Re: Genetic evidence.....
From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.net.au)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Shellfish Allergies Re: Grass or sand apes"
- In reply to: Qiwi: "Re: Genetic evidence....."
- Next in thread: Qiwi: "Re: Genetic evidence....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:09:15 GMT
Qiwi wrote:
>
> > benlizrosswrote:
> So you feel that these 50-year-old blood group studies got it right,
> and
> > that all subsequent genetic studies have been wrong?
> > Ross Clark
>
>
> Certainly the recent outrageous claims being made are laughable....
That is a definite worry.....
> Indeed the 'orthodox' theorists are so confused now they are claiming
> the ancestors of the Polynesians came from two destinations.... the
> women from Taiwan and the men from the northern coast of New
> Guinea...LOL...
I'm certain that was an "ooooppppssss" - by Qiwi that is. There is
very good genetic evidence that it applies to the MAORI people in NZ.
It doesn't mean "Polynesians" as in ALL of them, and it is wrong to
generalise to that degree when the finding is specific.
> However some of the less flakey studies are of interest.....
There is nothing "flakey" at all about that study!
> e.g. Hagelberg & Cleggs 1993 study into the distribution of the
> distinctive 9 base pair in the mitochondrial sequence found that
> prehistoric skeletons from Eastern Polynesia including Hawaii, the
> Chathams, the Society Islands and New Zealand all contained this
> sequence. However in skeletal material from sites in the Melanesian
> archipelagos of New Britain and Vanuatu and the oldest samples from
> Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa (2,700-1,600 years BP) this deletion was
> completely absent....
> Significantly, (and this is a clue Ross) their results showed that
> this distinctive deletion didn't appear in Western Polynesia [Tonga]
> until after 300ad.
> Hagelberg & Clegg concluded that their results,
> "fail to support current views that the Central Pacific
> was settled directly by voyagers from Island South East Asia..... An
> earlier occupation by peoples from the neighbouring Melanesian
> archipelagos seems more likely."
This is a worry....... Melanesia includes PNG you know..... like it is
in the study you claimed as "outrageous" and "laughable"....
> DNA aside, apart from a number of incomplete skeletons & a few
> post-holes very little is known about the so-called 'Lapita' people
> apart from their pottery & certainly nothing that can in anyway
> link them to the Polynesians....
...but YOU just did exactly that!
-- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. -----------------------------------------------------------------
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Previous message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Shellfish Allergies Re: Grass or sand apes"
- In reply to: Qiwi: "Re: Genetic evidence....."
- Next in thread: Qiwi: "Re: Genetic evidence....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
