I am seeing ASI components in the ancient DNA found outside India. Probably you can shove it in davidski's face and ask him how :)
https://i.cubeupload.com/mTFkyU.png
The ASI component has been calculated as specified by Reich. And it is clearly evident how the ASI components outside India has diluted over time with no further input. So who invaded whom?
Well if we consider the pre-historic and related to the IE question sites of Andronovo,Sinatshta , yes its there but very low or in noise level . What will be a key is the ASI levels of Indian and BMAC samples ,personally I don't think there will be much ASI before 2000 BC from ISVC sites , but we will see. Also important will be to see the y-dna pattern over time , if there is any change or stability . I think ISVC should show good amounts of R1a along with J2 ,L and R2a .
Yeah, you and me know there is ASI because ANI is the component which drifted from ASI long time back. So by 2000BCE ANI had about 4 to 6 % ASI left due to drift, which is also seen in andronovo/sintashta.
Only in later times and change in subsistence economy post 2000BCE ANI ASI started mixing, which also might be because of expanding populations of both groups which must have started overlapping.
So my point was, ANI is not intrusive as thought by some, which perfectly lines up with what metspalu et al 2011 says, but it is a drifted part of ASI.
I think ANI/ASI is made out to be more political than science IMO.
Also one more thing, this big picture structure is clear to only those who go by OOA and re-population of Eurasia from India.
Those who go by 2 way routes from OOA one into near east and one far east, they look at India as a mix of west and east, which does not explain the phylogenetic tree. Neither can it explain the lack of ASI in SouthEast Asia.
////////
I have seen your comments on various blogs, which school do you belong to, single OOA or multiple OOA.
5 comments:
@Nirjhar
I am seeing ASI components in the ancient DNA found outside India. Probably you can shove it in davidski's face and ask him how :)
https://i.cubeupload.com/mTFkyU.png
The ASI component has been calculated as specified by Reich. And it is clearly evident how the ASI components outside India has diluted over time with no further input. So who invaded whom?
I wanted to post it there myself, but since he is deleting valid comments I dont feel like visiting his crazy one sided blog anymore.
Hi and welcome,
Well if we consider the pre-historic and related to the IE question sites of Andronovo,Sinatshta , yes its there but very low or in noise level . What will be a key is the ASI levels of Indian and BMAC samples ,personally I don't think there will be much ASI before 2000 BC from ISVC sites , but we will see. Also important will be to see the y-dna pattern over time , if there is any change or stability . I think ISVC should show good amounts of R1a along with J2 ,L and R2a .
Yeah, you and me know there is ASI because ANI is the component which drifted from ASI long time back. So by 2000BCE ANI had about 4 to 6 % ASI left due to drift, which is also seen in andronovo/sintashta.
Only in later times and change in subsistence economy post 2000BCE ANI ASI started mixing, which also might be because of expanding populations of both groups which must have started overlapping.
So my point was, ANI is not intrusive as thought by some, which perfectly lines up with what metspalu et al 2011 says, but it is a drifted part of ASI.
I think ANI/ASI is made out to be more political than science IMO.
Also one more thing, this big picture structure is clear to only those who go by OOA and re-population of Eurasia from India.
Those who go by 2 way routes from OOA one into near east and one far east, they look at India as a mix of west and east, which does not explain the phylogenetic tree. Neither can it explain the lack of ASI in SouthEast Asia.
////////
I have seen your comments on various blogs, which school do you belong to, single OOA or multiple OOA.
Hey friend,
Just a question. Where did you get the stats from ?
Thanks
Post a Comment