What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2

HareKrishna · 10-02-2009, 11:56 PM

QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 2 2009, 11:11 AM)R1a1 variance
Haplotype variance of R1a1a-M198 based on 7 Y-STR loci
0.505 India South
0.475 Pakistan South
0.426 India West
0.353 Finland
0.298 Turkey
0.281 Ukraine
0.247 Hungary
0.243 Pakistan North
[right][snapback]101694[/snapback][/right]

Thats the variance of R1a1a
What about R1a1b and R1a1c?
Now you must resolve the biggest problem of R1a and this is:
How is posible that the biggest variance(diveristy) of R1a is found at the extremes of R1a expansion,among the Chenchu tribe in India and bosnian-croatians in Yugoslavia?
It cant have the origin in the both places and especially as thousands of miles apart.
Maybe a neolithic expansion of R1a and R1b from the Middle East 8000 years ago is posible.
Is already know that highest diversity of R 1b is in Turkey so R1a must have origin near-by in that unresearched area.R1a and R1b must be at the edges of the Middle east and this explain their lack of succes in the Middle east but the huge succes among primitive hunter-gatherers from Europe and Asia .

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-03-2009, 08:16 AM by dhu.)

HK,

We have been over this before.

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=69732 - [[[[[[[link reloaded]]]]

**acharya** · 10-03-2009, 07:15 AM

QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Oct 2 2009, 06:26 AM)
Thats the variance of R1a1a
What about R1a1b and R1a1c?
Now you must resolve the biggest problem of R1a and this is:
How is posible that the biggest variance(diveristy) of R1a is found at the extremes of R1a expansion,among the Chenchu tribe in India and bosnian-croatians in Yugoslavia?
It cant have the origin in the both places and especially as thousands of miles apart.
Maybe a neolithic expansion of R1a and R1b from the Middle East 8000 years ago is posible.
Is already know that highest diversity of R 1b is in Turkey so R1a must have origin near-by in that unresearched area.R1a and R1b must be at the edges of the Middle east and this explain their lack of succes in the Middle east but the huge succes among primitive hunter-gatherers from Europe and Asia .
[right][snapback]101701[/snapback][/right]


So What?
This still means that genes were present in India atleast 40000 years ago and there was no migration into India.

Population and geography is well suited for India being the center of this diversity.

**acharya** · 10-03-2009, 07:19 AM

QUOTE(Honsol @ May 9 2007, 10:21 AM)What is your opinion about indian Y-chromosome.
Here are aproximate percent of the diferent haplogroups.
north indian
R1A 37%
L 28%
H 14%
C 8%
F 4%
R2 4%
J 3%
O 3%

south indian
L 29%
H 18%
F 15%
J 14%
R2 10%
R1A 9%
C 5%
O 1%
Haplogroups L,H,C,F,O,are considered as existent in India from paleolithic.J(J2) is considered as marker for expansion of neolithic from Middle east.
Some put R2 as original from Middle east or even Europe,while others consider original from India.
The problematic marker is R1A which is considered to originate in Ukraine 10000 years ago.Some belive that it reach India by paleolithic hunters from Ukraine imediatly after ice age( or of course as aryans on horses).
Except Ukraine,Kashmir genotype is similar in proportion and diversity,so some propose Kashmir as original place for R1a ,while it can be sugest a genetic Continuum from Ukraine to Kashmir.
I mention that R1a and J2 are only 2 major groups that India share Europe,while all the others(L,H,C,F)are absent.
Were i can find more data regarding this problem?

a map whit world y-chromosome
http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/W-MAP.GIF
[right][snapback]68530[/snapback][/right]

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-03-2009, 08:53 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 3 2009, 07:15 AM)So What?
This still means that genes were present in India atleast 40000 years ago and there was no migration into India.

Population and geography is well suited for India being the center of this diversity.
[right][snapback]101709[/snapback][/right]


But they will ask such piercing questions as 'why are the roots of the earliest migration not seen in Europe? Doesn't it mean that Europe is completely separate!!'

First they eliminate time depth and diversity considerations and then propose aggregate groupings between ancestor and derivative populations.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 10-03-2009, 11:20 AM by Husky.)

QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 3 2009, 08:45 AM)But they will ask such piercing questions as 'why are the roots of the earliest migration not seen in Europe?Â Doesn't it mean that Europe is completely separate!!'

First they eliminate time depth and diversity considerations and then propose aggregate groupings between ancestor and derivative populations.
[right][snapback]101712[/snapback][/right]Dhu, anything to explain the AIT miracle. I mean the AI miracle. I mean the oryan miracle. It's gawd-ordained. Stop resisting it, you obvious heathen. Stop asking logical questions.
It shall have been (must be made to have been), even if it never was.
You are thwarting the future they desire, their self-perceptions in the present - which they worked hard to create and which they are immensely attached to - by denying the past they have invented for themselves, one which is required to hold up their present and chosen future.

HareKrishna · 10-03-2009, 01:04 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 3 2009, 07:15 AM)
So What?
This still means that genes were present in India atleast 40000 years ago and there was no migration into India.

Population and geography is well suited for India being the center of this diversity.
[right][snapback]101709[/snapback][/right]

We mixed the facts .Surely genes exist in India 40000 years ago but not
R1a which is way more recent.The part whit Middle east is my speculation.
The real wonder for me is how the R1a is the most diverse in the bosnians(Yugoslavia) and Chenchu(India) far away from each other.Nobody wonder about this until now.This for me raise the question about the real origin of R1a.
And nobody ask from where J2 originate (J2 form about 11% of indian Y gene) .J2 have the biggest frequency and variance in Kurdistan or nearby.
If you have information about their indian origin please provide.

HareKrishna · 10-03-2009, 01:10 PM

QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 3 2009, 08:45 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 3 2009, 07:15 AM)So What?
This still means that genes were present in India atleast 40000 years ago and there was no migration into India.

Population and geography is well suited for India being the center of this diversity.
[right][snapback]101709[/snapback][/right]


But they will ask such piercing questions as 'why are the roots of the earliest migration not seen in Europe? Doesn't it mean that Europe is completely separate!!'

First they eliminate time depth and diversity considerations and then propose aggregate groupings between ancestor and derivative populations.
[right][snapback]101712[/snapback][/right]
</div>
Who are they?the masons? im not part of any such group .The only group i am is the Center of Vedic Studies Bucharest.
The purpose of Vedic Studies Center is to facilitate the systematic study of philosophy, culture and science presented in the ancient Vedic writings and comments on them. The center responds to this work by providing visitors books, articles, lectures, video presentations and other aids.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-03-2009, 11:46 PM by acharya.)

QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Oct 2 2009, 07:34 PM)
Surely genes exist in India 40000 years ago but not
<b>R1a which is way more recent.</b>The part whit Middle east is my speculation.
The real wonder for me is how the R1a is the most diverse in the bosnians(Yugoslavia) and Chenchu(India) far away from each other.Nobody wonder about this until now.This for me raise the question about the real origin of R1a.


Can you give the time period for R1a gene. What are the occurrence of this gene.

There will different time period of R1a in both the location.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-04-2009, 09:26 AM by dhu.)

Variance of R1b increases towards the East - such that even eurocentric wiki states that R1b originated in either C Asia or Anatolia (actually C Asia). R2 is localized only to India and diversity of R1 is greatest in South India; if one clade is strictly local and the other equivalent clade has spread, then it is obvious that the origin is to be sought in the area where the two clades intersect. Coupled with the fact that upstream K (dubbed Krishna by Oppenheimer) so obviously diversified in India, (wiki again states that K2-T originated in Asia and K2 is just one branch in K), the origin of R can only be India. In addition, given that R is a late branch, there is no way that it can originate in c europe with complete absence of the progenitor K types. It is simply has to be an entrant from S Asia!

dhu · 10-04-2009, 06:54 AM

QUOTE(Husky @ Oct 3 2009, 11:19 AM)anything to explain the AIT miracle. I mean the AI miracle. I mean the oryan miracle. It's gawd-ordained. Stop resisting it, you obvious heathen. Stop asking logical questions.
[right][snapback]101714[/snapback][/right]


The "no ASI in Europe" argument is particularly asinine. There is also no africanoid in Europe, but this does not mean that Europe is not derived from Africa. They are also using endogamy in India as a type of trump card.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-04-2009, 09:18 AM by dhu.)

Armed insurrection:

QUOTE<i>South Central Haplo said...</i>

Ignorant and selective argumentative Dienekes never listens to others if he doesnât like their argumentsand moronic terry never understands simple things and talks rubbish.

Agenda Of Dienekes he like to push: J2 is the super haplogroup of culture , Intelligence and Aryan Leader then Discredit Indian Subcontinent and prove Aryan Invasion theory.

Dienkes Argument: cast system proves Aryan Invasion theory. even if 80% of ANI lower casts are R1a and R2( the ratio of H is less in ANI and no other haplogroups in those parts). Again ANI is 70% of Indian sub continent,

ANSWER FROM Dienekes Then where, if not from India, do the West Asians and Europeans come from?

"There is no reason to introduce a massive detour in the history of mankind, so that people go all the way to India and then all the way back to West Asia and Europe."
What history you are talking about Dienek? there is nothing nada zip zero.

Oh you are Greek I forgot Zero is new concept for you . Poor Dienekes. All the Greek Mirages crashed in the number system.

People did not go all the way to India... you South Asian hater they started around from there. That is want genetics says. Show a single proof to contrary.

If genetics says Y haplo F,G,H,I,J,K,L, M, N, O,P , Q,R S,T, came from Europe please prove it.

Also from your link http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.7.vii.html

Just below your Indian reference it says

âThe Arians carried Median bows, but in other respects were equipped like the Bactrians. Their commander was Sisamnes the son of Hydarnes. â

Lets say what u are saying is
Arians : ANI(includes Pakistanis) :--- Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a( H is pushed to Europe as Gypsies)

Bactrians: Afghans Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a

Indians: ASI: South Indians.-- Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a
Â Â \
Side note for any Iranian friends: The term Arians is used for only Indo Pakistanis not for anybody else by Greeks who travelled in those parts with Iranian guides.

SO ASI travelled at least 2500 miles to fight(distance from Chennai to Tehran ) on elephant back and Alexander Army cried to go back after travelling 1500( Athens to Pakistan) miles. OK lets believe it.

Yes they are dark. Why is People from Kashmir are fair/Caucasian feature with more than 30% mt haplo M and 20% Y haplo H?.
What is this Caucasoid race actually where did they come from you think?..

"the languages spoken in India (Indo-Aryan certainly, and probably Dravidian) are not native to the country"

Where did they came from and where did you check? This is clear example of your ignorance and Anti South Asian agenda.

One point

ANi has more MtDNA: R which is clearly of South Asian origin,

<b>The place close to South Asia gave rise to
Y haplo K </b>+ mt dna R which is started from South Asia gave rise to mt U+H <b>and Y haplo L, N,o, P, Q, R, </b>mixed with East Asian and other mt haplo groups.

Lets give you small candy at the end dont feel bad it is shaped like zero.
These ANI derivatives so called Caucasoid definitely came back to India and there that is called Aryan Invasion. [[fellow has apparently not read nichols, won't say talageri to avoid crucifixion.Â More likely, he considers pakistan as non-indian]]]

HareKrishna · 10-04-2009, 11:35 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 3 2009, 09:15 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HareKrishna @ Oct 2 2009, 07:34 PM)
Surely genes exist in India 40000 years ago but not
<b>R1a which is way more recent.</b>The part whit Middle east is my speculation.
The real wonder for me is how the R1a is the most diverse in the bosnians(Yugoslavia) and Chenchu(India) far away from each other.Nobody wonder about this until now.This for me raise the question about the real origin of R1a.


Can you give the time period for R1a gene. What are the occurrence of this gene.

There will different time period of R1a in both the location.
[right][snapback]101727[/snapback][/right]
</div>
Haplogroup K-35000 years ago
P-25000-35000 years
R-26000-28000years
R2-25000 years
R1a-15000-18000 years
R1b 18500 years
R1a1(major subclade of R1a) 11600 years.
Acording to National Genographic there was 2 major migrations in India
one 60000-70000 years ago from Africa which bring haplogroup F
second 20000 years ago from Caucasus which bring haplogroup R

The first information i read about R1a1 was something like this
11600 years ago in Balkans
10500 years ago in India
about 10000 years in Ukraine and Oman
There was no big diference in time depth betwin these regions.
However after a couple of months i read a different interpretation of data on Dienekes site if i remember right
the date for Balkans 11600 remain the same but for Ukraine and India the time depth was lowered from 10000 years to less then 6000 years (practicaly cut in half).

HareKrishna · 10-04-2009, 11:49 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 4 2009, 06:35 AM)Variance of R1b increases towards the East - such that even eurocentric wiki states that R1b originated in either C Asia or Anatolia (actually C Asia).Â R2 is localized only to India and diversity of R1 is greatest in South India; if one clade is strictly local and the other equivalent clade has spread, then it is obvious that the origin is to be sought in the area where the two clades intersect.Â Coupled with the fact that upstream K (dubbed Krishna by Oppenheimer) so obviously diversified in India, (wiki again states that K2-T originated in Asia and K2 is just one branch in K), the origin of R can only be India.Â In addition, given that R is a late branch, there is no way that it can originate in c europe with complete absence of the progenitor K types.Â It is simply has to be an entrant from S Asia!
[right][snapback]101730[/snapback][/right]

Only because the frequency of R2 is biggest in India doesnt mean that originate there.Just like R1b didnt originate in Europe despite the fact that frequency is the biggest there.We must know the diversity(variance) of R2 in order to know more about origin.
K and R mutations are separated by thousands of years so is not necessary to have th e origin in the same place.

Farmers have 2 big advantages of spreading their genes over the hunter-gatherers ;one they can have support 10-100 more people and in all the world the male farmer married hunter gatherer doter.

A language cant be older then 20000 years and the evidence for this is the big numer of languages and family languages .We assume that the small group that leave Africa spoke the same language.
And we observ many languages in hunter-gatherer areas(Papua) so we assume that this was the rule in paleolithic.
In America we have many language family formed in less the 20000 years from a small number of imigrants from Siberia(whic probably didnt spoke more the 1-3 languages).

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-04-2009, 08:19 PM by dhu.)

Varaince of R1b is greatest towards East. R2 is of course in East. And R1a Chenchus are not just any population, they are a relict population which subsequently expanded in the subcontinent.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lvVZ6C97yUo/Sp-R...equency+map.jpg

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-05-2009, 03:46 AM by dhu.)

The K progenitor clades of R are all seen profusely in India and further East and are conspicuously absent in Europe. Of course, this does not deter our angreji friends who have K migrate directly out of Africa, even though the initial trajectory out of Africa had long elapsed and there is a prolifeartion of C and F along the southern route, while there is no trace of C,F,K in residual Africa. The main joker selling this snake oil is Spencer Wells from Genographic society.

1. So-called ANI proceeded to populate Europe after the appropriate corridor opened up at 45K. The southern Exodus (as explicated by Oppenheimer) had skipped Europe and climactic conditions made colonization of Europe impossible before this time. The present study implies that ANI âemerged fromâ the initial settlers in South India. Additionally, archaeological traces of AMH in Europe lag behind those in S. Asia by tens of thousands of years. There was no AMH in Europe before 40K and these were subject to replacement from interior Asia at even later dates ( as evidenced by presence of only a single line R without progenitor clades; the other clades â IJ â are Mideastern, with J being Iranian).

2. Talageri has convincingly elaborated on Nicholsâ model for westward expansion of IE from Bactria. The more archaic forms are transported west and isolated from further developments. Hittite, Tokharian, and Italo-Celtic all *must have* made a northward exit and only India fits this requirement; all other locations require that these three diverged in completely opposite directions with subsequent backmigration of another dialect into the original location of I-Ir (which was the last to leave).

3. The AIT is categorically ideological and requires the operation of a monotheist/theological âcaste systemâ in Indian society in order to usher in the âAryansâ as the âagents of sanskritic cultureâ. This has been aptly explicated by Marianne Keppens, a colleague of SN Balagangadhara.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-06-2009, 10:27 AM by dhu.)

PK Manansala:

Who came first, Indians or Europeans?
K V Ramana / DNA

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_who...ropeans_1294860
QUOTEHyderabad: We often talk and worry about brain drain, where the brightest Indians move out of the sub-continent, generally to the West, seeking better opportunities. However, it may turn out that this is hardly a new trend.

Geneticists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad released a study last week which suggested that the Indian population has its origin in migrants from Africa who arrived here 45,000 to 65,000 years ago. The next stage of the study, they say, will explore whether Europe got populated by migrating Indians. This will go against the belief that in ancient times, humans moving from Europe populated India.

Earlier studies published in 2005 have established that the mega droughts in East Africa had forced the population there to migrate to greener pastures some 75,000 years ago. <b>The migrant Africans are believed to have taken the southern coastal route to reach India. </b>The currently prevailing view is that the original inhabitants of Africa followed a northern route of migration via Middle East, Europe, south-east Asia, Australia and then to India.

In addition to these findings, CCMB's recent research has shown that today's sub-continental population originated from two groups of ancestors: Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI). While the ASI entered from the south, the ANI entered India from the northern region.

"We are now going to answer several key questions going forward," says Dr Lalji Singh, former director of the CCMB and a senior scientist on genetic research."We are always told that people from different parts of the planet migrated into India. But we were never told that people from India, too, had wandered out. The ANI have similarity to Europeans and to Iranians. When you look at the origin of the Indian population, the Onges in the Andaman Islands are dated to about 65,000 years ago, and the European population is dated to 40,000 years ago. So the question of Europeans coming to India does not arise.

<b>The ANI must have given rise to the European population. We would now like to confirm this," </b>he says.

<b>Though the scientists now seem to have enough evidence to prove that the Europeans have their origins in India,</b> there are a couple of questions that need to be answered first. There is a possibility that the Europeans had a common ancestor like the ANI. If this is disproved, then it will add strength to the argument that Indians populated Europe.

Implications for medical research

According to Singh, some genetic disorders can be treated in a better manner if "what we'll be working on in the next three years gives all the desired results."

Indeed, more information about the nature of the Indian genome would aid bio-technology research to streamline treatment for genetic disorders that are more prevalent among than Indians in other populations.

There are two types of genetic disorders. The recessive diseases are those that do not show up in a person though one of the two genes (from the father and mother) has some defect. But a dominant disease shows up if either of the two genes have any defect. So, the recessive disease remains hidden. "The genetic studies of smaller groups, tribes and castes in the country will give us a clear idea on the hidden (recessive) diseases. Similarly, we can look for better treatment for the yet-to-be born child," he said.

"India was neglected all these years. Scientists in western countries normally study Europe, America and Russia and for them that is the whole world. Any theory they make is based on the findings in these geographies. From our studies they have now realised their blunder. India is a melting pot and I am sure many countries and continents were populated by India. It (our study) is going to rewrite both science and history," Singh said.

G.Subramaniam · 10-06-2009, 10:39 AM

Dhu,
Razib claims support for AIT
because ASI is absent in Europeans and every Indian caste including Pathans have ASI 25%, and he says that precludes OIT

Can you please clarify

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-06-2009, 11:52 AM by dhu.)

Native Americans have 100% Sinodonty. Chinese have some 60% or so. It does not mean that China is a hybrid of Native Americans and Southeast Asians. They are norming the outlier and the derived line. Why is there no Sundadont in native Americas? Sinodonty proceeds out of sundadonty.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 10-06-2009, 11:25 AM by dhu.)

They are claiming australoid as the only authentic indian. lines separate from australoid are stated to be Caucasoid and these must then be, logically (at the surface level of rhetorics), derived from outside the subcontinent. Australoid is only found along the route of southern migration, so naturally, its percentage will be less as one proceeds northward. but the northward lines are derived directly from the australoid. An independent provenance for the northern lines can only be achieved by 'norming'; a theological act.

The CCMB group does not seem to have fallen for this game by Reich and his british cryptologist buddy.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?