Quote:# 2. Giggsy Says:

December 9th, 2011 at 10:08 am



”The inference here then is that perhaps “Ancestral North Indians” are a source population for other West Eurasians! I think more likely this is not the case.”



This is EXACTLY the case. The Abrahamic laced intellectual world is slowly but surely coming to this realization, that ANI are the ancestors of west Asians. Not the other way as was forced onto the world…aka Aryan theory the invasion of the sons of Shem and Japeth to enslave the cursed sons of Ham. I cannot believe that Christian and Muslims are not aware of their own historical ruling elite. If anyone knows about Aryan theory its VERY CLEAR why it was needed. To confirm the home of the jews, christians and muslims aka the abrahamic tribe to the middle east and attach ‘home of civilization’ to it, they needed to show that India was indeed younger than abrahamic origins, to justify their own claim to civilization fame. To look at it deeper, its very easy to see why, first two sons of Noah, where Shem and Japeth, the light skinned special tribe of god, the chosen people. Who set up judaism, christianity and islam. However Noah had third son, who was Ham, and he was cursed and made dark to be servant of the other two sons. This curse of ham, was the Reason why aryan invasion was created, to justify to themselves that india was not the home of civilisation, and in fact the reason why india is civilized is because of an unknown group of white aryans from europe or central asia, or somewhere else, came and civilised india. Therefore the religous sanction is given. Ham was not civilised he was civilised by sons of shem and japeth.



That is the aryan theory. Muslims, christians, and jews fully support this lie.



‘Researchers found that the Indian populations had more genetic diversity than Europeans and East Asians, which gives a good indicator of the age of a population” Genographic project IBM.



Sahoo et al had actually written the following words:“The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through thenorthwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny.Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a,and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are REJECTED, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.” .They also rule out arrivals from Southwest Asia because West Asian haplogroups (like Y-Hg G) are not found in India.



Kivisild’s findings (2003) too had shown that humans could not have arrived from West Asia into Indiabecause of lack of West Asian Y-hgs E, G, I, J* and J2f. Kivisild et al wrote,“When compared with European and Middle Eastern populations (Semino et al. 2000), Indians (i) share with themclades J2 and M173 derived sister groups R1b and R1a, the latter of which is particularly frequent in India; and (ii) lack or show amarginal frequency of clades E, G, I, J*, and J2f.”



There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.



Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus….” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time. R2 is very rare in Europe.Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majuder, and P. A. Underhill. – 2006.



A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed “no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals”. Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.In its conclusions the study proposed “the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins” as well as “the origin of R1a1* … in the Indian subcontinent”.S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.

- Sharma et al 2009



Human Genetics at the University of Michigan, conducted genetic analysis of Indian-born individuals in the US. Their studies of 1,200.’We were struck both by the low level of diversity amongst people spanning such a large geographical region, and by the fact that people of the Indian sub-continent constituted a distinct group when compared to populations from other parts of the world,’ said Pragna I. Patel.



The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. “The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society.”

“Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.”

-”Reconstructing Indian Population History”

- David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh

- 2009



Moreover, there are other DNA lineages found in good numbers in West Asia like R1*, R1b3,J*, J2f, I, G and E which are in total more than 53% population of west Asia. These arevirtually absent from India (Sahoo). Had people migrated from West Asia to India,these haplogroups would also have arrived into India. This evidence proves that J2 did notarrive from West Asia, because no lineage can ever migrate without other lineages alsomigrating along with it from the place of origin or expansion. On the other hand nearly all of the Indian male lineages like F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17) etc. are found inWest Asia, proving a definite Indian migration to West Asia. The HIV protective gene, whichis found in West Asia, and Central Asia too, is absent from India (Majumder and Dey, 2001).Thus on no account, any migration from West Asia to India can be supported.



Sengupta (2006) showed that J2 is well distributed in Indian population.Sengupta et al (2006) found that the haplogroup J2 had a quite high variance, and hence deep time-depthin Indian tribes and castes too. Moreover the frequency is higher in the Dravidian speakingsouth Indians (19%) than the Indo-European speaking north Indians (11%). This destroys theAryan migration into India from West Asia hypothesis of Bellwood (2003 and 2005). The inference what we can derive from Sengupta and colleagues study’s data is that J2 haplogroup originated in India during Last Glacial Maximum, and migrated out of India whenclimate permitted. J2 is 18.7% in south Pakistan, the central place of Indus civilization.Lineage J2 and its derivatives are 23% in Iran and 22.2% in Turkey. (Regueiro et al.2006).But their variances are less than in India. Semino (2004) gives 18,000 ybp as the time of origin of J2. The variance was also high indicating indigenous origin of the haplogroup in India.J2 as well as its sub-clade J2b2 show a decreasing variance from India to the Balkans.



Sahoo et al had actually written the following words:“The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through thenorthwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny.Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a,and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are REJECTED, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H.” .They also rule out arrivals from Southwest Asia because West Asian haplogroups (like Y-Hg G) are not found in India.



Kivisild’s findings (2003) too had shown that humans could not have arrived from West Asia into Indiabecause of lack of West Asian Y-hgs E, G, I, J* and J2f. Kivisild et al wrote,“When compared with European and Middle Eastern populations (Semino et al. 2000), Indians (i) share with themclades J2 and M173 derived sister groups R1b and R1a, the latter of which is particularly frequent in India; and (ii) lack or show amarginal frequency of clades E, G, I, J*, and J2f.”



There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.



Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus….” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time. R2 is very rare in Europe.

Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. – 2006.



A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed “no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals”. Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.In its conclusions the study proposed “the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins” as well as “the origin of R1a1* … in the Indian subcontinent”.

S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.

- Sharma et al 2009



The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. “The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society.”

“Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.”

-”Reconstructing Indian Population History”

- David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh

- 2009



Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a lineages.

Theyfound that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia. From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited thePontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand Baltic speaking people



Team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenousin origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisildet al.200



Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in

genetic circles. He wrote, “And sure enoug

h we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 isnot only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes itspresence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as amarker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India”.

# 3. Giggsy Says:

December 9th, 2011 at 10:41 am



http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/47/figure/F1?highres=y



To sum up we conclude that, because of its very high frequency and diversity, haplogroup O-M95 had an in-situ origin among the Indian Austro-Asiatics, particularly among the Mundaris, not in Southeast Asia as envisaged earlier. Given the large estimate of TMRCA, our study suggests that the Mundari populations are one of the earliest settlers in the Indian Subcontinent.

# 4. Razib Khan Says:

December 9th, 2011 at 1:31 pm



wow giggsy, lots of shit larded around a few flecks of gold. YOU’RE BANNED!!! :-)

Quote:"Gatekeeping and custody are synonymous. It is a service of the Sacred House, opening and locking its doors. This was bestowed on Tasm, a tribe of Aad before Quraish. It passed to Khuza'a, then Qusai, who gave it to his son Abdul Dar, who handed it over to his son Othman. It shifted from one person to another until it rested with their nephew Shaiba. It is still inherited by their ancestors up to the present day. The Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) handed the key to Bani Shaiba in' the year of the conquest of Makkah AI-Mukarramah, and said, "Take it, O Bani Talha, eternally up to the Day of Resurrection, and it will not be taken from you unless by an unjust, oppressive tyrant". (12)



[color="#0000FF"]According to the below Arab DNA Forum one member of one of the custodians of the Holy Ka'bah (Member of the Bani Shaiba Family) his YDNA results came as



R1a1a



M6740 Al-Shibi Al-Qurashi[/color]

Quote: Bani Shaiba

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bani_Shaiba

The Bani Shaiba (Arabic: Banī Shaybah بني شيبه) are an Islamic tribe that hold the keys to the Kaaba. The members of the tribe greet visitors into the Kaaba during the cleaning ceremony and clean the interior together with the visitors.

History



This was bestowed on Tasm, a tribe of Aad before Quraysh. It passed to Khuza'a, then Qusai, who gave it to his son Abdul Dar, who handed it over to his son Othman. It shifted from one person to another until it rested with their nephew Shaiba. It is still inherited by their successors up to the present day.[citation needed] Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, handed the keys to Bani Shaiba in the year of the conquest of Mecca, and said, "Take it, O Bani Talha, eternally up to the Day of Resurrection, and it will not be taken from you unless by an unjust, oppressive tyrant"[citation needed]

Quote:Abdul Muttalib

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Muttalib

Shaybah ibn Hāshim (Arabic: شيبة ابن هاشم عبد المطّلب‎; ca. 497 – 578), better known as 'Abdul Muṭṭalib or 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib, since he was raised by his uncle Muṭṭalib,[1] was the grandfather of Islamic prophet Muḥammad.



Early life

His father was Hāshim ibn `Abd Manāf and his mother was Salmah bint `Amr from the Banū Najjār tribe in Yathrib (later called, Madinah). On his father's side he belonged to the distinguished Banū Hāshim clan, a subgroup of the Quraish tribe of Makkah which traced their genealogy to Ismā'īl and Ibrāhīm. His father died while doing business in Gaza, before he was born.



He was given the name "Shaybah" meaning 'the ancient one' or 'white-haired' for the streak of white through his jet-black hair, and is sometimes also called Shaybat al-Ḥamd ("The white streak of praise"). After his father's death he was raised in Yathrib with his mother and her family until about the age of eight, when his uncle Muṭṭalib went to see him and asked his mother Salmah bint `Amr to entrust Shaybah to his care. Salmah was unwilling to let her son go and Shaybah refused to leave his mother without her consent. Muṭṭalib then pointed out that the possibilities Yathrib had to offer were incomparable to Makkah. Salmah was impressed with his arguments, so she agreed to let him go. Upon first arriving in Makkah, the people assumed the unknown child was Muṭṭalib's slave, giving him the name `Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib (slave of Muṭṭalib). When Muṭṭalib died, Shaybah succeeded him as the chief of the Banū Hāshim clan.

The Year of the Elephant



According to Muslim tradition, the Ethiopian governor of Yemen, Abrahah al-Ashram, envied the Ka'bah's reverence among the Arabs and, being a Christian, he built a cathedral in Sana'a and ordered pilgrimage be made there. The order was ignored and someone desecrated (some saying in the form of defecation) the cathedral. Abrahah decided to avenge this act by demolishing the Ka'bah and he advanced with an army towards Mecca.



There were many elephants in Abrahah's army and the year came to be known as 'Ām al-Fīl (the Year of the Elephant), beginning a trend for reckoning the years in Arabia which was used until 'Umar ibn al Khaṭṭāb replaced it with the Islamic Calendar.



When news of the advance of Abrahah's army came, the Arab tribes of Quraysh, Banū Kinānah, Banū Khuzā'ah and Banū Hudhayl united in defense of the Ka'bah. A man from the Ḥimyar tribe was sent by Abrahah to