Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
wig
BRFite
Posts: 1817
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby wig » 17 Jun 2017 19:22

http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-ne ... PkUsJ.html
Farming took root in India only 10,000 years ago, study finds
excerpts
Farming came to India 10,000 years ago, and it was only much later that grains such as rice, wheat and millet — considered diet staples today — were grown in most parts of the country.

A wave of migration from Central Asia led to the spread of agriculture across the Indian sub-continent, a new study by the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) suggests.

Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1086
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Ardeshir » 17 Jun 2017 20:02

From the Tony Joseph article,
Now that we know that there WAS indeed a significant inflow of genes from Central Asia into India in the Bronze Age, can we get a better fix on the timing, especially the splintering of Z93 into its own sub-lineages? Yes, we can; the research paper that answers this question was published just last year, in April 2016, titled: “Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences.” This paper, which looked at major expansions of Y-DNA haplogroups within five continental populations, was lead-authored by David Poznik of the Stanford University, with Dr. Underhill as one of the 42 co-authors. The study found “the most striking expansions within Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago”. This is remarkable, because roughly 4,000 years ago is when the Indus Valley civilization began falling apart. (There is no evidence so far, archaeologically or otherwise, to suggest that one caused the other; it is quite possible that the two events happened to coincide.)


Trying his hardest to fit in the "invasion" theory, linking it to the decline of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22249
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby chetak » 17 Jun 2017 21:24

While casually flipping channels this morning, I heard sanjay baru, who I would have thought knew better, talking about the aryans and dravidians.


is there no end to this dead and buried topic??

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 17 Jun 2017 22:45

When ad hominem is required, this will come handy. Quoting verbatim from an email I received:

1. Tony Joseph is a business writer and not a scientist.

2. "Note that Razib Khan whom the author quotes as an expert is a highly dubious character. Here is a writeup on him: Razib Khan, a science blogger and a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis, was one of 20 writers who signed contracts with the Times to write for the paper’s online opinion section. The Times announced its new stable of contributors on Wednesday. Hours later, Gawker’s J.K. Trotter reported that Khan had a “history with racist, far-right online publications.” Khan wrote 68 posts for Taki’s Magazine, a publication founded by a “flamboyantly racist Greek journalist,” Trotter wrote. Khan also wrote a letter to VDARE, “a white nationalist website named after the first white child born in America, in which he discussed [an essay] concerning the threat of the United States becoming “more genetically and culturally Mexican.”

I think NS Rajaram has already replied to the article in the Hindu.

This is Tony Joseph's Twitterstream:

https://twitter.com/tjoseph0010?lang=en

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Jun 2017 22:49

^ Yuwar heart is so in the right place! :mrgreen:

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 17 Jun 2017 23:05

Right af centre wonly :twisted:

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 18 Jun 2017 00:00

Sanjeev Sanyal has responded on facebook here:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 5212776900

There is also a response by Shrikant Talageri further down (scroll down).

For some reason I can't copy paste from that link...

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Jun 2017 01:43

To agree/refute with this latest attack, it is essential to do what we do where we have some clue (which I don't here): Dig into the original papers from the authors cited, and ACTUALLY look at their methods and data with the same beady eyes and dirty mind that dear JEM demonstrates so nicely above. As far as I can tell, the terms: "authors were careful", etc , that are sprinkled through the Tony Ousepp article are clear indications that those are not only lies, but deliberate lies by people who are used to lying using all the "right" qualifiers etc to sound "scientific". Just hazarding a guess, but I bet those bozos also don't shave off their beards, they wear checked flannel shirts when on campus and t-shirts when in the field, etc. etc.

They used to hide behind big words like "Psychopedopornography", "Carbon dating". "ground penetrating radar". "Archaeological scientific techniques". "Radiological archaeology". "Mitochondriojurassiology".

Now they have discovered "DNA". The words are newer. The pakistan is the same. But, hey, I am clueless here. I just know that the Lucy-Tanzaniawali scam is bogus. So is the notion of these all-men Aryans tumbling down the Khyber Pass, buggering each other to propagate the Male DNA (a male-dominated tribe existing for the 10 generations needed to get through those regions? How did the species survive except by having lots of female goats as mothers?).

All the best. May the blessings of Ulan Bator go with you.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 18 Jun 2017 09:36

UB ji,

I have already attempted a partial critique of this very article on the previous page of this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=2163908#p2163908

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby JE Menon » 18 Jun 2017 10:12

Here is an email from Nilesh Oak received on a mailing list. Clarifies further. Copy/pasted without permission but I hope he does not mind.
________________

Few on FB and Twitter posted this article and asked for my comments. The writer of this article is banking on ignorance and unwillingness of majority to go into the details of other research papers he mentions. I am working on a Genetics paper (AIT, OIT and Genetics) and happen to read almost all papers the author (Joseph) mentions in this article and many more he does not.

Genetics papers in the context of India (AIT/OIT) can be divided into two categories.

(1) Pro- AIT : Common factor here is that they will mention AIT, Lignustics, Indo-Arayan and Dravidian, ANI and ASI, Central asian pastolists and such. Genetics data is deliberately misinterpreted, specifically conclusions are drawn, deliberately, based on 'Low resolution HG (haplogroups).. e.g. R1a is found in Eurasia and also in India.. and this proves AIT, etc.

(2) Anti-AIT : These papers do not refer to linguistics, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, ANI & ASI, Central asian pastoralist, and such. There inference are cautious and clearly state the limitations but also what else needs to happen (e.g. high resolution and thus identification of additional and unique HG (haplogroups) that allow further descrimination between groups.
--
I would encourage those wishing to write a response to read the papers referred to by Joseph, in the original (and multiple times, if required).

For example, the very first paper he mentions (March 2017) has nothing, absolutely NADA.. to prove anything about movement from Central asia to India. It rather quotes referred papers (of the past) and if you go there. you will find that all of them fall into (including their details) category (1) (Pro-AIT) with the same dubious logic explained above.

Then Jospeh quotes Underhill and his works.. and not unlike Rajesh Kocchar (The Vedic People) states the research findings with reasonable accuracy.. but takes a sharp U turn (and hardly anyone would notice unless one is willing to read the original) and reaches his (Joesph) desired conclusions.. without bothering to explain.

The rest of the article (Joseph) follows this format....

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 516
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby pralay » 18 Jun 2017 11:05

Where can we get the data actually?
It will be interesting to put the data in Graph DB and have a look at it.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 18 Jun 2017 21:02

^^ Have u checkeed the two additional file links given in the original paper link posted by Gupta JI?

https://static-content.springer.com/esm ... M1_ESM.pdf
https://static-content.springer.com/esm ... 2_ESM.xlsx

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 18 Jun 2017 21:48

Rudradev wrote:UB ji,
I have already attempted a partial critique of this very article on the previous page of this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=2163908#p2163908


And may your goats run freely up and down the slopes of the Khyber pass too. A complete, merciless debriefing of this Tony Joseph and his journalistic pretences is needed, along with the other clowns. Lesson has to be driven home. What he has done, as an accomplished paki, is that he cites a bunch of links to papers that may be true, then states conclusions that are quite independent of what those papers really say.

You have to do likewise. No one reads your actual data except those who have only mean intentions towards you. So your data have to survive their bouncers and yorkers and sledging, But the conclusions have to be such that they can even be read and enjoyed by me. Whenever you catch the clowns twisting data to fit conclusions, you must question their motives, relate those to their long history starting with dubious parentage and long ancestral occupation of government facilities all over the world, and then shift the attack to the editors and publishers who hired and tolerate such outrages. Those can be spread far and wide over Teetar and fB.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 19 Jun 2017 18:16

This "...more recent strict social boundaries... in its historical form was likely established much more recently, not more than around 2000 years ago " seems to be a robust finding.

a. What is the first "invasion consciousness" in the Indian traditions - is it the Sakas?
b. What are the factors that led to "strict social boundaries" 2000 or so years ago?
c. What stories in our Puranas, epics, and other literature are around 2000 years old, and thus interpolations, if strict social boundaries arose some 2000 years ago only?
d. Since Buddha lived much before 2000 years ago, how is Buddhism interpreted as being against casteism?
e. Related to (d.), what was the older society like which had in it the seeds for "strict social boundaries" to arise?
f. What literature that is currently postulated to be younger than around 2000 years is really older because it does not reflect the "strict social boundaries"?
etc.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 20 Jun 2017 00:01

Swarajya article:
https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/genetics- ... ls-believe
Genetics Might Be Settling The Aryan Migration Debate, But Not How Left-Liberals Believe
Anil Kumar Suri

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Jun 2017 02:22

I had the sort of Vision that only UBCNews can have. So there is no archaeological evidence of any AI. But these brilliant types have done extensive DNA sampling of ancient Indians. How? What is left of ancient Indians to do DNA sampling? AFAIK, Vedic types (yindoos) cremated their dead, scattering the ashes and floating the bones down the Sindhu or Sarasvati or Ganga. That's why they lived near the rivers, after all. So the only place to find their DNA would be deep under 4500 years of silt in the Rann of Kutch/ Pakistan Ocean/ Bangladesh Ocean. Scattered among fossilized fish etc etc. Did they dig there?

So ... whom does that leave? Well... it leaves ppl who didn't cremate their dead. IOW, Pakis. NOW can you kuffar understand why the results show that DNA was passed from male to male, and from male to donkey/goat? Hain? Hain?
IOW, KhyberWallah Aryans == Pakis. With carnations behind their ears. Same as today.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Jun 2017 03:49

So much for that :(

That matrilineal etc went straight over my head/ across through my ears. In Ulan Bator our education on Natural Science consisted of which animals to eat.

OK, next question. This Ms. Lisa ul Tanzaniwali who is said to have walked past Kilimanjaro, crossed the Suez, the Iranian deserts, then decided to follow the coastline south to Keralastan:

Why didn't she turn around at the Indian Ocean and simply come down the African coast, assuming that she couldn't just walk across to the coast? And if she did, why did civilization not flourish on the east coast of Africa, with Madagascar becoming the primary center of civilization, maritime tradition & all, looooong b4 Indus Valley?

Why trek across the Indus/Sarasvati deltas and undertake the arduous trek down INDIAN west coast?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Jun 2017 04:24

Also: I haven't seen any dissection here, of Tony Joseph's starting postulate for AIT:
Nomadic expeditionary tribes are predominantly male.


This may be true as in a weekend Boys' Trip. But a migration through the Khyber Pass and the huge mountainous ranges in those parts, all the way across the rivers into the plains, did not occur inside 20 years or 30 years, even assuming that these buggers (and I use the term deliberately) did not see any wimmens of their species for that long a time. Why would they do that, anyway?
Oh! We know there are Vedas waiting to be written, and Andaman/Nicobar type cannibal houris* waiting for us with teeth sharpened.

{*(the only Original Bharatiya, per Tony Joseph)}
This imo is one of the biggest fallacies in the whole scam.

The tribes may indeed have migrated this way and that over centuries or millennia, but as families, not a bunch of yahoos coming across the Line of Control.

And in those days, average life expectancy was probably around 20 years. So their whole tribe would have become extinct if there were not enough wimmens to sustain the species. Unless of course all Pakis are full of goat DNA

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 20 Jun 2017 08:07

SriJoy wrote:To my knowledge, matrilineal transmission is far more preserved, because it is via mitochondrial DNA that gets cloned from mother to daughter, instead of normal 'mingling of DNA' from father & mother type propagation.

The male Y chromosome goes from father to son, unmingled with mother's DNA. Women have no Y chromosomes to pass on.
The mitochondrial DNA goes from mother to both sons and daughters, unmingled with father's DNA. Men do not pass on mitochondrial DNA.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 20 Jun 2017 10:29

Genotype-Phenotype Study of the Middle Gangetic Plain in India Shows Association of rs2470102 with Skin Pigmentation

"Our data confirm the association of rs1426654 with skin pigmen-
tation among South Asians, consistent with previous studies, and also show association for rs2470102 single
nucleotide polymorphism. Our haplotype analyses further help us delineate the haplotype distribution across
social categories and skin color. Taken together, our findings suggest that the social structure defined by the
caste system in India has a profound influence on the skin pigmentation patterns of the subcontinent."


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/An ... tation.pdf

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 20 Jun 2017 10:33

"Origin and spread of human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U7"

"While most haplogroup U subclades are older than 30 thousand years, the comparatively recent coalescence time of the extant variation of haplogroup U7 (~16–19 thousand years ago) suggests that its current distribution is the consequence of more recent dispersal events, despite its wide geographical range across Europe, the Near East and South Asia. Here we report 267 new U7 mitogenomes that – analysed alongside 100 published ones – enable us to discern at least two distinct temporal phases of dispersal, both of which most likely emanated from the Near East. The earlier one began prior to the Holocene (~11.5 thousand years ago) towards South Asia, while the later dispersal took place more recently towards Mediterranean Europe during the Neolithic (~8 thousand years ago). These findings imply that the carriers of haplogroup U7 spread to South Asia and Europe before the suggested Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region."

Image


In conclusion, the Near East is the most likely ancestral homeland of U7. Our analyses reveal two temporally and geographically distinct signals of U7 expansion that disseminated from this region. The first signal dates shortly after the LGM and this dispersal is responsible for the spread of U7 towards South and Central Asia prior to the Holocene, while the more recent expansion explains its spread in Mediterranean Europe most probably during the early Holocene. These dispersals of hg U7 towards South Asia and Europe preclude any major association of U7 with the putative Bronze Age expansion of the Indo-European language family to these regions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384202/
Last edited by gandharva on 20 Jun 2017 10:43, edited 2 times in total.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 20 Jun 2017 10:35

^^ Does it mean Aryan Invasion happened without Sanskrit? :)

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 20 Jun 2017 10:35

UB Ji (May The Goats Be Upon You): regarding your questions

1) Saraswati Sindhu folks practiced burials. Quite some evidence from archaeology. (They also wrote right to left, which goes to show that we are all half Pakis & half goats. Except Tamilians, who are 3/4th Lemurs)

2) So far, aDNA (ancient DNA), has only been found in Steppes, Germany etc (cold climate, body preservation). Based on that, we know when certain M17 & other subclades were definitely present in those regions. Till recently, Indian specimen for aDNA analysis weren't found. That changed a couple of years ago when a handful of specimen were found in Rakhigiri. This was sent to South Korea for analysis (because of our wonderful, non-existent capabilities to do DNA analysis of such specimen). Results are still awaited! I pinged one of the professors who was working on this, asking for an update. No reply. There was going to be a recent presentation (on May 31) that shows initial findings (see thread above). No news of that paper

I hope South Korean evanjehadis didnt tamper with the evidence or the results

aDNA from Rakhigiri should normally cause people to jump up & down in anticipation and hajjaar $$$ funds from Govt & Academia!! But we are like this onlee

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22249
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby chetak » 20 Jun 2017 12:34

UlanBatori wrote:Also: I haven't seen any dissection here, of Tony Joseph's starting postulate for AIT:
Nomadic expeditionary tribes are predominantly male.


This may be true as in a weekend Boys' Trip. But a migration through the Khyber Pass and the huge mountainous ranges in those parts, all the way across the rivers into the plains, did not occur inside 20 years or 30 years, even assuming that these buggers (and I use the term deliberately) did not see any wimmens of their species for that long a time. Why would they do that, anyway?
Oh! We know there are Vedas waiting to be written, and Andaman/Nicobar type cannibal houris* waiting for us with teeth sharpened.

{*(the only Original Bharatiya, per Tony Joseph)}
This imo is one of the biggest fallacies in the whole scam.

The tribes may indeed have migrated this way and that over centuries or millennia, but as families, not a bunch of yahoos coming across the Line of Control.

And in those days, average life expectancy was probably around 20 years. So their whole tribe would have become extinct if there were not enough wimmens to sustain the species. Unless of course all Pakis are full of goat DNA



you also need to note the scum backing him. All the knowledge that shitty yechury has on DNA & aryan migration can be written on a grain of rice in large capital letters

this mischievous propaganda has pointedly started all over again when there is a fracas in TN between the "naarthie aryan" BJP and the "dravidian" parties.

the views of journo Tony Joseph is sought to be given primacy over the mass of scientific data confirming evidence of the fallacy of the AIT

the xtians propagandists are at it once again. relentless little termites.

Sitaram Yechury‏Verified account @SitaramYechury Jun 16

The historical evidence of Aryan migration and the confluence that India is. Brilliant piece by @tjoseph0010

Schmidt
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 19 Aug 2016 08:02

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Schmidt » 20 Jun 2017 18:38

We should put mofos like Yerchury on the mat and ask him what does he think he is - Aryan or Dravidian ( considering he is a Telugu Brahmin )

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 20 Jun 2017 19:02

SriJoy wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:I had the sort of Vision that only UBCNews can have. So there is no archaeological evidence of any AI. But these brilliant types have done extensive DNA sampling of ancient Indians. How? What is left of ancient Indians to do DNA sampling? AFAIK, Vedic types (yindoos) cremated their dead, scattering the ashes and floating the bones down the Sindhu or Sarasvati or Ganga. That's why they lived near the rivers, after all. So the only place to find their DNA would be deep under 4500 years of silt in the Rann of Kutch/ Pakistan Ocean/ Bangladesh Ocean. Scattered among fossilized fish etc etc. Did they dig there?

So ... whom does that leave? Well... it leaves ppl who didn't cremate their dead. IOW, Pakis. NOW can you kuffar understand why the results show that DNA was passed from male to male, and from male to donkey/goat? Hain? Hain?
IOW, KhyberWallah Aryans == Pakis. With carnations behind their ears. Same as today.


That is incorrect.
The test subjects are people alive currently. The idea is that by analyzing our DNA, we can tell where some people came from. This is because when people inter-marry and make children, they pass on certain individual specific genetic information via descent, both from father and from mother.
To my knowledge, matrilineal transmission is far more preserved, because it is via mitochondrial DNA that gets cloned from mother to daughter, instead of normal 'mingling of DNA' from father & mother type propagation.

SriJoy,
You could not be more wrong.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 20 Jun 2017 19:03

A_Gupta wrote:
SriJoy wrote:To my knowledge, matrilineal transmission is far more preserved, because it is via mitochondrial DNA that gets cloned from mother to daughter, instead of normal 'mingling of DNA' from father & mother type propagation.

The male Y chromosome goes from father to son, unmingled with mother's DNA. Women have no Y chromosomes to pass on.
The mitochondrial DNA goes from mother to both sons and daughters, unmingled with father's DNA. Men do not pass on mitochondrial DNA.

Yes. Thank you.

To be precise the paternal inheritance only applies to the non-homologous part of the Y chromosome, which never recombines with any part of the X chromosome.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 20 Jun 2017 19:38

Volks,

My $0.02 response to AIT re-incarnation in the 'THE HINDU', for what it is worth...

https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/ ... n-of-india

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jun 2017 02:55

Nilesh ji,

Excellent rebuttal.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jun 2017 02:58

This field of study is so crowded with arcane terminology and forbidding jargon that Evanjehadi crooks like Tony Joseph are able to get away with claiming that all kinds of BS conclusions have been "scientifically proven".

I have attempted to write an explanation suited to the layperson, below.

****

To put it in a very simple analogy, think of this.

In India you find many people with a genetic marker called R1a-M417. Let’s visualize this variation as a big black dot on their foreheads.

Now there are some people in India who have genetic markers that define “sub-clades” of R1a-M417, with names such as Z94-Y40-Y37. Let us visualize these people as having the big black dot on their foreheads (the R1a-M417 marker), plus a little blue dot alongside the big black dot (the Z94-Y40-Y37 marker). So these people are a subset of all R1a-M417 (black dot carrying) people.

Genetics can tell you approximately how old these markers are. Let’s say genetics find out that the big black dot (R1a-M417) is a variation that developed in a common ancestor, a single individual who would be the great-great-great^300-grandfather of many Indians, Europeans, Central Asians etc. alive today.

Genetics can also tell that the little blue dot is more recent in appearance. It appears in a sub-fraction of people descended from that common great-great-great^300-grandfather (all the black-dot folks). This sub-fraction had a more recent common ancestor, say a great-great-great^175-grandfather who was the first black-dot-carrying individual in whom the variation of a little blue dot first appeared.

And that’s about all genetics can say.

The Silva et al paper observes that there are individuals in India (Z94-Y40-Y37) who have both black dots and blue dots on their foreheads. So they must have had this one common ancestor, the great-great-great^175-grandfather, who was obviously more recent than the great-great-great^300-grandfather (black-dot-only, the original bearer of the R1a-M417 variation, who lived about 6,000 years ago).

Silva et al make the following observations:

1) There are people all over Eurasia, Central Asia etc. in addition to India who have the black dot on their foreheads. All of them were descended from the individual we are calling great-great-great^300-grandfather (the original bearer of the R1a-M417 variation).

2) There are people specifically and only in India who have black and blue dots on their foreheads. All of them were descended from the individual we are calling great-great-great^175-grandfather (the original bearer of Z94-Y40-Y37 variation within R1a-M417).

3) Meanwhile there are people in other parts of the R1a-M417 territory who have other combinations of dots on their foreheads. Some may have black dot (R1a-M417) plus red dot (Z93-Z2122) in Eastern Europe. Others may have black dot (R1a-M417) plus green dot (Z94-Y40-Z667) in Arabia.

4) According to Silva’s results, genetic analysis suggests that the common ancestors of red+black dot and green+black dot (not present in India) are more ancient than the common ancestor of blue+black dot (present in India).

They use this to spin the following bogus conclusion:

Because non-Indian R1a-M417 subsets like red+black dot (Z93-Z2122) and green+black dot (Z94-Y40-Z667) are descended from common ancestors more ancient than many Indian R1a-M417 subsets like blue+black dot (Z94-Y40-Y37)… therefore, nobody with a black dot on his forehead (R1a-M417) ever lived in India before some TFTA Aryans, who were blue+black dot, brought the entire R1a khandaan into the Indian gene pool for the very first time about 3500 years ago.


To accept their conclusion, you also have to accept the completely unproven allegation that the individual we called "great-great-great^175-grandfather" (the first person ever to have the blue+black dot variation, or Z94-Y40-Y37 marker), must have been one of those Aryans who came from Central Asia to India 3500 years ago. You have to accept on faith, based on nothing but the incestuous race-theorizing of the AIT fraternity, that this man could not have been an Indian himself.

Visualized like this it is easy to see that this is utterly specious rubbish.

The basic assumption (i.e. nobody from the original black-dot khandaan ever lived in India until these Aryans came) is completely unsubstantiated. Indeed, Underhill and many others have demonstrated the possibility that R1a-M417 could have emerged from India itself.

The paper provides absolutely no reason why:
1) R1a-M417 could not have arisen in India 6000 years ago, and then spread out of India to Europe, Central Asia, Arabia, etc.

2) Variations like red+black dot (Z93-Z2122) and green+black dot (Z94-Y40-Z667) arose in those populations of R1a-M417 descendants who went out of India and lived in Europe, Arabia etc. but did not arise in India itself, the original home of R1a-M417.

3) At a later date, variations like blue+black dot (Z94-Y40-Y37) arose amongst a subset of the R1a-M417 descendants who remained in India.

It does not help Silva et al’s case that their specious conclusion… TFTA Aryans bringing R1a-M417 into the Indian gene pool… relies entirely on Y-chromosomal DNA, the kind that is only passed on from father to son, and has NO supporting evidence to be seen in either autosomal DNA or mitochondrial DNA (passed exclusively along the maternal line).

Forget Occam’s razor. Accepting Silva et al’s conclusions would require a razor that is too blunt to shave with.

Now Tony Joseph is a whole other can of worms unto himself. He has taken the bad science espoused by Silva and gang, and constructed an Evanjehadi edifice of deceit upon it, made up of disingenuous Marxist gibberish about Sanskrit, Rigveda and all kinds of things that no self-respecting geneticist would ever presume to demonstrate.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jun 2017 03:06

Yet another illustration.

You, your father's sister's son, and your father's brother's son, are all descended from the same man, your paternal grandfather.

You live in India. Your father's sister's son lives in Germany, where your father's sister emigrated. Your father's brother's son lives in Hong Kong, where your father's brother emigrated.

Silva et al do the equivalent of the following.

1) They note that you are younger than either of your cousin-brothers. Both the one living in Germany, and the one living in Hong Kong, were born before you (living in India).

2) They conclude that your grandfather could not have been an Indian. :P

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 21 Jun 2017 04:09

IMO, the AIT stuff really needs to be split into two parts:
1. AIT invasion took place.
2. AIT invasion brought with it a form of racism that manifested itself in the caste system.

IMO, why some ancient prehistory is relevant beyond scientific curiousity today is because the narrative is - invaders came and stood up the caste system, so (a) don't complain about more recent invasions and (b) the AIT invaders' culture is so much more obnoxious than that of recent invaders, who don't have the caste system, so that is the culture that needs to be rejected.

But notice now, even those who hold on to the AIT theory have to concede that the caste system as it is generally understood today came only some 1500-2000 years after the alleged invasion - they are unable to pervert the genetic evidence to say anything different.

The point is that the caste system as observed in the 17th-20th century is neither an essential part of our culture, nor an original part of our culture, even if we concede the idea of Aryan invasions and migrations. Moreover, which ever way you spin the Harappa/Indus or Saraswati/Sindhu archaeology and Aryan invasions and migrations, you can't arrive at the result that the evangihadis-marxists want. There is simply no way the genetic evidence found so far allows it. The origin of the Vedas and Sanskrit is decoupled by a period of some 2000 years from the caste system, maybe a few centuries less if a Witzelian timeline is conceded. To appreciate the length of this time period, e.g., this is a period that is longer than the entire history of Islam to date, for example.

With this knowledge in our pocket, we should redouble our efforts to end injustice and also repel evangihadis & marxists.

The urgency of AIT v OIT as a modern political issue goes down; it is now purely a matter of objective science.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Rudradev » 21 Jun 2017 06:41

SriJoy wrote: I admit, i got the y-chromosomal transmission unbroken from father to son, wrong. But isn't a male's mitochondrial DNA also a carbon-clone of the mother's, like it is for the women ?


A male's mitochondrial DNA isn't a "carbon clone" of his mother's mitochondrial DNA. It IS his mother's mitochondrial DNA.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the sperm simply injects the father's haploid genomic DNA into the egg and dies. It does not contribute mitochondria or anything else to the offspring. The fertilized egg then develops into a zygote, the single diploid cell that divides to form all the cells in the offspring's body.

The mitochondria in this zygote (including the mitochondrial DNA) is nothing but the mitochondria that was in the egg that got fertilized. The egg is nothing but a cell in the mother's body. Hence the mitochondrial DNA in the offspring (whether male or female) is physically inherited from the mother in a direct sense, not "copied" over.

However, for genetic and phyllogeographic analyses, the male's mitochondrial DNA is disregarded because he can never pass it on to his progeny. All he can contribute is the haploid genomic DNA that his sperm will inject into an egg that it fertilizes. Hence, mitochondrial DNA transmission across generations is exclusively matrilineal.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 21 Jun 2017 07:46

I have a pooch for the Gene-mullahs here. Consider RD's statement:
a single individual who would be the great-great-great^300-grandfather of many Indians, Europeans, Central Asians etc. alive today.


Now this gene bijnej is waaay beyond anyone's capability to argue, because it is so complex. So it is also very likely to be the refuge of scoundrels.

Consider stars in the sky. There are billions of billions of them, probably. Though all may have originated in the same "Let there b lite!", one cannot argue that they are all descendants of One Star. Big Bang Theory does **NOT**** argue that things came out of a single point: the Point itself occupied all Space.

IOW, Single Point Origin does not hold for stars.

Stars are, well,, collections of particles & energy. You can't really know whether Stars themselves have life. They sure are capable of having tiny-scale life in their Systems, hain?


Humans are,.... collections of particles & energy. Just like you not recognizing the intelligence of a stellar system, a microbe eating the halwa inside ur tummy will not recognize you as an intelligent being either.

So, WHY should humans conform to a single-point origin? I have a huuuuuge problem with the idea of "Lucy Tanzaniawali" as Super Great-Grandma Of All. They conveniently forget that Cannibali Australiawali is even older. IOW, evidence of very early humans have been found in WIDELY disparate territories. No way was Lucy or her 6th coujin thrive removed, going to reach from S. Africa to Australia.

It is my growing suspicion that the whole Genetic Code scam is an exercise that fundamentally assumes Single Point Origin. If so, it is all a scam to conform to Judeo-Xtian superstitions about 4004BCE and apple-eating antics.

All of these gene-mapping history theory is so much hysteria.

ukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby ukumar » 21 Jun 2017 10:45

Nilesh Oak wrote:Volks,

My $0.02 response to AIT re-incarnation in the 'THE HINDU', for what it is worth...

https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/ ... n-of-india


Great article. With imminent ancient DNA data from Rakhigarhi, this debate is going to heat up. 2 paisas from my point view which may help you target your message in future debates.

“"What we had proposed was a ghost population, a population that we were predicting statistically based on the patterns that’s left on present-day people but that doesn’t exist anymore in the place where it once was.”      
This should remind many of the proposal of a ghost language– PIE (Proto-Indo-European)!  This may also remind many of the proposals of Prof. Witzel, another Harvard faculty, for Proto-Munda and Proto-Indo-Aryan in justifying his fraudulent chronology for Sanskrit, AIT and Rigveda."

Reich's methods are lot more scientific. They release their tools and DNA database to allow independent experts to validate the results. Field is advancing at fast pace and it is given that we'll know details with lot more clarity 5 years from now. This is big motivation to keep biases in check or risk exposing self to new findings in future. They predicted similar ghost population in Europe and ancient DNA actually found them so methodology is lot more solid. This line of argument would make experts in this field question our ability to understand the technology and dismiss other important argument you bring to table. This defeats the purpose of the great efforts behind this good article.


""1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased."
Our response…
There are no major gene flows from outside India especially prior to 2000 years ago.  Haplogroup R1a is an indigenous male haplogroup and its substantial presence and its antiquity in India is natural."

I am afraid this needs more data to back up. Currently available DNA data does support possibility of substantial portion of Indian DNA gene pool derived from outside Indian subcontinent anytime after 3500bc. Of course it is not proven but you can't dismiss it either. I'll cover this more in response to second point below.

         ""2.  The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread                           outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three                         subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old."
Our response…
R1a lineage indeed shows much diversity in Greater India than elsewhere and that is how its origin was estimated to be in the modern-day Iran.  Ancient Indian cultural landscape was spread from modern Iran through modern Bangladesh and this fact can-not and should not be ignored.  The fact subclades of R1a-Z93 in India are young is in no way contradicts ancient and indigenous nature of R1a male haplogroup."

This is main point of disagreement and needs to be dealt with in details. I guess you are making this argument based on Underhill's few years old R1a1a paper. But you are ignoring the advances made since then. Population genetics is like a painter's algorithm. Earlier research paints background with broader brush. New research paints on top with finer and finer details. For this reason research papers even few years apart are not additive. You can't use old finding to dismiss new finding without showing merit of analytics methods used by them. Underhill's paper is partly out dated now due to availability of ancient DNA and better estimate of DNA mutation rates. Current data actually favors that R1a-Z93 or its parent originated outside Indian subcontinent. Ancient DNA in Europe has shown most branches of R1a1a whereas ancient R1a1a found in Asia so far has been only Z93. This could change with more ancient DNA from central Asia and India but this is where we stand now. Joseph has played magic trick to align the date with AMT. It is likely that date was earlier and that should be our main point of attack.

"3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.
Our response…
We agree with Mr. Tony Joseph that the classification of Indian gene pool along the lines of ANI vs ASI is on faulty grounds. This has nothing to do with multiple migrations.  There were no significant migrations between 50,000 and 2000 years ago."

ANI/ASI played role in advancing knowledge when we only had modern DNA to play with. It has passed his expiry date and future discussion should be based on autosomal analysis of ancient and modern population.

By focusing on wrong points and ignoring true genetics arguments, we are fighting wrong battles and giving open field to likes of Joseph to walk away with narrative. All said and done, the main point of focus should be date of Rigvedic civilization in India. If it is during or before mature Hardpan period, we win. It would render house of cards created by Witzel and his ilk in to junk. It would prove that Indian OIT scholars were more right than AIT/AMT folks and enable us to bring Indian classical Itahasa in harmony with archeology.

The way things are shaping up, it is indeed a possibility. It is interesting that CHG autosomal DNA component which was first found in Caucasus ancient DNA. CHG has been found to spread with Indo-European related cultures in steppe. CHG is also closely linked to ANI related genes in India. Recent Southern Europe ancient DNA paper from Reich's lab doesn't favor spread of DNA from Steppe to Anatolia. Indians also seems to be related to Early Steppe population ( mixture of Caucasus Hunters and Easter European Hunters CHG+EHG) but not to late steppe population of Andronovo and Sintastha. This raises question on current chronology and model of spread of IE language in India. This could be our main point of attack.

Having said that, It is crucial to see when CHG/Steppe related (but not necessarily derived from it) gene pool in India was first found. Rakhigarhi and other Indian ancient DNA data would be crucial. I hope it is published soon.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby gandharva » 21 Jun 2017 12:09

Y-chromosomal sequences of diverse Indian populations and the ancestry of the Andamanese.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28444560

Conclusions

The comparative analysis of Y-chromosome sequences of many Indian populations—with different locations, languages and social structure—has demonstrated that Indian populations have a complex ancestry which cannot be explained by a single expansion from the North (or North West) to the Indian subcontinent on a uniform pre-existing population. It is interesting to note that Y-chromosome data displayed less diversifcation between the North and South than has been described in autosomal studies (Basu et al. 2003; Reich et al. 2009; Moorjani et al. 2013; Juyal et al. 2014), with no clear clines of frequency of haplogroups in the present dataset.

The analysis of full Y-chromosomal sequences allows a deeper analysis, with assessment of the time depth of population-specifc clades, and of particular interest, of the time depth and place of origin of clusters of Indian sequences compared with the closest sequence found outside India in a worldwide survey. The lack of a North to South cline of frequency of any haplogroup and similar time of divergence for both North and South India non-tribal populations suggest a similar paternal ancestry for both of these populations.

Our time divergence estimate matches the previous studies which argued that most of the haplogroups present in India (C5, F*, H, L1 and R2) arose inside India rather than being brought from outside (Sengupta et al. 2006; Carvalho-Silva et al. 2006). The puzzling point is that the well-recognized later Indo-European migration, which strongly affected the northern regions, did not produce detectable major changes in the Y-chromosome gene-pool. This could be explained either by a similar Y-chromosome background in the two main migrations (for example, Neolithic and Indo-European) or that the second one did not have a major genetic impact, at least for the Y-chromosome (Sengupta et al. 2006). In general, these results support the view of Thapar (2014) that Dravidian speakers were spread geographically throughout India and that the incursion of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Northwest dominated pre-existing Dravidian tribal populations, with an élite-dominance model and small genetic impact.

Even more interesting, the closest neighbours of Indian clades in our dataset are generally from Southern Europe (and not other European populations), a place known to have had more infuence from the frst Neolithic expansion from the Levant through Anatolia and less from the steppe migration which was perhaps responsible for the IndoEuropean expansion of languages in Europe (Haak et al.2015); the future availability of ancient Y-chromosome sequences and reanalysis after merging available data from Western Asia (Hallast et al. 2014; Batini et al. 2015; Karmin et al. 2015) will help to better interpret this fnding.

The time divergence between Indian and European Y-chromosomes, based on the closest neighbour analysis, shows two different distinctive divergence times for J2 and R1a, suggesting that the European ancestry in India is much older (>10 kya) than what would be expected from a recent migration of Indo-European populations into India (~4 to 5 kya). Also the proportions suggest the effect might be less strong than generally assumed for the Indo-European migration. Interestingly, the ANI ancestry was recently suggested to be a mix of ancestries from early farmers of western Iran and people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe (Lazaridis et al. 2016). Our results agree with this suggestion. In addition, we also show that the divergence time of this ancestry is different, suggesting a different time to enter India

These results suggest that the European-related male ancestry in Indian populations might be much older and more complex than anticipated, and might originate from the frst wave of agriculturists or even earlier, giving stronger support to the very old ages for Indian Y-chromosomes; it also downplays the importance of migration related to the Indo-Aryan linguistic expansion. It is interesting to note that both the closest neighbours of North and South Indian clusters have a lowest minimum around ~4 to 5 kya coinciding with the Indo-European migration, suggesting that the real stratifcation of these two populations started around that time, and may be related to a retraction to the South of Dravidian speakers (Thapar 2014).
Due to the low number of sequences from Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic tribes, it is diffcult to be certain about the ancestry of these tribal populations. Nonetheless, both of these populations have shared recent ancestry (~10 kya) with their non-tribal neighbouring populations (BIR with North Indian and ILA with South Indian) which contrast with that seen from autosomal data (Mondal et al. 2016)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 21 Jun 2017 16:56

If Rakigarh DNA is such a rare find, could they not be outliers in the data? I mean, this is presumably some burial ground. Isn't that likely to be an immigrant community who continued to bury their dead rather than cremate? Even in Malloostan there are such communities (400% yindoo). But they don't represent the majority.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Nilesh Oak » 21 Jun 2017 19:28

Rudradev ji,

I may use your analogy of people with black dot on their head and other combinations during my upcoming Podcast/interview.. (scheduled for sometime in July).

I use similar visual to explain it. So far I have used 'Red Cricket ball" with big patch of BLUE masking tape, and then many other colored tapes to make a point.

Thanks

Nilesh

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 21 Jun 2017 19:39

Rudradev Ji: brilliant analogy! I strongly feel you should write a rebuttal in OpIndia, Swarajya or MyInd.

To your M417 scenarios, I will add 1 more possibility. M417 could have originated in Iran (something that Peter Underhill believes), but even that does not perclude OIT. M417 carriers could have moved into Haryana & a couple of thousand years later, these folks could have moved out of India per the linguistic sequence defined by Shrikant Talageri to spread their language/culture to the rest of the world. The people who stayed behind developed the blue-dot. The people who left, developed red-dot & black-dot variations.

P.S. The reason for Underhill's belief of M417 origin in Iran is because of maximum diversity of M417 sub-clades found there (more than in India, Steppe, Central Asia or Europe). He bases this conclusion on Poznik's paper.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 21 Jun 2017 19:45

ukumar wrote:This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage.

.................

Currently available DNA data does support possibility of substantial portion of Indian DNA gene pool derived from outside Indian subcontinent anytime after 3500bc. Of course it is not proven but you can't dismiss it either.


Ukumar: there is zilch evidence for the above 2 statements of yours


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: morem, suryag and 66 guests