[quote name='Niki' date='11 December 2009 - 05:30 AM' timestamp='1260489147' post='102885']
Is this for real? Sounds like unadulterated rubbish. Who came up with this list? It has more holes than material
[/quote]
I did came whit this list and reflect my personal opinions.
My theory is that tropicals are mostly religious fanatics or to say different,very religious people.Thats could be acceptable if they didn't convert to biblical terrorist religions.
Bible belt is a minority even in US(30%) and US is the most religious white country.While tropicals are over 90% Bible belt type of guys.
Civilization appear among tropical yes,but there was an agricultural civilization not an industrial one.Industrial civilization is clearly ruled by temperats(europeans,east-asians). The cold climate made it harsh to adapt tropical plants like cereals.
Even so ,civilisation did exist in Europe(just to name monolith constructions which are usually older then asian ones) .Tropical civilisation was a palace culture ,meaning that tropical people were forced to please their brutal rulers whit art,harems,crafts.
While pyramids may have think that they mean culture ,think that common egyptians weren't very happy to cary heavy stones in order to please the absolute king(pharaoh).Independent by nature,europeans didn't accept to be bullied by their rulers to do such constructions.For this reason ancient europeans may look barbarians.
In conclusion ,religios fanaticism,especially biblical one ,is today a mostly tropical phenomena. We see today Japan,China,Russia,Europe mostly whit non-dogmatic,not very religious people and for that reason free from fanaticism(mostly).
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='03 January 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1262529345' post='103288']
While pyramids may have think that they mean culture ,think that common egyptians weren't very happy to cary heavy stones in order to please the absolute king(pharaoh).Independent by nature,europeans didn't accept to be bullied by their rulers to do such constructions.For this reason ancient europeans may look barbarians.
[/quote]
While carrying heavy stones for Pharoah probably meant employment for the poor Egyptian who could feed himself and his family, the average European was forced to resort to cannibalism and/or die during Cursades in name of God, King and Pope - something more recent than ancient Egyptians.
Also Pharaoh's didn't go about disrespecting women unlike European Lords who legalized 'Prima Nocta' (First Night) where they could have their way.
Separate wheat from chaff before buying into euro-crap.
Futhermore, the link you have posted on religiosity and IQ is absolutely meaningless since it's results are derived from two separate studies or sample.
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='03 January 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1262529345' post='103288']
I did came whit this list and reflect my personal opinions.
My theory is that tropicals are mostly religious fanatics or to say different,very religious people.Thats could be acceptable if they didn't convert to biblical terrorist religions.
Bible belt is a minority even in US(30%) and US is the most religious white country.While tropicals are over 90% Bible belt type of guys.
Civilization appear among tropical yes,but there was an agricultural civilization not an industrial one.Industrial civilization is clearly ruled by temperats(europeans,east-asians). The cold climate made it harsh to adapt tropical plants like cereals.
Even so ,civilisation did exist in Europe(just to name monolith constructions which are usually older then asian ones) .Tropical civilisation was a palace culture ,meaning that tropical people were forced to please their brutal rulers whit art,harems,crafts.
While pyramids may have think that they mean culture ,think that common egyptians weren't very happy to cary heavy stones in order to please the absolute king(pharaoh).Independent by nature,europeans didn't accept to be bullied by their rulers to do such constructions.For this reason ancient europeans may look barbarians.
In conclusion ,religios fanaticism,especially biblical one ,is today a mostly tropical phenomena. We see today Japan,China,Russia,Europe mostly whit non-dogmatic,not very religious people and for that reason free from fanaticism(mostly).
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
[/quote]
I am not sure this is true. Probably these ideas are first peddled by Euro centric sociologists. Europe , Japan and china all had all types of excesses, including cannibalism, religious fanaticism, poverty, crime. You name it. Have you heard of crusades, where even the English travelled all the way to Jerusalem. Have you heard of poverty during the 1700's and 1800s in europe. Europe was filthy in the middle ages, that is why plague destroyed most of their lower class population.
European Kings were as despotic as any other. European church was as brutal as Islam or any other religion, remember the Spanish inquisition, the massacre of Jews etc.
Japan was brutally poor in the 1700's ruled by their emperor. If you think, modern Europeans are reformists, then what is capitalism, where a large majority toils to produce riches for a few rich oligarch's ( read MNC's ). The Europe we see is a finished product, that has evolved and become very prosperous and more orderly. Other countries need time to catch up.
I think only an ignorant mind can come up with such sweeping generalisations.
- Regds,
Krishna
R1b, west european Y haplogroup has been dated to 10k years ago and originated in Iran / Turkey border
R1A entered Europe 10k years ago along north shore of caspian sea, following retreating glaciers
whereas R1B followed the south shore of caspian sea
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages:
The relative contributions to modern European populations of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers from the Near East have been intensely debated. Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men. Previous studies suggested a Paleolithic origin, but here we show that the geographical distribution of its microsatellite diversity is best explained by spread from a single source in the Near East via Anatolia during the Neolithic. Taken with evidence on the origins of other haplogroups, this indicates that most European Y chromosomes originate in the Neolithic expansion.
01-20-2010, 08:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-20-2010, 08:46 AM by dhu.)
It is possible that R1b started in C Asia, went o'er the 'ol Caspian, and then, blocked by the climactic ice, dipped back down into the caucasus and from there into asia minor and onwards to europe. Maybe a few trudged along hugging the northern coast of the Black Sea as well. Yeah I know about C Asia but I am talking realistically here (discounting all herrenvolk fantasies).
By the time that R1a expanded there was no ice block and it completely overwhelmed E Europe.
Later, the Hatti followed the transcaucasus route into Asia Minor, while the Mittani, Sindoi, Kassites, and the Greco-Persians took a more direct ME route, along with their greekoid slaves.
It is also possible that the inland seas do not present any effective challenges to migration.
[quote name='dhu' date='20 January 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1263956534' post='103612']
It is possible that R1b started in C Asia, went o'er the 'ol Caspian, and then, blocked by the climactic ice, dipped back down into the caucasus and from there into asia minor and onwards to europe. Maybe a few trudged along hugging the northern coast of the Black Sea as well. Yeah I know about C Asia but I am talking realistically here (discounting all herrenvolk fantasies).
By the time that R1a expanded there was no ice block and it completely overwhelmed E Europe.
Later, the Hatti followed the transcaucasus route into Asia Minor, while the Mittani, Sindoi, Kassites, and the Greco-Persians took a more direct ME route, along with their greekoid slaves.
It is also possible that the inland seas do not present any effective challenges to migration.
[/quote]
R1b must have originated a little earlier than R1a, and moving along Caspian Sea north and then west appears plausible, but equally likely is that R1b moved west before the last ice age, so did not really have to move north of Caspian sea, just migrated west and populated wester and northen Europe, but later they were pushed back to ice age refuges in Iberia and Balkans.
And then populating entire Northen and Western Europe and part of Central Europe as well, which was very thinly populated at that time.
R1a probably closely behind R1b, ( and assuming it originated in south central asia ) diffused/radiated across , towards central India, north towards caspian sea, and west towards Iran ( only eastern part of Iran ) and perhaps east towards east central asia. Again all this just prior to the last ice age ( approximately 18k to 20 K years ). Once ice age started and peaked, again R1a was pushed to pockets/refuges around Caspian Sea, and of course parts of Iran and India.
Once Ice age retreated, the R1a near Caspian sea/ Iran area expanded to Eastern Europe, Large parts of Central Asia and perhaps a little bit to Northern India, ( though i am not fully convinced of large scale migration to India ). Post glacial, R1a expansion to Eastern Europe was easy, because again it was not populated much.
One difference between population of R1b across western Europe and R1a across Easter Europe was the former was mostly hunter gatherers and neolithic farmers, whereas the latter was a pastoral/nomadic steppe group with horses and with bronze tools. This probably allowed R1a in Eastern Europe to easily and entirely change the language of Entire Europe into IE language, but not large scale genetic replacement( from the original r1b language, perhaps Basque like language ) as we see large percentages of R1b in Spain, Portugal and France and even Ireland i think. Once sees a gradual reduction in the percentage of R1a as we across west from easter Europe to the shores of France.
And it was also possible, that R1a once existed across vast expanses of Central Asia all the way reaching upto Western China, especially right after the last ice age ended ( Anyone familiar with the caucasian Mummies found in western China? ). But i guess, the later westward expansion of Altaic speaking Turkic/Mongol tribes ( no doubt aided by their new found tools and horses, and harsh climatic conditions ) wiped out all this r1a in that region. ( this may explain the shape of R1a distritbution in the map, there are two areas of high concentrations one in N India and another in Eastern Europe, the in between region is filled with Turkic groups.
Though I do think, the horse was native to the steppe region and perhaps was domesticated there by R1a groups, the acquisition of bronze tools, and invention of wheel, and perhaps even basics of agriculture must have probably originated much south and travelled north from the North India/Afghanistan ( around Mehergarh ) region to the steppe R1a groups through cultural diffustion and perhaps trade, or even two way travel.
The Mehergarh settlements originated agriculture, perhaps even invented bronze, and dependancy on milk diet. And the later day Indus valley civilisation, which was even more advanced, with wheeled carts driven by Ox probably transmitted some of their technological advancements to the Steppe groups to their north. ( i refuse to believe that they ( indus valley ) suddenly collapsed due to invading 'groups' ) ( I do know that existing literature says first wheel appeared in Poland around 3500 BC, but i am a little skeptical about this )
Post glacial R1a populations across the steppes around Caspian Sea, probably were very primitive, and entirely depended on hunted animal meat and caves for survival. And all their Chariots, bronze technology/weapons, and a few other aspects like change to a milk based diet, all most likely came to them from the groups south , that is in the Iran/Afghanistan/North Indian regions, who were also predominantly R1a I think ( atleast at that time period )
And these advances, definitely, gave them an edge, when they went west, and conquered western europe, ( atleast culturally ). And i am sure many of the steppe groups also spread south later, and invaded/diffused , due to their war like culture, but i doubt, it was anything like the colonization of superior groups with weapons over the primitive natives ( as described by the so called AIT )
The above theory is my two cents worth, for all the holes in it! <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='Krishna' date='20 January 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1263978565' post='103623']
And it was also possible, that R1a once existed across vast expanses of Central Asia all the way reaching upto Western China, especially right after the last ice age ended ( Anyone familiar with the caucasian Mummies found in western China? ). But i guess, the later westward expansion of Altaic speaking Turkic/Mongol tribes ( no doubt aided by their new found tools and horses, and harsh climatic conditions ) wiped out all this r1a in that region. ( this may explain the shape of R1a distritbution in the map, there are two areas of high concentrations one in N India and another in Eastern Europe, the in between region is filled with Turkic groups.
[/quote]
Yep,between 4 and 10 century ,the guys whit vertical eyes(turks) wipe out the guys whit blue eyes(Scythians) from Central Asia.
01-23-2010, 05:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2010, 10:47 PM by acharya.)
[quote name='Krishna' date='17 January 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1263668951' post='103541']
--Trim--
[/quote]
in the ancient age everybody was violent(includind europeans and east-asians) because the means of living was very few,agriculture only lead to poverty which lead to a culture of violence.
But in industrial age ,the technology can provide an least the basics for each one which lead to much less violence.
But for industry and technology you need a little more iq something that temperats(europeans and east-asians) have ;they are 20-30% smarter then tropicals.
Tropicals cant handle technology and this lead to agricultural poverty ,which lead to a culture of violence.
PS - i didnt mention the importance of ideological factor ;for exemple a jain would not become violent even he is poor.
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='23 January 2010 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1264249770' post='103662']
But for industry and technology you need a little more iq something that temperats(europeans and east-asians) have ;they are 20-30% smarter then tropicals.
[/quote]
Any data to back this up?
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='23 January 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1264249770' post='103662']
[size="5"]Tropicals cant handle technology[/size] and this lead to agricultural poverty ,which lead to a culture of violence.
[/quote]
This is statement which does not have data to back it up
[quote name='Viren' date='24 January 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1264337927' post='103673']
Any data to back this up?
[/quote]
Mongols have an IQ of 80
and they live in colder climate than Han
My counter-example is Mauritius,
where despite the drag of 15% muslim population and 30% Black population
the remaining 50% Hindu population has pulled up the economy to a decent level
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='26 January 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1264496733' post='103704']
If Mauritius can, why India and Nepal cant?Maybe because Mauritius has a more open economy?Maybe because the traditional local culture is for some reason favorable to economic growth.
[/quote]
Indian economy has been under pressure first due to British during the 200 years rule and then socialist BS for the last 60 years. Only now the free spirit of the economy is coming out after 300 years. Most of the industrial age happened during this period. How can you compare these regions.
HK: Mafia or organized crime of all shades and colors exists in US. Including Japanese, Chinese too. Since when's their IQ been low?
And Black-mafia?? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
And Sri Lanka's example of technically advanced economy which is non-tropical???? Advice to desi techies: move south towards equator to Lanka for better jobs and living and don't forget to pack your sweaters and mittens too? Page UN and have India delisted from G-8 and replace with Lanka.
Acharaya or any other mod: This page needs some pruning and trimming. BS has gone for too long.
01-27-2010, 10:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2010, 10:46 PM by acharya.)
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='27 January 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1264605951' post='103735']
There is no need for trimming ,except maybe the last 3 messages .I just point out the genetic differences between different climate zones.It have a remotely connection whit the DNA part of this topic.
[/quote]
No real empirical connections between the DNA and climate zones.
No more discussion on this
[quote name='acharya' date='27 January 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1264611803' post='103737']
No real empirical connections between the DNA and climate zones.
No more discussion on this
[/quote]
Totally agree that there is not much of an empirical evidence between DNA and climatic zones. Some glaring contradictions:
- Sri Lanka has a higher per capita GDP than most of the 'sthan' coutries like Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan and even Georgia but Sri Lanka IQ is lower
- India has almost same GDP as Vietnam, yet, Vietnam's IQ is much higher than India's.
Having said this, i would say, the opposite that there is no correlation between races and IQ, is also not conclusively proveable. When we look at Africa and Europe, the difference is glaring. Can anyone explain why Sri Lanka is richer than all African countries which have the same latitude ( like Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria etc ) . But, that is a different topic. Also , the average IQ's of various countries n( in it is present form ) itself is suspect and is not accurate. Perhaps , after when the IQ values of various countries have been measured accurately, can a meaningful comparision between countries be made.
Anyway, this topic is about DNA and Aryan migration theory, we are going off topic, into IQ.
an interesting scientific study of Indian ethnic and "caste" origins.Though there will be considerable controversy about northies being "higher" and southies being "lower",from the findings,the sheer diversity of India's population is what is truly exciting and what must be preserved in our nation's interests.
Quote:Indiaââ¬â¢s caste system descended from two tribes ââ¬Ënot colonialismââ¬â¢
Mark Henderson Science Editor
Genetic profiling shows that the structure of Indian society today reflects early social groupings, not just colonialism Indiaââ¬â¢s caste system is not a relic of colonialism but has existed in some form for thousands of years, the most comprehensive study yet of the genetic diversity of the sub-continent has suggested.
The genetic profiles typical of modern castes are indistinguishable from those of much older tribal groups, Indian and American scientists have found. This suggests that they emerged from populations of shared ancestry who have married among themselves for many generations.
The researchers wrote in the journal Nature: ââ¬ÅSome historians have argued that caste in modern India is an ââ¬Ëinventionââ¬â¢ of colonialism, in the sense that it became more rigid under colonial rule. However, our results indicate that many current distinctions among groups are ancient and that strong endogamy [marriage within a group] must have shaped marriage patterns in India for thousands of years.ââ¬Â
Kumarasamy Thangaraj, of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad, and a leader of the study, said: ââ¬ÅIt is impossible to distinguish castes from tribes using the data. The genetics proves that they are not systematically different. This supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organisations during the formation of Indian society.ââ¬Â
Researchers analysed more than 500,000 genetic markers from 132 people from 25 different groups.
The research established that modern Indians of all castes are descended from two ancestral groups.
Indians can trace between 39 per cent and 71 per cent of their ancestry to a population known as the Ancestral Northern Indians (ANI), who are quite closely related to Europeans and Asians. Those with a higher ancestral contribution from the ANI group are more likely to belong to higher castes, and to speak Indo-European languages such as Hindi and Bengali.
The other ancient population are the Ancestral Southern Indians (ASI), who are not genetically close to any group outside the sub-continent. People with a higher ASI ancestry are more likely to belong to lower castes, and to speak non Indo-European languages such as Tamil.
The research, by scientists from CCMB in India and Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States, has also established that Indians are much more genetically diverse than Europeans.
This result indicates that many modern Indian groups are descended from a small number of ââ¬Åfounding individualsââ¬Â, whose descendants interbred among themselves to create genetically isolated populations.
Lalji Singh, director of CCMB, said: ââ¬ÅIndia is genetically not a single large population, but instead is best described as many smaller isolated populations.ââ¬Â
This insight has important medical implications for people of Indian origin, because groups that are descended from small founding populations often have a high incidence of inherited diseases. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have a high risk of Tay-Sachs disease.
This may explain why several genetic conditions are more common in India than elsewhere: a mutation in a gene called MYBPC3, which raises the risk of heart failure sevenfold, is found in 4 per cent of Indians but is exceptionally rare elsewhere.
The only ethnic group who do not have this shared ancestry is the indigenous population of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean, who appear to be of exclusively ASI descent.
Nick Patterson, of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, said: ââ¬ÅThe Andamanese are unique. Understanding their origins provides a window on to the history of the Ancestral South Indians, and the period tens of thousands of years ago when they diverged from other Eurasians.ââ¬Â
Mr Singh added: ââ¬ÅOur project to sample the disappearing tribes of the Andaman Islands has been more successful than we could have hoped, as the Andamanese are the only surviving remnant of the ancient colonisers of South Asia.ââ¬Â
Aravinda Chakravarti, of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, wrote in a commentary for Nature: ââ¬ÅGreater ANI ancestry is significantly associated with Indo-European speakers and with traditionally ââ¬Ëhigherââ¬â¢ caste membership. This provides a model of how diversity within India came about. As such, its details are imperfect and will surely be contested, revised and improved.
ââ¬ÅCaste and custom may be strong barriers between groups, perhaps even today. But the common shared ancestry and rampant ANI/ASI mixture may be the strong, invisible thread that binds all Indians.ââ¬Â
02-06-2010, 11:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2010, 11:35 PM by dhu.)
I can't understand some of these fellows. Even though they clearly see some of the pieces, their resistance to an Indian origin is epic and unforgiving. One fellow is trying to prove that Sarasvati Nadi has nonglacial origin which somehow validates AIT. Here is another fellow who clearly sees the genetic evidence as well as kentum transformation into satem in Greater India yet predictably relies on backmigration to usher in the Aryans. No distinction is drawn between the formative and the derivative and the formative never has cultural significance. Minor eddies are mistaken for a cyclone and a tea cup for an ocean. Pure Madness.
Quote:I had summarized a theory here http://[..] from Madhya-Asia ki Itihas, Vol 1, pgs57-73
1. The ancestors of indo-europeans (IE) and munda-dravids come out of south asia and/or south east asia in the paleolithic.
2. Both IE and munda-dravids are in central asia but the former under pressure from the latter, or of natural causes, leave central asia towards west eurasia in the neolithic. These IE are kentum. (between 12,000 to 10,000bc). You could call them IE or proto IE or preproto IE. [Edit: This is would be Anathony's forragers]
3. In Europe there is split around the Danube between the Shatam and Kentum branches. In the upper chalcolithic the Shatam branch separates and starts moving east. He says this separation is prior to agriculture since agricultural terms are not common, but animal husbandry, relationships, fauna, etc are. [Corded Ware, on the other hand, though mainly pastoral does show evidence of agriculture. They must have domesticated the horse sometime in this period in the eastern European steppe. ] [Edit: This split would be close to Anthony's Farmers meet Foragers period]
4. The Shatam branch he calls Shakaraya, who, by the late chalcolithic, divide into two - the nomadic Shak between the Danube & the Altai and the settled Arya, the line of division is the latitude near Syr-darya/aral. The Arya are in Bactria, Khorasan, etc and move over time to east iran and the indo-gangetic plains.
The Shak nomads that are spread from the Danube to the Altai he calls the ancestor of the Slavs.
5. The Shak, starting in the iron age, steadily move into south-asia under Hunnic pressure, and leave an cultural imprint over the Aryas. (900BC)
Most of the material has been drawn from primary Russian sources. In the introduction Rahul writes: "I undertook this arduous task as a challenge as no such history of Central Asia was available. Moreover, this history is intimately connected with the history of India. I collected major documentation for this work during my stay in Soviet Russia, from 1945 to 1947." Although he did not have any formal education, the University of Leningrad appointed him Professor of Indology in 1937-38 and again in 1947-48.
In Sankrtyayan's book on central asia - he does not say the languages - IE, Munda, Dravid, developed in the paleolithic, just theorizes that people speaking these languages in the neolithic are descended of paleolithic south-asians and/or southeast Asians. He mentions cave-shadow mummies that had been procured by the Russians for anthropological research. He relies on linguistics to develop separation nodes. Even today there are remnants of Kentum in the Himalayas, and the Kentum Tukhara existed as late as a 1000 years ago in the trans-Himalaya.
Playing the devil's advocate (I should not be really, because I know nothing about genetics), if we consider as per Oppenheimer that humans from S.Asia were the ones that populated Europe; how does one counter an argument that "Isn't it still possible that humans from Central Asia migrated down to South Asia?" That is after they acknowledge the first migration from India to Europe; on what basis can we refute any claim that there was not one more stream of migration from C.Asia to S.Asia - ie. Aryans coming into India?
Any assertion can be made. It is proof, or at least a plausability argument, which needs to be cited.
|
