Topic started by erumbu (@ host130.the-cloak.com) on Fri Jun 8 09:54:18 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

hi,

please check out

http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1812/18120840.htm

This preliminary research findings support AIT.

erumbu

Responses:

• From: Krishnan (@ tcache-th01.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun Jun 24 18:47:15
  
  Just a few observations.
  
  The headline on the web site reads "...upper castes are more European than Asian.", which is a misinterpretation by FrontLine. Read:
  
  --They thus conclude that Indian caste Hindus "are more likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank related and sex-specific differences in their genetic affinities to Asians and Europeans."--
  
  The upper castes are thus more European than Asian RELATIVE TO LOWER CASTES. As reported in the article, the maternally inherited DNA of upper castes was still predominantly Asian, and the paternally inherited DNA is predominantly European. Without more details and the actual results, we can only assume that upper castes are "half and half." However, the above quote that was cited on the web site, taken directly from the study, suggests the the upper castes (overall) are more Asian than European (they are referred to as Asian origin).
  
  Another contradiction:
  
  "...each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans."
  
  This was stated as it relates to maternally inherited DNA. If this is to be so, Asian DNA is dissimilar from African DNA.
  
  and later:
  
  "The genetic distances between caste populations and Africans increase as one moves from lower to upper caste groups."
  
  Is not the subject of the article that genetic distance between caste populations and ASIANS increases as one moves from lower to upper? How can the quoted statement be true when mtDNA of "each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans.?" On their spectrum, Asian DNA is on a different side from African DNA -- so either an important aspect of the study is missing, or Frontline made an error and substituted "African" for "Asian." That's what I noticed, other comments welcome.
  
  

Want to post a response?