AIT, NEW genetic evidence

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

"David Salmon (Kettenpom)" wrote:


>
> Put another way, since the transfer -did- occur, the question is,
> extrapolating from these data, what is the maximum number of
> "Indo-Aryan"/Caucasian people entering into the South Asian bloodstream
> which would account for the figures shown, at various alternative dates?

I won't reply to some of the other points you made in your post, since
they involve assumptions I don't agree with and it would be a monumental
task to deal with them here.

However, regarding the use of the term "Caucasian types," it is
difficult to positively relate genes with phenotype.

One might think from the standpoint of phenotype that Melanesians and
Africans were closely related but so far there is not much evidence in
that direction. In fact, Melanesians are closer to Polynesians and even
Chinese according to current data.

Sun theories of yore tried to make Plains Indians and Polynesians into
Caucasoids, Proto-Caucasoids or part-Caucasoids based on narrow nose
percentages, or Ainus and Australian Aborigines into the same based on
luxuriant body hair. Again, the genetic evidence doesn't support this at
all (although some geneticists are still making valiant efforts).

There is hardly a physical feature that is exclusive to any race.

Thus, "Caucasian" features and foreign genetic contribution are
different things. The former can easily develop independent of the
latter.

The modern population of India outside of the Punjab, according to the
most reliable data (mtDNA & Y chromosome), does not appear to have major
contribution from West Asia or Europe related stocks.

Punjabis and Pakistanis show some fairly close relation to Iranians,
Afghanis, etc. but nearly as much to Europeans.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/