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

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Jun 2017 04:30

There are extremes of weight range against which the ingrained prejudice IS biologically driven.

That is the extremity of evolutionarily ingrained prejudice against light skin in low-latitude populations: the innate, amygdala-driven revulsion against someone who is likely to die, become sick, and/or bear inviable offspring.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 Jun 2017 04:31

by SriJoy
Exposure to sun will not produce darker skin amongst light skinned populations.

It does!! there are hundreds of tanning saloons in my city. Also why do the Goras go to beaches and lay naked in sun?

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 Jun 2017 04:32

SriJoy you are confused with Races (negroid,caucasoid, mongoloid) and their skin colors.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 30 Jun 2017 04:34

Thanx, srji. Will retreat to cave now pending Deliverance. Need a refutation to the claim that

African homo sapiens DNA is way older than homo sapiens DNA elsewhere.

Hope I got that right.

But.. if African HS-DNA-carrying apes married apes who came from elsewhere, the result would be the same. It would not prove that anything came out of Africa, because the New AIT is based on the idea that only certain parts of DNA really traces down.

IOW, consider:
Someone mixes 1 ounce of African hooch into a bottle of water. Someone drinks it in Africa, and bisses. Someone else grows sorghum with this water. Someone coming OUT OF Bangalore, Kerala, eats the sorghum, and "goes" in Amsterdam where she reaches. Someone in Amsterdam takes an injection of cocaine with a needle washed in dirty water from the canals of Amsterdam. He does hootchie-kootchie with a Pakistani. Little Abdul gets his DNA tested.

Voila! He is African in heritage!

Because that initial DNA of African hooch bears a distinct stamp and is indelible.

OK, don't bother to respond to that, let me read more posts as they come Out of BRF.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 Jun 2017 04:35

I am not sure what you are saying! white people who are in South Africa will never become black or will eventually become black?

Why do the Mongoloids have slanted eyes and flat noses? May be due to thin air of their origin place.
Why do the negroids have curly hair and black skins?
Why are the caucasians white, blue eyed and blond? look where they are from! Italians and dark Norwegeins are blond with blue eyes and taller (as they only eat meat while Italians grainss.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 30 Jun 2017 04:36

there we go!! Then why do people living on himalayas have flat noses?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Jun 2017 04:41

SriJoy wrote:
Rudradev wrote:
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.
Exposure to sun will not produce darker skin amongst light skinned populations. Ie, their children are not going to be darker at birth. Or vice versa in temperates. But exposure to sunlight WILL darken the skin for overwhelming majority. this is the same reason why the average Aussie adult is darker (in reality, redder, but still, darker) than their Scottish counterparts but have the same skin-tone babies. Because Aussies are way more outdoors people AND see way more sun over their lifetimes than Scots.

Evidently you do not see the point.

Read what the essay I linked is saying.

Variations that produce darker-skinned offspring amongst light-skinned populations are virtually nonexistent. Amongst populations in the low latitudes, dark skin is a precious adaptation developed at immense cost of many lives to natural selection.

Variations that produce lighter-skinned offspring amongst dark-skinned populations, by contrast, happen all the time. A simple point mutation in any one of five loci will do it.

These offspring, no matter how much sun they are exposed to as a result of being woodcutters or farmers, are not going to become dark skinned beyond a point that is well short of the median.

These offspring are also going to be marked for their propensity to ill-health and likelihood of producing unviable progeny: an ancestral memory that goes far back beyond the antiquity of "light skin= rich" type constructs.

Arguing against the ability of any singular construct such as "light skin=rich" .. even if it actually exists (which is unproven)... to determine a preference for "light skin" intrinsic to a low-latitude population without the impetus of colonization.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2017 05:51

I know few people here might be interested in reading
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science- ... ws-n778251

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 06:41

SriJoy wrote:
I have stated why i don't think Nakshatra observations have any value : they can be backdated. Ramayana and Mahabharatas are smiritis- not shrutis. We can tell so, because earliest works of Ramayana/mahabharata we have, are in classical sanskrit, which comes into being after Panini- which is somewhere in the 700 BC-300 BC range. Contrast it with the shrutis, i.e., Vedas, which are in archaic Sanskrit and predate classical Sanskrit.
.

Panini as I have stated earlier can be dated to 1000 BC. There are numerous flaws in putting him as late as 500 BC. Don't know if you read the post. You need not read or believe it. The evidence is there. By 500 BC Languages like Old Persian (Darius) and Aramaic had come into Gandhara where Panini lived. Panini lived in an era that was at the cusp of Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. That is closer to 1000 BC

Note that any Nakshatra reference that can be backdated can be forward dated as well. Have you any information to state why any particular date should be chosen as correct other than your personal biases and your choice of what you want to believe. Remember you claimed that you are a stickler for accuracy and if you claim that something has been back dated - one can check several dates and arrive at a choice of "most likely" dates. That is also science. Not believing something is about personal choices. If those choices are based on solid logic or science I would like to see them, or they are simply your opinions.

One's personal choices cannot be claimed to be the best and most accurate. So far it seems to me that your choices of what you believe have been stated. None of your choices seem more accurate than any other. Your belief about Panini could have been taken out of Wiki, but there is evidence of his having lived earlier contrary to the usual "scholarly" sources who have chosen to take some facts about Panini, ignored others and tried to fit them into other "facts" that have already been decided

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 06:43

Nilesh Oak wrote: --
Objective research is without ends and for that very reason should be fashioned/designed in such a way that it can grow and be modified in the light of new evidence.

I hope you find the comments useful.

Warm regards,

Nilesh Oak

Thanks Nilesh

chandrasekaran · Post by **chandrasekaran** » 30 Jun 2017 06:49

Brahmins obviously didn't work on the fields, but that doesn't imply that they were indoors all the time.
So brahmins didn't work in the fields, so they were indoors and hence became fair skinned is really stretching things too far

A life of an orthodox brahmin involved staying outdoors for a good portion of the day and in front of or very near to intense heat of the Yagya fire most of the time even when they were "indoors".

Just look at the (minuscule) brahmins still practicing Shrouta Karma's in Andhra, TN and KA. None of them are "fair" skinned.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 07:04

SriJoy wrote: Yes, tales of avataras are not necessarily about humans. But the same puranas say we,i.e. mankind, lived through Sat-yuga, treta-yuga, dwapar-yuga and kali-yuga(current). Now, the dates of Sat + Dwapar + tret > 200,000 years. Meaning, it is wrong because mankind could not be living in a yuga that is older than mankind itself !

Why do you believe that man did not exist over 200,000 years ago? Where is that muchly advertised desire for accuracy?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 07:10

SriJoy wrote:
1. Jobs were ovrewhelimgly auto-inherited in our society as well as almost all soceities. Ie, children of kings became kings, children of farmers became farmers, children of traders became traders. Weight of history shows, that any fluidic profession change, in pre-modern time was rare. this is what i mean by auto-inheriting jobs.

History? Who wrote this history? Remember? You claimed Indians are ahistoric and do not maintain records. You claim that smritis, ie knowledge handed down are inaccurate. Now you are cooking up history and by coincidence that is the same history we have been fed by western sources.

You are merely showing your own educational bias. No more no less. SriJoy ji - you are merely spouting what you have been taught and are railing against anything that goes against that.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 30 Jun 2017 07:15

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Once the precession of the equinoxes is known, how does one know that references to the distant past are not retrodictions (predictions made backwards in time), but actual observations?

That's why you can't rely on just precession-related observations. There's a whole gamut of other planetary and stellar observations available in texts like the Ramayana and MB, and researchers used a subset or whole set of these to try and date the texts. The best attempts (for the MB) being by Vartak and by Nilesh Oak (both of which are fundamentally in agreement with each other).

But I think you already knew this, and just made that statement as a critique of Shiv's piece?

Great piece Shiv ji, I think it covers the basics from the layman's point of view.

About "why can't somebody have back-calculated and inserted those references into the texts?" Well, there are two things you need to know to back-calculate with that accuracy. The first is a knowledge of the governing equations (calculus). But this alone is not enough. The second thing you need to have, is a database of all the bodies which will fit into that governing equation. This includes not just planets, but many smaller, seemingly insignificant bodies such as moons, asteroids, comets, etc., which may not have a significant gravitational effect over a few years, but which cause enough perturbations over thousands of years to throw off calculations, if not considered. The knowledge of these bodies that is required consists of masses, orbital periods, distance from the sun (which is basically the same info as the orbital period), distances from each other at some point of time (which could be the present), etc. (I don't think diameters or sizes are relevant, but they could be). Without this database, just knowing the governing equations is useless.

Currently, software such as Voyager uses a dataset from NASA JPL. So any guy back in, say, 0 AD/BC, who calculated planetary positions to insert into the MB, would have had to have a database rivaling or exceeding the NASA JPL dataset to perform his magic.

Which brings me to a point which has been puzzling me for years, but to which I never got a satisfactory answer. Nilesh ji used the Voyager software to do his dating of the MB and Ramayana. Vartak, supposedly, used traditional panchang data to date the MB, and *his date agrees with Nilesh Oak's date*. Does this mean that the panchang system rivals the NASA JPL database in accuracy, and is based on a sound knowledge of the governing equations as well? The implications of that would be tremendous indeed.

If so, are we back at the original question: "why couldn't somebody in 0 AD/BC have back-calculated these planetary positions using panchang data, and inserted them into the MB?"

Not really, the answer to that question about using panchang data to back-calculate, is also there in Nilesh's work. Vartak never dealt with the Arundhati/Vashishta (A/V) observation. He couldn't, because it would not be covered by panchang data. Panchang data is based on periodicity, the A/V observation was a *one-time event,* which happened within a specific time period. And this one-time event would not have happened, but for the phenomenon of "proper motion of stars," whose periodicity being in the range of 100's of millions of years, is essentially a linear phenomenon over 10's or even 100's of thousands of years. No way for ancients to observe the periodicity of a one-time event and record it in panchangs. So the fact that this observation is in the MB, and that the date suggested by this observation is in excellent agreement with the remaining planetary and comet observations in the MB, is an excellent argument against the "back-calculation and insertion into the MB" theory.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 07:16

SriJoy wrote: 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?)

Boss - you are never going to live down your boast about your desire for accuracy. There are two problems in the above quote

1. Accuracy and truth demand that you tell all sides of a story if there are more than one. All inherited jobs are not nepotism which is a pejorative term. Isolated communities that had access to resources may have made professions like pottery or woodcutting a skill passed from parent to child out of economic necessity and not out of nepotism

2. Haplotype? Where is your penchant for accuracy sir? Where does the word haplotype fit in the above quote?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 07:35

sudarshan wrote:
About "why can't somebody have back-calculated and inserted those references into the texts?" Well, there are two things you need to know to back-calculate with that accuracy. The first is a knowledge of the governing equations (calculus). But this alone is not enough. The second thing you need to have, is a database of all the bodies which will fit into that governing equation. This includes not just planets, but many smaller, seemingly insignificant bodies such as moons, asteroids, comets, etc., which may not have a significant gravitational effect over a few years, but which cause enough perturbations over thousands of years to throw off calculations, if not considered. The knowledge of these bodies that is required consists of masses, orbital periods, distance from the sun (which is basically the same info as the orbital period), distances from each other at some point of time (which could be the present), etc. (I don't think diameters or sizes are relevant, but they could be). Without this database, just knowing the governing equations is useless.

Currently, software such as Voyager uses a dataset from NASA JPL. So any guy back in, say, 0 AD/BC, who calculated planetary positions to insert into the MB, would have had to have a database rivaling or exceeding the NASA JPL dataset to perform his magic.

Which brings me to a point which has been puzzling me for years, but to which I never got a satisfactory answer. Nilesh ji used the Voyager software to do his dating of the MB and Ramayana. Vartak, supposedly, used traditional panchang data to date the MB, and *his date agrees with Nilesh Oak's date*. Does this mean that the panchang system rivals the NASA JPL database in accuracy, and is based on a sound knowledge of the governing equations as well? The implications of that would be tremendous indeed.

If so, are we back at the original question: "why couldn't somebody in 0 AD/BC have back-calculated these planetary positions using panchang data, and inserted them into the MB?"

Not really, the answer to that question about using panchang data to back-calculate, is also there in Nilesh's work. Vartak never dealt with the Arundhati/Vashishta (A/V) observation. He couldn't, because it would not be covered by panchang data. Panchang data is based on periodicity, the A/V observation was a *one-time event,* which happened within a specific time period. And this one-time event would not have happened, but for the phenomenon of "proper motion of stars," whose periodicity being in the range of 100's of millions of years, is essentially a linear phenomenon over 10's or even 100's of thousands of years. No way for ancients to observe the periodicity of a one-time event and record it in panchangs. So the fact that this observation is in the MB, and that the date suggested by this observation is in excellent agreement with the remaining planetary and comet observations in the MB, is an excellent argument against the "back-calculation and insertion into the MB" theory.

An excellent post Sudarshan on the alleged "back-dating" of events.

But I have a completely unrelated argument about "backdating of events" byIndians who allegedly did not seek accuracy or historic records.

There is a logical process of eliminating some data or ranking data according to what is more likely to be right that is used in medicine. I am sure it is used elsewhere as well and it is incumbent on people who allege that only one data set is accurate and all others are wrong to state why that is so.

Let me expand on that: Supposing Mahabharata can be dated to 500 AD, 500 BC, 1000 BC, 3000 BC, 5000 BC, 20,000 BC or 100,000 BC

Which date is most likely to be correct? One can decide on a "likely date" or "most likely dates" by taking all the other available records and data to arrive at some set of dates if not one date. Without doing that no one can claim truth truth or accuracy. The best description of such claims would be dogma or personal opinion. All too often dogmatic personal opinions have been recorded as fact in early 20th century history and anthropology and it continues on this forum with using quotes from sources that have ignored a lot of data to pass off something as "fact"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 07:37

This "did not work in fields" theory is racist tripe that first appeared in Europe. I will find the links and post in due course.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 08:27

People are forgetting archaeology.

If the Ramayana war was fought 10,000 BC then no metal weapons were used.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 08:29

I think a Vedic verse from one of the late books mentions Krishna, son of Devaki. If that is identified with the Krishna, charioteer of the Pandava Arjuna, that provides a limiting date.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 08:33

A_Gupta wrote:People are forgetting archaeology.

If the Ramayana war was fought 10,000 BC then no metal weapons were used.

The theory is that "no metal weapons were used because current day archaeologists have not yet found any evidence of metal having been used back then"

That is about as accurate as the statement that can be made.
Logically:
1. Can you prove conclusively that metal weapons existed in 10,000 BC? No
2. Can you prove conclusively that metal weapons did not exist in 10,000 BC? No

"I deny that metal weapons existed in 10,000 BC because no evidence has been found and I choose not to believe stories"

"I assert that metal weapons did exist because those stories are my past, I find the dates credible"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 08:35

The other question is (and I have no answer) "What statements in the Mahabharata claim that metal was used?". Bows and arrows and clubs and spears do not need metal

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 30 Jun 2017 08:46

shiv wrote:The other question is (and I have no answer) "What statements in the Mahabharata claim that metal was used?". Bows and arrows and clubs and spears do not need metal

How about swords? But seriously, gold is mentioned in both epics, right? Gold has almost as high a melting point as iron.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 08:49

sudarshan wrote:
shiv wrote:The other question is (and I have no answer) "What statements in the Mahabharata claim that metal was used?". Bows and arrows and clubs and spears do not need metal
How about swords?

I forgot swords. I was thinking too much about the use of maces and arrows. At the risk of sounding stupid I ask - are swords mentioned in the Mahabharata?

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 30 Jun 2017 08:51

I thought swords were the preferred weapons of Nakul and Sahadev, maybe also Dushshasan. I could be wrong though. Also when Abhimanyu was surrounded and fighting for his life, they broke his sword and shield from behind, so he had to pick up a chariot wheel to fend off arrows.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 08:58

Copper, tin and bronze were found in Harappa - maybe 4500-5000 ybp. They also had some very high temperature furnaces to make faience. So the ability to heat rock and see what happens has been around for 5000 years. Copper artefacts were found from 6000 BC in Israel as per Googal.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 08:59

sudarshan wrote:I thought swords were the preferred weapons of Nakul and Sahadev, maybe also Dushshasan. I could be wrong though. Also when Abhimanyu was surrounded and fighting for his life, they broke his sword and shield from behind, so he had to pick up a chariot wheel to fend off arrows.

You're probably right. My memory fails me.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 30 Jun 2017 09:40

shiv wrote:
sudarshan wrote:
How about swords?
I forgot swords. I was thinking too much about the use of maces and arrows. At the risk of sounding stupid I ask - are swords mentioned in the Mahabharata?

Swords are definitely mentioned in the Mahabharata, and Ramayana as well. They could have been made of bronze though.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 09:43

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote: Why do you believe that man did not exist over 200,000 years ago? Where is that muchly advertised desire for accuracy?
We have little or no evidence of mankind existing beyond that period, yes ? Obviously the terminus post quem for species homo sapiens is fuzzy and can extend much further. But no proof of that yet !
Its not a matter of what i believe, its a matter of data driven conclusion.

The data that you believe is what you are talking about.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 09:52

SriJoy wrote:
Disagree. I think Panini lived near the end of it, as we see little or no archaic Sanskrit after him. the presence of the word 'Yavana' is a dead giveaway, because 'Yavana = Greek' is one of the most well founded archaeological + literary match for immediately after/during Panini. I can see Panini as late as high 300s BC but no earlier than 500s BC.

"Yavana" is a Witzelian anomaly and probably a mistranslation and dating of Panini is based solely on this one word, ignoring a lot of other information. This one word of proof means little given other information that I post below. Of course what you choose to believe is your choice. It is belief, not necessarily an accurate reflection of the truth

From my own research (excerpts only)

We have it on record from more than one scholar that Panini’s work in Gandhara referred to common people who spoke some form of Sanskrit. By 600 BC the local language in Gandhara where Panini is said to have lived was unlikely to have been Sanskrit. By then Gandhara was part of the Persian empire and local languages were Old Persian and Aramaic. Panini probably lived much earlier than 600 BC, in an era when Sanskrit was still the language of Gandhara/Media

In the Vedic period people who followed Vedic cultural practices lived in the areas that extended up to Gandhara/Media and the Oxus river (in Afghanistan). These people belonged to one or other of the “Maha-janapadas” or the lands of Vedic kshatriyas. Zoroastrianism was unknown and there is no reference to Zoroastrianism in Vedic texts. However after the time of Zoroaster, the religion in Gandhara/Madra changed to Zoroastrianism. Greek historians have references to Zoroaster in the Bactria (Gandhara/Media) region dating back to 1000 BC. The Vedic period pre-dated this and Panini's life is known to have marked the end of the period of Vedic Sanskrit. This means that Panini probably lived prior to 1000 BC and the currently quoted date of 600 BC for Panini's life is does not correspond with known facts. There is some more information on the subject.

Zoroaster, the founder of the Parsi religion has been dated to 1200 BC and his lands included Gandhara and the “Hapta-Hindu” (Sapta-Sindhu in Sanskrit -which refers to rivers in the Indus region). The area was taken over by the Assyrians around 1000 BC as recorded by Ctesias. Later still the Persians under Darius occupied Gandhara, followed in turn by the Greeks and the Mauryan empire. The Assyrians who conquered Bactria (Gandhara around 1000 BC held it until about 700 BC. The Assyrians resettled a lot of people within their own large empire making Aramaic a widespread language all over the empire. This is reflected in the fact that five centuries later, when emperor Ashoka put up his edicts in Gandhara, one of the languages was Aramaic. From a later period, we have proof from Persian emperor Darius’ Behistun inscription1 that he controlled Bactria/Gandhara by 550 BC.

So we have historic records of the Zoroastrians speaking the Avestan language in Gandhara from 1200 BC to 1000 BC. The Assyrians brought in the Aramaic language with their conquest that lasted from 1000 BC to 700 BC. By 800 BC Gandhara had significant influence from Iran. The Medians once again took control up to 550 BC when Darius took Gandhara at the eastern limit of his empire. The language of Darius’s country was Old Persian. By 260 BC, in the time of Ashoka the languages in Gandhara were Pali, Aramaic and Greek. In the span of about seven centuries, the language used in Gandhara/Media changed from Avestan, to Aramaic, to old Persian to Pali and Greek reflecting the invaders who came and left their mark. It is clear from these facts that after 1000 BC Gandhara fell under the influence of invaders from the west and was no longer a land of Vedic people speaking Sanskrit as was the case in Panini's lifetime. Panini could only have lived earlier than 1000 BC.

We have more information in the form of an excellent treatise on the works of Panini by Theodor Goldstucker. Goldstucker points out that Panini, in his works, is unaware of both the Atharva Veda and the Upanishads, which came after his time. This single data point puts Panini at a much earlier date than thought. The Atharva Veda itself is thought to have been compiled in the 1200-1000 BC period because there is mention of Iron in it and the Iron Age in India began around 1200 BC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 09:59

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote:
History? Who wrote this history? Remember? You claimed Indians are ahistoric and do not maintain records. You claim that smritis, ie knowledge handed down are inaccurate. Now you are cooking up history and by coincidence that is the same history we have been fed by western sources.

You are merely showing your own educational bias. No more no less. SriJoy ji - you are merely spouting what you have been taught and are railing against anything that goes against that.
Err ok. Sure, but seems like you are trying to be different just coz everything cooked up by the racists are also wrong.
What you are 'challenging' is general analysis/trends in history that are largely true for most/many settled societies in bold strokes- one such thing is, in most settled societies, bulk majority of jobs were nepotistic. they are no longer so in many societies for bulk majority but have a strong presence. Without formalised education for the masses, it is the obvious answer. Whats so 'agenda-driven' about that ?

I am only challenging your statement that ascribes a specific history to Indians based on your general knowledge. I have said nothing about "agenda driven" Your words. Not mine. All I am saying is that you are stating your beliefs and you are quoting some generalizations and extrapolations in support of that. Why do you find it so hard to swallow if others also do exactly the same thing and come up with conclusions different from your personal beliefs?

What makes you believe that your generalizations amount to the great accuracy that you boasted about earlier? It is OK to disagree and have a different viewpoint - but your views simply do not carry any more weight of evidence than what anyone else has posted despite your 'I believe in accuracy" crutch that you needed to use.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:02

SBajwa wrote: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?

This classification is quite out-of-date/fashion. Based on craniometry.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2017 10:07

SriJoy wrote: Or, to paraphrase someone, is biology/archaeology also 'tightly controlled by the racists-monotheists'

Some of it is. Stuff that was taught in medical school like "First class proteins (meat) and "Second class proteins (vegetable sources).

The belief that there will be one single molecule or cause that will address every problem reeks strongly of "monotheism" but is now being replaced by the awareness of multifactorial causations

It is YOUR BELIEF that the western science you were taught is agnostic and that those who speak up against that are actually biased. That is your viewpoint that fails to take into consideration other factors. I don't want to digress too much showing how modern medicine that I live in every day fails in crucial instances where other medical systems do better, It is only the "almost racist" cockiness of western science that you have absorbed and you are throwing on here. But I do accept that you are entitled your beliefs but don't push your belief ss dogma that no one else can question because they don't work in your favoured framework. That is ignorance by my definition

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:10

UlanBatori wrote:Thanx, srji. Will retreat to cave now pending Deliverance. Need a refutation to the claim that
African homo sapiens DNA is way older than homo sapiens DNA elsewhere.

Assuming a common single origin for life on earth, all of our DNA is of the same age.

Having said that, the point is that if we try to construct a family tree from the DNA of populations extant today, then the African/non-African split occurs at the top of the tree; and in the relevant measures, Africa has more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world (suggesting that small founder populations left Africa to populate the rest of the world).

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:18

SriJoy wrote:
You are trying to see my argument as biologically determinative, when it isn't. its socially determinative.

Its just a simple concept of people of same ethnicity will become way darker in their life if they see 10 hours of sun/day as opposed to 1. Its called getting tanned. In most cases, farmers, labourers, hunters- who are lower class and do all the work outdoors, can be seen as 'dark' and the rich ones sitting inside mansions all day long as 'fair'.

I think you and Rudradev are talking about entirely different time-scales. Rudradev is talking about time-scales on which evolution worked - hundreds of thousands of years. Assuming that the last few thousand years of civilization had the same fashions throughout, it is too short a time to have affected evolution.

Consider this - in the 19th century, among American whites, the "red-neck" - the one who works out in the sun - was looked down upon, compared to the slave-owner, who commanded a labor force of black slaves. When people became increasingly working indoors - in factories or in offices - and were pale without the sun, then the sun-tan became a mark of the leisured class. And so on. The former Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, looked pretty orange with his frequent tanning.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:24

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
1. Jobs were ovrewhelimgly auto-inherited in our society as well as almost all soceities. Ie, children of kings became kings, children of farmers became farmers, children of traders became traders. Weight of history shows, that any fluidic profession change, in pre-modern time was rare. this is what i mean by auto-inheriting jobs.
History? Who wrote this history? Remember? You claimed Indians are ahistoric and do not maintain records. You claim that smritis, ie knowledge handed down are inaccurate. Now you are cooking up history and by coincidence that is the same history we have been fed by western sources.

You are merely showing your own educational bias. No more no less. SriJoy ji - you are merely spouting what you have been taught and are railing against anything that goes against that.

Genetic findings, both from AIT-leaning geneticists and those who lean against, so far say that the mixing of the population in India stopped around 2000 years ago, attributed to this "auto-inheriting" of profession. So what the system was 4000-2000 years ago is not clear.

The basic historical assumption is that India as found in the 10-17th centuries minus Islam is pretty much what India has been for the last 4000 years - the unchanging East, Oriental despotism, etc., etc. Hindus also tend to imagine that there is some unchanging set of customs from time immemorial. These assumptions may be necessary to write a history, but the possibility that they are quite wrong needs to be kept in mind.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:25

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
1. Jobs were ovrewhelimgly auto-inherited in our society as well as almost all soceities. Ie, children of kings became kings, children of farmers became farmers, children of traders became traders. Weight of history shows, that any fluidic profession change, in pre-modern time was rare. this is what i mean by auto-inheriting jobs.
History? Who wrote this history? Remember? You claimed Indians are ahistoric and do not maintain records. You claim that smritis, ie knowledge handed down are inaccurate. Now you are cooking up history and by coincidence that is the same history we have been fed by western sources.

You are merely showing your own educational bias. No more no less. SriJoy ji - you are merely spouting what you have been taught and are railing against anything that goes against that.

Genetic findings, both from AIT-leaning geneticists and those who lean against, so far say that the mixing of the population in India stopped around 2000 years ago, attributed to this "auto-inheriting" of profession. So what the system was 4000-2000 years ago is not clear.

The basic historical assumption is that India as found in the 10-17th centuries minus Islam is pretty much what India has been for the last 4000 years - the unchanging East, Oriental despotism, etc., etc. Hindus also tend to imagine that there is some unchanging set of customs from time immemorial. These assumptions may be necessary to write a history, but the possibility that they are quite wrong needs to be kept in mind.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:25

-- deleted -- duplicate.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:31

On Panini - you have to have a theory - either Panini codified Sanskrit grammar as was widely known in his time, and had been partially codified by previous writers, who have been forgotten after Panini's magnum opus; or Panini created the grammar.

Then, works that follow Panini's rules with few exceptions are likely post-Panini; and those that don't are likely much prior to Panini, if one assumes Panini merely represents the culmination of a long effort to standardize Sanskrit grammar. I'm no grammarian to know what grammatical scheme the Atharva Veda follows. But I think one must consider such things when putting together the relative dates of Panini, Valmiki, Vyasa, etc.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jun 2017 10:43

This claims Panini knew the Atharva Veda:
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OcX ... da&f=false

Agasthi · Post by **Agasthi** » 30 Jun 2017 11:30

How sure are we that 'Yavana=Greek', I was reading the MB series from Amar Chitra katha to my kid and it mentions that the Pandava princes subdued the Yavana King whom even Pandu could not subdue. Agreed it is a comic but they would have drawn this info from more authoritative sources right.

I thought greeks in indian history started around 200BC or later.