Check out my new videos on the Aryan Invasion theory
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If the Aryan invasion was true what differences in DNA haplogroups in India would represent the "invader" DNA ?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If the Aryan invasion was true what differences in DNA haplogroups in India would represent the "invader" DNA ?
. Ha,ha,ha,ha:
Nice trick question!
Of course as we all know by now, Albinos such as Europeans DON'T have different DNA, they merely have a MUTATED "P" gene or a mutated version of some other gene.
This is Indian DNA, see if you can find something strange.
.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
The Aryan/Arian Invasion
Indians, particularly Hindus have always been rather schizoid on the subject of the Aryan Invasion theory. Many argue that the Aryans came as migrants, not as invaders. And of course, because Hindus are mainly the Mulattoes of Dravidians and Aryans, they feel a loyalty to both.
But here, the fact of the Aryan Invasion, whether it be migration or invasion, is of no consequence to us. Our interest is in establishing that Aryans and Dravidians, and by extension Europeans and Dravidians, are the same people genetically.
Mike the question is for Dr. Winters. He doesn't subscribe to your Dravidian albino theory
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
The Aryan/Arian Invasion
Indians, particularly Hindus have always been rather schizoid on the subject of the Aryan Invasion theory. Many argue that the Aryans came as migrants, not as invaders. And of course, because Hindus are mainly the Mulattoes of Dravidians and Aryans, they feel a loyalty to both.
But here, the fact of the Aryan Invasion, whether it be migration or invasion, is of no consequence to us. Our interest is in establishing that Aryans and Dravidians, and by extension Europeans and Dravidians, are the same people genetically.
Mike the question is for Dr. Winters. He doesn't subscribe to your Dravidian albino theory
Reconstructing Indian Population History David Reich,1,2,* Kumarasamy Thangaraj,3,* Nick Patterson,2,* Alkes L. Price,2,4,* and Lalji Singh3 Author information ► Copyright and License information ► The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Nature See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Go to: Abstract India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers.Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years due to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, different in each group, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.
Reconstructing Indian Population History David Reich,1,2,* Kumarasamy Thangaraj,3,* Nick Patterson,2,* Alkes L. Price,2,4,* and Lalji Singh3 Author information ► Copyright and License information ► The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Nature See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Go to: Abstract India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers.Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years due to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, different in each group, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.
We compared our autosomal estimates of ANI ancestry to Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup frequencies. Y chromosome analysis has shown that traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speaking groups have elevated frequencies of alleles that are also common in West Eurasians5,6. However, mtDNA analysis shows elevated frequencies of haplogroups common in West Eurasians only in northwest India7,8,43. Comparing the autosomal estimates of ANI ancestry to the frequencies of haplogroups characteristic of West Eurasians, we find a significant correlation on the Y chromosome (P=0.04) and a more marginal correlation in mtDNA (P=0.08) (Table S6 and Figure S7). The stronger gradient in males, replicating previous reports, could reflect either male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less, or female gene flow in the reverse direction. However, extensive female gene flow in India would be expected to homogenize ANI ancestry on the autosomes just as in mtDNA, which we do not observe. Supporting the view of little female ANI ancestry in India, Kivisild et al.44 reported that mtDNA ‘haplogroup U’ splits into two deep clades. ‘U2i’ accounts for 77% of copies in India but ~0% in Europe, and ‘U2e’ accounts for 0% of all copies in India but ~10% in Europe. The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
Priya Moorjani,1,2,6,∗ Kumarasamy Thangaraj,3,6,∗∗ Nick Patterson,2 Mark Lipson,4 Po-Ru Loh,4 Periyasamy Govindaraj,3 Bonnie Berger,2,4 David Reich,1,2,7 and Lalji Singh3,5,7
It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies could be particularly revealing about Indian history because they have the potential to directly reveal the geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their admixture.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
"The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies could be particularly revealing about Indian history because they have the potential to directly reveal the geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their admixture."
So how are supposed to know that this mixture was not actually part of the already diverse existing genome of the genetically diverse Indian population at that time.
And how does this disprove the albino theory since it doesn't at all?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Note: second column at left distinguishes ASI groups from ANI Also note Haplogroup H is YDNA version, not to be confused with Hap H mtDNA very common in Europe
As per an "invasion" rather than a migration, that can't be proven -or by trying to interpret mythology
The study (the above David Reich article) finds that there are differences between caste groups and tribals and between Indo-European speakers and Dravidian speaking population, but despite those differences, they are closer to each other than to outsiders like Europeans or East Asians. This is because, after the founder event, only few external genes mixed into the Indian gene pool. Thus the Dravidian Karunanidhi and the Indo-European speaking Mallika Sherawat are genetically not much different or in simple terms: there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide.
While no divide exists, what exists is a gradient with different groups having different levels of ANI in them, including Dravidian speakers and tribals. The level of ANI varies from 39 – 71% with higher values in upper castes and Indo-European speakers.
Thus if mainland tribals and Dravidian speakers are not “pure” ASI then who are? Since ANI is closer to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, those without this component can be considered to be pure descendents of the ancestral population which gave rise to ASI. The study found that there indeed is a group like that: the Onge people, who live in the Andamans and as per the last census there were 95 of them. The remaining one billion and change have some “foreign” gene in them, including K Veeramani.
When did the ANI originate? Other than the fact that ANI is genetically closer to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, what else do we know about them? Also when did the ANI-ASI mixture happen?
In paper the authors don’t give a time frame for the origin of ANI or the mixture of ANI and ASI, but speculate that the ancestral population of the ANI could have spoken proto-Indo-European. This is a bit controversial since it synchronizes events with the arrival of Aryans. But in a later press conference they pushed back on the time.
quote: “The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,” said Thangarajan. He added, “At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.”
This agrees with the journey of man over the past 160,000 years. But if ANI emerged 40,000 years back, they would not be speaking proto-Indo-European, but would be singing Frits Staal’s bird songs. Genetic evidence supports the fact that common ancestors of Indians and Europeans lived more than 40,000 years ago.
quote: “We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
and according to another study.
quote:
“The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ – that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.”
Thus Ancient North Indians emerged not during the Aryan migration but 40 millennia before that. Hence it would be hard pressed to imagine that they would wait till Max Muller and various colonials gave the go to mix with the ASI.
In the paper, the authors write, “A priority for future work should be to estimate a date for the mixture, which may be possible by studying the length of stretches of ANI ancestry in Indian samples.” That definitely should tell us what happened from the rise of ANI to present.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
first off why would there not be a migration instead of an invasion if this is what they have to pass using chariots of all things:
How would using horses and chariots be viable or even conducive in these sort of elevated terrains to invade India?
And I fail to see how this disproves the whites being albino theory at all, or even answer my original question.
In your article it says a lot of "should's", "probably", "not sure", "uncertain", "yet to figure out", which means none of what the author's wrote is entirely 100% accurate.
And again none of that disproves Mike's original albino theory or of a migration OUT OF INDIA AND THEN BACK!
There is also the case that your stupid self and the author's don't consider THE LATER INVASIONS OF INDIA BY OTHER GROUPS THAT TOOK PLACE RECENTLY, SUCH AS THE SCYTHIANS, WHITE HUNS, TURKS, PERSIANS, GREEKS ETC ETC.
Surely you don't think that from the period of now till way back then, that there would be LATER GROUPS WHO WOULD INFLUENCE THE CURRENT MODERN GENEPOOL OF PEOPLE IN NORTHERN INDIA AND CENTRAL INDIA RIGHT? SURELY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE INFLUENCED THE GENEPOOL OF INDIANS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM NOW HUH?
So using common sense, clearly trying to use Northern India's current population for the population of that region hundreds to thousands of years ago is clearly a dumbshit idea, BECAUSE A LOT OF GROUPS HAVE TRIED TO INVADE INDIA BESIDES THE ARYANS SINCE THEN, WHO MAY HAVE LEFT GENETIC IMPRINTS THERE RIGHT?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Read the additional text I put up in the previous post. The very same Reich article Clyde cites can be used to argue against the invasion theory. Whatever the case may be there seems to be two different ancestral strain in India, one overlapping with Indo Europeans
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Read the additional text I put up in the previous post. The very same Reich article Clyde cites can be used to argue against the invasion theory. Whatever the case may be there seems to be two different ancestral strain in India, one overlapping with Indo Europeans
First of all who says that there even was a singular "Indo-European" race at all? Indo-European was more of a linguistic thing then a real pure genetic marker.
You have different genes and % of haplogroups spread out and strewn all across this vast region from South Asia to Central Asia, to Europe for there to be a single IE race. The Kalash and Nuristani have mysterious native American genes and differing % of R1a as do groups like the Yezidi and none of them really have anything in common genetically with modern White Europeans except some similar genetic haplogroups, but even that differs.
What IE really was, was a shared language matrix introduced and finalized by the introduction of the Greek script into Southern and Central Asia. Because it took 15 years for IE languages to spread from Southern to northern europe but yet it took only a couple of years for Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan to cross and travel across Eurasia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There is less overlap in the YDNA between India and Europe but lets look at the YDNA in Europe some specific countries and compare it to India
R1b England 67% France 61% Germany 44.5% Italy 49%
R1a England 4.5 % France 2.5% Germany 16% Italy 2.5%
_______________
Now compare to India
R1b about 1%
R1a around 35% (Central India 50%)
Also Haplogroup O has high frequencies in many places in India while it's so low in Europe it doesn't even make the chart
So as we can see Europe and India are not that closely matching
So the Dravidian albino thing ain't working, moreso when you add in the mtDNA
You will find Mike constantly flip flopping between "Dravidian albinos" and "Central Asians"
It's simple, look at the R1b frequencies on the South East Asian chart, very low. Need I say more? That is the the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe !!!
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There is less overlap in the YDNA between India and Europe but lets look at the YDNA in Europe some specific countries and compare it to India
R1b England 67% France 61% Germany 44.5% Italy 49%
R1a England 4.5 % France 2.5% Germany 16% Italy 2.5%
_______________
Now compare to India
R1b about 1%
R1a around 35% (Central India 50%)
Also Haplogroup O has high frequencies in many places in India while it's so low in Europe it doesn't even make the chart
So as we can see Europe and India are not that closely matching
So the Dravidian albino thing ain't working, moreso when you add in the mtDNA
You will find Mike constantly flip flopping between "Dravidian albinos" and "Central Asians"
It's simple, look at the R1b frequencies on the South East Asian chart, very low. Need I say more? That is the the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe !!!
Actually the Dravidian Albino thing is working you moron, because there is still a large % or R1a in Eastern, Central and Northern Europe and because R1a originated from that part of the world, even if the European R1a clade is different, it still is R1a at the end.
Second of all, your chart says that all the different European "white" groups have different genes and different mtdna from each other. Even enough to be distinct groups from each other on a genetic level.
But they are all counted and seen as part of a united "white group" whom just happens to be in Europe. So what unites all these groups into looking "white"? Why it's nothing other then ALBINISM!
Since even though Indian albino's might have different genes, THEY STILL LOOK LIKE WHITE EUROPEANS AND EXACTLY LIKE WHITE EUROPEANS WITH THE SAME RANGE OF HAIR AND EYE COLORS AS WHITE EUROPEANS!
Therefore White Europeans are albino's because albinism MAKES THE DIFFERENT WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS LOOK THE WAY THEY DO! And white Europeans are the part albino's of Africans and also Indians because they contain genes of both groups and also suffer from the albinism defect!
Even though their haplogroup and genetic clades might be different, White Europeans are still albino's because OF THE FACT OF ALL THESE WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS BEING DIFFERENT GENETICALLY FROM EACH OTHER, NEUTRALIZING THE CLAIM THAT EUROPEANS ARE NOT ALBINO DRAVIDIAN'S OR AFRICANS; WHEN THEIR ALBINO'S LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THEM AND FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA OF HAVING SOME DIFFERENT GENES DESPITE ALL THE SO CALLED WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS ALSO HAVING DIFFERENT GENES FROM EACH OTHER BUT STILL SHARING CHARACTERISTICS AND TRAITS OF ALBINISM LIKE WHITE SKIN, DIFFERENT COLORED EYES AND HAIR ETC ETC!
Because different European groups have different genes while sharing haplogroups, how does this negate the fact that Indian Albino's are also White Europeans despite having different genes but SIMILAR Haplogroups WITH VARIOUS EUROPEAN GROUPS BUT LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE THEM?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Actually the Dravidian Albino thing is working you moron, because there is still a large % or R1a in Eastern, Central and Northern Europe and because R1a originated from that part of the world, even if the European R1a clade is different, it still is R1a at the end.
Second of all, your chart says that all the different European "white" groups have different genes and different mtdna from each other. Even enough to be distinct groups from each other on a genetic level.
But they are all counted and seen as part of a united "white group" whom just happens to be in Europe. So what unites all these groups into looking "white"? Why it's nothing other then ALBINISM!
Since even though Indian albino's might have different genes, THEY STILL LOOK LIKE WHITE EUROPEANS AND EXACTLY LIKE WHITE EUROPEANS WITH THE SAME RANGE OF HAIR AND EYE COLORS AS WHITE EUROPEANS!
Therefore White Europeans are albino's because albinism MAKES THE DIFFERENT WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS LOOK THE WAY THEY DO! And white Europeans are the part albino's of Africans and also Indians because they contain genes of both groups and also suffer from the albinism defect!
Even though their haplogroup and genetic clades might be different, White Europeans are still albino's because OF THE FACT OF ALL THESE WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS BEING DIFFERENT GENETICALLY FROM EACH OTHER, NEUTRALIZING THE CLAIM THAT EUROPEANS ARE NOT ALBINO DRAVIDIAN'S OR AFRICANS; WHEN THEIR ALBINO'S LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THEM AND FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA OF HAVING SOME DIFFERENT GENES DESPITE ALL THE SO CALLED WHITE EUROPEAN GROUPS ALSO HAVING DIFFERENT GENES FROM EACH OTHER BUT STILL SHARING CHARACTERISTICS AND TRAITS OF ALBINISM LIKE WHITE SKIN, DIFFERENT COLORED EYES AND HAIR ETC ETC!
Because different European groups have different genes while sharing haplogroups, how does this negate the fact that Indian Albino's are also White Europeans despite having different genes but SIMILAR Haplogroups WITH VARIOUS EUROPEAN GROUPS BUT LOOKING EXACTLY LIKE THEM?
That's why I so often say to Lioness:
Damn you're stupid!
I mean the numbers are there for all to see, yet this idiot tries to lie about it.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^And oh ya, look where the English: R1b 67%, France 61%, Germany 44.5%, Italy 49%:
GOT THEIR R1b...
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Some of you may remember that MOM theorized that African Albinos and Dravidian Albinos together formed the White race. I rejected it because I felt it was unworkable and there was no evidence to support it. Because though not all Europeans have Caucasian features, the overwhelming majority do. Plus, most Europeans are NOT pure Albino, most show at least SOME Black admixture. See Benjamin Franklin's description of Europeans circa 1755. THE PURER ALBINOS MAY HAVE KILLED THEM OFF SINCE.
BUT YET CLEARLY "WESTERN" EUROPEANS HAVE THE AFRICAN GENES OF R1b.
SO HOW DID THEY GET IT?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Benjamin Franklin describes Europe of 1751: (Benjamin Franklin essay).
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Well now Mike has dropped the Dravidian albino thing and is on the same page with xyyman , Western Europeans are depigmented Africans, the R1b connect Europeans are Chadian albinos
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Well now Mike has dropped the Dravidian albino thing and is on the same page with xyyman , Western Europeans are depigmented Africans, the R1b connect Europeans are Chadian albinos
.
DAMN YOU'RE STUPID!!!
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Some of you may remember that MOM theorized that African Albinos and Dravidian Albinos together formed the White race. I rejected it because I felt it was unworkable and there was no evidence to support it. Because though not all Europeans have Caucasian features, the overwhelming majority do. Plus, most Europeans are NOT pure Albino, most show at least SOME Black admixture. See Benjamin Franklin's description of Europeans circa 1755. THE PURER ALBINOS MAY HAVE KILLED THEM OFF SINCE.
BUT YET CLEARLY "WESTERN" EUROPEANS HAVE THE AFRICAN GENES OF R1b.
SO HOW DID THEY GET IT?
I'm sorry but what evidence is there not to support it? There is a huge % of R1a, a Eurasian haplogroup in Eastern Europe, some in Central Europe, and a significant chunk in Scandinavia, and little in Western Europe.
You have to explain how even a minuscule % of R1a ended up in R1b heavy western Europe and all the way to even Iceland and Ireland. The only explanation has to be that Dravidian Albino groups from Central Asia, once they started invading Europe in large numbers starting from the Italics to the Gothic/Germanic to the Slavic migrants into Europe BROUGHT R1a into Europe AND MIXED HEAVILY.
The amount of admixture of R1a in Europe in different periods of history in Europe, differed by the different periods of waves of IE groups from Eurasia coming in at different times in history.
The earliest Eurasian migrants into Europe were not enough population wise TO OVERWHELM the presence of European Black Albino's carrying R1b, North of the alps, UNLIKE IN EASTERN EUROPE TODAY! So the earliest Eurasian migrants WERE ABSORBED INTO THE R1b BLACK EUROPEAN POPULATION IN WESTERN, CENTRAL, NORTH-WEST AND NORTHERN EUROPE!
Slavic people are high carriers of haplogroup R1a, and have very little R1b if any R1b. They are recent migrants to Europe. And it's documented that they INDEED DID ORIGINATE FROM EURASIA AND NOT EUROPE!
To explain why Western European groups, have even some R1a can be explained by earlier Eurasian migrants coming in and mixing with Black European albino's. You have to come to this scenario:
Remember all the towns, cities, and villages, and civilizations in EUROPE WERE EARLY PRIMARILY IN SOUTHERN AND SOUTH-WEST TO SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE! NORTHERN, CENTRAL, NORTHWEST, AND NORTHEAST EUROPE WERE BACKWATERS, HEAVILY COVERED IN FORESTS AND MOUNTAINS AND UNTAMED WILDLANDS! To the Romans and Greeks, Northern/Central/North-west/north-east Europe WAS NO DIFFERENT THEN THE JUNGLES OF THE CONGO WAS TO EUROPEAN EXPLORERS!
I posted a literacy map of Europe that shows how literacy spread to Europe via the expansion of the Greco-Roman empire and Christian monks, coincidentally, civilizations/towns/roads/villages/cities also spread with their spread IN EUROPE AT THE SAME TIME AND COINCIDED WITH THE SPREAD OF LITERACY TO EUROPE!
For most of history before the Greco-Roman expansion into the rest of Europe from the South, all of Northern and most of Western Europe was basically wild lands without much of infrastructure to support large scale populations and civilizations.
Thus this is the likely locations for where black European albino's sought refuge and shelter to escape persecution and hostility from the original Black Europeans. They carried R1b!, however not all Europeans have "some Black admixture", especially in regards to Northern Europeans. Remember that a Black European albino still counts as a Black person on a genetic table.
In Northern Germany, Scandinavia, and Central Europe, you find EQUAL AMOUNTS OF BOTH R1b AND R1A MIXED! YET IN EASTERN EUROPE YOU HAVE A HIGHER % OF R1a AS OPPOSED TO WESTERN EUROPE, EXACTLY AS YOU SEE IN THE GENETIC TABLE POSTED! CLEARLY BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO'S AND DRAVIDIAN's HAD TO HAVE MIXED IN THE PAST TO HAVE CREATED THE MODERN WHITE SCANDINAVIAN AND GERMANIC GENEPOOLS!
So clearly there were Black European albino's carrying R1b in the wildlands of historical Northern/Central Europe, but they mixed with Eurasian R1a MIGRANTS LATER ON AS IS EVIDENT IN CENTRAL /NORTHERN EUROPE AND SCANDINAVIA TODAY!
And the reason why people from these groups LOOK SO LILY WHITE DESPITE CARRYING BLACK ROOTED AND AFRICAN HAPLOGROUPS AND GENES, IS BECAUSE BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO'S CARRYING R1b MIXED WITH DRAVIDIAN ALBINO'S CARRYING R1a IN NORTHERN EUROPE!
HOWEVER IN SOUTHERN EUROPE AND PARTS OF WESTERN EUROPE, you can still see evidence of foreign black admixture in the form of skin tones and shades on people from these regions which can be dark.
But my theory explains the contrasting skin tones and appearances and different genes of the different regions of Europe with it's different racial groups. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^And oh ya, look where the English: R1b 67%, France 61%, Germany 44.5%, Italy 49%:
GOT THEIR R1b...
. So the question is...
How did Dravidian Albinos from Central Asia pick-up the African R1b gene?
As background, you will recall that Britain, France, Italy, and Germany: the countries with the most R1b people, are just chock full of Germanics!
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
Mike recall that at various points in history, the whole Germanic thing was not even applied to a singular race but to a shared culture and linguistic group. Herodotus and various Greeks historians hint at this when he says that the Sarmatians and Alans joined with the Goths to settle various parts of Europe.
However from my prowling and lurking on various racist forums like theapricity, what i've heard is that ALL OF THE SO CALLED GERMANIC GROUPS AND INVADERS LAUNCHED THEIR INVASIONS FROM SCANDINAVIA AND NORTHERN EUROPE TO THE REST OF EUROPE!
Even racialist and racist Scandinavians and Germans say that the Gothic and Germanic tribes in Europe originated from Scandinavia and then filtered to the rest of Europe via the later migrations. Sweden was once called the "land of the goths", and many Whites consider Northern Germany and Scandinavia to hold the "true Germanic people".
And if you look at the genetic tables and data of modern White Scandinavians, you do see that they are an equal mix of both R1b and R1a. Thus the so called Gothic peoples and actual Germanics had to be result of Black European albino's and Dravidian Albino's mixing, and this coincides with modern history and the whole corded ware/bell beaker fiasco and the migration period.
Another interesting group is the Welsh, said to have gone to more isolated parts of the British Isles TO HIDE AND FOR PROTECTION from the Romans, Saxons etc.
However don't you think that the Welsh could ALSO BE A REMNANT OF THE BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO POPULATION WHO WENT TO THE MOST REMOTE PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES TO STAY ISOLATED AND PROTECTED BEFORE THE SAXON INVASIONS FROM THE BLACK CELTIC PEOPLE?
Remember reading about that French scientist named Maupertuis who said that Sri Lankan albino's that looked EXACTLY LIKE WHITE EUROPEANS WENT TO THE MOST REMOTE PART OF THE ISLAND OF SRI LANKA TO STAY ISOLATED AND PROTECTED? Infact they look so much like White Europeans that Maupertuis theorized THAT THEY WERE SHIP WRECKED EUROPEANS?
Well why can't you apply this scenario to the Welsh being the albino's of Black Celts going to the most remote part of the British Isles to hide and stay isolated? And apply the same to the Basque except with the Basque seeking refuge in the Pyrenees? Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
However from my prowling and lurking on various racist forums like theapricity, what i've heard is that ALL OF THE SO CALLED GERMANIC GROUPS AND INVADERS LAUNCHED THEIR INVASIONS FROM SCANDINAVIA AND NORTHERN EUROPE TO THE REST OF EUROPE!
is this true ?proofs?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
The answer to this mystery lies in the original nature of the Albino. Today we know them as conquers of the world. But when they first reached civilization, they were ungainly clods and easy prey for Blacks like today's Berbers and Arabs, who crave White pussy.
The Roman historian Tacitus speaks to the trials and tribulation faced by the PURE ALBINO GERMANICS: As a reminder, this is how Tacitus described them. "All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them."
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVEN TODAY, THE ALBINOS GREATEST FEAR IS THAT BLACK MEN WILL FUCH THEIR WOMEN. With that in mind, consider this passage from Tacitus Book.
8. Tradition says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women, that the strongest tie by which a state can be bound is the being required to give, among the number of hostages, maidens of noble birth.
Clearly then, as the Central Asian Albinos arrived all over Europe, there was indigenous Blacks with haplogroup R1b, just waiting to attack them and take whatever goods they had, then they took their women as sex toys.
So then, the indigenous Black Europeans, were killing German Males, and taking their Females as spoils of War. Their mulatto offspring gained the ability to produce "Some" Melanin in their skin, and also gained a strengthening measure of genetic diversity. But most importantly, the German females were probably not taken as wives, they were simply "despoiled" and allowed to return to their tribes.
Y-dna does not change, it is passed from father to son, regardless of whether the father is Black or White. Thus their "Mulatto" Male offspring would retain the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler father. When these mulatto males bred with their tribal White females, their resultant male offspring would be Quadroons (1/4) Black, but still with the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler grandfather. When these Quadroon males bred with their tribal White females, their resultant male offspring would be Octoroons (1/8) Black, but still with the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler great grandfather - and so on.
Of course the opposite is also true on the maternal Mtdna side, a Mulatto female breeding with an Albino Y-dna haplogroup "R" male, would produce Quadroon male offspring with the Y-dna haplogroup "R" of their Albino father.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: However from my prowling and lurking on various racist forums like theapricity, what i've heard is that ALL OF THE SO CALLED GERMANIC GROUPS AND INVADERS LAUNCHED THEIR INVASIONS FROM SCANDINAVIA AND NORTHERN EUROPE TO THE REST OF EUROPE!
is this true ?proofs?
You're really going to quote Albinos from Albino sites???
There is no substitute for doing the work, Tacitus and other Roman writers wrote about the Albino tribes arriving in Roman territory, you have to read the material.
The Byzantine historian Zosimus (491-518), In his book "Historia Nova" gives this account as to why the White tribes (Germanics and Slavs) started westward into Europe.
The Roman historian Jordanes, in his book on the history of the Goths, called "Getica" (circa 551 A.D), gives this account as to why the White tribes (Germanics and Slavs - Turks came later) started westward into Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Mike it sounds like you're just freestyling, making up nonsense as you go along The older clades in Europe are not R1b ! -fail
-and the oldest human remains carrying Hg R were found in Siberia, the Mal'ta boy
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mike it sounds like you're just freestyling, making up nonsense as you go along The older clades in Europe are not R1b ! -fail
-and the oldest human remains carrying Hg R were found in Siberia, the Mal'ta boy
He,he,he,he:
Do you have any idea of what you're trying to talk about?
If so, explain it to us.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Again for the stupid.
a) the oldest haplogroups of Europe are not R
b) the oldest remains discovered carrying haplogroup R were found in Siberia
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The answer to this mystery lies in the original nature of the Albino. Today we know them as conquers of the world. But when they first reached civilization, they were ungainly clods and easy prey for Blacks like today's Berbers and Arabs, who crave White pussy.
The Roman historian Tacitus speaks to the trials and tribulation faced by the PURE ALBINO GERMANICS: As a reminder, this is how Tacitus described them. "All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them."
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVEN TODAY, THE ALBINOS GREATEST FEAR IS THAT BLACK MEN WILL FUCH THEIR WOMEN. With that in mind, consider this passage from Tacitus Book.
8. Tradition says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women, that the strongest tie by which a state can be bound is the being required to give, among the number of hostages, maidens of noble birth.
Clearly then, as the Central Asian Albinos arrived all over Europe, there was indigenous Blacks with haplogroup R1b, just waiting to attack them and take whatever goods they had, then they took their women as sex toys.
So then, the indigenous Black Europeans, were killing German Males, and taking their Females as spoils of War. Their mulatto offspring gained the ability to produce "Some" Melanin in their skin, and also gained a strengthening measure of genetic diversity. But most importantly, the German females were probably not taken as wives, they were simply "despoiled" and allowed to return to their tribes.
Y-dna does not change, it is passed from father to son, regardless of whether the father is Black or White. Thus their "Mulatto" Male offspring would retain the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler father. When these mulatto males bred with their tribal White females, their resultant male offspring would be Quadroons (1/4) Black, but still with the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler grandfather. When these Quadroon males bred with their tribal White females, their resultant male offspring would be Octoroons (1/8) Black, but still with the Y-dna haplogroup "R1b" of their despoiler great grandfather - and so on.
Of course the opposite is also true on the maternal Mtdna side, a Mulatto female breeding with an Albino Y-dna haplogroup "R" male, would produce Quadroon male offspring with the Y-dna haplogroup "R" of their Albino father.
That can't only be the case, because then we would find an equal or significant chunk of R1b in Eastern Europe as well. And that doesn't explain why Scandinavia has an equal % of R1b and R1a, when most of Northern Europe and Scandinavia had no civilizations and were covered with trees and forests, like the Congo in Africa today.
The vast region of Northern Europe was considered a giant wildland. And how come today the highest % of red hair is found in places like Ireland and Scotland, and not the rest of Europe where this took place? Surely the Saxons had nothing to do with that?
And also that doesn't negate the fact that Black Europeans might have infact had their own albino's, just like Blacks in Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya etc etc do today in Europe. I mean how then are you going to explain albino R1b carrying groups like the Welsh and Basque who have little to any R1a haplogroup yet look completely white on the outside? They have to be the remnants of Europe's ORIGINAL BLACK EUROPEAN ALBINO POPULATIONS!
There were different waves of Eurasians entering into Europe, the Avars and Alans were great warriors and horseman that even Genghis Khan and the Huns used them for their campaigns. The Scythians and Sarmatians were definitely no pushovers other. Not all them of would allow their women to be taken captive into war just like that, because a lot of Dravidian central asian albino tribes had women warriors too!
What characterizes the Indo-European albino's was that they were very warlike, that's why they were called the "corded ware battle axe" culture. A hint of this is in how the Aryan tribes were in antiquity, they were described as being brutish and warlike/savage.
And again, this couldn't have been the only scenario because we find very little R1b in Eastern Europe and various R1b spread here and there through the rest of Eurasia.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Mindovermatter - If you had read the related histories, you would see the error of your arguments. Do you see lioness inane comments, same problem.
Since it takes years to acquire that knowledge, Suffice to say that Black Europe was inhabited by different types of Blacks, who entered at different times, through different paths.
This link will help you understand the movements of ancient man. Note the list of the oldest DNA in a blue table near the bottom.
Note: second column at left distinguishes ASI groups from ANI Also note Haplogroup H is YDNA version, not to be confused with Hap H mtDNA very common in Europe
As per an "invasion" rather than a migration, that can't be proven -or by trying to interpret mythology
The study (the above David Reich article) finds that there are differences between caste groups and tribals and between Indo-European speakers and Dravidian speaking population, but despite those differences, they are closer to each other than to outsiders like Europeans or East Asians. This is because, after the founder event, only few external genes mixed into the Indian gene pool. Thus the Dravidian Karunanidhi and the Indo-European speaking Mallika Sherawat are genetically not much different or in simple terms: there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide.
While no divide exists, what exists is a gradient with different groups having different levels of ANI in them, including Dravidian speakers and tribals. The level of ANI varies from 39 – 71% with higher values in upper castes and Indo-European speakers.
Thus if mainland tribals and Dravidian speakers are not “pure” ASI then who are? Since ANI is closer to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, those without this component can be considered to be pure descendents of the ancestral population which gave rise to ASI. The study found that there indeed is a group like that: the Onge people, who live in the Andamans and as per the last census there were 95 of them. The remaining one billion and change have some “foreign” gene in them, including K Veeramani.
When did the ANI originate? Other than the fact that ANI is genetically closer to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, what else do we know about them? Also when did the ANI-ASI mixture happen?
In paper the authors don’t give a time frame for the origin of ANI or the mixture of ANI and ASI, but speculate that the ancestral population of the ANI could have spoken proto-Indo-European. This is a bit controversial since it synchronizes events with the arrival of Aryans. But in a later press conference they pushed back on the time.
quote: “The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,” said Thangarajan. He added, “At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.”
This agrees with the journey of man over the past 160,000 years. But if ANI emerged 40,000 years back, they would not be speaking proto-Indo-European, but would be singing Frits Staal’s bird songs. Genetic evidence supports the fact that common ancestors of Indians and Europeans lived more than 40,000 years ago.
quote: “We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
and according to another study.
quote:
“The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,000 years before present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ – that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.”
Thus Ancient North Indians emerged not during the Aryan migration but 40 millennia before that. Hence it would be hard pressed to imagine that they would wait till Max Muller and various colonials gave the go to mix with the ASI.
In the paper, the authors write, “A priority for future work should be to estimate a date for the mixture, which may be possible by studying the length of stretches of ANI ancestry in Indian samples.” That definitely should tell us what happened from the rise of ANI to present.
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
.
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindovermatter - If you had read the related histories, you would see the error of your arguments. Do you see lioness inane comments, same problem.
Since it takes years to acquire that knowledge, Suffice to say that Black Europe was inhabited by different types of Blacks, who entered at different times, through different paths.
This link will help you understand the movements of ancient man. Note the list of the oldest DNA in a blue table near the bottom.
And you are not seeing your own errors, you have not refuted the fact that Black European's might have had their own albino groups as well, and sizable numbers of them, if there is a high rate of albinism in African countries like Tanzania/cameroon today.
There is also the fact that you have groups like the Basque people, and to an extent the Welsh, White Europeans who have little to any R1a admixture for what Herodotus is describing, to be the ONLY SOLE REASON for how and why R1a got mixed with certain groups in Western and Northern Europe today. Because as you can see, they clearly look white, carry pure R1b haplogroups with little to no R1a clades and with no admixture of Eurasians.
Then you have the high % of R1a in Eastern Europe and the relatively little to no presence of R1b in Eastern Europe as well, which puts a dent in your theory as to mixed R1a and R1b groups being the sole result of what Herodotus was describing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
Did they come from what is now called Sudan?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
Did they come from what is now called Sudan?
LOL. You're stupid. Their ancestors came from Nubia 6-7kya.
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Why are you calling me stupid. Nobody but you in the forum would say that Dravidians are Nubians
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindovermatter - If you had read the related histories, you would see the error of your arguments. Do you see lioness inane comments, same problem.
Since it takes years to acquire that knowledge, Suffice to say that Black Europe was inhabited by different types of Blacks, who entered at different times, through different paths.
This link will help you understand the movements of ancient man. Note the list of the oldest DNA in a blue table near the bottom.
And you are not seeing your own errors, you have not refuted the fact that Black European's might have had their own albino groups as well, and sizable numbers of them, if there is a high rate of albinism in African countries like Tanzania/cameroon today.
There is also the fact that you have groups like the Basque people, and to an extent the Welsh, White Europeans who have little to any R1a admixture for what Herodotus is describing, to be the ONLY SOLE REASON for how and why R1a got mixed with certain groups in Western and Northern Europe today. Because as you can see, they clearly look white, carry pure R1b haplogroups with little to no R1a clades and with no admixture of Eurasians.
Then you have the high % of R1a in Eastern Europe and the relatively little to no presence of R1b in Eastern Europe as well, which puts a dent in your theory as to mixed R1a and R1b groups being the sole result of what Herodotus was describing.
You are so busy arguing, you don't even know what your arguing about. As I have shown several times, the Basque are just ordinary Albinos who happen to be severely inbred. I have no clue how Herodotus got into the conversation. Sorry, but that's all I will do for you. Do the work - read!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Why are you calling me stupid. Nobody but you in the forum would say that Dravidians are Nubians
LOL.It was B.B.Lal who found the Dravidians of South India and Nubia shared the same culture. ,
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
U. P. Upadhyaya and S.P. Upadhyaya have done research proving the genetic relationship between the Dravidian and West Atlantic languages. They also formerly taught in Senegal.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
Posted by Mindovermatter (Member # 22317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindovermatter - If you had read the related histories, you would see the error of your arguments. Do you see lioness inane comments, same problem.
Since it takes years to acquire that knowledge, Suffice to say that Black Europe was inhabited by different types of Blacks, who entered at different times, through different paths.
This link will help you understand the movements of ancient man. Note the list of the oldest DNA in a blue table near the bottom.
And you are not seeing your own errors, you have not refuted the fact that Black European's might have had their own albino groups as well, and sizable numbers of them, if there is a high rate of albinism in African countries like Tanzania/cameroon today.
There is also the fact that you have groups like the Basque people, and to an extent the Welsh, White Europeans who have little to any R1a admixture for what Herodotus is describing, to be the ONLY SOLE REASON for how and why R1a got mixed with certain groups in Western and Northern Europe today. Because as you can see, they clearly look white, carry pure R1b haplogroups with little to no R1a clades and with no admixture of Eurasians.
Then you have the high % of R1a in Eastern Europe and the relatively little to no presence of R1b in Eastern Europe as well, which puts a dent in your theory as to mixed R1a and R1b groups being the sole result of what Herodotus was describing.
You are so busy arguing, you don't even know what your arguing about. As I have shown several times, the Basque are just ordinary Albinos who happen to be severely inbred. I have no clue how Herodotus got into the conversation. Sorry, but that's all I will do for you. Do the work - read!
Yes I do know what I'm arguing about but you don't seem to. Herodotus came into the conversation to explain the mixed distribution of R1b and R1a, and the mystery of it in Central and Northern Europe. However that explanation is not sufficient because you wouldn't have the contrast in skin color and looks that they do with Southern Europe since southern Europe is also supposedly mixed with recent Black admixture and this admixture is apparent in their outside appearance.
The Basque are special because they are one of the oldest remaining white European groups as any mainstream european article will tell you. They along with the Basque in Southern France have zero if any % of R1a clades or genes, and yet they look white or albino as any other average euro albino. Their origins remain unclear, but I do know their origins!
Using basic deductive logic, the Basque have to be the remnants of Black Europe's own albino populations if R1b was carried to Europe by Black people! Because the Basque only have R1b and only R1b and no R1a whatsover which makes them pretty old. Same with the Welsh people, they have some R1a and other people of Vasconic stock.
There is also the mystery of Finno-ugric speakers and people like the Estonians, Saami, Finns and their languages and appearances. Their origins and the time frame of them and who they are, is still being studied.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Click on Video below
.
My video on the Indus Valley support for the AIT is supported by the dating of the Mahabharata.
Even B,B, Lal, dates the Mahabharata to the time period of the Plain Grey Ware (PGW) associated with the AIT. .
.
Dr. Lal, who does not support the AIT, makes it clear that all the cities mentioned in the Mahabharata exist today and date back to 800-1000 BC. See:
Clyde I am the only one listening to what you are saying. The rest of them are following Mike on "Dravidian albinos". If one were to link that theory with your theory it would mean modern "white" Europeans were living in Africa 6-8,000 year ago and were Nubian.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ Here's the rest of the chart, Basques included
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132 [/QB]
Most scientists think humans originated in Africa and some people then left Africa 60,000 year ago or more
But you are saying Dravidians are Nubians who only left Africa 5-7,000 years ago.
Do you have any full sentence or paragraph quotes from the above authors supporting this theory of a relatively very recent migration of Nubians from Africa to India ?
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
the lioness,: "-and the oldest human remains carrying Hg R were found in Siberia, the Mal'ta boy "
The burial was discovered on the northwest shore of Lake Itkul in the Minusinsk basin in Russia. The infant's remains, which were found in what appears to be a birchbark cradle , suggest he or she was less than a year old at death. On the infant's chest, archaeologists found "eight miniature horn figurines representing humanlike characters and heads of birds, elk, boar and a carnivore,"wrote archaeologists Andrey Polyakov and Yury Esin, in an article published recently in the journal Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia.
The intricately carved figurines were likely made from deer antlers and have traces of red paint on them. "Some of [the figurines] have internal cavities and, upon coming in contact with each other, could produce noisy sounds like modern rattles,"
The infant was buried along with several other people in a burial mound called a kurgan. The people buried in the mound were part of what modern-day archaeologists call the Okunev culture.
Although writing had not yet spread to this part of the world, "the Okunev people had mastered processing of copper and bronze manufacture from which they cast blades, daggers, axes and spear-heads, fishing hooks and other tools and ornaments," Esin told Live Science in an email. In addition to metal, these people continued to use tools made of stone and bone, Esin added.
"People who were buried in this kurgan were early herders. We have images of domesticated animals (especially bulls), carts and wagons in Okunev rock art," Esin wrote.
The Okunev people may have venerated anthropomorphic [part-human and part-animal] deities. "In my view the anthropomorphic images in Okunev art could represent deities. In this period here in Minusinsk basin people have quite complicated mythology and rituals," Esin told Live Science
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde I am the only one listening to what you are saying. The rest of them are following Mike on "Dravidian albinos". If one were to link that theory with your theory it would mean modern "white" Europeans were living in Africa 6-8,000 year ago and were Nubian.
White people were not in Africa 8kya. There are white skeletons dating back to this time period.
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
[/b]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132 [/QB]
Most scientists think humans originated in Africa and some people then left Africa 60,000 year ago or more
But you are saying Dravidians are Nubians who only left Africa 5-7,000 years ago.
Do you have any full sentence or paragraph quotes from the above authors supporting this theory of a relatively very recent migration of Nubians from Africa to India ?
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde I am the only one listening to what you are saying. The rest of them are following Mike on "Dravidian albinos". If one were to link that theory with your theory it would mean modern "white" Europeans were living in Africa 6-8,000 year ago and were Nubian.
Damn, have you been drinking or are you really this dumb?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde I am the only one listening to what you are saying. The rest of them are following Mike on "Dravidian albinos". If one were to link that theory with your theory it would mean modern "white" Europeans were living in Africa 6-8,000 year ago and were Nubian.
Damn, have you been drinking or are you really this dumb?
No you are the dimwit because you do not understand what Mike says and what Clyde says does not correspond
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
[/b]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
Most scientists think humans originated in Africa and some people then left Africa 60,000 year ago or more
But you are saying Dravidians are Nubians who only left Africa 5-7,000 years ago.
Do you have any full sentence or paragraph quotes from the above authors supporting this theory of a relatively very recent migration of Nubians from Africa to India ? [/QB]
B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India. (Rao 1972).
The C-Group people used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982). The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites
References:
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Rao,B.K.G. 1972.The Megalithic Culture in South India. Mysore.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Blackand Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
[/b]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
Most scientists think humans originated in Africa and some people then left Africa 60,000 year ago or more
But you are saying Dravidians are Nubians who only left Africa 5-7,000 years ago.
Do you have any full sentence or paragraph quotes from the above authors supporting this theory of a relatively very recent migration of Nubians from Africa to India ?
B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW),
Obviously pottery ware is not biological evidence. You must be using " genetically related" in some sense not having to do with DNA
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. There were no Indo-Aryan speakers in India 40kya. In fact, the Dravidians only got to India 5-7kya.
[/b]
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The African origin of the Indians was also recognized by William Leo Hansberry.
1. 'Dravidian and Negro-African', U.P.Upadhyaya, Intnl. J. of Dravidian Linguisitsics 5:1 (1976) 32-64
2. U. P.Upadhyaya & S.P.Upadhyaya, 'Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain' , Bull. IFAN , no.1 (1976) pp.127-157
3. U. P. Upadhyaya & S.P. Upadhyaya, 'Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques', Bulletin de L'IFAN , no.1 (1979) pp.100-132
Most scientists think humans originated in Africa and some people then left Africa 60,000 year ago or more
But you are saying Dravidians are Nubians who only left Africa 5-7,000 years ago.
Do you have any full sentence or paragraph quotes from the above authors supporting this theory of a relatively very recent migration of Nubians from Africa to India ?
B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW),
Obviously pottery ware is not biological evidence. You must be using " genetically related" in some sense not having to do with DNA
Of course I am , genetics means "of or relating to origin; arising from a common origin." The shared linguistic, cultural and artifactual elements of Africans and Dravidiansa show their genetic relationship based on common origin.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Prove that Dravidians are Nubians by DNA
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Prove that Dravidians are Nubians by DNA
LOL. This is a stupid request. The contemporary Nubians have nothing to do with the C-Group and Kushites, who were the original inhabitants of Nubia.
The Kusites founded the Kerma and Meroitic civilizations in Nubia. The Nubians were never part of the Meroitic empire. Meroitic was not a Nilo-Saharan language and definitely not Nubian.
Like Egyptian, it was closely related to the Niger-Congo group.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Prove that Dravidians are Nubians by DNA
LOL. This is a stupid request. The contemporary Nubians have nothing to do with the C-Group and Kushites, who were the original inhabitants of Nubia.
So you're telling us that modern Dravidians in India are more related to C-Group and Kushites than people in Sudan today?
Is you crazy?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Prove that Dravidians are Nubians by DNA
LOL. This is a stupid request. The contemporary Nubians have nothing to do with the C-Group and Kushites, who were the original inhabitants of Nubia.
So you're telling us that modern Dravidians in India are more related to C-Group and Kushites than people in Sudan today?
Is you crazy?
No you're stupid and can't read.
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Prove that Dravidians are Nubians by DNA
LOL. This is a stupid request. The contemporary Nubians have nothing to do with the C-Group and Kushites, who were the original inhabitants of Nubia.
The Kusites founded the Kerma and Meroitic civilizations in Nubia. The Nubians were never part of the Meroitic empire. Meroitic was not a Nilo-Saharan language and definitely not Nubian.
Like Egyptian, it was closely related to the Niger-Congo group.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I actually read what you write more closely than other people
you are just afraid to elaborate of what you have been saying because you know you will look stupid saying that Dravidians are Kushites but modern Nubians in Sudan have nothing to do with Kushites
keep being afraid Clyde
Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I actually read what you write more closely than other people
you are just afraid to elaborate of what you have been saying because you know you will look stupid saying that Dravidians are Kushites but modern Nubians in Sudan have nothing to do with Kushites
keep being afraid Clyde
Using DNA why don't you prove him wrong? But this time, present your genetics information until you've proven him right. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I actually read what you write more closely than other people
you are just afraid to elaborate of what you have been saying because you know you will look stupid saying that Dravidians are Kushites but modern Nubians in Sudan have nothing to do with Kushites
keep being afraid Clyde
I sometimes entertain your post but they are mainly published for purposes of misdirection and to cause confusion among people who lack knowledge about Black history.
I have published numerous papers on the Dravidian African connection, and made post herein on this theme. A simple google search on this topic would give you about 6,810 results.
Your behavior is common to Europeans, who try to use a tactic of playing dumb to wear you out trying to explain--what they already know. This may be your normal pathology but I have no interest in playing your game.
Bobby Wright explained your behavior when he wrote:
'
quote:
For example, the majority of patients who are admitted or committed to mental hospitals in this country are diagnosed as being schizophrenic, although there is no general agreement among psychiatrists and psychologists on the definition of schizophrenia. However, even though it is not required, this presentation does have ”concrete reality,” namely, Europeans’ behavior and attitudes toward Blacks. Behavioral scientists generally agree that the outstanding characteristics of the psychopathic personality are the almost complete absence of ethical or moral development and an almost total disregard for appropriate patterns of behavior. This characteristic has led to a misunderstanding of the psychopath as someone who does not know the difference between right and wrong. This belief is not true; psychopaths simply ignore the concept of right and wrong. By ignoring this trait in the White race (the lack of ethical and moral development) Blacks have made and are still making a tragic mistake in basing the worldwide Black liberation movement on moral suasion. It is pathological for Blacks to keep attempting to use moral suasion on a people who have no morality where race is the variable.Because of their lack of ethical or moral development there is no conflict between the Whites religion and racial oppression.
.
This means that when you ask question--when you know the answer you are a psychopath in a addition to being a paid writer, sent to join this forum to confuse .
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I have published numerous papers on the Dravidian African connection, and made post herein on this theme. A simple google search on this topic would give you about 6,810 results.
Dravidians have a connection to ancient Kushites but modern Sudanese do not ???
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.