Posted by Eric on February 25, 2004 at 17:03:59:
In Reply to: The 'PETER AHCHING THEORY' on POLYNESIAN ORIGINS. Copyright 2003. posted by The 'PETER AHCHING THEORY on POLYNESIAN ORIGINS.' on December 23, 2003 at 18:47:18:
You Say that Savai'i, Samoa (Savai'i & Upolu) 2000BC gave birth to pure Polynesians. Tell me where did the Samoans or so called Polynesian forebears come from than??? All you say is SE Asia but you don’t even know exactly where from. And that the Polynesian forebears when they reached Savaii & Upolu some how genetically mutated into pure Polynesian Samoans & lost there resemblance to the forebears (must of been from the green bananas & ulu). Your theory is obsured ridiculous and makes no sense at all!!! Sounds like something out of a science fiction movie. Take the American Indians in the southwest & northeast. They both live in totally different environments one dessert & the other woodland forest & they both lived in these different environments for thousands of years probably 10 times longer than when Samoa was even discovered & yet they both share the same physical resemblance & genetic traits with each other despite the difference in environments, they didn’t all of a sudden GENETICALY MUTATE!!! Go read the books on genetic evolution and see how long it takes for races of men to genetically alter & I can assure you that it probably takes a hell of a lot longer than 4000 years which is the time period you give for when the forebears reached Savaii & Upolu & all of a sudden genetically mutated into pure Polynesians. It seems like your theories are based on racial arrogance cause you’re an arrogant Samoan who just wants to take credit for being the cradle of Polynesia!!! You also say: Hence, population genetics led to the disappearance of inferior or unfavorable genes, and the retention of favorable or superior alleles necessary for survival, hence a new set of stronger genes were able to survive and flourish onto offspring. A new race of Polynesians was then created based on the process of natural selection & genetic evolution. Unfavorable genes were lost from the Polynesians, these lost genes were also links to their ancient forebears. Genetic marker analysis on Polynesians to retrieve resemblance to their forebears will be futile, as it will not resemble any other race from before due to lost genes or even mixed genes. Only the strong had survived and produced offspring in Samoa & Tonga 2000BC from the original Polynesian forebears of 5000-10,000BC. Tell me why do you need stronger genes to be able to live on a tropical island paradise??? A desert is much harsher than that!!! This is just total arrogance coming out with this nonsense implying that Samoans retained a set of stronger genes from there forebears & got rid of the inferior ones. That’s sounds just as bad as when the German Nazis said that the blue eye blond hair race is superior!!! You also even twist the names of the Islands of other Polynesian groups to make like they were referring to Savaii & Upolu in Samoa when they named their islands. Like Hawaiki-Maori, Upolu & Hamoa-Maui & Big Island Hawaii, Awaiki-Marquesas, Havaii-Tahiti. What evidence & proof do you have that they were referring to Savaii & Upolu in Samoa when they named their Islands? Did you go back in time & asked the guys who named the islands if they were referring to Savaii & Upolu Samoa??? There’s also some evidence that Tonga was discovered & settled at the same time Samoa was but of course you would dispute & discredit Tonga from possibly being the cradle of Polynesia. Like saying they have Melanesian genes or that Tonga means south in Samoan implying that Tongans had to have come from Samoa but yet you also wrote that Samoans call Tonga Konga so, which one is it??? Or also how you dispute the kon tiki theory by Thor Heyerdahl on how Polynesia was discovered possibly from South America. He successfully sailed his kon tiki raft from the coast of South America to Rapa Nui. Did you ever sail across open ocean in a canoe like he did??? If not than your not in a position to start knocking his theory & saying he needed to study Western Polynesia to uncover the truth, what we Polynesians have always known as fact. I’m part Polynesian (I’m not going to say which one) and I don’t agree with your theory 1 bit because there’s too many loop holes and it’s biased based on your racial arrogance with being Samoan & taking some scientific info & adding a twist to it to make it all point to Savaii & Upolu and Samoa as the cradle of Polynesia. And by coming up with these theories that don’t add up & don’t make any sense, your doing a disservice in solving the truth of the Polynesian Origins & corrupting it!!! To anyone reading this check out this web site http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mkfenn/ It gives a different perspective on how Polynesia may have originated backed by hard scientific evidence and uncanny theories that make the most sense without any biased or corrupt approaches in solving the Polynesian Origins!!! Also check out this book American Indians in the Pacific