• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2
More proof of aryan invasion....

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fir Tree Grows Inside Man's Lung
Fir Tree Grows Inside Man's Lung- Russia

Allegedly, a Russian man has been nurturing a fir tree inside his lungs!-

Artyom Sidorkin, 28, from Russia, went in for surgery on a suspected tumour.

Sidorkin had gone for a check-up after suffering symptoms of coughing up blood and sharp, prickling pains in his chest.

After having an x-ray at the Izhevsk hospital, Russia, the doctors found a shadow on his lung. Fearing the worst, Sidorkin was promply booked in for investigative surgery.

When the doctors pared back his lungs they found a very unusual sight. Instead of the cancer which they had initially suspected, green pine needles were poking out from the open wound.

Upon further inspection the surgeons were amazed to find that a 2 inch fir tree was growing and thriving there.

Vladimir Kamashev, surgeon at the Udmurtian Cancer Centre, said: I called a colleque over, "I thought I was hallucinating," said Mr Kamashev.

"I asked my assistant to have a look: ‘Come and see this – we’ve got a fir tree here’. He nodded in shock. I blinked three times as I was sure I was seeing things."

The spruce, which was said to be touching the capillaries and giving severe pain, was then carefully extracted from the patient’s lungs.

Sidorkin said: "It was the needles poking the capillaries. It really hurt a lot. But I never felt like I had an alien object inside of me."

It would seem that the patient would have inhaled the seed from a fir tree. This would have been able to grow by receiving nutrition from the blood and oxygen from the patient’s airways, allowing the tree to thrive.

The fragment of lung which contained the tiny fir tree has been preserved for further study. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<img src='http://www.deffner.org/ima/pic/whitetoowhite/06_S.RAFIQUE_026.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Indian Albinos, see more pictures : http://www.deffner.org/main.php?id=14&pic=0&tex=1&lis=1
1 in 17000 humans is an albinos;meaning there are 70,000 albinos in India.
> "HAPLOGROUP R1A1 (M17) -- This marker arose between 10,000 to 15,000 years ago
when a man of European origin was born on the grassy steppes in the region of
present-day Ukraine or southern Russia.

This is just a statement made on a website. We don't know who makes the statement nor whether it has been reviewed.

I have posted the peer reviewed articles on R1a1 on this and other related sites including one released just this year.

The evidence based on genetic diversity (STR diversity) suggests that R1a1 actually arose in South Asia!

There is no reason given for the statements on the Genographic website, because there is absolutely no reason to think R1a1 arose in the Ukraine or anywhere nearby!

<b>The STR diversity and phylogenetic age of R1a1 is very low in Eastern Europe and there is a cline of diversity from East (South Asia) to West (Europe).</b>

Furthermore again, R1a1 in Asia does not occur together with the same associated haplotypes as in Europe. It occurs with regional haplotypes, like C and N, which in fact are known to have traveled westward.

However, I doubt you even know what all this means.

Paul Kekai Manansala<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what does it all mean? The M17 R1a1 gene originating in India.
M17 also called R1A1 is known as the Aryan gene
It spreads from India to Ukraine

Incidentally, Western Europe, the home of the Nordic Aryans is R1B,
does not have R1A1

Means some Ukrainians Aryans invaded the Nordic germans and forced Indo-european language onto them

There have been some studies on brahmin Y-DNA
to see if there is an Aryan gene

About 40% of brahmins seem to have R1A1 and another 25% seem to have J2

J2 is more common in Iran

Toomas and Kivilsid, showed that R1A1 originated among Chenchus
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Coalescent theory predicts regional population size in humans</b>
December 24th, 2007 by Alexei Drummond

Dr <b>Quentin Atkinson, </b>Professor Russell Gray and I have just had a paper published in Molecular Biology and Evolution in which we use coalescent theory to estimate relative human population sizes through time in different regions of the world using the Bayesian skyline plot in the BEAST software package:

<b>Mitochondrial DNA Variation Predicts Population Size in Humans and Reveals a Major Southern Asian Chapter in Human Prehistory</b>

Our estimates of the relative size of “modern” populations are remarkably concordant (PNG/Australia being the exception) with pre-colonial population size estimates based on anthropological evidence. Strikingly this concordance persists across a number of different definitions of region population boundaries in Eurasia. I interpret this to suggest that the real population history is more of a continuous, isolation-by-distance process, so that, if you draw a boundary around a region of the world, the coalescent information will roughly reflect the relative population size of the people in that demarcated area (assuming that rates of movement is roughly equal everywhere – which is clearly not the case – and might be one of the reasons for the inconsistencies we see in Papua New Guinea and Australia).

One should contrast this with papers such as Wang et al (2007; discussed in [[previous post]]) which suggest that genetic diversity (as measured by heterozygosity) is correlated with the age of the population rather than its size. While both of these statements are likely to be true in certain circumstances, the dominant effect will depend on whether the population is near equilibrium. If a population has been at equilibrium for a long time then genetic diversity will no longer reflect the population’s age, but will rather be dominated by the population’s size.

In this respect the coalescent analysis has some advantage over methods that just look at heterozygosity in that it is able to dissect the population diversity out across time by splitting it up into coalescent events. In this way coalescent theory can also be used to [[track changes in population size through time.]] <b>We use this fact to estimate relative population sizes back through time and in doing so uncover evidence that from about 45,000 to 20,000 years ago, the majority of humans were in Asia. </b>The method we use in this paper suffers from too many simplifying assumptions to list, but it nevertheless hints at some attractive directions for research, both in development of methods (explicit inclusion of geographic information and models of isolation-by-distance) and in furthering our understanding of human history: <b>why was everyone in Asia 30,000 years ago?</b>

In this regard you may be interested in a related bit of research by Garrigan et al (2007) that has just come out in Genetics:

[[Inferring human population sizes, divergence times and rates of gene flow from mitochondrial, X and Y chromosome resequencing data]]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are 2 major genes that are common whit west eurasia
J2 is common whit Middle East
R1a(R1a1) is common whit eastern Europe

R1a maps
R1a diversity map-bigger in west India

J2 map-both diversity and frecvency bigger in Kurdistan-the trace of the first neolithic farmers from Middle east
Science MAg of US has the following article:

Regulating Ancestry testing

Please tell us what it means.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Illusive Gold Standard in Genetic Ancestry Testing

Genetic ancestry testing is being applied in areas as diverse as forensics, genealogical research, immigration control, and biomedical research (1–3). Use of ancestry as a potential risk factor for disease is entrenched in clinical decision-making (4), so it is not surprising that techniques to determine genetic ancestry are increasingly deployed to identify genetic variants associated with disease and drug response (5). Recently, direct-to-consumer (DTC) personal genomics companies have used ancestry information to calculate individual risk profiles for a range of diseases and traits. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It's a general interest piece on the uses of genetic haplotype testing and the current lack of a perfect method. Missing from the list are geopolitical uses and social profiling.

The author: Sandra Soo-Jin Lee

The Real Eve - Discovery Channel (length 1:31:15)

This is Oppenheimer's documentary.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 2 2009, 11:30 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 2 2009, 11:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3440143133

The Real Eve - Discovery Channel (length 1:31:15)

This is Oppenheimer's documentary.
[right][snapback]100082[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thanks for this.
Who are we? : the questions of origin and identity through modern genetics

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Reading the "The Real Eve: The modern man's journey out of Africa" by Dr Stephen Oppenheimer was both exciting and refreshing. The book makes great reading not just because it brings out the most complex of the concepts of archeo-genetics in a way that a layman like me understands, but also because it takes the reader deep into one of the most fascinating aspects of human sciences; the origin of modern man. Few years back Dr Oppenheimer's documentary on the origin of modern man, which featured in the Discovery channel[1], generated widespread interest in modern paleontology; for once it was known that there existed a more scientific way of predicting the origins of humankind through genetics, the question "Who are we?" could be asked and discussed less speculatively than before.

It was only a few months back, while trying to review some edits to the Wikipedia that I came accross the research papers of Estonian genetist Dr Toomas Kivisild, a professor at Cambridge and a leading light on genetic paleontology. The pioneering works of Dr Kivisild on the Indian DNA lineages are in themselves quite comprehensible but the book by Dr Oppenheimer(which covers the general aspects of archeo-genetics) would help understand the concepts more intricately. It is well nigh impossible that this small blog of mine talks comprehensively the studies of Dr Kivisild and Dr Oppenheimer, that is not the intention of this blog too. As always my blog captures only a few of my thoughts, this time as I walk through these magna opera.

"Who are we?" the question that fascinated Dr Oppenhiemer to travel across the continents, to study and to write the book and thousands like me to throng to it, has been one of the most enticing questions that the best of the minds of every generation have been puzzled with. The questions of origin and identity have been one of those alluding romantic quests that the human mind has often sought to chase, in all its dimensions; from spiritual to social and from anthropological to religious. The quest has been as intuitive and enduring, yet as explosive as any other romantic quests. The questions of identity and origin have also been a breeding ground of political ideologies and anthropology has been no exception. Its ugliest forms were seen when it was used to theorize ethnic differentiation and justify concepts like racial supremacy and racial purity by none other than Hitler himself. The British used it, not less sparingly, but with the sophistication that befitted the Victorian daintiness, to justify Colonialism and to divide and rule the colonized subjects. But interestingly, the modern developments of this very scientific stream, today, help us question the political ideologies that claim their origins in the concepts of Anthropology.

The developments in genetic paleonto-anthropology have today dramatically changed our perception about the origins of modern human beings. The ‘Recent-single-origin-hypothesis’ that was first proposed in the nineteenth century by Darwin, was supplemented further and corroborated by evidence from genetics and physical anthropology. It has now been shown that all the human populations of the world inherit from the same maternal lineage, the origin of which can probably be traced back to a single woman (whom Dr Oppenheimer calls the “Real Eve”), who lived somewhere in the Northern Africa, nearly a hundred and sixty thousand years ago. A small group of her descendents is said to have moved out of Africa crossing over to the Middle East, almost eighty thousand years ago, going on to populate the rest of the world. The developments in genetics, not only help us trace this exciting story; it also helps in breaking many very popular myths and dangerous philosophies. Most importantly, the suggestion that all the human populations, irrespective of the skin color, facial features and the brain size, belong to the same gene pool, blows a death knell to the concepts of racial purity, racial supremacy and the ideologies such as the Whiteman’s burden[2],<b> which made extensive use of speculative anthropological propositions. </b>The study would come as a refreshing affirmation to those who have intuitively believed in a universal brotherhood, all in midst of these racial theories.

The “Who are we?” of genetic anthropology also brings out some more very interesting aspects for us Indians, that could help us clear some of the colonial cobwebs that have grown deep into our psyche. For example the proposition of Indians being divided into two biological races of Aryan and Dravidian, which started as a flimsy idea of a few Colonial Indologists and lived on, generation after generation, with the help of speculative concepts of anthropology and linguistics, today stands almost refuted by archeo-genetics. Early genetic studies in the year 2001[3] by Michael Bamshad, a professor at the University of Washington, and his team, seemed to support the theory of the two races and the supposed invasion of foreign tribes of Aryan race into India. The R1a1 haplogroup, which was found in high rates in Europeans as well as in North Indians, was taken as the genetic marker for the Aryan race. The relatively less (but not negligent) frequency of R1a1 in South Indian populations was explained as resulting from the “admixture” of Aryans and Dravidians. But further research by Dr Kivisild[4] (who was also a part of the 2001 study by Bamshad et al), and his team at the Cambridge University showed that R1a1 existed in high frequencies even in the isolated South Indian Dravidian speaking tribes of Chechnus of Andhra Pradesh, the Kallars of Kerala and the Valmikis of Tamil Nadu. Further studies by Kivisild and his team as well as studies from scientists like Sangamitra Sahoo[5], S Sengutpa[6], Metspalu M[7] and numerous other studies ranging over a decade, found that India was not the receiver of R1a1, but a donor of this marker, showing that all the European and Central Asian lineages could be traced back to a single mother who lived in the Indian sub continent some fifty thousand years ago (Dr Oppenheimer calls her the “Eurasian Eve”).

The studies also reveal that most of the Indian populations (both castes and tribes) derive from the same genetic heritage of pleistonic South and Western Asians who lived in India, more than fifty thousand years ago and that the populations have received limited gene flow from external regions since then[4]. This probably affirms the intuitive belief held by many that India is a single continuous civilization with an ancient past. The studies shatter the colonial myths that our ancient scriptures and their originators are of foreign origin and question the conception of the Indian history so far done only in terms of ethnic strife between the two races. The Modern scientific discoveries would help us exorcise the colonial boggart which has lived with us in Independent India, in the form of the many speculative theories that often call into question the very foundation of our civilization.

<b>The studies probably would help us get rid of the colonial concoctions and get a true sense of our past. But they should not lead us into furthering “genetic determinism as a mechanism of causation”[8].</b> The ideologies of racial purity and supremacy are preposterous even without these scientific affirmations and the ideals of universalism would make sense even without the genetic markers. <b>Genetic evidence could well be seen as a reaffirmation of the intuitive idea called India. But a nation which took shape defying historicity and became independent inspite of the overwhelming framework of colonial ideas would hardly need a validation based on historicity or an endorsement based on genetic determinism.</b>
1. You can find the video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3440143133
2. "Whiteman's burden is a poem written by Rudyard Kipling published in 1899. The phrase became emblematic of White supremacy and Euro centric racism
3. Bamshad et al, Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations, 2001
4. T Kivisild et al, The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:313–332, 2003
5. Sahoo et al “A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 24 January 2006, vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 843–848.
6. Sengupta, S.; et al. (2006-02-01). "Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of Central Asian pastoralists.". Am J Hum Genet
7. Metspalu, M. et al. 2004. Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern human
8. Richard Lewontin, Biology as Ideology: The doctrine of DNA, 1993
Posted by Nihar at 2:03 AM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>DNA confirms coastal trek to Australia</b>

Friday, 24 July 2009
Nicky Phillips

DNA evidence linking Indian tribes to Australian Aboriginal people supports the theory humans arrived in Australia from Africa via a southern coastal route through India, say researchers.

The research, lead by Dr Raghavendra Rao from the Anthropological Survey of India, is published in the current edition of BMC Evolutionary Biology.

One theory is that modern humans arrived in Australia via an inland route through central Asia but Rao says most scientists believe modern humans arrived via the coast of South Asia.

But he says there has never been any evidence to confirm a stop-off in India until now.

Rao and colleagues sequenced the mitochondrial genomes of 966 people from traditional tribes in India.

They report that several of the Indians studied had two regions of their mitochondrial DNA that were identical to those found in modern day Australian Aboriginal people.

The team compared Indian sequences with those from Aboriginal Australians collected in past studies.

Rao and colleagues used computer programs to predict that a common ancestor existed, between the Indian population and Aboriginal Australians, up to 50,000 years ago.

Skeletal remains, dating back between 40-60,000 years from Lake Mungo in New South Wales, also support the theory that modern human arrived in Australia at least as far back as this, he says.

Link through mothers

Rao says he and colleagues sequenced mitochondrial DNA because it is the best type of DNA to use for ancestral studies.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed on by mothers only and does not change much over time.

Evolutionary biologist Dr Jeremy Austin, of the University of Adelaide, says the new data "definitely supports the coastal route hypothesis".

He says that before this research was published, genetic markers from Aboriginal Australians were known to be closely related to markers from traditional Indian and South East Asian peoples.

"But this is the first time people have been able to find these exact same mitochondrial DNA types inside and outside Australia," says Austin.

He says now that a mitochondrial DNA link has been found between tribal Indian populations and Aboriginal Australians it would be interesting to see if a connection exists through the Y chromosome, where DNA is passed only from fathers to sons.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu, Add these two articles to the archae-genetics blog. After watching the movie "Australia" I remarked that the aborgines looked like they had ancient Indian practices and facial structures and was booed by my acquiantances.
Ancient Indian practices at 80K!! Practices, speech, thought, intelligence, and dharma in the premetal age!! Plus no Australoid trace in massa home world. That is true sacrilege.
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Aug 3 2009, 10:02 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Aug 3 2009, 10:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dhu, Add these two articles to the archae-genetics blog. After watching the movie "Australia" I remarked that the aborgines looked like they had ancient Indian practices and facial structures and was booed by my acquiantances.
Why wonder?many indians have their origin in the pre-australoids.As you go north the facial and body features become more and more neo-teny(child-like) .Australoid retain more archaic features and have only very few neo-teny features(ex:like the staight hair structure).
<img src='http://i30.tinypic.com/14djyup.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Jharkhand Mundas may be ancestors of Oz aborigines

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Scientists have found a critical genetic link indicating that tribal Indians might be the ancestors of Australia’s earliest settlers. The route

Their study proves what some anthropologists have long believed — that the first humans to settle Australia descended from African migrants, who travelled via a “southern route” that passed through coastal India. These Africans were the first humans to settle the globe.

The study, led by a team of international researchers and the Anthropological Survey of India (ANSI), analysed more than 966 samples taken from 26 of India’s “relict” tribes, or those believed to be the descendants of this subcontinent’s earliest settlers.

Using a form of genetic research that analyses genes passed down from a mother to her children, they found a unique section of genetic code common to tribal Indians and Australian aborigines. This suggested that some aborigines are descendants of the same African migrants who passed through coastal India between 55,000 and 75,000 years ago.

“These findings will help us understand the broader questions of human evolution,” said Satish Kumar, a member of the research team.

Previous studies failed to discover the genetic tie between Indians and aborigines because researchers did not take a comprehensive set of samples from all of India’s tribes, Kumar said.

“Our comprehensive sampling of tribes was critical to the exercise,” Kumar said of the ANSI-supported study that was published in the journal BMC Evolutionary Biology last month.

The study, sampled from several tribes, found the genetic link to the aborigines in the Munda people of Jharkhand, the Madia Gond of Maharashtra and the Paudi Bhuiya of Orissa.

Many Indian tribes marry within the community, a practice known as endogamy. As a result, they preserve their unique genetic patterns over generations.  Further study into Indian tribal DNA is critical in solving the mystery of human origins, scientists say.

Scientists at ANSI plan to create a national Human Genome Diversity Repository where samples from all of India’s tribes can be collected and analysed. They hope to present this plan in Parliament soon.

“We want to take up large scale studies of all those Indian tribes who are supposed to be the original migrants,” said P.B.S.V. Padmanabham, superintendent anthropologist at ANSI.

“We have not sampled all of them, and it is a big question how these tribes are related.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Group: Members
Posts: 2,078

Wow, this actually shows the continuity of Australoid people migration from India since ancient time that also left traces in SEA and also in Australia. <b>I can't take it when people say that our ancestors were from China. I still believe in ancient India!!!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Comment on a pan-asian forum.
Hi dhu,

This is my first post in this forum. Thank you very much for your informative posts. You along with others have done lot of work.

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" .


which goes on to say that because of less diversity (based on haplogroup frequencies on Y chromosome) observed in Jaunpur Brahmins and Kshatriyas as compared to dalits of that region. And that this proves the following :

<b>Four main conclusions can be drawn from these combined findings. First, the Jaunpur district shows a marked reduction in genetic diversity when compared to the rest of India, but this reduction is restricted to the upper castes and is not detectable in the other castes. Second, the Brahmins and Kshatriyas from Jaunpur show a high level of genetic substructuring that is most probably the combined result of a founder effect and social stratification, rather than geography or other factors that are shared by the different castes. Third, Y-chromosomal gene flow between castes was low, <1% per generation. Fourth, no evident genetic differentiation was seen in the other Jaunpur castes, perhaps due to larger population sizes, greater gene flow among them, or a combination of these factors.</b><b>

They claim that Jaunpur district was selected for this study for reasons unconnected to its genetic makeup, which had not been investigated prior to this work.</b>

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.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)