture anyone about how many books about archaeology I've 
read, although I plead guilty to challenging your claim that you'd read 
more books on archaeology than I have.


-- 
 Doug Weller  Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
 Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
 Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
 Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details

Well I guess now they've done it! ....



Human Cells ``Cloned'' Using Cow Eggs

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Scientists said Thursday they had used cloning technology to
fuse human and cow cells in an attempt to grow organs for transplant in a
laboratory dish.

The team at tiny biotech company Advanced Cell Technology said the cells had grown as
an embryo for a few days, then reverted to a primordial state known as stem
cells, which are capable of growing into any kind of cell in the body.

Although they used the same method they used to clone cows, the scientists at the
privately held company, based in Worcester, Massachusetts, say they have no
intention of trying to create a human clone.

Instead, they want to try to grow organs and tissues in the lab for use in
transplantation therapy.

``We will not use this technology to clone human beings,'' Michael West, president and
chief executive officer of Advanced Cell Technology, vowed in a statement.

The company has not submitted its research for the standard scientific ``peer review''
process, when other experts check to make sure it is legitimate work.

First, they want to assess the public response, said James Robl, a professor of animal
science at the University of Massachusetts who helped found the company, which
has licensed and patented the technology.

Otherwise, the company may end up sinking a lot of money into a project that the public
will not tolerate.

Reaction was fast and pronounced. ``This is the most extraordinary single development
in the history of biotechnology because it now suggests that we can create new
human-animal species,'' Jeremy Rifkin, a writer on biotechnology issues, said in a
telephone interview.

``I don't think we should go ahead with research, around the world, until we take some
time to think about it.'' Calling the idea ``dangerous and chilling,'' Rifkin said he
would lobby Congress to pass a law against such experiments.

But Robl thinks the potential benefits outweigh any initial distaste people might have
for the idea of mixing human and animal cells.

``Embryonic stem cells hold the promise of providing an unlimited supply of cells that
may be grown in the laboratory into virtually any type of tissue for transplant use,''
he said.

He foresees taking a few cells from a patient and growing them perhaps into heart
cells, for use in repairing a damaged heart, or brain cells for injection into the
damaged brains of Parkinson's patients, or even into growing a whole organ such as a
liver.

Because the genetic material comes from the donor, there would be no problem of
rejection.

Robl's team took a human cell -- in this case a skin fibroblast cell -- and fused it
using an electrical current to a cow's egg that had its nucleus removed.

The human nucleus, which contains all the genes that carry the ``road map'' for
building a functioning body, crossed into the hollowed-out cow egg. This process
started
the egg growing and dividing almost as if it had been fertilized by a sperm.

Although it started out looking like an embryo, it later became a mass of stem cells.

Earlier this month a team at the University of Wisconsin at Madison said they grew
human stem cells from human embryos donated by infertile couples after fertility
treatments.

On their own the cells differentiated into cartilage, bone, muscle and other kinds of
cells and are still growing in laboratory dishes.

Their study, funded by Geron Corp (Nasdaq:GERN - news), is farther down the road than
Robl's. But their cells would be foreign to the patient receiving them, since
they contain the human genetic material from someone else. There would be the problem
of rejection just as there is now with donated organs.

Not so with cells cloned from the patient.

Robl says his human-cow hybrid cells -- made from cells donated by Jose Cibelli, one of
the scientists on the team -- died after a couple of weeks.

``If the cells get past this initial hump, then they theoretically would be like normal
human embryonic stem cells and can be used just as other human embryonic stem
cells can be used,'' Robl said. He said eventually the human genes would take over and
only a very small amount of cow DNA would remain.

He thinks this approach might be more ethically acceptable than using human embryos.
Currently U.S. federal funds cannot be used to pay for such research.

Earlier Stories

     Clone Technology Could Grow Liver In A Dish -Study (November 12)


-----------------------
Your recent article on the use of non-human embryos for cloning points
out a major misunderstanding in the true nature of being a biological
human.

The assumption is that nucleus DNA is the only DNA in a human cell.
There are other components that are as important and are only inherited
from the mother's embryo, namely mitochondria DNA which is outside the
nucleus that carries out an important part in the chemical-energy
processes of every cell within us.
Also there has been recent discoveries that indicated that a human cell
has an unusual coating that seems to
be critical to neurons and may be the cause of our distinct higher
intelligence.

The Jewish religion believes that some bloodlines only pass through the
mother�s side.
Mitochondria DNA and other non-nucleus components are only inherited
from the mother embryo.

Therefore, a cloned human utilizing a non-human embryo will never be
100% human!

If we utilize a cow's embryo to mass-produce humans,
we will
again re-create the horrors of our past enslavement of our fellow man.

By pursuing this course of capitalistic manipulation of our very being,
we are dis-inheriting our right to live.

We must stand together and boycott all firms and governments condoning
such practices.


-vic


Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:25:02 +0100:
> : In article <70q64i$hnp$1@whisper.globalserve.net>, on 23 Oct 1998 15:08:02
> : GMT, yuku@globalserve.net said...
>
> : > Wakie-wakie, Doug!
> : >
> : > You've been asleep all this time, I suppose, and never heard about any of
> : > this before? For a big Archaeological Know-It-All, you sure seem pretty
> : > clued out...
>
> : That doesn't look like you saying Heyerdahl accepts an Asian derivation
> : for Polynesians, unless you include the Hittites as Asians.
>
> Now what?
>
> Doug, the Big Archaeological Know-It-All, is not aware of the fact that
> Hittites were based primarily in Asia Minor? Gimme a break...
>
> And this is the guy who never tires of lecturing everybody about how many
> books about archaeology he has read???
>
> Now, to be sure, myself, I do not endorse the view of Heyerdahl that all
> these cultural elements came to S and C America from Asia Minor. Being an
> independent inventionist, I think a lot of this stuff was invented
> independently in America. So Heyerdahl may have been wrong about this.
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=- Toronto -=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
>
> What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
> reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
> to us the things to come -=O=-  Isaiah 41:22