Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusYou act there just as if you had *never* heard that such exists!
But we know that you are attempting to distort the facts that you
already were *well* aware of.
Well, well. I was hoping to read otherwise, but it appears that
those who accuse you of being a netloon may be on the right
track. You respond to a request for evidence with an ad hominem.
You really don't have _any_ integrity do you. I responded with
a reference to a *huge* volume of evidence, and pointed out that
your article exhibited dishonesty. That is not an ad hominem.
If you can't be honest, you have to expect the lies to become
points of interest in a response.
Well Floyd, let's see who has "integrity."
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusListen, Mr. Davidson. I know that you claim to have posted some
evidence by citing a URL. I told you that I could not comment on
that URL because it won't connect.
Except 1) it would connect, and 2) it appeared from your
response that you did indeed read it. You're just lying, again.
Newsflash, Floyd. When a site is busy, it doesn't connect. The
"history" link on the National Park Service site appears to be
extremely busy during the day, Floyd. It would not connect
yesterday, Sunday August 3rd during the day and likewise on
Monday, August 4th during the day. You can tell from the headers
that my system is a bit antiquated, but the system at work is
state of the art, and when I tried it during the day on August
4th, the site simply wouldn't connect. However, I have read the
material on the site, having done so when the site would connect
after "peak hours."
Post by Floyd DavidsonWhat I cited is far too complex and lengthy to repost here.
What I did post was the basic conclusions of the scientists who
did the work. But here you are denying that it exists... cute,
but no dice.
Post by Steve MarcusI have now gotten your first URL to work. The meat of the first
http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/kaestle.htm
Nice try, but no that is just Chapter 2 of the DNA report which
has *five* chapters. It is not in any way "the meat" of
anything other than what it claims to be, a single part of the
overall report. That one happens to be about DNA testing done
in one particular lab at one particular time on two particular
samples. (Stop scanning in an attempt to find support for your
position, and try *reading* then entire web site. It will help
you to avoid looking like a damned fool. Then again, maybe
not.)
Post by Steve Marcushttp://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/smith.htm
The kaestle URL indicates that in the first set of DNA tests, no
tests showed consistency with mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D or X
which are found in the majority of pre-Columbian Native American
remains, but states that while the samples didn't permit
conclusive results, it would be expected that additional samples
should permit such results.
You seem to be trying to hide what it did find. It found, not
"no tests showed consistency with ...." as stated, but rather
that there was no mtDNA other than "FAK" (Kaestle) contamination.
Quoting from the Kaestle link:
"Thus, the results from the positive amplifications from both the
Kennewick samples and negative controls are not consistent with a
source that is a member of haplogroups A, B, C, D or X, but are
consistent with a source
that is a member of haplogroup I (such as FAK). Because ancient
DNA is highly damaged, amplification success is generally
correlated with the length of the amplified product (shorter
fragments being easier to amplify). Note that there is no
correlation between amplification success and fragment length in
this case, suggesting that the amplified DNA is not ancient.
These results are consistent with a very low level of
contamination of
the extracts with modern DNA, most likely from FAK, but possibly
originating at the reagent or lab disposables
manufacturer." Although disposable pipette tips and tubes
utilized during the extraction are certified DNA-free by the
manufacturer, in reality the manufacturer's quality control
methods will only detect DNA presence above 5 x 10-11 mg
(EppendorfT). In addition, although all reagents utilized are
produced in extremely sterile conditions and additionally
filtered and/or Ultra-Violet irradiated in the laboratory, low
levels of DNA contamination might still be present. However,
haplogroup I, defined by the loss of the DdeI restriction site at
nucleotide position 1715 and distinguished from haplogroup X by
the absence of the AccI restriction site at nucleotide position
14465, is very rare among Europeans (generally 5% or less in
frequency), and absent in all
other populations except for extremely rare examples in the
middle east (Brown et al, 1998; Torroni et al., 1994,1996)."
In English: we can't find any of the A, B, C, D or X haplogroups,
which should be there if this DNA is ancient Native American, so
it must be contaminated and invalid.
Post by Floyd Davidson"Thus available technology and protocols do not allow
the analysis of ancient DNA from these remains."
Stop trying to suggest that the test in *any* way indicated a
negative test for DNA relating the remains to Native Americans.
It didn't.
See above.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusThe smith URL describes the genetic testing after such testing
was resumed, it having been halted at the insistence of the
tribes. The testing could not be carried out to completion, and
the study recommends that further testing be carried out in the
future.
Once again, lets be clear. They did complete their testing, and
determine that the sample was not suitable to provide any data.
Stop trying to obfuscate what the reports concluded.
You failed to even mention the Chapters 1, 3, and 5. Chapter 3,
for example: "We were unable to obtain reliable ancient DNA
amplification results from the Kennewick samples."
There was sufficient repetition, one has no way to escape the
fact that you are *intentionally* distorting what the report said.
The repetition is sufficient only for your purposes, since it
neither proves nor disproves that KM is an ancestor to modern
Kennewick area Native Americans. This leaves you free to cling
to the "if it's pre-Columbian, it's got to be a Native American
ancestor" mantra.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusI have also now gotten the second (memo14) URLs to connect. What
1. The C14 date clearly shows that the KM remains are
pre-Columbian.
2. Sediment layers consistent with a pre-Columbian date (perhaps
the author meant "the pre-Columbian date obtained by the C14
test) exist in the area _where they *believe* that the remains
were buried.
See Chapter 5, "Final Report ..." of the above DNA report. It
covers the physical examination of the remains. And goes into
a great deal of detail on the significance, and *why* they believe
what they do. Not to mention the other multiple chapter reports
that address exactly the subject.
Indeed. The bottom line of the entire set of reports is that KM
is pre-Columbian. Then, assuming that any human remains that are
pre-Columbian must be ancestral to the Native American
populations of the Kennewick area, the reports arrive at the
conclusion that KM must be ancestral to the Kennewick area Native
Americans.
How very neat. And how very illogical.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve Marcus3. The lithic evidence (the spearpoint) in KM's ribs is
consistent with this pre-Columbian date.
Therefore, they conclude that KM must be "Native American" under
the NAGPRA.
As if that is the one and only part of this entire report which
brings them to that conclusion! You are just, again, being
absolutely dishonest.
In addition to the DNA report in 5 chapters there are other
individual studies attached as Exhibits 1 through 4, there is a
Cultural Affiliation Report in 5 chapters, there are two
separate studies (one on whether DNA future testing has value,
another on radiocarbon dating), and another 5 chapter report on
non-destructive examination, description, and analysis of the
remains. Six reports as individual documents and more 3 reports
that contain a total of 15 chapters. (What did you say about
how I have no evidence?)
The actual experts, as opposed to you, carefully weighed *all*
of that evidence to arrive at the conclusion you claim is based
on virtually nothing. It turns out the only one basing
conclusions on nothing is Steve Marcus. Shame on you.
The bottom line on the entire set of reports is that KM is
pre-Columbian. Then, assuming that any human remains that are
pre-Columbian must be ancestral to the Native American
populations of the Kennewick area, the reports arrive at the
conclusion that KM must be ancestral to the Kennewick area Native
Americans.
Post by Floyd DavidsonIn *your* opinion. However you have no credentials, and no
credibility. Your conclusions are worthless when they contradict
the list of the best experts in the country that could be put
together by the Department of the Interior to do the study.
My opinion is based upon reading Adovasio's book "The First
Americans", Benedict's book about Doug Owsley's career, "No Bone
Unturned" (Owsley is acknowledged worldwide as the foremost
forensic expert on the "reading of" bones), and Chatter's book re
Kennewick Man. Both Adovasio and Owsley are experts, they have
worked on cases on the side of Native Americans, and I take their
judgements as objective in the extreme.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusYou'll also note that while the summary above is indeed the
position of one side in a legal matter, the science that I've
_also_ pointed you at is *evidence*, not a legal brief.
For a jerk that puts a disclaimer about not having an
attorney-client relationship with anyone they engage in public
discussion on Usenet with, one would think you would know the
difference between evidence and a legal opinion.
How does this ad hominem statement square with your previous
You don't even know what an ad hominem statement is apparently.
It isn't just evidence and honesty you haven't got a grasp of!
Post by Steve Marcussentence. And as far as jerks are concerned, since when does the
presentation of "some" evidence on one side of a legal issue
decide that issue without respect to considering contradictory
evidence?
You said there was none. I've provided you with a clue. The
clue is that the Department of the Interior put together
sufficient evidence for *them* to make a conclusion. The fact
that it didn't meet the needs of a magistrate at a later date
isn't really significant to what you said. There clearly is a
*huge* amount of exactly the evidence you said didn't exist.
And you have absolutely no clue as to what it means when evidence
is irrelevant to the manner at hand. The evidence put together
by DoI was, quite simply, that the KM remains were pre-Columbian
(in the extreme). This is evidence of the age of the remains,
but it is NOT relevant evidence on the questions of whether such
remains are either ancestral to Native Americans in general, or
ancestral to Kennewick area Native Americans.
The DoI went to great length to bury the KM site so that
confirming evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether
this pre-Columbian individual was 1)ancestral to Native Americans
and 2)ancestral to Kennewick area Native Americans (a necessary
requirement of NAGPRA if the remains were to be turned over to
Kennewick area Native Americans).
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusI didn't claim that it "doesn't exist at all." But in fact, the
Your short term memory seems to be faulty.
If the Native Americans of whom you speak (and/or
you, for that matter) have evidence supporting the
claims that KM is their ancestor, how about sharing
it here. We are waiting.
That came after you'd said,
However, evidence is what matters. Of that I
believe they, and you, have little.
Clearly, as we have seen above there were 6 small study reports,
plus 3 larger reports that totally 15 chapters. Yet you claimed
there was no evidence, and now you claim that *your* analysis
of the data supersedes that of the experts who obtained the data
and reported it, plus you claim that out of that huge volume
of data they relied on two or three simple lines of information
to draw their conclusion, which you contradict.
Your entire argument, sir, is a joke.
Nope, what's a joke is that you think that you can assume an
unsupporatble proposition, that any pre-Columbian human remains
are necessarily Native American and necessarily ancestral to the
Native Americans living in the area 9,000 years later, and
somehow convert evidence of age into evidence of ancestry.
Suppose, my dear Floyd, that KM had C14 tested out 100-150 years
before 1996, and that the other evidence, (lithic and sedimentary
analyses) had supported that date. Do you now conclude, without
more, that KM is necessarily Native American? Of course not; KM
could be of any other Asian origin, or of European origin.
Absent artifacts, remains of clothing, etc., and absent evidence
of KM's contemporaries, could you assign KM as ancestral to any
particular group? Of course not, not without genetic testing.
Now what changes simply because KM tests out around 9,000 years
B.P.? Nothing, unless one _assumes_ that this age means that KM
is necessarily ancestral to Native Americans. Floyd, all you've
done is assume the result that you desire.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve Marcusevidence that does exist is as described above, and as I've
analyzed it.
And as *you've* analyzed it, is a joke. Your analysis is so
invalid with petty bias and simplicity that the audacity of
anyone who would make such a claim even on Usenet is just
astounding.
Nope, what's astounding is your blindness (to put it kindly;
other's might call it your prejudice). Again, test the
hypothesis. Someone discovers ancient hominid remains a few
miles of the site on which Lucy was discovered. The remains are
morphologically different than Lucy, but when tested for age,
seem to be within the age of Lucy's remains. Does this
_necessarily_ mean that the new remains belonged to a member of
Lucy's species, notwithstanding the morphological differences?
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusSo far you haven't provided a shred of evidence that suggests
Kennewick Man could possibly be anything other than a Native
American.
Again, you make an absurd statement. First, it is not impossible
that KM could be other than Native American. Do you disagree?
It is virtually impossible, given what we do know about him.
What do you know about him that makes it "virtually impossible"?
You have no artifacts, nothing from the site upon which his
remains were discovered other than that it confirms the C14
determined age of KM, nothing at all beyond the age of the
remains. It is only "impossible" that KM is other than a Native
American ancestor _because you, and some experts, assume that
this must be so.
Post by Floyd DavidsonWhere is your evidence of any *other* possibility? You've
presented *none*.
None has been presented because the DNA testing hasn't succeeded,
yet. And because DoI did its best to make sure that the site of
the remains will never be subjected to proper (and yes, Floyd,
proper includes respectful) investigation by expert field
archaeologists.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve Marcus(Or are you truly a netloon?) Second, the point is that without
the genetic testing that the tribes seek to prevent, there will
There has been, as you've clearly seen, *several* attempts by
different individuals to do DNA testing. How can you then
attempt to blame "the tribes" for the fact that it was a wasted
effort.
You'll have to read Chatters' book for the answer to that one,
Floyd.
Post by Floyd DavidsonAre you also aware that the poor handling of the
remains are one of the reasons DNA testing is unlikely to work?
Indeed. That's _one_ possibility. Chatters will lay some others
out for you, though you won't much enjoy what he has to say.
Post by Floyd DavidsonWhy? Well, somebody wanted to have some fun with the caucasoid
claim, so they smeared release agent over the skull and made a
mold of it in order to plaster the face of Patrick Stewart onto
it. Someone did things like use Elmer's glue to hold teeth and
broken bones together to take pictures. Someone caused *dozens*
of bone fractures which contaminated any DNA present.
How very bigoted of you, Floyd. Forensic reconstruction was done
by an expert, noted for doing meticulous and accurate work. That
the remains resemble (in some photographs) Patrick Stewart
doesn't mean that they aren't actually Native American remains,
and Chatters would be the first to tell you that.
Post by Floyd DavidsonThe point the tribes made right from the start was that
*respect* was a requirement. They clearly did indeed have a
valid point.
The point that the magistrate made in refusing to repatriate KM's
remains was that the tribes had zero evidence that KM was
ancestral to the tribes. Their interest in respect started and
stopped with whether they got their way. How respectful would it
have been had they received KM's remains and buried him, if in
fact KM is not ancestral to them?
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve Marcusnever be an opportunity to present evidence showing that KM is
other than Native American. Third, there is no evidence that KM
_is_ Native American, only a presumption that human remains that
pre-date Columbus are necessarily Native American.
Only in *your* foolish estimation. On the other hand, the most
expert group of scientists that the National Park Service could
put together doesn't agree with you at all.
As the most expert group of scientists that the NPS could put
together didn't include Doug Owsley, they simply didn't have the
most expert group they cout have. And besides, all that the DoI
scientists have succeeded in showing is that KM is pre-Columbian.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve Marcus... [irrelevant waste deleted]
Yep, a true netloon. Snip the part where you stand on NAGPRA as
supporting that KM is Native American, and snip the part where
you to post that you don't aren't looking for an answer in the US
Statutes. This latter, of course, stemming from the fact that a
US magistrate has ruled that there is insufficient evidence under
NAGPRA to reach the conclusion you desire.
That is a matter of law, not a matter of if there is evidence
or if there is a known truth. Your claim was that the *evidence*
didn't exist. That's bullshit.
The judge decided the case by holding that DoI had produced no
evidence showing either that KM was ancestral to Native
Americans, or that KM was ancestral to the tribes claiming his
remains. Now how in the world did the magistrate decide that
(against the big, bad, supposedly Native American unfriendly
Federal Government which was actually taking the side of the
Native Americans) if there was in fact evidence supporting an
opposite conclusion?
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusIn fact, it is extremely unlikely that *any* evidence is going
to come from any genetic analysis. It has been attempted and
did not produce any evidence at all.
Not true. See above, in particular, the statement in the "smith"
URL that future testing techniques will likely produce results.
You didn't read the entire report.
"It is our considered opinion that, for all the
parties concerned, the genetic analysis of this
skeleton may not yield the resolution that is so
dearly sought."
'Potential for DNA Testing of the Human Remains
from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington' by
Noreen Tuross, Ph.D. and Connie J. Kolman, Ph.D.
<http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/tuross_kolman.htm>
That was the conclusion of the study done to specifically determine
if more DNA testing should be attempted. The answer was no.
"May not yield" equates with "extremely unlikely"?? My Floyd,
how very ...., well, simply dishonest of you.
Post by Floyd DavidsonAgain, I've deleted another mass of repetitious garbage from you.
It's all based on *your* false analysis of data that you don't
understand and that you do clearly want to distort intentionally.
Yep. Delete away. But at the end of the day, your data supports
a single conclusion. KM is mighty old. It doesn't support the
proposition that KM is ancestral to any Native American, let
alone to the Kennewick area tribes.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusI wish that you would do me that favor. It seems that you
haven't even read and understood the evidence that you've cited
yourself. Why would I wish to discuss anything with you??
You don't. You've made no attempt at putting any integrity at
all into a discussion based on facts rather than distortion.
As to integrity, I submit, sir, that it is you who are lacking in
that commodity.
Post by Floyd DavidsonPost by Steve MarcusThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
The above posting was little more than nonsense. Do you
actually get paid to do that kind of legal work, or do you
somehow find your integrity when you do have an attorney-client
relationship?
I indeed get paid to do legal work, and such work involves
understanding what a given statute says, what sort of evidence
does, and does not, support factual findings necessary to
establish a result under such a statute, and what conclusions
result from whether evidence does, or does not, establish certain
facts. In this case, I understand precisely what the magistrate
understood: there is _no evidence_ that KM is ancestral to any
Native American in general, or to the present day Kennewick area
tribes in particular.
It has also been said that one does not need a weatherman to know
which way the wind blows. Thus, I understand the implications of
the tribes having prevailed upon the DoI to bury the KM site so
that it will never be properly (and that includes respectfully)
investigated. I also understand the implications of unfairly
attributing the horrific behaviors of 19th and early 20th century
scientists to today's scientists in general, and using such
illogical and unsupportable tarring with a bigoted brush to
impede (actually permanently prevent) future scientific
investigations that might (or might not, and there's the irony)
prove something not to someone's liking.
Post by Floyd Davidson--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.