Ancestry Of Jats

[Mad Indian]

Ok, so you don't know how the age of the haplogroup was computed.

Got it.

I asked because I don't know.

Sorry I ignored since I thought it would be of no use reading it . So you really dont know how the age of the haplotype is determined? I am going to reply to this question in hope that it is not a waste of my time.

Age of the haplotype is determined by the no. of variations it has - the greater the no. of variations , the greater is the age of the haplotype. The reasoning goes like this-

A is the parent population with 1A Y haplotype . Now it has 1 genetic mutation. Then a part of A moves to some other place and lives there seperately and forms the new population B. Now lets say that A had another mutation during the time when B moved on. So the Population A will have two kinds of 1A Y haplotype - one with 1 mutation and one with 2 mutations. Since Population B had migrated already before the second mutation , it wont have the second mutation and so it will only have one type of mutation as was the case when they migrated. So A will have two subsets of 1A haplotype while B will have only one subtype. If a part of this new population again migrates to B, then B also will have some amount of the new mutations but the frequency will be lower than that of the parent population A. So the higher the frequency of variations and higher the diversity, the older the haplotype is.

Since Indian Y haplotype has more genetic variations than Caucasian/central asian Y haplotype which in turn is higher than varitations in European Y haplotype, it is impossible that Y haplotype arose from Europeans and migrated into India, while it is highly likely that it was the other way round.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

AIT itself is a political bull shit. It has evidence whatsoever other than some identity crisised Indians trying desperately to claim descendence from Europeans and some dravidian parties trying to hold onto their political life line by keeping the AIT BS as true.

BTW, did you go through the links given by @TejasMK3 ? I am thinking you dint because you dint want to know the truth and prefer to live in your made up european ancestral links?

Blah blah... Toothless ad-hominem attacks.

Explain to me why maternal haplogroup M is only found in India and conspicuously absent from Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc... And how come Indian paternal haplogroup H is most common among lower castes/tribes and South Indians? In upper castes and NW Indians, West Eurasian haplogroups are far more common. Even Tamil Brahmins are noticeably different from other Tamils in their admixture.

 

[Mad Indian]

Blah blah... Toothless ad-hominem attacks.

Explain to me why maternal haplogroup M is only found in India and conspicuously absent from Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc... And how come Indian paternal haplogroup H is most common among lower castes/tribes and South Indians? In upper castes and NW Indians, West Eurasian haplogroups are far more common. Even Tamil Brahmins are noticeably different from other Tamils in their admixture.

It's not ad hominem . but I am tempted to use it now. I just said the actual reason most morons fail to see the facts behind AIT

Do you know that north Indian lower castes have a similar genetic make up of the south Indian brahmins? So what now? North Indian lower castes and south Indian brahmins are Dravidian now? And how does that even prove north Indians were European descendants?

 

[Mad Indian]

Blah blah... Toothless ad-hominem attacks.

Explain to me why maternal haplogroup M is only found in India and conspicuously absent from Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc... .

And where did you get this crap that m haplo group is found only in india- it is found in Africa and India. Hence proved out of Africa dint happen by your logic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

As I said, people like you prefer to live in your own lala land and made up European ancestry to make up for an inferiority complex rather than look at facts and comprehend. It was not an ad hominem but what actually is happening with AIT believing morons. It must take some serious identity crisis to subscribe to this theory when even the biggest proponents of it like thappar have started to eat their words with cultural migration and other BS since they could not support their AIT BS anymore

 

[Khagesh]

Blah blah... Toothless ad-hominem attacks.

Explain to me why maternal haplogroup M is only found in India and conspicuously absent from Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc... And how come Indian paternal haplogroup H is most common among lower castes/tribes and South Indians? In upper castes and NW Indians, West Eurasian haplogroups are far more common. Even Tamil Brahmins are noticeably different from other Tamils in their admixture.

Another Basic Hypothesis

“Importantly, the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.” www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/pdf/ejhg2009194a.pdf

Matrilineal haplogroups:

On why Matrilineal macrohaplogroup M is found in India. Well mainly because India is a proper representative population of the whole world aside from Africa. In just the manner Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc are not the proper representative of the world populations.


On why Matrilineal macrohaplogroup M is not present in Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, etc. you may note the following:

1) What was not found in Europe is the M5 clade. However even the M5 is present in European Gypsies. The so called absence only goes to show how the Europeans society works.

2) What is found in Europe is essentially the descendants of the N macrohaplogroup which is a different branch of the L3 MacroHaplogroup. So what came out of Africa was a mixed population of both M & N. India and the rest of the world has both M & N. Europe has mostly only the multiple variations of the N macrohaplogroup (they were probably the first Pakis of the world, culturally speaking, adequately borne out by later historical developments ).

3) Also M haplogroup, which also comes from L3, is probably the most dominant one all across the world in terms of population size, even though it is not as deeply studied. While the descendants of N haplogroup have been studied well because the Europeans are richer and can afford time pass. This dominance in reproductive history is important because on the one hand it says something about the overall health and on the other it suggests that at times even the younger/later variants of a particular gene may be better suited for the world. Coincidently the oldest successor of the L macrohaplogroup is found only in the Khoisan hunter-gatherer people of Africa (Khoi people and San people). That macrohaplogroup separated ~150 KYA and probably outnumbered all other haplogroups, but you can only see how many Khoisan are there today. Do look at San Rock Art looks like early form of Warli paintings. Also Khoisan religion, looks like a variant/ancient form of Hinduism.
Refer: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

Hope this corrects your world view.


Patrilineal haplogroups:

Patrilineal haplogroup H map says it has highest concentration in South India and progressively dilutes towards north India. The map also suggests it is also found in Romani/Gypsy people in far of Romania, who are said to be originated from the Indian subcontinent. Thus a concentration may mean a presence or absence of movement in a population sporting that haplogroup.


For example the Romani people sporting haplogroup H suggest it moved with its own founder effect. On the flip side the high concentration in south India suggests it essentially did not move outside the Akhand Bharat region starting from its place of origin probably in south India. A case similar to M458 for which the hypothesis by Underhill is given above.


But FYI Origin has nothing to do with ‘caste’ which is adequately explained to be a mere 2000 years old phenomena on the Indian subcontinent (Refer – Moorjani 2009)


Following is actually the best representation I could find showing how new lands are peopled and then later on, minor sized but differently grouped exchanges of population take place.

Same is the case with India which initially helped incubate and probably subsequently took some inward migration but most of which was digested well before it mattered any. Helps to have been the most populated country in the world historically (don’t limit yourself to India@47 to understand this massive population).

 

[Mad Indian]

Helps to have been the most populated country in the world historically (don’t limit yourself to India@47 to understand this massive population).

India had more population than all of Europe combined even during the time Hippocrates wrote history and these geniuses believe that Europeans migrated into here and became Aryans. And they take offence when called out for their nonsense

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

And where did you get this crap that m haplo group is found only in india- it is found in Africa and India. Hence proved out of Africa dint happen by your logic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

As I said, people like you prefer to live in your own lala land and made up European ancestry to make up for an inferiority complex rather than look at facts and comprehend. It was not an ad hominem but what actually is happening with AIT believing morons. It must take some serious identity crisis to subscribe to this theory when even the biggest proponents of it like thappar have started to eat their words with cultural migration and other BS since they could not support their AIT BS anymore

Get yourself genotyped. I guarantee you that your admixture profile looks pretty different from a Jatt's. You probably have maternal haplogroup M and paternal haplogroup H. A Jatt might have y-DNA R1a1a and mt-DNA Ux. And you autosomal profiles will differ. It's no coincidence that NW Indians look different from South Indians. I doubt most people outside India would guess me as the same ethnicity as you. Even though my parents come from India.

AIT might not be true but there have been migrations from West and Central Asia into the Indian subcontinent since antiquity. A clear pattern is found when you look at the haplogroups. The "immigrants" were mostly men and they took indigenous wives. Over time, they instituted a caste system where they placed themselves at the top to maintain genetic purity. Your insecurity is funny but you're simply wrong. No amount of temper tantrums can change the facts.

Read this

Genetic Study Reveals Origin of India's Caste System

The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.

Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago.

Though relationships between people of different social groups was once common, there was a "transformation where most groups now practice endogamy," or marry within their group, said study co-author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard University.

Ancestral populations

Hindus in India have historically been born into one of four major castes, with myriad subdivisions within each caste. Even today, in some parts of the country, marriage outside of one's caste is forbidden and those in the outcast, or "untouchable" group are discriminated against and prohibited from participating in religious rituals. (The Indian government has outlawed certain types of discrimination against the lowest classes.)

But when and why this system evolved has always been a bit murky, said Michael Witzel, a South Asian studies researcher at Harvard University, who was not involved in the work.

Moorjani's past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.

Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. "It's just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India," Moorjani told LiveScience.

To determine exactly when these ancient groups mixed, the team analyzed DNA from 371 people who were members of 73 groups throughout the subcontinent.

Aside from finding when the mixing started and stopped, the researchers also found the mixing was thorough, with even the most isolated tribes showing ancestry from both groups.

Period of transition

Researchers aren't sure which groups of ancient people lived in Indiaprior to 4,200 years ago, but Moorjani suspects the two groups lived side-by-side for centuries without intermarrying.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India. [History's Most Overlooked Mysteries]

Ancient texts also reveal clues about the period.

The Rigveda, a nearly 3,500-year-old collection of hymns written in Sanskrit, a North Indian language, mentions chieftains with South Indian names.

"So there is some sort of mixture or intermarriage," Witzel told LiveScience.

Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes.

The study doesn't suggest that either the ancestral North or South Indian group formed the bulk of the upper or lower castes, Witzel said.

Rather, when caste divisions hardened, any type of intermarriage was sharply curtailed, leading to much less mixing overall.

http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html

 

[Mad Indian]

Get yourself genotyped. I guarantee you that your admixture profile looks pretty different from a Jatt's. You probably have maternal haplogroup M and paternal haplogroup H. A Jatt might have y-DNA R1a1a and mt-DNA Ux. And you autosomal profiles will differ. It's no coincidence that NW Indians look different from South Indians. I doubt most people outside India would guess me as the same ethnicity as you. Even though my parents come from India.

AIT might not be true but there have been migrations from West and Central Asia into the Indian subcontinent since antiquity. A clear pattern is found when you look at the haplogroups. The "immigrants" were mostly men and they took indigenous wives. Over time, they instituted a caste system where they placed themselves at the top to maintain genetic purity. Your insecurity is funny but you're simply wrong. No amount of temper tantrums can change the facts.

Read this

Genetic Study Reveals Origin of India's Caste System

The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.

Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Combining this new genetic information with ancient texts, the results suggest that class distinctions emerged 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, and caste divisions became strict roughly two millennia ago.

Though relationships between people of different social groups was once common, there was a "transformation where most groups now practice endogamy," or marry within their group, said study co-author Priya Moorjani, a geneticist at Harvard University.

Ancestral populations

Hindus in India have historically been born into one of four major castes, with myriad subdivisions within each caste. Even today, in some parts of the country, marriage outside of one's caste is forbidden and those in the outcast, or "untouchable" group are discriminated against and prohibited from participating in religious rituals. (The Indian government has outlawed certain types of discrimination against the lowest classes.)

But when and why this system evolved has always been a bit murky, said Michael Witzel, a South Asian studies researcher at Harvard University, who was not involved in the work.

Moorjani's past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.

Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. "It's just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India," Moorjani told LiveScience.

To determine exactly when these ancient groups mixed, the team analyzed DNA from 371 people who were members of 73 groups throughout the subcontinent.

Aside from finding when the mixing started and stopped, the researchers also found the mixing was thorough, with even the most isolated tribes showing ancestry from both groups.

Period of transition

Researchers aren't sure which groups of ancient people lived in Indiaprior to 4,200 years ago, but Moorjani suspects the two groups lived side-by-side for centuries without intermarrying.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India. [History's Most Overlooked Mysteries]

Ancient texts also reveal clues about the period.

The Rigveda, a nearly 3,500-year-old collection of hymns written in Sanskrit, a North Indian language, mentions chieftains with South Indian names.

"So there is some sort of mixture or intermarriage," Witzel told LiveScience.

Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes.

The study doesn't suggest that either the ancestral North or South Indian group formed the bulk of the upper or lower castes, Witzel said.

Rather, when caste divisions hardened, any type of intermarriage was sharply curtailed, leading to much less mixing overall.

http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html

This is why I said you have identity crisis. Your deep wishes to desperately cling to an European anscetry is pathetic. The study you have presented had been already pointed out for its problems and inaccuracies and fallacies as pointed out by @TejasMK3 .

And don't talk about crap you don't know. Genetics have ruled out migrations into India for the past 10000years. How come then AIT or amt is true?

And . I asked a simple question, south Indian brahmins and north Indian dalits have similar genetic make up. So are they both Dravidian? Answer this simple question and lets see how much brain you have

 

[Mad Indian]

And listen genius, even if the migration was from India to Europe, Indians would share the DNA of the Europeans. So bring me a better research paper to prove the migration of Aryans (central sians or Europeans or whatever goal post you wish to change to) into India displacing the Dravidian during the time period.

@PredictablyMalicious

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

And listen genius, even if the migration was from India to Europe, Indians would share the DNA of the Europeans. So bring me a better research paper to prove the migration of Aryans (central sians or Europeans or whatever goal post you wish to change to) into India displacing the Dravidian during the time period.

@PredictablyMalicious

The reverse is ruled out. Europeans don't have mtDNA M. They also don't have the most common indigenous Indian y-DNA H. There is plenty of other evidence. You shouldn't really conflate this stuff with linguistic categories. Dravidian is a linguistic family. The Brahui speak a Dravidian language yet they are very West Asian shifted relative to South Indians. Things are a lot more complex than that. I'd explain but it seems like a waste of time.

 

[Mad Indian]

The reverse is ruled out. Europeans don't have mtDNA M. They also don't have the most common indigenous Indian y-DNA H. There is plenty of other evidence..

Are you stupid? Europeans do have M haplogroup. . And the Indian R1 y haplogroup is the oldest in the Eurasian region.
Your whole argument is built on a lie. Did you read any link posted here? I am guessing you dint as I already said. And as I already said, you would rather live in a lala land than know the truth.

You shouldn't really conflate this stuff with linguistic categories. Dravidian is a linguistic family. The Brahui speak a Dravidian language yet they are very West Asian shifted relative to South Indians. Things are a lot more complex than that. I'd explain but it seems like a waste of time.

Now we are back to square one. When asked to explain the genetics of his own argument- fall back to linguistic bull shit which is very contradictory. Let me tell you something- linguistics themselves have several evidence linking indian migration into Europe rather than opposite. So linguistics is subjective. And I know several south Indian lower castes far fairer than the typical north Indians and that is why appearances are not science.

You said study shows the genetics make up of upper and lower castes explain Aryan invasion theory. So back up this assertion against the observation that north Indian dalits and south Indian brahmins have the same genetic make up? You can't becuase what you are talking about bull shit. This what i said- most of the AIT crap falls apart on closer scrutiny and evidence

But I know your already have a big inferiority complex and identity crisis and so I will let you stew in your own BS European ancestry.

 

[pmaitra]

:biggrin2:

But no, I think you are taking all this too seriously. Probably even the Hindu Extremists look dangerous from where you stand.

Anyhow my take is you are not doing justice to the immense effort these researchers make doing hard research and after that writing abstracts and stating their hypothesis and rationale for it upfront. Studded with a lot of easy to understand graphics for the enthusiasts to follow or for interested people to understand. Moorjani even stated a para with - "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown", imply that they even caution what should not be understood from it. Arre bhai sab kuch to kar diya ab kya bache ki jaan loge. You are not dealing with idiots when they say ANI/ASI. People on the thread merely picked up what was said by researchers. If you believe they picked out of context then establish context. Simple only. Instead you have complained about small number of Individuals. I mean, come on, they are studying several genetic loci because it is a study of genes and not of individuals. An individual can have several different genetic locus and what the 'differences' that they state is merely a reasonable part of the bulk of these.

This is just the like the way I do not need to understand Computational Fluid Dynamics to understand why things fly or why the kite takes a jhonk or why the wing will also produce skin drag and the generally expected demands on different types of wings.

But then you are denying even the paper of 2009 which was relevant for identifying ANI and ASI. What to say of the later paper regarding latest admixture events. And all this when the earliest admixture event is yet to be even researched.

Anyhow remember before you dismiss all these studies, some of these have indicated some relevance for genetic conditions also that are linked to the basic hypothesis that are used in these papers. I remember Reich talked about recessive genetic conditions that are not linked to the usually suspected inbreeding but instead are linked to the founder event and small sizes of populations at that time. Are the researchers that work on genetic conditions also denying these hypothesis?

Added later - http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2013.116


Now should researchers also ignore these kind of observations that are also part and parcel of the conclusions.


Sorry but I differ.

@Khagesh, I think you misunderstood me. When @Mad Indian referenced "research," I asked him to post the PDF of that research. He has not done that yet. If the PDF/document is one of those that was posted by another member, then I have already responded to those.

I am not discounting the research done by the researchers. Neither am I discrediting their conclusions. I am countering the interpretation some people are making out of those researches. Check this out:

This paper tries to argue that Brahmins' haplogroups are autochtonous, which means, from within the same place, and it uses age of haplogroups to come to that conclusion. This paper does not rule our external migration or invasion.

I have already stated that no one can prove any theory definitively, because things have happened long back in the past. Much earlier in the thread, I gave the example of Chi-square similarity metric and how degree of freedom influences it. Later on, I think I have aptly explained why one untested theory cannot be used to debunk another untested theory. From the mathematical or statistical point of view, I have maintained the same stance towards both AIT/AMT and ANI/ASI.

What I am countering is this seeking out results so as to satisfy a certain argument, while ignoring others. This is called confirmation bias, and that too I have stated earlier.

Anyway, I have read your post, and I think you have made quite a few valid points, and yes, ultimately, it is left to us to believe what we want, because nothing can be definitively proved with the evidence that we have at hand.

 

[pmaitra]

Sorry I ignored since I thought it would be of no use reading it . So you really dont know how the age of the haplotype is determined? I am going to reply to this question in hope that it is not a waste of my time.

Age of the haplotype is determined by the no. of variations it has - the greater the no. of variations , the greater is the age of the haplotype. The reasoning goes like this-

A is the parent population with 1A Y haplotype . Now it has 1 genetic mutation. Then a part of A moves to some other place and lives there seperately and forms the new population B. Now lets say that A had another mutation during the time when B moved on. So the Population A will have two kinds of 1A Y haplotype - one with 1 mutation and one with 2 mutations. Since Population B had migrated already before the second mutation , it wont have the second mutation and so it will only have one type of mutation as was the case when they migrated. So A will have two subsets of 1A haplotype while B will have only one subtype. If a part of this new population again migrates to B, then B also will have some amount of the new mutations but the frequency will be lower than that of the parent population A. So the higher the frequency of variations and higher the diversity, the older the haplotype is.

Since Indian Y haplotype has more genetic variations than Caucasian/central asian Y haplotype which in turn is higher than varitations in European Y haplotype, it is impossible that Y haplotype arose from Europeans and migrated into India, while it is highly likely that it was the other way round.

I did not know, although I remember another paper I had read long time back, which was posted in DFI, where they used the diversity of a haplogroup to determine its age

Thank you for answering.

Do you think this is a reliable method to arrive at conclusions? Diversity of haplogroups are influenced due to various reasons: Population migration due to calamities, invasions, restriction on marriage based on ethnicity, disparity in gender populations, etc., and all this could have happened across thousands of years. Any conclusion drawn from this is at best probabilistic, not deterministic.

But yeah, I agree with you, I should believe what I want, and so should everyone else.

 

[pmaitra]

This is why I said you have identity crisis. Your deep wishes to desperately cling to an European anscetry is pathetic. The study you have presented had been already pointed out for its problems and inaccuracies and fallacies as pointed out by @TejasMK3 .

And don't talk about crap you don't know. Genetics have ruled out migrations into India for the past 10000years. How come then AIT or amt is true?

And . I asked a simple question, south Indian brahmins and north Indian dalits have similar genetic make up. So are they both Dravidian? Answer this simple question and lets see how much brain you have

@Mad Indian, we all have identity curiosity, if not crisis.

You made a slip of tongue, and I am going to latch onto it. The skeletons are out of the cupboard. Here, I quote you:

Yes. That's sadly true. We should work towards a pan national identity and theories like AIT are the biggest hurdles for that. That's why we should take this issue very seriously.

Don't try to re-structure (un)scientific conclusions to suit a particular political narrative.

India is a diverse nation, and it is also a nation of multiple nations. This is a multi-national country. This was pronounced in the 12th Lok Sabha by an MP from TN, under the speakership of P A Sangma, and thereby accepted.

We are united in diversity. We are not a monolithic clade.

Any attempt to impose a unitary identity across the board is nothing short of fascism. You wouldn't appreciate Hindi being foisted upon all the peoples (plural) of India, now, would you?

We are distinguished across ethnic and racial lines, and we are united together. Which is why, India is called the Indian Union. We can remain united, provided we give space to each other, acknowledge our differences, and be comfortable with it. If we try to impose an artificial identity on such a diverse nation, it will have just the opposite effect.

Think of trying to hold onto sand in your hands.

 

[Mad Indian]

I did not know, although I remember another paper I had read long time back, which was posted in DFI, where they used the diversity of a haplogroup to determine its age

Thank you for answering.

Do you think this is a reliable method to arrive at conclusions? Diversity of haplogroups are influenced due to various reasons: Population migration due to calamities, invasions, restriction on marriage based on ethnicity, disparity in gender populations, etc., and all this could have happened across thousands of years. Any conclusion drawn from this is at best probabilistic, not deterministic.

But yeah, I agree with you, I should believe what I want, and so should everyone else.

Scientists have reliably established the Out of Africa theory through genetics and archeology.

Archeology has already ruled out AIT /AMT (even the charriot and horses crap of it) and so has the genetics. Only linguistics are talking about AIT crap. But this is again highly sinister- linguistics were added as a add on to the AIT before,.ie linguistics was specifically tailored to suit the Aryan Dravidian crap. How do linguisitc experts even know they were different language tree in the first place. If anything there are more similarities in syntax of Tamil and Sanskrit seeing how both are phoenetic languages unlike the European languages whcih are not.


So the AIT has so far been- first proposed under archeological evidence- used this archeology as a reason for linguistic division of Indian languages into made up Dravidian language crap - now that archeology first and genetics later have both ruled out immigration or invasion thus blowing AIT /AMT out of water- justify the AIT with linguistic crap which in itself was a product of AIT. It can't get any more circular than that.

Now that's out of the way, scientists have concluded that all Indian populations are indigenous if the bench mark is 10000bce. And of course this is concluded after accounting for the small scale migrations into or out if India during this time period. That is, no sane person in the world can actually believe that India which had the highest population in the world all through history and had more population than all of Europe , had this much population due to immigration. That's like saying contemporary Burmeses migrating into India or invading India and imposing their language and culture on while of India without leaving any archeological or genetic evidence for it. Yeah that's as ridiculous as it sounds.

But to answer the question, yes the research does account for one or two indians living in US Europe now. That can be ensured during the selection of subjects for research itself

 

[Mad Indian]

@Mad Indian, we all have identity curiosity, if not crisis.

Speak for yourself and not the other AIT proponents

I have seen what most of these AIT proponents talk about in many threads. They just can't stop talking about how fair and tall and European like they are. If someone is proud of looking like foreigners(I can bet these people don't really look like Europeans but they THINK they do) - it shows how severely identity crisised they are. For analogy, imagine some moron boasting that he looks more like his next door neighbor than his own dad

 

[pmaitra]

Speak for yourself and not the other AIT proponents

I have seen what most of these AIT proponents talk about in many threads. They just can't stop talking about how fair and tall and European like they are. If someone is proud of looking like foreigners(I can bet these people don't really look like Europeans but they THINK they do) - it shows how severely identity crisised they are. For analogy, imagine some moron boasting that he looks more like his next door neighbor than his own dad

I have never claimed that I am fair and tall. As a matter of fact, I very well remember stating to someone, most likely you, that I look more Dravidian than anything else. I am comfortable with what I am. You should make an attempt to accept yourself, and love yourself, the way you are.

 

[Mad Indian]

I have never claimed that I am fair and tall. As a matter of fact, I very well remember stating to someone, most likely you, that I look more Dravidian than anything else. I am comfortable with what I am. You should make an attempt to accept yourself, and love yourself, the way you are.

I know and thats why I said, you can only speak for yourself. Did I say that you are having identity crisis? No. But, see in this very thread how many people here claimed they had european ancestors because of their built and appearance

The previous AIT thread was worse and was littered with such posts. And of course some dumbo would claim he is a fair tall half european in some other thread involving something else.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

I know and thats why I said, you can only speak for yourself. Did I say that you are having identity crisis? No. But, see in this very thread how many people here claimed they had european ancestors because of their built and appearance

The previous AIT thread was worse and was littered with such posts. And of course some dumbo would claim he is a fair tall half european in some other thread involving something else.

Your looks are coded for by your genes. It's obvious that people who look closer to Caucasians are on average more similar genetically to them as well. If you don't understand that you're a moron. NW Indians look closer to Europeans than Tamils. Therefore, NW Indians are genetically closer to Europeans than Tamils are. (You're kind of slow so I suspect you'll end up replying to this with a huge rage-filled wall of text.)

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Are you stupid? Europeans do have M haplogroup. . And the Indian R1 y haplogroup is the oldest in the Eurasian region.
Your whole argument is built on a lie. Did you read any link posted here? I am guessing you dint as I already said. And as I already said, you would rather live in a lala land than know the truth.



Now we are back to square one. When asked to explain the genetics of his own argument- fall back to linguistic bull shit which is very contradictory. Let me tell you something- linguistics themselves have several evidence linking indian migration into Europe rather than opposite. So linguistics is subjective. And I know several south Indian lower castes far fairer than the typical north Indians and that is why appearances are not science.

You said study shows the genetics make up of upper and lower castes explain Aryan invasion theory. So back up this assertion against the observation that north Indian dalits and south Indian brahmins have the same genetic make up? You can't becuase what you are talking about bull shit. This what i said- most of the AIT crap falls apart on closer scrutiny and evidence

But I know your already have a big inferiority complex and identity crisis and so I will let you stew in your own BS European ancestry.

Tamil brahmins have similar admixture as North Indian dalits because even though they are brahmins, they mixed with lower caste natives when they migrated south. It's a pretty simple explanation.

I've never said I have European ancestry. I am however noticeably genetically different from you. So you're just trying to shame me into accepting your argument by ascribing to me an assertion I've never made. Good luck on taking down a straw man.