Re: Logic of New World facial hair growth.

Philip Deitiker wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 19:18:57 -0500, "Thomas McDonald"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> 
> >Eric,
> >
> >    He claims that bearded = Old World genetic influence.  Period.
> >
> >Tom McDonald
> 
> Old World extends from the eastern boundary of siberia
> southern cape of africa. More than like most of the bearding
> patterns are influenced by old world genetic influences.
> 
> The specific of Mr. Athy is that bearding patterns are the
> result of recent admixture prior to columbus from the EAST
> not the WEST (as in trans-atlantic voyages). Again if one
> goes to a country like Japan, which has a large number of
> intermediate genetic markers between Old World and New World
> you will find that a great number of males have the ability
> to grow "Full beards", marked since post columbian WEA
> influence has been small.
> 
> Let us premise the argument
> 
> 1. Native americans have alot of markers from Japan and
> Korea, these markers are broadly distributed in the new
> world.

At least so you claim....

> 2. The Ainu(hairy) of northern Japan are possibly connected
> to kenniwick the migration of Old Worlders between 13,000
> and 9,000 years ago.

This is garbage! THERE WERE NO AINU AT THAT TIME, and consequently can
have nothing to do with KM. The Ainu are relatively MODERN people.

> 3. Other sources of markers like Taiwan aboriginals suggest
> a path through Japan.

Or so you claim at least.....

> 4. Since china is less 'hairy' relative to Japanese and
> because the most recent immigrants are from china and the
> most aboroiginal population is hairy, it is reasonable to
> assume that Japanese were more hairy in the past than
> present.

WRONG!! The premise is one of absurdity as the Ainu you base this
whole house of cards on DOESN'T EXIST at that time period. But then I
have noted this with you before, time has no real meaning to you. You
mix them up into one glorious mess, and you claim a 'continuity' for
something that jumps from many millennia BCE, to the second millennia
CE, and back to an intermediate time again...!!

> 5. Given the fact that trails of haps from PNG, Taiwan and
> other sites appear to have transited through Japan,

I know aborigines from Taiwan, moved through PNG to NZ. I don't know
about them going to Japan. I doubt the PNG claim even more.

> that
> Japan was more bearded in the past, and that Japan retains
> many of the markers indicating it as a transitional site
> between old world and new world one has to assume that
> descendants of bearded individuals from Japan reached the
> New World.

Again this falls into a miserable HEAP, because the falsity of the
claim continued through the points - the AINU did NOT EXIST back then.
 
> Therefore we have a conclusion that now becomes a premise.

Don't be so silly!
 
> 1. New World immigrants from the east had beards.

Oh really..... by a NON EXISTING people... yeah right.....

> 2. Some New world immigrants from the central siberia did
> not.

You don't know that. You pulled this out of thin air.

> 3. These groups mixed to varying levels (evident in the
> genetics)

Again this is something you cannot know and cannot be due to the
errors.

> Conclusion:
> 4. The result is populations with varying levels of facial
> hair growth.

While this may not in itself be entirely erroneous, it cannot be
arrived at from the earlier points made.

> And a new conclusion.
> 
> Given #4 what would need to happen for WEA agents
> (precolumbian, from the last few 1000 years) to be the sole
> supplier of beard phenotypes.

Oh really, so how the hell did the ancients of FRANCE (WEA = West
Eurasia) get to the Americas? And "given #4" that relies on your
premise #2, that us up to putty, but disregarding that, it points to a
people in JAPAN - therefor they CANNOT suddenly be in FRANCE! Perhaps
you confuse West with East?
 
> 1. Bearding patterns in native americans would have to have
> been selectively eliminated from the population.

This contains an ASSUMPTION that is unfounded. That the Native
population of the Americas, DID have beards at one time - and that it
somehow was "selectively eliminated from the population". There is NO
PROOF for this assumption - not even a logical theory.
 
> Logical argument, it is reguired by the positer of such a
> position to prove that position at a high level of
> significance.

Well..... that is one thing that is MISSING from this post of
yours.... "Logical argument"!!
> 
> Conclusion. His beard counts actually demostrate that
> bearding has not been selectively _eliminated_ from native
> americans. Instead they offer proof that bearding was still
> a variable trait in Native americans as expected from the
> bearding patterns of NE asias.

There CAN BE no "conclusion" -other than a conclusion cannot be drawn
from BOGUS material.

The Satsumon, ancestors of the Ainu, were not purely
hunter-fisher-collectors. They were farmers, a site dated to 700 ->
900 AD proved that with a find of some 1/4 mil seeds for a variety of
crops, including barley. The earliest Ainu people were FARMERS and if
they had ended up in the Americas, they would have brought farming
with them - it didn't happen. The Ainu people (or culture) still exist
to this very day.



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