Duncan Craig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Lee,
> What has Heyerdahls racism to do with the genomic
> evidence?

Hi Duncan,
OK, maybe racism is too severe an accusation for those living in his era. Anthropology was just a beginning field then...many professional scholars and laypeople alike didn't know at the time what they were doing wrong (before Stephen Gould came along). Can we change racism to Eurocentrism then?
Also, I just picked the reference above because it contained many references, something Thor didn't do very often which correctly brands him as a crank from the viewpoint of an editor of a peer-reviewed science journal. No unjust bias involved IMO.
[documents.saa.org]
Why do you think Thor was unable to comply with the simplest of instructions? Try illiteracy for a start. So Thor played the blame-game rather than comply because he couldn't.

"The attitude towards Heyerdahl has been overwhelmingly condescending and paternalistic, as if he was an eccentric doddering old uncle. " Why does the new Nature paper contain references and Heyerdahl's works are exempt?
AFAIK, Thor didn't get much right, if anything, as far as the scientific method is concerned; Eurocentrism was just one example. The Kon Tiki experiment was a 50% failure because the craft couldn't get back to where it came from, in fact without a navy tug (with a motor) it couldn't get off the coast. Yet at the same time this ship could go upwind, downwind, and against the current:
[upload.wikimedia.org]
The problem with this ship is one can't make millions of dollars on movies and books made about it, actual science and technology just doesn't sell as well...too boring.
Hind sight is 20/20. If Thor didn't get the peopling of the Americas correct, why would anyone think anything he got right was anything other than luck, at least without hard evidence?