<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->trying to connect the Caution part with the rest of the article. Is the AIT scenario still a possibility or has it been closed off (in genetics)? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The AIT scenario is completely out, that is, it is dead. In the past, when Indians pointed out the absolutely fantastic nature of the AIT, they were always hysterically rebuked with counter claims of incredulity. "Just look at KPS Gill and look at Arjun Munda. It is so obvious that there MUST HAVE BEEN an Aryan Invasion" .
However, with the new genetic evidence, which is in fact just plain commonsense, we now know that <b>Indians are a DIVERGENT population; </b>like SE Asians, Indians lie at a critical node of genetic divergence and differentiation. Just as the Maori are related to the robust Melanesians and their gracile SE asian derivatives -- in the same way, the Indo-afghan types, which emerge from the deep south, are related to the Arjun Mundas and KR Narayanans.
In contrast, the AIT had always presumed that Indians were a convergent population with the orderly entry of different phenptypes at various timepoints. Even Dr. Elst's Update stated that India lies at a junction point for the major races, although he was careful to mention that by Harappan times the population type was more or less fixed.
In my estimation, the crucial issue for us is the arrival time for the sino-tibetan languages in Himalayan Nepal. Since the distribution of these languages correlates positively with the mongolid divide at the border, the arrival time for sino-tibetan-burmese in Nepal can be taken as an upper limit for the presence of differentiated Indic in India. It is in fact most likely that we are dealing with Sunda refugia and therefore we can confidently date differentiated Indic to 15-20K.
Basically, it is like arguing that if Mao was in China in 1947, then a Nehru must have been present in India in 1947 as well-- at least to receive the chinese invasion.
In fact, if we consider the toba event as the determinant of the mongoloid divide, we get even deeper dates for differentiated Indic in India.
The Chinese have been consistently arguing for early dates for the mongolid replacement, in which they are most probably right. If only they would give up their fascination for the defunct multiregional hypothesis and instead concentrate on an early mongolid replacement... It would be ideal if we could demonstrate differentiated mongolids in Tibet during the last ice age. I remember reading a news story of human habitation in Tibet during the ice age, but it was unclear whether they were mongoloid.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Witzel and his team might create a new model, however preoposterous: "a tiny band of Aryan invaders-migrants-acculturists from Central Asia carried all the glorious Indian culture, language, heroism, Vedas and everything that was ever good to India and imposed the caste system on the Dravidians". I can see Witzel do it. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, they would be reverting back to a classical AIT scenario, which they originally had to abandon because of the lack of archaelogical or literary evidence. Going in circles never seems to pose a problem for these types, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The probability of him being right is about one in a zillion. [Perhaps that will be his fatal mistake: he might not know enough statistics to know that the probability for any event cannot exceed 1]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a probability of 1 that this moron Witzel is reading this right now but is too scared out of his mind to respond.
Still, I believe that others have superceded Witzel as the damage control coordinators for the West. Specifically, the racist geneticist Spencer Wells from Harvard is the mischief maker we should have our scanners out for. Spencer Wells was the one who lost out most when Oppenheimerâs master synthesis came out. After reading a few of his interviews, including one that dealt specifically with AIT into India, I am convinced Wells is a euro-supremacist in the mold of Witzel.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Recently we have had papers about the invasion of Europe by Neolithic farmers which have suggested that invasion by farmers had little effect. But careful examination shows that the non-invasion is far from completelty conclusive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are talking about Renfrew's genetic marker for the invasion of ME Neolithics into the Balkans. There was a recent spate of studies claiming that this invasion never happened (that is, a non-invasion) and that there was merely a technology transfer.. But, most likely these studies are misinterpretating the results and Renfrew's Neolithic invasion did happen.
Probably, we are seeing the euro supremacists realize that Renfrew's hypothesis of an early neolithic "IE" expansion makes more sense than that their bronze age conan fantasies⦠thus the preponderance of recent mischievous studies.
Here is a study which shows a similar "demic" expansion from ME to N Africa: Note this is marker E3b which because of its age estimate is considered a marker for ME neolithic expansion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Am J Hum Genet. 2004 August; 75(2): 338â345.
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Barbara Arredi,1,2,3 Estella S. Poloni,3 Silvia Paracchini,2,* Tatiana Zerjal,2 Dahmani M. Fathallah,4 Mohamed Makrelouf,5 Vincenzo L. Pascali,1 Andrea Novelletto,6 and Chris Tyler-Smith2,7
We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal <b>an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion.</b> <b>This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes </b>to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that t<b>he Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiaticâspeaking pastoralists from the Middle East.</b>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1216069<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Neolithic E3b (YAP+, Alu insertion) marker is NOT present in India. This is a well known fact. This fact precludes a ME origin for Indian Neolithic. E3b is present in Europe however.
The problem is that the other neolithic marker in the ME, Renfrew's J2, dovetails perfecty with a neolithic out of India scenario. Renfrew's J2 predominantly straddles the Northern fringes of the ME, that is, the IE (kurdish, Armenian, mittani, kassite, hittite) regions- into the balkans. And Europe is predominantly J2 as opposed to J1 which is seen mostly in southern ME. What concerns us is that J2 is the same as HG-9 and is seen in high frequency and diversity in India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 - even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered. If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoting from memory, Oppenheimerâs map shows the J-T set traveling from lower Sindh to the transcaucasus region. At any rate, Jâs parent F originated in india, though *J root is possibly semitic. We must keep in mind that many of these studies take simple frequency as an indicator for origin, ignoring secondary effects like genetic drift. Oppenheimer rather took both frequency and diversity as his guiding points.
FYI, HG-3 is M17 or R1a.
The AIT scenario is completely out, that is, it is dead. In the past, when Indians pointed out the absolutely fantastic nature of the AIT, they were always hysterically rebuked with counter claims of incredulity. "Just look at KPS Gill and look at Arjun Munda. It is so obvious that there MUST HAVE BEEN an Aryan Invasion" .
However, with the new genetic evidence, which is in fact just plain commonsense, we now know that <b>Indians are a DIVERGENT population; </b>like SE Asians, Indians lie at a critical node of genetic divergence and differentiation. Just as the Maori are related to the robust Melanesians and their gracile SE asian derivatives -- in the same way, the Indo-afghan types, which emerge from the deep south, are related to the Arjun Mundas and KR Narayanans.
In contrast, the AIT had always presumed that Indians were a convergent population with the orderly entry of different phenptypes at various timepoints. Even Dr. Elst's Update stated that India lies at a junction point for the major races, although he was careful to mention that by Harappan times the population type was more or less fixed.
In my estimation, the crucial issue for us is the arrival time for the sino-tibetan languages in Himalayan Nepal. Since the distribution of these languages correlates positively with the mongolid divide at the border, the arrival time for sino-tibetan-burmese in Nepal can be taken as an upper limit for the presence of differentiated Indic in India. It is in fact most likely that we are dealing with Sunda refugia and therefore we can confidently date differentiated Indic to 15-20K.
Basically, it is like arguing that if Mao was in China in 1947, then a Nehru must have been present in India in 1947 as well-- at least to receive the chinese invasion.
In fact, if we consider the toba event as the determinant of the mongoloid divide, we get even deeper dates for differentiated Indic in India.
The Chinese have been consistently arguing for early dates for the mongolid replacement, in which they are most probably right. If only they would give up their fascination for the defunct multiregional hypothesis and instead concentrate on an early mongolid replacement... It would be ideal if we could demonstrate differentiated mongolids in Tibet during the last ice age. I remember reading a news story of human habitation in Tibet during the ice age, but it was unclear whether they were mongoloid.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Witzel and his team might create a new model, however preoposterous: "a tiny band of Aryan invaders-migrants-acculturists from Central Asia carried all the glorious Indian culture, language, heroism, Vedas and everything that was ever good to India and imposed the caste system on the Dravidians". I can see Witzel do it. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, they would be reverting back to a classical AIT scenario, which they originally had to abandon because of the lack of archaelogical or literary evidence. Going in circles never seems to pose a problem for these types, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The probability of him being right is about one in a zillion. [Perhaps that will be his fatal mistake: he might not know enough statistics to know that the probability for any event cannot exceed 1]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a probability of 1 that this moron Witzel is reading this right now but is too scared out of his mind to respond.
Still, I believe that others have superceded Witzel as the damage control coordinators for the West. Specifically, the racist geneticist Spencer Wells from Harvard is the mischief maker we should have our scanners out for. Spencer Wells was the one who lost out most when Oppenheimerâs master synthesis came out. After reading a few of his interviews, including one that dealt specifically with AIT into India, I am convinced Wells is a euro-supremacist in the mold of Witzel.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Recently we have had papers about the invasion of Europe by Neolithic farmers which have suggested that invasion by farmers had little effect. But careful examination shows that the non-invasion is far from completelty conclusive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are talking about Renfrew's genetic marker for the invasion of ME Neolithics into the Balkans. There was a recent spate of studies claiming that this invasion never happened (that is, a non-invasion) and that there was merely a technology transfer.. But, most likely these studies are misinterpretating the results and Renfrew's Neolithic invasion did happen.
Probably, we are seeing the euro supremacists realize that Renfrew's hypothesis of an early neolithic "IE" expansion makes more sense than that their bronze age conan fantasies⦠thus the preponderance of recent mischievous studies.
Here is a study which shows a similar "demic" expansion from ME to N Africa: Note this is marker E3b which because of its age estimate is considered a marker for ME neolithic expansion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Am J Hum Genet. 2004 August; 75(2): 338â345.
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa
Barbara Arredi,1,2,3 Estella S. Poloni,3 Silvia Paracchini,2,* Tatiana Zerjal,2 Dahmani M. Fathallah,4 Mohamed Makrelouf,5 Vincenzo L. Pascali,1 Andrea Novelletto,6 and Chris Tyler-Smith2,7
We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal <b>an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion.</b> <b>This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes </b>to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that t<b>he Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiaticâspeaking pastoralists from the Middle East.</b>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1216069<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Neolithic E3b (YAP+, Alu insertion) marker is NOT present in India. This is a well known fact. This fact precludes a ME origin for Indian Neolithic. E3b is present in Europe however.
The problem is that the other neolithic marker in the ME, Renfrew's J2, dovetails perfecty with a neolithic out of India scenario. Renfrew's J2 predominantly straddles the Northern fringes of the ME, that is, the IE (kurdish, Armenian, mittani, kassite, hittite) regions- into the balkans. And Europe is predominantly J2 as opposed to J1 which is seen mostly in southern ME. What concerns us is that J2 is the same as HG-9 and is seen in high frequency and diversity in India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 - even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered. If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoting from memory, Oppenheimerâs map shows the J-T set traveling from lower Sindh to the transcaucasus region. At any rate, Jâs parent F originated in india, though *J root is possibly semitic. We must keep in mind that many of these studies take simple frequency as an indicator for origin, ignoring secondary effects like genetic drift. Oppenheimer rather took both frequency and diversity as his guiding points.
FYI, HG-3 is M17 or R1a.