<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 3 2009, 07:15 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 3 2009, 07:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.