09-09-2009, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2009, 12:59 AM by dhu.)
Hello Nag,
If there is a reduction in diversity, it simply means that the particular group is a derivative (subset) population in comparison to the (more inchoate) total population. It does not show anything close to a foreign origin. If there was any possibility of the R group as a whole, or R1a1 in particular, originating outside subcontinent, it would be well known by now, especially with every geneticist in the world frantically looking for this precise thing for the past decade. The Kshatriyas are shown as mostly R2! They are trying to pull Punjab into Europe by using regional variations between R2 and R1 as a propaganda point. The other method is use autosomal studies which cannot delineate descent.
Also, the caste-tribal categories as they are used in current (western) social science are colonial and theological entities.
I agree with you that AIT is basically gone. If you look at Hock's diagram (here) in Talageri's latest book, you will see that his schema is ideologically oriented. Hittite is stretched southward and Tocharian is stranded by itself without any connection to the rest!!
India is like the Old world and the rest of Eurasia is like the New World in comparison to India.
Thanks dhu. I will shall go through your link and come back to you if I have any questions.
1-Regarding Andronovo culture(2000bc) and scythians (700bc) ,samples show that R1a made 90% of them.
Today is only one region which is near but still cant match that procentage.The region is located in Bactria.
Brahmins have also over 70% R1a which sugest a founder effect .This show that brahmins originate in a small region.
Te theory is that indo-europeans was very rich in R1a and originated in the region betwin Tadjikistan,Afganistan and Fergana valley.Other places have already high procentages of other haplotypes from neolithic times.Only Bactria coresponde whit R1a relative purity .
2-Studies show that R1a originated in Balkans(Balkans and Crete have the highest diversity of R1a).
Pericic et al. (2005) shows a maximum diversity of R1a STR variance among Croatians and Bosnians.
The most recent proponent of a Balkan origin is Anatole Klyosov. Not only does he also believe that the R1a1 genetic diversity there looks older, but he has also written that the "current Indian R1a1 haplotypes are practically indistinguishable from Russian, Ukrainian, and Central Asian R1a1 haplotypes, as well as from many West and Central European R1a1 haplotypes.
So 72% of brahmins and 35% of north indians came from Balkans.
http://www.worldacademy.org/files/DNA_Ge...Part_2.pdf
ADDED:
there are no indications regarding âUkrainian refugeâ for R1a1 ancient population
allegedly 15,000 years ago; instead, evidences have been obtained that the oldest R1a1
lived circa 11,600± years ago on the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia),
© except the Balkans, present-day bearers of R1a1 across Western and Eastern Europe
have common ancestors who lived between 3550 and 4725 years ago (the âyoungestâ in
Scotland, Ireland and Sweden, the âoldestâ in Russia (4725±520 ybp) and Germany
(4,700±520 ybp),
(d) the Indian R1a1 haplotypes show a good match with the Russian Slavic R1a1 ones,
having a common ancestor several hundred years âyoungerâ compared to the Russian one
(4300±560 vs. 4,725±520 years bp); this supports a concept of proto-Slavic migration to
India as Aryans (according to classic ancient Indian literature) around 3600 years before
present,
(e) South India Chenchu R1a1 match the current Russian Slavic R1a1 haplotypes, and
their (Chenchu R1a1) common ancestor appeared some 3200±1900 ybp, apparently after the R1a1 migration from the North to India; another Chenchu R1a1 lineage was
originated 350±350 ybp, around the 17th century AD.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nag+Sep 8 2009, 07:09 AM-->QUOTE(Nag @ Sep 8 2009, 07:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi dhu,
I for one think that it is time one buries AIT once and for all. Recently I was discussing with a friend who is an AIT supporter. And even after I presented him with Oppenheimer's genetic proof that AIT is wrong, he countered me with a paper published in 2007 done by Tatiana Zerjal et al - " Y-chromosomal insights into the genetic impact of the caste system in India" .
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2590678
I find the conclusions very dubious, how can one extrapolate from a sub group to an universal group and say that hence caste system existed since thousands of years and hence AIT is valid? is my reasoning correct? I am not a geneticist so not sure what is wrong with their conclusions except that it is too localized....please comment.
I have one more question, this is regarding morphological differences between higher castes and tribes as a proof for the support of AIT. I understand the differences in skin color but not sure how one can account for morphological differences like broad noses, etc etc. Could you also please comment on that?
Thanks in advance.[/B]
[right][snapback]101151[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This link was posted earlier.
Check the first version of this thread in the archives.
Most of these conclusions are jugglery and to fit to their world view.
Also many White supremacist have been propogating these genetic conclusions.
Jaunpur is Dr. Lalji Singh's (Director, CCMB Hyderabad) home district. Hence, they went to Jaunpur. Tatiana Zerjal is actually mentioned in Oppenheimer's book as the Founder of the TAT line.
Acharya, Thank you for the pointer. But before I posted, i tried to find for postings relating to that particular paper, was unable to, may be I might have missed.
Dhu, I see constant references to Y-Cromosomal genetic markers to suggest that higher castes and dalits (for the lack of better word) are genetically segregated, the way depicted in the above study. Why is that AIT supporters have taken this route? are there any conclusive studies which vehemently sing a dirge to AIT? if not, is there any research going on which seems positive?
There is so much confusion created everyday, when I feel as I have seen conclusive proof, some study comes up which either confuses the findings or gives a spin to support AIT. I think we need a conclusive proof, but again AIT supporters have so much to lose that they might not agree even when conclusive proof is shown to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Sep 9 2009, 03:34 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Sep 9 2009, 03:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jaunpur is Dr. Lalji Singh's (Director, CCMB Hyderabad) home district. Hence, they went to Jaunpur. Tatiana Zerjal is actually mentioned in Oppenheimer's book as the Founder of the TAT line.
[right][snapback]101184[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is TAT line?
TAT is haplogroup N3 which is known to have intruded into europe (Saami, finns, Estonians) from the Uralic region, if not even further east in Siberia.
09-10-2009, 07:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2009, 08:56 AM by dhu.)
Zerjal is Estonian, G. Chaubey is in Estonia. Kivisild, who buried euro origin for R1a1, is Estonian. And Balagangadhara gave a speech to an Estonian society where he confidently declared that the entire western sociological studies/framework can be dumped into the garbage bin. What is the significance of Estonia in European academia, other than being non-IE?
Nag,
They cannot show a geographical cline for R in the direction that they so desperately want. Their only alternative is to show a heirarchial cline in India itself which buttresses the argument that there is a social (caste) heirarchy in india - which can only be explained by an ait type scenario. This is a patently theological assumption about there being "religion" in India with certain sections acting as the agents of historical, religious (and also linguistic) change.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nag+Sep 9 2009, 12:20 PM-->QUOTE(Nag @ Sep 9 2009, 12:20 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Dhu, I see constant references to Y-Cromosomal genetic markers to suggest that higher castes and dalits (for the lack of better word) are genetically segregated, the way depicted in the above study. Why is that AIT supporters have taken this route? are there any conclusive studies which vehemently sing a dirge to AIT? if not, is there any research going on which seems positive?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This segregation theory is to create social engineering in the Indian society to show that there are the oppressed and the conqeror. In Tamil Nadu they keep refering to North Indians since they have been indoctrinated that the north Indian is an alien.
Over several decades they want to change the dalit groups into revolutionary groups and take over the country
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Sep 9 2009, 09:45 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Sep 9 2009, 09:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nag,
They cannot show a geographical cline for R in the direction that they so desperately want. Their only alternative is to show a heirarchial cline in India itself which buttresses the argument that there is a social (caste) heirarchy in india - which can only be explained by an ait type scenario. This is a patently theological assumption about there being "religion" in India with certain sections acting as the agents of historical, religious (and also linguistic) change.
[right][snapback]101191[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like you said lower genetic diversity doesn't prove AIT. That too studying a small group and extrapolating to a larger group with great diversity, I feel is nothing but scientific unfairness. I also found that many of the supporters turn very belligerent when encountered with genetic proof.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Sep 10 2009, 07:04 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Sep 10 2009, 07:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->TAT is haplogroup N3 which is known to have intruded into europe (Saami, finns, Estonians) from the Uralic region, if not even further east in Siberia.
[right][snapback]101189[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
N have the origin in south east Asia 15000 years ago
One more question regarding Oppenheimer's book and presentation:
In one mailing list it was argued that Oppenheimer's presentation still doesn't answer the question of Aryan migration as the presentation ends at 10000 years.
why is that so? is it because in last 10000 years no genetic changes have taken place to suggest any kind of human migrations? or is it that there is no genetic data for the last 10000 years to account for that time period? just curious.
09-10-2009, 10:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2009, 10:45 PM by dhu.)
Oppenheimer has a note that R1 input into Europe is at 10K. This was the kentum input into Europe. Hittite and Tocharian had to exit homeland <b>to the north </b>into a secondary homeland. This secondary homeland is not feasible in any non-indian scenario. Talageri via Nichols just extends horizon of the "Archaism of the periphery argument" to beyond the Volga. The same type of argument was used in stipulation that Celtic intruded from the East.
Eden: footnote 11 p 415 "Later post-glacial expansions into that region could have the same effect - Semino et al.." - concerning M17 in Carpathian region.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Sanjay M"+-->QUOTE("Sanjay M")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Medical research results show that Indians are descended from 2 main groups of people - the North Indians who are related to Eurasians, and the South Indians who have no relation to any specific genetic group outside of India:
http://www.physorg.com/news172931737.html
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To shed light on genetic variability across the Indian subcontinent, the research team analyzed more than 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups, representing 13 states, all six language families, traditionally "upper" and "lower" castes, and tribal groups.
These genomic analyses revealed two ancestral populations. "<b>Different Indian groups have inherited forty to eighty percent of their ancestry from a population that we call the Ancestral North Indians who are related to western Eurasians, and the rest from the Ancestral South Indians, who are not related to any group outside India,</b>" said co-author David Reich, an associate professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and an associate member of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the time period of these genetic history.
It will never be in the period of 2000BC
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our 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 colonizers of South Asia."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can they be ancient colonizers of south asia when there was nobody in that period.
Another one
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090923/ful...html?s=news_rss
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Caste divisions
Now, a team led by David Reich of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, has probed more than 560,000 SNPs across the genomes of 132 Indian individuals from 25 diverse ethnic and tribal groups dotted all over India.
âThere are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes.â
David Reich
Broad Institute
The researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage â which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations â was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal.
<b>
The researchers also found that Indian populations were much more highly subdivided than European populations. But whereas European ancestry is mostly carved up by geography, Indian segregation was driven largely by caste. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes," says Reich.</b>
Number puzzle
Indian populations, although currently huge in number, were also founded by relatively small bands of individuals, the study suggests. <b>Overall, the picture that emerges is of ancient genetic mixture, says Reich, followed by fragmentation into small, isolated ethnic groups, which were then kept distinct for thousands of years because of limited intermarriage â a practice also known as endogamy.
This genetic evidence refutes the claim that the Indian caste structure was a modern invention of British colonialism, the authors say. "This idea that caste is thousands of years old is a big deal," says Nicole Boivin, an archaeologist who studies South Asian prehistory at the University of Oxford, UK. "To say that endogamy goes back so far, and that genetics shows it, is going to be controversial to many anthropologists." Boivin fears that the study might be 'spun' by politicians seeking to maintain caste structures in India, and she calls on social scientists and geneticists to collaborate on such "highly politicized" issues.</b>
Still does not explain many social observations
ADVERTISEMENT
Beyond the study's social repercussions, the low rates of genetic mingling "could have important implications for biomedical studies of Indian populations", notes Sarah Tishkoff, a human geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who was not involved in the research. The partitioned population structure will need to be taken into account in any efforts to map disease genes, she says.
The small numbers of founders of each Indian group also have clinical consequences, says Reich. "There will be a lot of recessive diseases in India that will be different in each population and that can be searched for and mapped genetically," he says. "That will be important for health in India."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
09-24-2009, 10:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2009, 10:58 AM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is another issue: asymmetry of an explanation. For instance, the length of the shadow of pole can be explained by the length of the pole and inclination; however, the length of the pole cant be explained by the length of the shadow of the pole. Of course, in mathematical terms, both equations are related; so are propositions. The same fallacy is commited when people try to give genetic explanations of caste, or of religion, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am not in particular addressing Chandrakant's. There is a general issue of using genetics in these invasion or migration or indigenous explanations. correction: indigineous explanation does not assume "caste system", merely R1 in Punjab with R2 in East, something already known
Lets look at the scenario of 'speculative' invasionist hypothesis; in which way genetics has any bearing on this invasionist hypothesis.
The questions like "Why P?" presupposes that P is a fact or a theoritical claim of a theory. In other words, that facts that the genetic explanation use is not evidence. It merely presupposes another background theory, which in this case is invasionist speculation. Given this, how to prove the credence of a theory: find some facts that the background theories of invasionist theories don't explain or
predict, and that the invasionist speculation predicts.
Look at the genetic explantion of caste: This theory presupposes that there exists a caste, and try to give an explanation that there is some genetic peculiarity or essense among this group of caste. This explanation is not evidence of the existence of caste; at most, what it does is this: there is a continuity. Do a lil thought experiment: pick up 100 couples, and make sure their offspring don't marry folks out of this group for 2000 years. Assume one can find some pecularity, either genetic or not, among this group. This at most shows that they and their offspring haven't copulated with other group. But it does not tell why this group (100 couples) came into being. Here one finds verses in book to explain. One assumes many unacceptable theories in interpretating these books. Thus far, nobody questioned the logical structure of the these background theories in interpreting. And these background theories are not part of grammar, phonetics, morphology, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
|
