Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've promised myself that I wouldn't even look at these stories anymore, but it's just bad science. Actually t's not even science at all. I've been learning a fair amount about DNA and genetics since I had my test done over 4 years ago, and it piqued my interest and curiosity. I'm not an expert, but with a few basics, it's really not all that difficult to work with.
These "theories"... Out of India, Aryan Migration/Invasion, and what-not do not reflect even a drop in the DNA pool of human migration. The arguments over this are becoming more mind boggling with each one. Researchers, proponents, opponents, fans, detractors on all sides are trying to look at this in a binary, either-or, black/white way, and it just isn't that simple. Every DNA haplogroup (the X and Y chromosomes that show direct matrilineal or patrilineal descent, respectively) can be traced ultimately out of Africa, without question, and the routes of migration mapped. All along the way of that 200,000 year road trip, mutations have occurred in the DNA.
They look at excruciatingly painfully small samples of DNA from bodies, compared to the actual number of people who lived in a particular geographic location and/or migrated in or out. It is indeed possible that one person, 10 persons, 1,000 persons seem to be indigenous to an area. But what are they looking at? Autosomal DNA, the chromosomes that give us our characteristics, mix and get watered down, or when a population settled in an area, it remained stable through endogamy. Autosomal DNA only shows that populations have similar traits. It doesn't show where those traits originated, unless combined with the X (men and women) or Y (men only) DNA.
My own DNA for example... Italian-American:
View attachment 32971
The migrations of my paternal line, said to originate in the Near East:
View attachment 32973
I have ancestors who migrated into the Indian subcontinent 53,000 years ago and are still there, though in miniscule numbers (T is a rare haplogroup to begin with).
Here is the migration of my maternal line:
View attachment 32974
Migrated through South Asia, Southeast Asia and into Australia 53,000 years ago. It is still found there.
So I guess my point is that these theories and tests are saturated with confirmation bias. Everyone came from somewhere. And the older the DNA is, the more it will look like it originated in a certain geographic area. It's a shame because all parties are wasting so much time on this instead of celebrating what a people accomplished, celebrating the people themselves. I really wish they'd just drop this.
DNA in this case should just be D o N ot A rgue. Now is now. Then was then. Who cares? Sorry to have disturbed your day.
Nice, but this has not been proved to 100% certainty.Every DNA haplogroup (the X and Y chromosomes that show direct matrilineal or patrilineal descent, respectively) can be traced ultimately out of Africa, without question, and the routes of migration mapped.
Argue to your heart's content, but do not come to blows. That, is the Hindu way.DNA in this case should just be D o N ot A rgue. Now is now. Then was then. Who cares? Sorry to have disturbed your day.
Yeah, you might be of 'Kshatriya' 'varna'. Meaning that be your natural inclination. I am sort of Vishwamitra or Parashurama, carrying two traits - Brahmin as well as Kshatriya. That is why I argue so much in the forum.I lead with my chin. I’m totally convinced I’m Kshatriya.
I know this won't end any debate, because the Aryan Invasion debate never ends, too much ego involved, but it is more information.
Yeah, you might be of 'Kshatriya' 'varna'. Meaning that be your natural inclination. I am sort of Vishwamitra or Parashurama, carrying two traits - Brahmin as well as Kshatriya. That is why I argue so much in the forum.