Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

No, I am not changing the goalpost whatsoever. I am just avoiding the distractions and deflections you are offering: caste hierarchy, Hinduism, humiliation, "All Indians came from abroad." My point is simple. There are common genes in India, Central Asia, and Eurasia, and hence, there has been either invasion or migration or both. You even admitted migration yourself. Dispute settled.

Relax dude. Grab a beer and read again what AMT claims to refresh your knowledge.

If it were just about migration and not about time line or the divide between brahmins and dalits or between north and south Indians, no one would have cared to reply to you. It specifically talks about dates for introduction of Sanskrit in India.

But if migrations did not happen in given period then the theory holds little weight. And specifically when the above paper in nature shows that dalits, tribals and brahmins share the same haplogroup, which arose locally, then it strikes at the foundation of AMT.

Btw, the nature article is a rebuttal for the papers which claimed that R1a1 entered India through these migrations. But local origin of this haplogroup puts a question mark on the previous beliefs.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

Relax dude. Grab a beer and read again what AMT claims to refresh your knowledge.

If it were just about migration and not about time line or the divide between brahmins and dalits or between north and south Indians, no one would have cared to reply to you. It specifically talks about dates for introduction of Sanskrit in India.

Well, first of all, AMT has various proponents. AMT is different things depending upon different definitions of the term "Aryan."

But if migrations did not happen in given period then the theory holds little weight. And specifically when the above paper in nature shows that dalits, tribals and brahmins share the same haplogroup, which arose locally, then it strikes at the foundation of AMT.

What do you mean by "which?" What arose locally? The lineage or the haplogroup?

Btw, the nature article is a rebuttal for the papers which claimed that R1a1 entered India through these migrations. But local origin of this haplogroup puts a question mark on the previous beliefs.

Source: http://repository.ias.ac.in/51846/1/42-PUB.pdf (link from your post long time back)

Indo-Europeans
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.

• R1a1a* includes Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers peoples and Slavic and Finno-Ugric speakers peoples.
• R1a1 is present with Indo-Aryans, Slavs, Finno-Ugrics, but absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers.
• R1a1a7-M458, a very specific subset (or subclade) of R1a1, peaks within the Slavs and Finno-Ugrics. No issue there.
  
• No significant gene flow from Eastern Europe to Asia (including India). Makes sense. If R1a1 can be found in India, Central Asia and Eurasia, Central Asia being the mid point, these genes most likely spread North-West to Europe and South-East to India, from Central Asia, the mid-point.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Well, first of all, AMT has various proponents. AMT is different things depending upon different definitions of the term "Aryan."

What do you mean by "which?" What arose locally? The lineage or the haplogroup?

Source: http://repository.ias.ac.in/51846/1/42-PUB.pdf (link from your post long time back)

• R1a1a* includes Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers peoples and Slavic and Finno-Ugric speakers peoples.
• R1a1 is present with Indo-Aryans, Slavs, Finno-Ugrics, but absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers.
• R1a1a7-M458, a very specific subset (or subclade) of R1a1, peaks within the Slavs and Finno-Ugrics. No issue there.
  
• No significant gene flow from Eastern Europe to Asia (including India). Makes sense. If R1a1 can be found in India, Central Asia and Eurasia, Central Asia being the mid point, these genes most likely spread North-West to Europe and South-East to India, from Central Asia, the mid-point.

The first three star points are OK. The fourth is what is contested. I don't have good internet right now, so am answering based on my recall. The nature article is the latest in this series that I know and they show that R1a1 can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[pmaitra]

The first three star points are OK. The fourth is what is contested. I don't have good internet right now, so am answering based on my recall. The nature article is the latest in this series that I know and they show that R1a1 can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

What do you mean by "which?" What arose locally? The lineage or the haplogroup?

Please clarify what you are trying to say:

1. ". . . they show that R1a1 haplogroup can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration."
2. ". . . they show that R1a1 lineage can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration."

Abstract portion:

A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Please clarify what you are trying to say:

1. ". . . they show that R1a1 haplogroup can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration."
2. ". . . they show that R1a1 lineage can arise locally for different populations and does not necessarily need migration."

Abstract portion:

It means R1a1 haplogroup arose locally which further gave rise to lineages like R1a1a, R1a1b etc.

Also, look at the age estimates of this haplogroup. It seems that it arose in India. Here I quote:

The ages of the haplogroup, within the various population groups of India as well as after distributing them to social groups, were also calculated (Table 3). It was observed that the age of R1a1* was the highest in the Indian subcontinent. Interestingly, among different groups, the age of Y-haplogroup R1a1* was highest in scheduled castes/tribes when compared with Central Asians and Eurasians. These observations weaken the hypothesis of introduction of this haplogroup and the origin of Indian higher most castes from Central Asian and Eurasian regions, supporting their origin within the Indian subcontinent.

 

[punjab47]

Mtdna of c Asia mid east Europe originates with bharat ma anyway https://t.co/pr8xW3vNvB all you're doing is making yourself look silly pmaitra

 

[pmaitra]

It means R1a1 haplogroup arose locally which further gave rise to lineages like R1a1a, R1a1b etc.

Also, look at the age estimates of this haplogroup. It seems that it arose in India. Here I quote:

Thank you. Yes, I agree that there are observations that weaken the theory that R1a1 was introduced from outside.

There are two caveats, in the same paper:

Although the geographic origins of haplogroup expansions can be inferred from the frequencies, associated diversity51 and clinal patterns of distribution, past inferences from literature indicate that such relations are not so simple to interpret. It is observed that regions of high frequency and high variance are not always the same. Regions with highest haplogroup frequencies are not always sites of its origin and clinal patterns are not obvious in binary HG frequency data;33 also, the highly associated microsatellite variance, exclusively, may not always be an indicator of in-situ diversification and could result as a consequence of repeated gene flow from different sources52,53 as observed by Y-chromosomal diversity in Central Asia.32 This suggests that many analytical parameters should be included and potential causes of a wrong interpretation should be taken care of before reaching any conclusion.

In other words, we do not have a conclusive evidence of geographical origin of the haplogroup based on frequency or diversity.

However, there is a scanty representation of Y-haplogroup R1a1 subgroups in the literature as well as in this study. The known subgroups (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c), which are defined by binary markers M56, M157 or M87, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1), were not observed. In such a situation, it is likely that this haplogroup (R1a1*) is a polyphyletic (or paraphyletic) group of Y-lineages. It is, therefore, very important to discover novel Y chromosomal binary marker(s) for defining monophyletic subhaplogroup(s) belonging to Y-R1a1* with a higher resolution to confirm the present conclusion. Further, the under-representation of phylogenetic data of the population groups of North India in the literature and our observations hint at the immense need of phylogenetic explorations in the northern most Himalayan regions of India, which might have acted as an incubator of many ancient lineages, to obtain a clearer picture of the peopling of India and Eurasia.

In other words, the authors are saying that:

• R1a1* haplogroup is polyphyletic.
• Alternatively, R1a1* haplogroup is paraphyletic, which means, not all members of the population from a common ancestor is included, rather, a subset of all members of the population from a common ancestor are included; which means, outside of the subset lies a population which can have a common ancestor. So, the observations that weaken the theory that R1a1 was introduced from outside, might be upended, when a monophyletic population is observed.
• There is need for phylogenetic explorations to obtain a clearer picture of the peopling of India and Eurasia.

So, basically, the paper is inconclusive.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

More recent work: http://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...plogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf

In the present study we have extended the field of detection of
haplotype XI/haplogroup R1a subject to other countries previously
uncovered in our preceding articles [9,10]: these countries are mainly
Northern Europe, Georgia and Armenia, Near/Middle East, North-
Africa, Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We found high
haplotype XI frequencies values in Afghanistan (18.4%), in Iran
(26.5%), in Pakistan (28% and 30.4%) and in India; in this last sub-
continent, the maximal value of 61.3% was found in Punjab.
We have refound in our samples the clear distinction initially
established by Pamjav et al. [21] between Indian Z93 populations and
European Z280 populations: all our South Asian populations are Z93,
while almost all our European populations are Z280. Datations show
that the Z93 Pakistano-Indian group is the most ancient (about 15,5 K
years); in Europe, the Eastern populations are the most ancient (about
12,5 K years) and the Northern ones the most recent (about 6,9 Kyears).

Look at table 4 to get more idea. More and more evidence is piling up to support OIT in the last 10k years.

 

[Mad Indian]

Let me explain how the scientists studied genetics of migrations and distribution of populations and SNPs

Selection of samples are all like any other study - random samples from a selected population group.
Then, they take a particular gene loci to study. Gene loci have multiple expressions of genes OK. Like for example- tall and short beans plants. So the place where the gene sits is the gene loci- in this case the place where the tall and short genes sits is the gene loci. And the tall and short genes are the different kind of genes. OK?

If you understood the gene loci and different genes, we can move on to next topic- single nucleotide polymorphisms?!

SNP is nothing but changes in a gene in a single nucleotide, but it does not change the behavior of the gene significantly and so no discernable phenotype difference can be seen(appearance differences). So SNPs , because they don't confer any genetic advantages, can be used as a tools for study of distribution and migration of populations. For example, if a tallness gene is identified and its distribution is studied, you will find variations in its distribution because of the different kinds of survival advantages being tall gives. So tallness gene cannot be used for studying migrations, as any undue selection pressures(like better survival advantages, mate selections etcs) might confound the study. But SNPs , which don't affect the survival significantly, can be of great help in migrations as the pattern of its distribution can only be a result of migrations.

 

[Mad Indian]

Finally, let's see how to apply SNPs to interpret the data here.

So let's say that there is a parent population A. It has a gene with SNP- R1a1. Lets say ,It is present in a place called X. Now, any mutation in R1a1 will have be transfered within that group to their progenies. Correct? Also , the frequency distribution of any new mutation will be similar in the pop A. Right(assuming intermingling of pops)?

Let's say after a few centuries, a sub group of population A move from X to a new place Y. Since X is far from Y. Any new mutations in pop A in Xwon't be found in the pop in Y. Yes? So while new mutations might occur in Y, the newmutations will occur in X as well, but since X is the parent population, it will havemore variety of variations, yes? So the higher the degree of variations in thegenetics, the older the population must be.

So when the scientists study X and Y pops and their SNPs, the po which has a higher density of variations will be the older among the two., this is how scientists concluded that the modern humans came out of African because of the highest density of variations there

Now, when the sub part of Pop A moves into Y, there might me some natives to the land Y too right? So when the natives mix with the sub group of pop A, the frequency/density of the R1a1 will decrease among them due to mix from natives right? So higher the density of the R1a1 , the older the pop group. That's why the pdf study claims that the Punjab with highest density of R1a is the oldest pop group.

Hope this helps you understand the study better.

 

[Mad Indian]

Of course even common sense can show that AIT/AMT is a myth and OIT is much more plausible.

 

[Mad Indian]

All of Europe was covered in ice at that time, 15k years ago. So who in their right mind can claim that migrations came from from Europe to India, just when ice was melting in Europe and was becoming more hospitable? Really, let's look at AIT. So people who were living in Scandinavia and Germany and Central asia, when it was an ice covered waste land like Antarctica , suddenly decided to come South to india just when earth was warming up and Germany was being filled with fence forests and plains? Morons. Atleast, this OIT makes sense. India of course was not covered by ice at the time of ice age, being protected by Himalayas and the cold from the central asia , and so as earth warmed up,humans from India moved towards less cold/now warmer northern parts- central Asia and into eastern Europe and then into Scandinavia as the ice age was ending and the eastern Europe turned into plains/grasslands/forests.

But no, we must set aside all logic and put our heads inside the ass and think amt happened
@PredictablyMalicious the latest study posted by @Sakal Gharelu Ustad has no right wingers conducting it and was done by your western masters only. Will you now atleast stop trying to justify pseudo science like AMT and stop claiming that OIT is propounded for politics?

 

[pmaitra]

More recent work: http://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...plogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf



Look at table 4 to get more idea. More and more evidence is piling up to support OIT in the last 10k years.

I glanced through it. This is an interesting paper. I will read it again in detail.

There are a few things that I think might suggest something.

The highest frequencies were obtained from Ukraine (44%), Russia (43.9%) and Hungary (40.7%); percentages of haplotype XI geographic distribution show a gradient of decreasing frequencies from these areas of higher percentages toward southeastern and more western countries in Europe.

Haplotype frequencies in the different geographic areas in which the samples were pooled confirm the high prevalence of haplotype XI in Eastern Europe (38.6%, versus 2.3% in West Europe and 3.1% in South- Western Europe).

At the end of these studies, it was interpreted that haplotype XI have expanded in the territory of present day Ukraine [11] and to have been spread by the Kurgan culture, which migrated into both Europe and the East, resulting in the expansion of Indo-European languages [12].

Here is a map of the Kurgan Hypothesis (Wiki):

Additionally, this paper cites two other research papers that propose the following:

The haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia (apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions) around 20 Kyears; not later than 12 Kyears bearers of R1a1 already was in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10 and 9 Kyears, and around 9-8 Kyears they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Eastern Europe to the British Isles.

The authors of this article propose Pakistano-Indian to be 15.5K years old. The authors of the cited article propose "The haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia (apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions) around 20 Kyears."

I think we have just two conflicting observations.

 

[Mad Indian]

^^^ this is what happens when nincompoops interpret data to suit their agenda. The para where the origin is claimed to be 20k years old in Ukraine is a paraphrasal of another study the authors of the above study are discrediting. That para is not something which the authors are advocating. Seriously, @Sakal Gharelu Ustad how do you respond to such stupidity?

 

[pmaitra]

^^^ this is what happens when nincompoops interpret data to suit their agenda. The para where the origin is claimed to be 20k years old in Ukraine is a paraphrasal of another study the authors of the above study are discrediting. That para is not something which the authors are advocating. Seriously, @Sakal Gharelu Ustad how do you respond to such stupidity?

What part of "this paper cites two other research papers" did you not understand?

Do you understand what a citation means?

And no, it is not a paraphrasal of another study. It is called citing two other studies, enumerated as 23 and 24 in the citations list.

 

[Mad Indian]

What part of "this paper cites two other research papers" did you not understand?

Do you understand what a citation means?

And no, it is not a paraphrasal of another study. It is called citing two other studies, enumerated as 23 and 24 in the citations list.

Do you understand that they were refering to those studies as to show that the research they are doing is a contentious one? Then they went on to demonstrate that only one of the studies- which show the origin in Punjab was right. And of course, thats right there in the conclusion. But you being the typical marxist hypocrite you tried to show how that study is itself being inconclusive/has doubts as well. As I said, stop posting like a nincompoop.

 

[pmaitra]

Do you understand that they were refering to those studies as to show that the research they are doing is a contentious one? Then they went on to demonstrate that only one of the studies- which show the origin in Punjab was right. And of course, thats right there in the conclusion. But you being the typical marxist hypocrite you tried to show how that study is itself being inconclusive/has doubts as well. As I said, stop posting like a nincompoop.

The new research cites two earlier research papers. The new research does not dispute the earlier research's proposed 20 Kyears, let alone "discredit."

Citation is not necessarily a disagreement.

You are only cherry picking portions that support your views, and I am pointing out portions that counter your views. I am just countering your confirmation bias.

You first look at the observations, and then come to a conclusion. What you are doing now is you are trying to look for only those observations, so that you can confirm your pre-determined conclusions. I am pointing out other observations, and you are getting angry.

BTW, the earlier explanation you gave was correct, and would hold true in a vanilla world. I just don't think that explanation alone explains the genetic observations. There is that, and a lot of other things.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

The new research cites two earlier research papers. The new research does not dispute the earlier research's proposed 20 Kyears, let alone "discredit."

Citation is not necessarily a disagreement.

You are only cherry picking portions that support your views, and I am pointing out portions that counter your views. I am just countering your confirmation bias.

You first look at the observations, and then come to a conclusion. What you are doing now is you are trying to look for only those observations, so that you can confirm your pre-determined conclusions. I am pointing out other observations, and you are getting angry.

BTW, the earlier explanation you gave was correct, and would hold true in a vanilla world. I just don't think that explanation alone explains the genetic observations. There is that, and a lot of other things.

He might be cherry-picking but it is more recent paper with more recent data. What makes it more credible is that it uses downstream SNPs from R1a1 haplogroup.

Recently, because of the “1000 Genome Project” that have provided
many complete Y-DNA genomes in her database [19], new Y-SNPs were
available to the specific community [20]. In their seminal article on the
Hungarian population compared to Malaysia Indians, [21] established
a clear distinction between subjects of these two groups bearing the
R1a1-M458 haplogroup: while all their Indian subjects have the Z93
marker, only 3 of their Hungarian subjects (N=78) are positive for Z93
(but 41 of them are positive for Z280).

 

[pmaitra]

He might be cherry-picking but it is more recent paper with more recent data. What makes it more credible is that it uses downstream SNPs from R1a1 haplogroup.

I agree with you. It is a more recent paper.

My point is simple. The more recent paper does not dispute the proposed age of those Central Asian HG in the cited papers.

 

[Mad Indian]

The new research cites two earlier research papers. The new research does not dispute the earlier research's proposed 20 Kyears, let alone "discredit."

Citation is not necessarily a disagreement.

You are only cherry picking portions that support your views, and I am pointing out portions that counter your views. I am just countering your confirmation bias.

You first look at the observations, and then come to a conclusion. What you are doing now is you are trying to look for only those observations, so that you can confirm your pre-determined conclusions. I am pointing out other observations, and you are getting angry.

BTW, the earlier explanation you gave was correct, and would hold true in a vanilla world. I just don't think that explanation alone explains the genetic observations. There is that, and a lot of other things.

More stupidity. This is why you are on my ignore list. Enjoy living in a lala land