Originally posted by balochii
Languages and genetics are two totally different things, for example a guy in Maharastra or central india might speak a indo aryan language yet genetically he will be much closer to a Tamil than to lets say a Kashmiri
Just because 70% of India speaks indo aryan languages, doesn't mean they are related to the original indo aryans
|
The first sentence is very mature. Language and race cannot be equated.
But Balochi, the part coming after the coma interprets the principles of Genetics and anthropology upside down. Firstly, genetics does not recognize "Tamils" and "Maharashtrians"
Wanna know why?
The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both
lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic
subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at
roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed.
R2 is very rare in Europe.
Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.
Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in
their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not
possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the
caste and tribal pools,” a conclusion that directly clashes with the
Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased
tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.
Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.
You make a humungous assumption that "Tamils" are a distinct genetic pool. They are not . The vast majority of Indians have just 4 mtDNA lines.
Where does your argument fit in?
I regret having to bring in Genetics to History so prematurely. But no one listens when history is enunciated.