Re: Genetic evidence.....

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.net.au)
Date: 08/04/04 

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 08:31:03 GMT

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Qiwi wrote:

[..]
> > Let us look at an example of what you say above. To you, when you see
> > a bottle of wine with a label of high reputation, you will drink the
> > content and say , "By hell that was a really nice drop..", even if
> > someone had pissed in the bottle - why, because YOU want to look at
> > the label rather than take any notice of the content. There is no
> > logic in that!
> >
> > BUT if you must - I will give you a "credential" - I can read - and
> > that's the best anyone will get as I'm NOT interested in labels, but
> > the content.
> >
> > Now back to the "studies" by "experts" (has been drips under pressure)
> > - some 50 year old "studies" in a field that has advanced in leaps
> > and bounds since then. For anyone to claim a "blood type" is DNA as
> > was in the message I replied to, shows a fairly serious lack of
> > understanding of what DNA is.
>
> Seppo,
>
> Now you're really acting like Doug Weller! :)

Wash you mouth out with soap - several times!

> Why are you nit-picking like that on Qiwi, who's a new
> poster here, and who's actually bringing to the table quite
> a lot of new material and citations?

The thing is I can't see the material he is using - and I assume that
it is from that material the confusion arises - it is more helpful to
know the difference between blood type and DNA than a hindrance.
 
> This is what Mr. Weller does all the time...

The hell he does - most recently he demanded a thread change
direction to discuss "Women in the Celtic Church" when the issue was
christianity before St Partick and related matters.
>
> > Blood groups have also been subtype from
> > the major groups referred to in the ancient "studies".
> >
> > The percentages weren't published here from those half century old
> > studies either. Your URL shows a variety of %%. BUT they have to be
> > bogus!
> >
> > Look at the three pictures and take a part from Alaska toward the
> > Great lakes as the reference point (last pic). The site claims
> > 90->100% blood group "O"! At the same time it also claims a minimum of
> > 35% of group "A" with an additional 5% of group "B"!! So in an area we
> > have a total of some 140% ........ and you believe that?
>
> And now you're nit-picking on a webpage!

Why not? After all some 40% over the possible maxima is being claimed
by the site for the region I pointed to! It is well beyond any error
margin!

> Like I already told you, this stuff is all published in
> peer-reviewed journals. THIS is where you have to go if you
> want to criticise this evidence.

I don't care were it is published - your web page isn't published in
such a magazine is it? You are still focusing on labels rather than
content.... be careful with your wine, you'll never know what's in
that bottle!!
 
> Read the primary literature.

I read the post and responded to that - as one does on a news group!
 
> Actually, you're now behaving like "George", because he
> recently criticised Dr. Nancy Beavan's paper without reading
> it!

Oh really - *I* don't resort to outright fabrications like HE does!
THAT accusation of yours was a typical one by George!! Someone should
mention glass-houses to you.....

[..] 

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------