<b>Genes, Ethnicity and Race</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If all non-african genom came from India,which is hard to belive<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It might be hard to believe, but this is the picture contemporary genetics research gives us. As we're dealing with facts, it is not a matter for belief - facts never are. Just 'cause millions of people from one part of the world in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat didn't make it so. It might have been hard to believe for them that the Earth was in fact round, but belief didn't affect the facts in the slightest. When it was first shown that humanity came from Africa, some Europeans didn't (want to) believe it either - but eventually, it generally became accepted the world over.
Of course, not all regarding the genetics of the human species has been uncovered yet. These results may be incomplete, and more particulars may be discovered in the future, but as it stands, India was populated after Africa and from there come the ancestors of other population groups in the world.
But it says a lot that people were able to accept the AIT with no scientific evidence whatsoever ("Oryans" invading from C-Asia - disproven, invasion or migration or influx from C-Asia - disproven, 1500bce - also disproven, IVC destroyed - disproven, IVC not N-Indian - disproven, N-Indians not indigenous - disproven), and yet find it hard to accept consistent results from genetics (which <i>is</i> a science).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The central-asians who remain in central-asia ... in <b>15000Bc they reach india</b>....They form the indo-iranian branch of IE.Are some genetics that show a split betwin slavs and indians 8000-15000 years ago.However this studies doesnt show <b>what percent of indians are from central-asia</b> nor what was the population of india prior to 15000bc.This study is incomplete from that point of view.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And yet you agree that:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is true that north and south indians are from the same genetic stock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The fact is that there's little C-Asian input into the Indian genepool. The little that has been found might even be from as late a time as the Shaka invasions (100 bce).
Even if the few C-Asian traces in our genepool were from an earlier time, it could be explained by the fact that many C-Asians (today at least) are related to Iranians; and Iranians have always been related to Indians. Besides which, some Jat communities seemed to have taken off in the NW direction in the distant past and settled in C-Asia and beyond. Later input from C-Asians who had Jat ancestry would then also have to take into account that Jats were originally Indian anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However south indians have some admixture of australoid genes,but this admixture also have the south chinese ,malayesians,thailandese and may be even some iranian or arabs.Is a comon mistake to see australoids as africans only becose their black skinand broad noses.Australoids are as far from africans as white europeans are.Are 5 races:caucasoid(north africa,europe,midle east,india),mongoloid(china,siberia),australoid(australia,some small pokets in south east asia),afroid(subsaharian africa)amerindian(maya inca).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no scientific support for the existence of races. At what point in time do you draw the line between races? Only when the Chinese were formed as a separate community with specific phenotypes? Only when the Europeans were formed as such? Only when the Finnish finally formed as such? And when were they "finally" formed? How does one decide? Race is not science. It makes no sense. Which is why most scientists have left this 19th century construct behind. Speak of large population groups instead. Population groups vary in number depending on the timeframe and there are generally more than 5 and they do not coincide with the 5 racial groups.
By the way, the occasional Indian look among Arabians comes from Islamic slavery of Indians.
And if Iranians have australoid genes, then so should the N-Indians in general.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If all non-african genom came from India,which is hard to belive<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It might be hard to believe, but this is the picture contemporary genetics research gives us. As we're dealing with facts, it is not a matter for belief - facts never are. Just 'cause millions of people from one part of the world in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat didn't make it so. It might have been hard to believe for them that the Earth was in fact round, but belief didn't affect the facts in the slightest. When it was first shown that humanity came from Africa, some Europeans didn't (want to) believe it either - but eventually, it generally became accepted the world over.
Of course, not all regarding the genetics of the human species has been uncovered yet. These results may be incomplete, and more particulars may be discovered in the future, but as it stands, India was populated after Africa and from there come the ancestors of other population groups in the world.
But it says a lot that people were able to accept the AIT with no scientific evidence whatsoever ("Oryans" invading from C-Asia - disproven, invasion or migration or influx from C-Asia - disproven, 1500bce - also disproven, IVC destroyed - disproven, IVC not N-Indian - disproven, N-Indians not indigenous - disproven), and yet find it hard to accept consistent results from genetics (which <i>is</i> a science).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The central-asians who remain in central-asia ... in <b>15000Bc they reach india</b>....They form the indo-iranian branch of IE.Are some genetics that show a split betwin slavs and indians 8000-15000 years ago.However this studies doesnt show <b>what percent of indians are from central-asia</b> nor what was the population of india prior to 15000bc.This study is incomplete from that point of view.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And yet you agree that:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is true that north and south indians are from the same genetic stock.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The fact is that there's little C-Asian input into the Indian genepool. The little that has been found might even be from as late a time as the Shaka invasions (100 bce).
Even if the few C-Asian traces in our genepool were from an earlier time, it could be explained by the fact that many C-Asians (today at least) are related to Iranians; and Iranians have always been related to Indians. Besides which, some Jat communities seemed to have taken off in the NW direction in the distant past and settled in C-Asia and beyond. Later input from C-Asians who had Jat ancestry would then also have to take into account that Jats were originally Indian anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However south indians have some admixture of australoid genes,but this admixture also have the south chinese ,malayesians,thailandese and may be even some iranian or arabs.Is a comon mistake to see australoids as africans only becose their black skinand broad noses.Australoids are as far from africans as white europeans are.Are 5 races:caucasoid(north africa,europe,midle east,india),mongoloid(china,siberia),australoid(australia,some small pokets in south east asia),afroid(subsaharian africa)amerindian(maya inca).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There is no scientific support for the existence of races. At what point in time do you draw the line between races? Only when the Chinese were formed as a separate community with specific phenotypes? Only when the Europeans were formed as such? Only when the Finnish finally formed as such? And when were they "finally" formed? How does one decide? Race is not science. It makes no sense. Which is why most scientists have left this 19th century construct behind. Speak of large population groups instead. Population groups vary in number depending on the timeframe and there are generally more than 5 and they do not coincide with the 5 racial groups.
By the way, the occasional Indian look among Arabians comes from Islamic slavery of Indians.
And if Iranians have australoid genes, then so should the N-Indians in general.