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

[peter]

If we believe man to be an animal then turf war over hunting grounds would be common. Lions have a king, so do gorillas and the wolves.

Besides you don't easily carry pots around. You come back to them.

Of course. I mentioned hunter gatherers in my post - they are like wolves. But these animals do not hold territory rigidly. For agriculture territory needs to be held because of fertile soil, and water source. It was fixed, protected settlements that allowed human populations to go up into hundreds and thousands. Lions, gorillas and wolves never lead such numbers. Cattle have huge herds but no fixed territory. Ants have both fixed territory and huge numbers - just like humans. they also have a queen and soldiers.

Pots are no use unless you put something in them. Either you carry pots to where the resource is (like water) or you fill the pots with stuff carried in baskets. The filled pots need to be protected. "No trespassing" signs don't work. Animals (squirrels, birds, rats) searching for food do not care who filled the pots and will help themselves. So you need people sitting and protecting full pots unless just one or two are hidden away. Those people sitting near the pots are the settlement

Leaving pots and pans behind as they are rather futile. Please see this:
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/vie ... _preprints

There are two methods frequently used to determine Y chromosome haplogroups in a given population, namely the allele-frequency-goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian approach. The latter results in the probability of a Y-STR haplotype being found within a haplogroup. Whit Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor is based on the application of Bayesian statistics in order to predict Y chromosome haplogroups from Y-STR data (Athey 2005; Athey 2006). This approach is less expensive and labor-intensive when compared to haplogroup determination based on Y-SNP analysis, which requires DNA typing and polymorphism detection using either capillary electrophoresis or DNA sequencing.

Is it possible for you or someone else you may know or not know to give a concrete example on how a haplogroup is determined in a given sample? It seems the two methods quoted, allele-frequency-goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian approach, are both probabilistic in nature. Which means a finite probability of being wrong.

Why is this not exact?

[SBajwa]

by SriJoy
But to have agriculture, mankind needs to find the crop first. its irrelevant that Bengal region is excellent for growing rice, since rice originates in South China. Same way, its irrelevant that the prairies are great for growing wheat,since wheat originates in middle-east. to have farming, you need :

a) species of plants present to farm
b) ability to upgrade from simply gathering wild crops to actually growing them in mono-culture. What we know, is that 12,000 years ago, mankind didn't cultivate rice- it wasn't domesticated yet. Or wheat or barley. Maize and Potato are new world crops.
So what did this alleged 16,000 years ago Rama civilization farm ?

Have you ever thought that why is the origin of all technology, food, civilization at the same place where lies the origin of the three religions? How do we trace the origin of wheat, rice? what are the methods? It is a narrative forced into your mind by western books and minds making you their slave!

[peter]

What have you been reading or rather not reading? Before Aryabhat there were many observers ......

the aryabhatiya itself says the planets move in epicycles. Not only is it wrong, its a dead giveaway of a heliocentric model. the epicyclic motion stated by Aryabhatta might also explain why he thought the planets were smaller than the moon..
What other observers saw, in India, is of no consequence, as we can see through history that aryabatta's model is the only model used in late classical and early medieval Indian history.

This is getting funny. Have you heard of Rig Veda? Do you know what model exists in Rig Veda? Do you understand the quotations given above?

Do you know who Lagadha is ? Do you know if he came before or after Aryabhat?

Was aryabhat the first person to practice astronomy in India?

[peter]

This is getting funny. Have you heard of Rig Veda? Do you what model exists in Rig Veda? Do you understand the quotations given above?

Do you know who Lagadha is ? Do you know if he came before or after Aryabhat?

Was aryabhat the first person to practice astronomy in India?

Aryabatta's book is the only astronomical treatese quoted by later Indian authors and have later commentary editions to them. its pretty clear, that Aryabhatiya is what dominates Indian stellar cartography after Aryabhatta.

You really need to acquaint yourself with what astronomy is contained in rig veda.
Take it a bit slow no need to rush. There is a lot that happened before Arybhat was even born.

[SBajwa]

For eg, we know corn originates in Mexico, because Mexico has the widest variety of wild corn.

Yet Mexico, Americas were discovered only in 1500s by Christians!

I refuse to accept the narrative that very fertile, most arable and with best weather (you don't even need clothes) land mass was only discovered by White Aryans around 4000 years ago and they pushed darkies aka natives aka tribals to the south declaring them Dravidians.

My theory is that India is the mother of humanity and origin of humans, people moved out of India to other places., as well as other people came to India to settle.

There is not enough research done in India or whatever the research done was is lost (due to Ghaznavi, Ghauri destroying our libraries). Do we even know how old is the Benaras?

[chola]

For eg, we know corn originates in Mexico, because Mexico has the widest variety of wild corn.

Yet Mexico, Americas were discovered only in 1500s by Christians!

I refuse to accept the narrative that very fertile, most arable and with best weather (you don't even need clothes) land mass was only discovered by White Aryans around 4000 years ago and they pushed darkies aka natives aka tribals to the south declaring them Dravidians.

Let's say you are correct and that the aryan invasion did not happen and we are all one. But then how do we explain the blatant hatred of the dark that is evident across the length and breadth of our society from entertainment to jobs to marriage?

The more important issue at the heart of this is not whether the Aryan Invasion Theory happened but why a segment of our society, the "Dravidians" are discriminated against while the other segment, "Aryans", are revered?

Rejecting the Aryan theory should not mean ignoring the injustices that afflict real people.

[SBajwa]

by Chola
Let's say you are correct and that the aryan invasion did not happen and we are all one. But then how do we explain the blatant hatred of the dark that is evident across the length and breadth of our society from entertainment to jobs to marriage?

This is due to Mughals and British rule (Dhimmified) where dark color was declared to be "Ugly".

British are the one who created this superior upper caste white Aryans and inferior dark low caste Dravidians.

We just have recently discovered (less than 30 years) that the Arabic number system was actually Indian number system., how many more secrets can come out only time will tell.

Universities should spend more money on archeological and other research. The vaults of old temples might have many things undiscovered., so do the river beds and remote corners of Himalayas and sea shores all over the Indian peninsula.

USA has done way way too much research (Thus mexico gets credit for maize) while the Europeans are 2nd and rest are laggards.


I am a Jat., while modern historians (Romilla Thapar like) say that Jats are same as Scythians originated around Amu Darya and migrated into India.
My own grandfather told me that we came from Rajasthan when river dried up creating desert around 200 generations ago and settled in Narowal (Sialkote area)., where Baba Manga had three sons who created three clans of the Bajwas. who should I believe?

[Rudradev]

by Chola
Let's say you are correct and that the aryan invasion did not happen and we are all one. But then how do we explain the blatant hatred of the dark that is evident across the length and breadth of our society from entertainment to jobs to marriage?

This is due to Mughals and British rule (Dhimmified) where dark color was declared to be "Ugly".

British are the one who created this superior upper caste white Aryans and inferior dark low caste Dravidians.

Precisely.

The earliest sociological writing in the Indian subcontinent that expressly propounds a race theory based on classification of fair-skinned "superior" lineages vs. dark-skinned "inferior" lineages is NOT Hindu in origin. Nor is it even "ancient" by Indian standards.

It is the work of Ziauddin Barani, a 14th-century Islamic scholar in the court of Firuzshah Tughlaq who came up with the Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal classification. The status of each group of Muslims was stratified based on how much foreign ("white" Turko-Persian-Arab) blood they had vs. how much Indian ("dark", native) blood they had.

This rubric of "fair is better", instituted by Muslim rulers, found continuity with the new masters in the era of British and other European colonialism. It is not native to India.

Ancient Indian belief systems, by contrast, advocate worship of Krishna, Kali, and Shiva, expressly described as "dark-skinned". In terms of aesthetics, Draupadi, who was supposedly the most beautiful woman in India of her day, is also known as "Krishnaa" meaning dark skinned.

[krisna]

true invasion into India which we have plenty of evidence is "caste" "race" "islam" "christianity"and we have taken it "hook line and sinker"

Drinking the above "kool aid" - have the current situation as law of unintended consequences .

Due to the above, we have standard torch bearers who rubbish India and its culture itself even if with what it is proven to be true.

[krisna]

About Srijoy numerous posts, one can understand the penchant for written records and other solid evidence
but what about oral records transmitted for centuries.

If one says written records are true-- it is false.
similarly if one says oral traditions are false- it is not true.

---------------------------------------------------------------
the written records are vulnerable to be destroyed due to time and destruction by competing personalities and ideologies.

oral traditions are not so easily destroyed as long as the people of that particular beliefs are present and know the oral traditions--sonsg bards poems stories etc etc .

This is very common in Indian subcontinent region due to centuries of history and continuous living civilisation with so much dynamism -- violenec is huge considering the longetivity of the civilization.

---------------------------------------------------
Other parts of the world had competing idelogoies which destroyed much of the preexisting world -- ex- islam and Christianity- their fanatics destroyed virtually any book and universities predating their religions.
Lot of these older civilisations have lot of contacts with Indian ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------
The western ones currently have either by accidental design or deliberate have subdued the involvement of Indian civilization for too long.
The forerunners of the westerners today were fully invested in "Christian" slant into everything due to colonialism(alongb with slavery -product of Christianity) .

In fact the arguments of these western sources are to be taken with Ocean load of salt in their claims.

One of the claims is Aryan invasion among many others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now many claims are upturning the Christian cultivated agenda(colonial times) to now more fact finding emissions.


Many are spearheading it in western societies and thankfuly by many Indians .
western societies-- many are becoming "spiritual but not religiuous" types unswayed by Christian suprecmacy claims. many call themselves "animism" naturists" etc whatever term it means. These are looking for facts and not unstantiated and hyped up propaganda of chritianity .

Indians by becoming more wealthy and worldly in the affairs are --
Indians are going to many places in world "rediscovering" their ancient continuous " journeys of the past.
Rewriting and requestioning the claims of the west .

This is a slow process will definitely take time but is irreversible.

----------------------------------------------------
For the above to become success , Indians as a community and its culture should survive as Hinduism(or SD or whetever it is called) roots .
This is the most sustained assault on Indian people over centuries.

[Misra]

Let's say you are correct and that the aryan invasion did not happen and we are all one. But then how do we explain the blatant hatred of the dark that is evident across the length and breadth of our society from entertainment to jobs to marriage?

this light and dark business is most misunderstood these days. india always placed darkness above light (even today many idols in temples across india are black, 'krishna' itself means 'dark'):

"Light is a brief happening in your mind. Light is not eternal, it is always a limited possibility because it happens and then it ends....But darkness is all enveloping, everywhere. The immature minds in the world have always described darkness as the devil. But when you describe the divine as all-pervading, you are obviously referring to the divine as darkness, because only darkness is all-pervading. It is everywhere. It does not need any support from anything. Light always comes from a source that is burning itself out. It has a beginning and an end. It is always from a limited source. Darkness has no source. It is a source unto itself. It is all-pervading, everywhere, omnipresent." -- a truly wise man and the implications of the above are humongous

[UlanBatori]

There are rice varieties that are native to China, those native to Japan, and those native to India. In the 1960s onwards, Japanese strains were introduced, and Indian labs developed strains that are probably now dominant in India (not Basmati but "hi-yield" types). Anyway, the types of rice preferred by Malloos for instance, are very different from those found and preferred elsewhere.

A lot of things are claimed to have "originated in China" by western and now Chinese, claimants. Where in China? One usually finds that they mean Tibet/Himalayas. Why is this relevant? Because the instructors from Nalanda and Takshashila, who could escape, escaped to the Himalayas and Tibet. And took whatever Bharatiya knowledge they could protect. Obviously, given the happy Isloo rule south of the Himalayas, the knowledge spread north and east into China, and was found there until the much later aggressions by the Gunboat Diplomacy types promoting the Opium Trade. If you search the "right" quarters, you will also find that Buddhism started in China. And that "Skanda" of Hindu lore is really Buddha.

[UlanBatori]

How can there be tales of mankind, before mankind even existed ?!

Sorry I didn't get the question, SriJoyji. My point is that the Avataras and the Puranas about them are **NOT*** necessarily tales of Mankind. IOW, there is a knowledge continuum from pre-homo-sapiens to present homo-sapiens. Hence, the knowledge base traces FAAAR back before there were humans.

Is there any reason why, if Divine Forms could have several arms, legs and heads, they could not have been humans?

[UlanBatori]

BTW, rice is also grown in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Kampuchea, all places with extensive commonality of beliefs/culture with Bharat. All places where people lived on coconuts and bananas before the Chinese gave them rice and showed how to plant it?

And back to the point about astral navigation. There is no pointer to the use of stellar navigation by the Polynesians, AFAIK. I think they just were blown around by the winds, sustaining themselves by eating one another, until they hit land somewhere and were eaten by the locals.

[chola]

by Chola
Let's say you are correct and that the aryan invasion did not happen and we are all one. But then how do we explain the blatant hatred of the dark that is evident across the length and breadth of our society from entertainment to jobs to marriage?

This is due to Mughals and British rule (Dhimmified) where dark color was declared to be "Ugly".

British are the one who created this superior upper caste white Aryans and inferior dark low caste Dravidians.

Good. It was a rhetorical question and so in retrospect I was pretty much looking for a rhetorical answer.

This one I feel proper though it was used as a standard answer by my parents as good educated secular Tamils -- for them blame was mostly on the Brits not the muslims.

Rejecting the Aryan Invasion theory must not mean we simply declare there are no light/dark issues because we can do away with "dravidians" and "aryans" -- because there most certainly are and they impact our society.

We must point out repeatedly that these harmful beliefs were imparted on us by foreign invaders and have no place in our Bharati society. There should be a national campaign to teach our children this.

And I want those f-ing makers of shit like "Fair and Lovely/Handsome" to be run out of business when our people recovers our sense of pride and self. Peddling promises of lighter skin lowers us in the eyes of the world, especially among the goris whom we would be seen as worshipping.

[SBajwa]

This whole concept of Dark (kala) and Fair (Gora) is a concept that came out of Arabia. Check how they treat Whites vs Blacks and have been doing from centuries!

[UlanBatori]

SriJoyji, the Polynesians were much later than the Khyber-Pass rollerblading Aryans.

In the mid-2nd millennium BC a distinctive culture appeared suddenly in north-west Melanesia, in the Bismarck Archipelago, the chain of islands forming a great arch from New Britain to the Admiralty Islands. This culture, known as Lapita, stands out in the Melanesian archeological record, with its large permanent villages on beach terraces along the coasts. Particularly characteristic of the Lapita culture is the making of pottery, including a great many vessels of varied shapes, some distinguished by fine patterns and motifs pressed into the clay. Within a mere three or four centuries between about 1300 and 900 BC, the Lapita culture spread 6000 km further to the east from the Bismarck Archipelago, until it reached as far as Tonga and Samoa.[3] In this region, the distinctive Polynesian culture developed. The Polynesians are then believed to have spread eastward from the Samoan Islands into the Marquesas, the Society Islands, the Hawaiian Islands and Easter Island; and south to New Zealand. The pattern of settlement also extended to the north of Samoa to the Tuvaluan atolls, with Tuvalu providing a stepping stone to migration into the Polynesian Outlier communities in Melanesia and Micronesia.[4][5][6]

Harold Gatty suggested that long-distance Polynesian voyaging followed the seasonal paths of bird migrations. In “The Raft Book,”[8] a survival guide he wrote for the U.S. military during World War II, Gatty outlined various Polynesian navigation techniques Allied sailors or aviators wrecked at sea could use to find their way to land. There are some references in their oral traditions to the flight of birds and some say that there were range marks onshore pointing to distant islands in line with the West Pacific Flyway. A voyage from Tahiti, the Tuamotus or the Cook Islands to New Zealand might have followed the migration of the long-tailed cuckoo (Eudynamys taitensis) just as the voyage from Tahiti to Hawaiʻi would coincide with the track of the Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis fulva) and the bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis). It is also believed that Polynesians employed shore-sighting birds as did many seafaring peoples. One theory is that they would have taken a frigatebird (Fregata) with them. These birds refuse to land on the water as their feathers will become waterlogged making it impossible to fly. When the voyagers thought they were close to land they may have released the bird, which would either fly towards land or else return to the canoe.[7]

For navigators near the equator celestial navigation is simplified since the whole celestial sphere is exposed. Any star that passes the zenith (overhead) is on the celestial equator, the basis of the equatorial coordinate system. Each star has a specific declination, and when they rise or set, they give a bearing for navigation. Stars are learned by compass point, making a star compass (star compasses list ~150 stars, in some systems[9]). A simplified compass might list only a couple of dozen stars.[10] For example, in the Caroline Islands Mau Piailug taught natural navigation using a star compass diagrammed here. The development of "sidereal compasses" has been studied[11] and theorized to have developed from an ancient pelorus.[7]

The Polynesians also took measurements of stellar elevation to determine their latitude. The latitudes of specific islands were also known, and the technique of "sailing down the latitude" was used.

[UlanBatori]

Since they look like Malloostanis the only viable explanation is that some Malloos tried to go to America and ended up in Tahiti. Small sign error.

[SBajwa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Af ... ern_humans

Chinese do not agree with this theory claiming that China had people living in China 80,000 years ago. Why should we?

[Rudradev]

My theory is, every settled society associates 'dark = low, light = high' status and most likely the reason is this:

Our societies, for the longest time, were not meritocratic but nepotistic- meaning, children auto-inherited dad's job, not because they were best qualified, but because our society works on an inheritence model. So over time, king's son remains king and farmer's son remains farmer. Over many,many generations, we see upper classes sit inside and do inside work, while lower classes work the fields and get tanned dark by the sun. this may explain why we all subconsciously 'like' fair skin, in our subconscious, we associate light with higher class due to higher classes staying indoors and not getting as dark skinned.

This is a Lamarckian inheritance model, and has been thoroughly rejected by scientists for a couple of centuries now.

[Rudradev]

This is a Lamarckian inheritance model, and has been thoroughly rejected by scientists for a couple of centuries now.

I am yet to see any historian/anthropologist reject inheritence model, given that history (atleast, written history) from everywhere in the world shows overwhelming evidence of children inheriting profession from their parents in the overwhelming majority of cases.

What you are peddling, i.e. that biological characteristics such as skin pigmentation become inheritable traits on the basis of multi-generational adaptive use (in this case, melanocyte proliferation to shield the skin from solar UV rays for people working in the sun) is absolute tripe.

[UlanBatori]

As for Polynesians- we find evidence of back and forth travel between as far as Madagascar and Fiji- a span of 12,000+ kms.

Reference pls? None seen in my travels through Polynesia today.
All else aside, I question the wisdom of ppl traveling direct Fiji-Madagascar when there are so many interesting places in between to visit. What would be the point of this? Even today people make at least one airplane stop in between.

Closest found:

The first archaeological evidence for human foraging on Madagascar dates to 2000 BC. Human settlement of Madagascar occurred between 350 BC and AD 550 by Austronesian peoples arriving on outrigger canoes from Borneo. These were joined around AD 1000 by Bantu migrants crossing the Mozambique Channel from East Africa. Other groups continued to settle on Madagascar over time, each one making lasting contributions to Malagasy cultural life.

That seems like pure Berkeley-Stanford. How long does it take to get from Borneo to Madagascar by outrigger canoe? Can people stay alive that long in outrigger canoes? Eating raw fish I presume, since no fuel supplies would have lasted. Can't have been a deliberate expedition, but some survivors of MH-370 type tragedy.

Fiji is on another level altogether of Berkeley-Stanford altogether. One traveling from Fiji to Madagascar would have to go through the straits of Papua-New Guinea where they would have been cooked. Like Captain Cook was.

[Rudradev]

What you are peddling, i.e. that biological characteristics such as skin pigmentation become inheritable traits on the basis of multi-generational adaptive use (in this case, melanocyte proliferation to shield the skin from solar UV rays for people working in the sun) is absolute tripe.

No, what i am peddling, is that over YOUR lifetime, if you are a brahmin and mostly stay indoors, you will be lighter than your brother, who in this example is a farmer. Over time, when people see that 'rich people = upper class people = fair skinned' and 'poor people = lower class people = darker', it forms a subconcious memetic behaviour of favouring lighter skin.

You have merely changed what you were peddling before, when called on your BS.

Here you talked about "auto-inheritance" of professions over "many, many" generations.

How is that consistent with

(1) "YOUR" (i.e. one person's) lifetime (what happened to "many, many generations" ?)

(2) a "brahmin" mostly staying indoors while his brother is a farmer (what happened to "auto-inheritance" of professions there?)

Not to mention the false dichotomy between "meritocratic" and "nepotistic" you try to impose with

Our societies, for the longest time, were not meritocratic but nepotistic- meaning, children auto-inherited dad's job, not because they were best qualified, but because our society works on an inheritence model

Has it struck you that in the absence of a formal education system, children who were trained almost from birth to follow a parent's vocation WERE in fact better qualified than anyone else in the community to take it on?

[Rudradev]

Yes, it's clear that you are imposing a BS correlation through specious reasoning. If people didn't want to marry their daughters to farmers, but rather to kings, that's a choice they were empowered to make of their own volition. If farmers happened to be (on average) darker-skinned than kings, that is an independent variable of its own accord.

You would like to impose a correlation between these two things on the dubious grounds of a "subconscious stratification of skin colour with class".

What this does is to dilute the culpability of specifically imperialistic, hegemonistic cultures who actively imposed racial metrics of superiority upon those they colonized, and who were demonstrably responsible for formalizing and expanding such stratification, with the vapid and unprovable hypothesis that "oh, all people are like that onlee"... including the Indians and Africans who were victims of that sort of stratification as a result of colonization.

[chola]

What you are peddling, i.e. that biological characteristics such as skin pigmentation become inheritable traits on the basis of multi-generational adaptive use (in this case, melanocyte proliferation to shield the skin from solar UV rays for people working in the sun) is absolute tripe.

No, what i am peddling, is that over YOUR lifetime, if you are a brahmin and mostly stay indoors, you will be lighter than your brother, who in this example is a farmer. Over time, when people see that 'rich people = upper class people = fair skinned' and 'poor people = lower class people = darker', it forms a subconcious memetic behaviour of favouring lighter skin. this is why, even in Africa amongt Bantu people, their chiefs are a shade or two lighter than their farmers. Because chiefs sit inside their hut and farmers spend time outside.

There could be two things going on here that would support SriJoy's explanation:

1) social evolution, where features connected to the ruling class, such as fairer skin, are elevated by society over time

2) sexual selection, because of social evolution mentioned abive, those in power select partners who are lighter thereby producing children who becomes progressing lighter over the ages.

[Rudradev]

Yes indeed. However, it is definition of nepotism when sons/daughters inherit what their fathers/mothers' jobs. while the informal education system no doubt plays a part, what is relevant, is that the same haplotype of people (clan?) end up having widely different skin color based on whether you are a merchant or a king sitting inside all day long versus whether you are a farmer or hunter, spending whole day under the sun. For an average lifespan of 50 years, that'd translate to roughly to a difference of nearly 150,000-200,000 hours of lifetime exposure to the sun- leading to the farmer/hunter being way more tanned (and thus darker) than their indoors counterparts.

Haplotype?

Sorry, I don't understand what that is supposed to mean in this context.

In a population descended from the same ancestral gene pool, there is a large amount of variation. There are people whose genetic makeup will allow them to become only so brown, and no browner, no matter how much sun they are exposed to in the course of a day. There are other people who, because of their genetic makeup, will become dark brown with relatively little exposure to the sun in the course of a day.

Some people, even if "farmers", may become only 50% brown (on a scale of 0%= lightest brown, 100%= darkest brown for the population's entire skin-colour range) despite working in the sun all day long.

Other people descended from the same ancestral gene pool may become 75% brown even if they're only exposed to two hours of sunlight a day.

Your model fails utterly to account for this.

[Rudradev]

. Because one cannot use 'evil racist Europeans' to explain why Amazon tribes or tribes in Borneo uncontacted till 50 years ago, still see a lighter shade of their own skin tone (i.e., not white people but lighter versions of them) as more attractive.

.

No, but one can certainly doubt the methodology of anthropologists suddenly arriving amongst the tribe in the Amazon or Borneo and asking leading questions as to what skin colour they prefer. What was the skin colour of the anthropologists? Were they from a "superiorist group"?

[UlanBatori]

Ms. Lucy Tanzaniawali has come out of the closet in her skeleton again, rdji. C above. U c y I say that this is Single-Point Origin BS??

So why have no "older human fossils" been found elsewhere? Answer is simple: (a) Continuous human habitation. (b) Lack of any cataclysm to upturn society and preserve a record (see (a)). (c) Cremation. (d) Lack of motivation of western Church-funded/ superstition-inspired "archaeologists" to seek and preserve any such finding that went against their pre-determined conclusions.

Does anyone know if there is a Fossil Pyramid? i.e. a continuum of probability of finding fossils, where there are very large numbers found of date X, and fewer of date 2X, still fewer of 3x etc, down to 1 at Lucy Tanzaniawali? Or did they just find Ms. L.T. in isolation by magic?

And likewise, in Australian desert, Sahara, Iranian desert, Siberia etc? It is amazing that this shocking level of BS has dominated school textbooks through so long. Creationism was at least honest in its religious belief.

[Rudradev]

No, but one can certainly doubt the methodology of anthropologists suddenly arriving amongst the tribe in the Amazon or Borneo and asking leading questions as to what skin colour they prefer. What was the skin colour of the anthropologists?

You are assuming they are asking leading questions. they can simply be asking those tribes 'who are your pretty folks' and making notes about the physical features of those pretty ones.

Do you seriously fail to see how problematic that question "who are your pretty folks" becomes, coming from a European to a native tribe that has never seen any other kind of person before?

How is the concept "pretty" communicated to a tribe who does not speak the same language as the anthropologists, or understand the word "pretty" in the language of the anthropologists?

Is it an objective concept or a subjective one?

Can you communicate the notion of "pretty" (as an outsider bringing trappings of every kind of superiority to a tribe living in primitive isolation) without the translation invariably bringing in bias regarding what is considered "pretty"?

[Rudradev]

Bhaisaheb, its not just about fossils. African mtDNA and y-chromosome DNA is also tens of thousands of years older than anything outside of Africa.
So far, we have double layer of evidence - genetic analysis proves African DNA is the oldest amongst us as well as archaeological proof. Lucy is pretty air-tight at the moment.

You do realize that Lucy was not "human", nor a member of any species of genus Homo?

Lucy was an Australopithicene ape.

[Rudradev]

Its subjective,yet patternistic.

You mean, amenable to the superimposition of "patterns" derived from the ample vaults of Euro-centric confirmation bias.

[Rudradev]

You do realize that Lucy was not "human", nor a member of any species of genus Homo?

Lucy was an Australopithicene ape.

Is there a reason you are specifically ignoring the fact that African MtDNA & Y-chromosome are far older than all other non-African ones, pointing to a clear-cut case of species homo sapiens originating form Africa ??

Why raise strawman arguments misrepresenting what I said? Where did I claim that human mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA do not show evidence of African origin?

I am merely pointing out your ignorance (yet again) of the fact that Lucy was not human. Also, no mtDNA or Y-chromosomal DNA were recovered from Lucy.

[SBajwa]

These are the basic races where if you look at them you can tell are from certain parts of the world.

1. Negroid
2. Caucasoid
3. Mongoloid.


Is there a race to define Indian humans? Indoid or something?

[Rudradev]

You mean, amenable to the superimposition of "patterns" derived from the ample vaults of European confirmation bias.

No, i am not meaning any such racist conclusion you are drawing. I'd say you need to square up with anthropology to realize how it works.
Care to explain, how my example of 'too fat/too skinny = ugly for overwhelming majority of humanity' is an 'European confirmation bias' ?!

No, that's just an example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Extreme obesity or underweight are indicators of ill health, and instinctively unattractive to human beings for that reason. Fair vs dark skin is by no means a universal indicator of unfitness, and is an acquired bias. The fact that a preference for a normal range of weight is universal does not preclude the fact that a preference for fair skin is a communicable prejudice.

Again, i ask you, since you are pretty well versed in genetics: What does the evidence of far, far older African MtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroup imply, in terms of origin of species homo sapiens ?

Of course, that Homo sapiens emerged from Africa.

Are you now claiming to have "originated" this theory as well?

You realize too, what sort of an own-goal your position of 'confirmation bias of Europeans' is, when European academia has proven humanity originates from Africa, which in just a century prior, were classified as the lowest of the low, by the same Europeans ?!

Sorry, don't mean to get in the way of your white-worship, but the genetic evidence of African origin is agnostic to the ethnicity of people who happened to collect, tabulate and analyse it. Molecular biology doesn't yield to cultural biases (even though such biases, as we have seen with Michael Bamshad and Martin Richards, can still distort the interpretations of observations made using its techniques).

Subjective notions like "attractiveness", however, are very susceptible to the biases of the so-called "social scientists" who purvey them. Which is why I find your notion of a universal preference for fair skin dubious (tell it to the white-skinned Ainu, for example, who have been regarded as an underclass by the Japanese throughout their recorded history).

[UlanBatori]

OK, so let's say Lucy is older than any ape remains found anywhere else. How does this prove "Out Of Africa"? That's where the extrapolations get extreme. I can agree with "Oldest So Far Found In Africa".
The moment this is pushed to "Out of Africa" it becomes Single Point Origin. Creationism.

This is where I disagree fundamentally. Where did the first Amoeba originate? Or do we not care? Perhaps they arose all over the world in generally the same period, given similar conditions. The first fish? Or did fish evolve all over the oceans at the same time? Why couldn't humans evolve likewise? On several islands all over the world. Massive global migrations were extremely rare, to completely non-existent.

Why would TanzaniaWali's relatives decide to migrate north from South Africa? It was a pleasant enough place, fertile, good climate. Density of population sure wasn't an issue. Why go up north into the equatorial jungles, then the Sahara desert? Afghanistan? The Rann of Kutch? And then decide it's all too bad, so come down south again to Kerala? What is there on the coast of South India that cannot be found on the coast of Africa? I think this is nonsense. This "theory" exists ONLY because they cannot argue with the reality that humanity must have come up in the same period in many parts of the world. In the same general latitudes, climates, vegetation, diet, animal menagerie etc.

Perhaps there is commonality of some DNA/RNA whatever. (Yes, I am ignorant of all that because I feel that the field is as yet very new, and way too little understood. It is no different to say: "MTDNA Says So!", than to say :"HoKo Says So!" The former may call themselves good Scientists, the latter good Islamists, but I have to be wary of both.

Perhaps tribes that arose by evolution in different parts of the world, completely independently, share the same DNA characteristics. Today if, say, someone in Bangalore, Kerala shows DNA similar to that of Lucy Tanzaniawali, the SPOjihadis immediately cite that as PROOF that LT walked over to Bangalore, Kerala and did hootchie-kootchie.

Centuries ago, it might have been something else. Monkeys in South America have tails. Monkeys in East India have tails. PROOF!!!! Monkeys first came Out Of Africa. Today you substitute "DNA" for "tail", the logic is the same. Fools most of the people.

In fact I have PROOF too. In Malloostani, the term "European" is clearly explained. It stands for Oora Thappiyavan.

He who searched his butt. The story is that when the Europeans came over and saw the monkeys of Malloostan, they said:

"OUR RELATIVES!!" But why don't I have a tail like them?

Racist joke, I know, I know.

I think it's only a matter of time before Australian remains are found, as old or older than L.T. Or maybe they will be found as the Siberian tundra thaws, remains preserved over many Ice Ages. Maybe under the Antarctic ice. Maybe in China when they dig under the Himalayas for the OROB or whatever.

Last point:

European academia has proven humanity originates from Africa, which in just a century prior, were classified as the lowest of the low, by the same Europeans ?!

Perfectly logical, coming from their beady-eyed little minds. They were kicked out of the claim that the first humans arose in England. Then Neanderthals in Oirope. Then Adam&Eve in Palestine. Then the Caucasus Mountains. Swinging from the trees in the Bavarian Black Forest didn't fly either. So they picked something down deep in Africa where it is expensive to mount and sustain an expedition to disprove the nonsense.

[SBajwa]

about 50 or so years ago fat people were attractive and now 0 size.

In ancient times Fat was considered wealth and sexy and with growth of food, etc now humans do not need to store fat in their bodies for needy times.

All is being driven by the popular culture., for us Samosas were considered luxury for our kids it is pizza and burgers.
We listened (40-50 years old) to raga and taal while now english/hindi/punjabi/tamil/telugu words are regular in songs.

Tall Blond and blue eyes is European concept of beauty (from the point of men) while Indian men would look for big eyes, matching height and curvy body.

All this nonsense about Gora/Kala is created by Mughals first (who use to keep their women in purdah and thus they became fair and also disease ridden)., and then British later (Indian babus (mostly north indian) looked up to the British and their women and wanted similar women and thus white skinned. This needs to be de-racinated.

[Rudradev]

From "The Paelo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone" by Frank W. Sweet
http://essays.backintyme.com/item/4

The darkness adaptation enhances folic acid (folate) synthesis. Too little epidermal melanin for low latitudes allows intense UV to penetrate the skin, preventing or degrading folic acid synthesis, thus reducing folate levels. In pregnant females this produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida. High levels of distributed epidermal melanin blocks UV and enables normal gestation at low latitudes (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). Admittedly, some prior authors (Robins 1991, 210) had not seen evidence that fair-skinned residents of low latitudes suffered worse from folate deficiency than dark-skinned ones, but a collection of recent studies cited by Jablonski and Chaplin provide just such evidence. Hence, it seems confirmed that the darkness adaptation overcomes a threat to Darwinian fitness in its most unalloyed form—rate of successful reproduction.

Genetic evidence exists for the fact that sexual selection in low latitudes operated in favor of, not against, darker skin. Because darker skin, like weight within the normal range, was an indicator of superior fitness and a determinant of mating preference.

We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents, no matter how similar the parents. We have known that at least three genes are involved because histograms of population skin reflectance yield continuous, not discrete, values (Stern 1973, 443-65), (Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1971, 527-31).

Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998). Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).

Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation. Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark.

This is key to understand.

"Exposure to sun" does not easily produce darker skin. The darkness of skin of tropical peoples is a hard-won adaptation. Many genes at many different loci must collaborate to produce a dark skin which affords the protection from UV necessary at lower latitudes for the adequate production of folic acid. Evolutionarily, dark skin is something to be treasured among people of low latitudes.

On the other hand mutations causing fairer skin occur frequently (a random mutation in any one of FIVE loci can produce "fairness" in the extremity of albinism). The people inflicted with fairness-causing mutations would have been severely defective relative to the rest of the population; indeed, predisposed to

such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida.

In other words, the "normal" people in their tribes would regard them as deeply unhealthy freaks. Just as extremely obese or underweight people would be regarded.

Now we're talking about subconscious preferences.

SriJoy theorizes that subconscious preferences would favor lighter skinned people because they did not work in the sun (even though their lightness of skin is NOT inheritable). This is based on a few thousand (at BEST) years of history, after human beings began to live in settlements, adopted social systems based on division-of-labour, and established economies wherein vocations were inherited within families.

It seems far more likely that compelling subconscious preferences would be driven overwhelmingly by the perception of how fit, healthy, and capable of producing healthy offspring a person was. That is the case with the preference for a normal weight range, which is in fact a universal preference.

After all, the evolutionary preference for dark skin would have been operating, in India and Africa and other places of low latitude, over time scales an order of magnitude longer than the patterns of social behaviour associated with economic class and inherited vocations.

[SBajwa]

My theory is that Indian land mass was the most fertile/arable/good weather in all of the world and this is where Humanity first had a luxury to contemplate on what is going on and thus they focused on stars, numbers, science, etc. Rest of the world humans were trying to survive., in India due to free time humans were creating/thinking sciences, languages, music, Vedas, etc.

Just like in 2017 USA is the research capital of the world due to people having lots of time to sit down and think and not be bothered about their daily bread. USA in 2017 only has 350 million (highly educated) people, three times the size of India and most arable land.

Why there is no research in India in 2017 is because too many people are busy earning their bread after fueling the Industrial revolution (1500-1700) and sustaining pre-oil Middle East 1000 A.D - 1600!!

[SBajwa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... map600.png

[Rudradev]

White worship ? sorry, don't confuse your white hatred as 'white worship form others' when challenged. You made bold-faced racist statements and i called you out for it.

So my attributing cultural bias to the conclusions of European Anthropologists is "a bold-faced racist statement"? How prejudiced of me to question their superiority and infallibility.

Easy enough to see where you come from.

Funny, the white people doing molecular biology are 'agnostic to ethnicity' for promoting empiric data but white anthropologists *must* be agenda-driven, asking leading questions to the natives.

The data derived from molecular biology are themselves agnostic to ethnicity. The people interpreting these data, not always. In the case of Michael Bamshad and Martin Richards, they twist their interpretations of the data to support race-theoretical constructs of Aryan Invasion. Which vehemently proves my point about susceptibility to bias.

As a man of empiric sciences, i understand your disdain for social science's lack of empiric-driven conclusions. However, that doesn't mean their observations are carte-blanche biassed or agenda-driven. As usual, its a matter of case-by-case analysis.

Excellent. Then can we eschew sweeping conclusions about how ALL peoples on earth show a preference for fair skin over dark, independently of colonization?

the entire reason 'white skin = good = imposed by colonialism' is being discarded/already discarded is because of these tribal populations showing affinity towards lighter skin amongst their own demographics, who have not been influenced by Europeanism. Ofcourse, social theories are just that, but this one, fits the profile.

As for example, here.