Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[pmaitra]

You ask wrong questions dude. I am done giving sense to you.

You are too brainwashed to even understand logic.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

How about you bring some sense into your responses?

Three questions were asked. No answer. Take your time. You don't have to answer today. Answer next week, just keep it to the point.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

How about you bring some sense into your responses?

Three questions were asked. No answer. Take your time. You don't have to answer today. Answer next week, just keep it to the point.

I don't need to take weeks to answer incomplete stupid questions.

Btw, answer one thing- when did Aryan migration or invasion took place?

I think it is you who is making inane arguments.


I am not in control of your beliefs and faith.


What genetic studies have refuted his arguments? The "Nature" link you have shared? No. You might think it does, but it doesn't. Don't ask me why. Already explained.


And I am asking you about appearances. If they are not talking about how people look, then why are you continuously bringing that article in?

So, understand the question, instead of writing verbose comments that avoid some very to the point questions.


What do you mean by "wrong" questions? You mean questions that you do not have an answer for?


Ah, you cannot answer my question, so you want me to ask you your questions, questions that you are comfortable answering.

It's like a student asking the teacher to modify the question paper so that he can pass the test.

Very disingenuous.

Look, if you cannot answer my questions, then say so. If you want to answer your own questions, then continue having a conversation with yourself.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

I don't need to take weeks to answer incomplete stupid questions.

Btw, answer one thing- when did Aryan migration or invasion took place?



Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

You first answer my question: LINK
Alternatively, continue with your political pseudo-science, as demonstrated here: LINK

Just trying to stop this merry-go-round.

 

[Varahamihira]

I am open to reading alternative arguments. May I request you to quote the paragraph(s) that answer the three questions I have asked? It will save me some time.

One request: Answer only if you can answer without modifying the questions.

Bhai if it were some paragraphs I would have posted here.
The subject is big.Use the search option.Yes it has articles on your questions too albeit with different titles.
My reason for you to read that blog is not just limited to AIT/AMT.It brings about our ancient history in a totally different way i.e.from our texts and linguistics and how far our traditions i.e.language,habits,etc.influenced the world which the west whitewashed it.

Answer these direct questions:

• Why do people in India have different appearances?
• Why are there a large percentage of light skinned people in the North West India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, contiguous with Iran?
• Why are there a large percentage of Mongoloid looking people in the North East and Ladakh, contiguous with Tibet?

• Read the blog
• Because from North West India to several parts of West Asia was covered with snow and lasted more compared to Central and South India(i.e.thousands of years).Sun light does play a big role wrt skin color.It can be easily tested.Pick 2 fair skinned persons,ask one to stay indoors for more than couple of years and ask the 2nd guy to work in day light under the Sun.The 1st persons skin becomes a bit light in color and 2nd person becomes a bit more dark.I'm speaking from personal experience,I became fair to light fair when I had to do projects indoors for more than 4 years.
• Read the blog

 

[pmaitra]

• Because from North West India to several parts of West Asia was covered with snow and lasted more compared to Middle and South India(i.e.thousands of years).Sun light does play a big role wrt skin color.It can be easily tested.Pick 2 fair skinned persons,ask one to stay indoors for more than couple of years and ask the 2nd guy to work in day light under the Sun.The 1st persons skin becomes a bit light in color and 2nd person becomes a bit more dark.I'm speaking from personal experience,I became fair to light fair when I had to do projects indoors for more than 4 years.

Makes sense. Yes, sunlight does play a role. Does that explain the natives of South Africa? No, it doesn't. Does that explain why there are still a smaller number of people who are dark skinned in the NW or light skinned in the South? Again, it does not. So, sunlight is a valid reason, but not the only reason.

 

[Varahamihira]

Makes sense. Yes, sunlight does play a role. Does that explain the natives of South Africa? No, it doesn't. Does that explain why there are still a smaller number of people who are dark skinned in the NW or light skinned in the South? Again, it does not. So, sunlight is a valid reason, but not the only reason.

Sunlight plays a big role.
What about natives of SA?
Because there was a flow from North to South and vice versa.
For example Adi Shankaracharya was a Kashmiri but he is known as South Indian.His ancestors came from North and settled in South.

 

[pmaitra]

Sunlight plays a big role.
What about natives of SA?
Because there was a flow from North to South and vice versa.
For example Adi Shankaracharya was a Kashmiri but he is known as South Indian.His ancestors came from North and settled in South.

Yes, there was a flow from North to South, and that is why the natives of South Africa are not white, despite being a colder region with less sunlight than the tropics. I guess you are making my point.

 

[Varahamihira]

Yes, there was a flow from North to South, and that is why the natives of South Africa are not white, despite being a colder region with less sunlight than the tropics. I guess you are making my point.

Which year you are talking about?
If I'm not wrong till 20,000 years ago Africa was tropical.
And I'm sure I'm not making your point.

 

[pmaitra]

Which year you are talking about?
If I'm not wrong till 20,000 years ago Africa was tropical.

Much of Africa is. The southern part is not.

The tropics is a region of the Earth surrounding the Equator. It is limited in latitude by the Tropic of Cancer in the northern hemisphere at 23°26′14.1″ (or 23.43724°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere at 23°26′14.1″ (or 23.43724°) S; these latitudes correspond to the axial tilt of the Earth.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics

Follow the link and see the diagram. Almost all of South Africa and Northern Half of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, are in the sub-tropics. Now, do the people of these two sub-tropical regions look alike?

 

[Varahamihira]

Much of Africa is. The southern part is not.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics

Follow the link and see the diagram. Almost all of South Africa and Northern Half of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, are in the sub-tropics. Now, do the people of these two sub-tropical regions look alike?

It doesn't show any extreme cold areas to me.
Or are you trying to say they didn't ventured into sunlight.

Below link shows a picture of ice age.I don't see SA covered in any sort of ice.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm

 

[pmaitra]

It doesn't show any extreme cold areas to me.
Or are you trying to say they didn't ventured into sunlight.

Below link shows a picture of ice age.I don't see SA covered in any sort of ice.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm

No, I am not saying they did not venture into sunlight. People in both regions did what they had to do to live. In other words, people in both regions got the amount of sunlight as what an average villager would get. Sunlight exposure was the same for people of both regions. Appearances are not.

This shows that sunlight alone cannot explain skin tone. I agree that sunlight is one cause, but not the only cause.

 

[Varahamihira]

Sunlight exposure was the same for people of both regions. Appearances are not.

I still not able to get it what appearances of native S Africans you are talking about.Africans all have dark skin tone.They weren't exposed to extreme cold for thousands of years as compared to the Western countries,NWIndia and West Asia.

Anyhow,you are supporting/accepting AIT or AMT or both?

 

[pmaitra]

I still not able to get it what appearances of native S Africans you are talking about.Africans all have dark skin tone.They weren't exposed to extreme cold for thousands of years as compared to the Western countries,NWIndia and West Asia.

It does snow in South Africa, more often than it snows in Punjab.

Anyhow,you are supporting/accepting AIT or AMT or both?

Already answered. Still asking?

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/aryan-invasion-theory.1403/page-72#post-1095628

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

You first answer my question: LINK
Alternatively, continue with your political pseudo-science, as demonstrated here: LINK

Just trying to stop this merry-go-round.

You can continue lying through your teeth.

But yes, you break your own dogmatic records on this thread. Indians can look different due to many reasons: climate, geography, some of them getting raped by Turks and Mongols etc, migration spread over centuries.

But AIT/AMT ie migration or invasion 4k years ago is a pile of BS, which you cannot defend without talking about time line.

But you are free to continue being ignorant. Sadly, more genetic evidence would crush your dream to somehow get related to white Aryans!!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

You can continue lying through your teeth.

But yes, you break your own dogmatic records on this thread. Indians can look different due to many reasons: climate, geography, some of them getting raped by Turks and Mongols etc, migration spread over centuries.

But AIT/AMT ie migration or invasion 4k years ago is a pile of BS, which you cannot defend without talking about time line.

But you are free to continue being ignorant. Sadly, more genetic evidence would crush your dream to somehow get related to white Aryans!!

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

Quit ranting and answer my three questions.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Quit ranting and answer my three questions.

I answered your question above. Use brain and read it again.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

I answered your question above. Use brain and read it again.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

I used my brain and read your post. Now, you use your brain and read your own post.

Read the sentence with the word migration.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248

Has this paper been cited? Anyway there wasn't a single migration event but multiple ones. I agree that AIT is wrong in its original form. There have been waves of migrations to South Asia from further west.

Abstract

Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I used my brain and read your post. Now, you use your brain and read your own post.

Read the sentence with the word migration.

Thank you for making my point.

Now use your brain again and understand that nowhere it says the migration happened 4k years ago.

Stop being a cry baby and post something that AMT happened 4k years ago.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248

Has this paper been cited? Anyway there wasn't a single migration event but multiple ones. I agree that AIT is wrong in its original form. There have been waves of migrations to South Asia from further west.

Well, even the paper that @Sakal Gharelu Ustad repeatedly peddled to everyone debunks some of his own claims.

Proof: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/aryan-invasion-theory.1403/page-26#post-670559
"Good paper, but focuses on Y-haplogroup R1a1*. It does claim in the abstract that this haplogroup can be found all over Central Asia."

Anyway, he has admitted it: ". . . migration spread over centuries."

Now use your brain again and understand that nowhere it says the migration happened 4k years ago.

Stop being a cry baby and post something that AMT happened 4k years ago.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

I don't give a tuppence about 4k. Who said that? I said that? Migration happened at multiple points in time, and not at one specific point in time. Some of those migrations might as well have been part of invasion.