4500-year-old DNA from Rakhigarhi reveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists

[Shamsher1990]

Also, as I explained, the IVC was diverse and spread out. This study was limited to Rakhigari, and has nothing to do with MD and Harrapa.

I would rather say we do not know what it has to do with Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa. Are you aware of a similar study on Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa?

 

[MultaniGuy]

That maybe true, but the main racial differences are in facial features, the thing about India and Pakistan is that the countries are so diverse, the "Mean" would get skewed by outliers. In statistics, the mean is rarely used for that reason. Instead the median is used. You are right about that aboriginal look being more prevalent in India, but as I said,genotype does not always translate into phenotype. Let me put it this way. A person who is 60%aquiline 40% aboriginal is not much different in phenotype than the opposite. Its only when the ration theavily tilts one way that the looks become more obvious. The most extreme example of an "aboriginal" would be a scheduled tribe such as the Yanadi in Andhra Pradesh

THe most extreme example of an aquiline would be the Kalash in Pakistan. Most people are in the middle of the two, and the ratio is not lopsided enough for one to clearly dominate the other. For most South Indians, the aboriginal side dominates, for pahstos and balochis, the aquiline side dominates. But for Gujaratis. Marathis, Rajasthanis, Punjabis, SIndhis, etc. The ratio is not as strong. Up close those people may be different, but the differences are not as strong as some think. Remember the key phrase genotype does not always translate into phenotype.

So yes, you are right, in raw numbers and percentage, India has more "aboriginals." But as with all statistics, this has to be interpreted accurately to get a picture of the ground reality.

BTW if you cannot tell, I am fascinated with domography and ethnography and find them interesting fields. It makes me sad some people use them to promote racism and give themselves a sense of superiority over others(I am obviously not talking about you).


I don't think he understands the basic statistical concept of sample size.

Don't talk nonsense like @Shamsher1990 talks.

We Pakistanis have little to nothing in common with you Indians.

Now go home.

 

[Shamsher1990]

I don't think he understands the basic statistical concept of sample size.

He is a funny guy though.

 

[MultaniGuy]

He is a funny guy though.

But not as ridiculous as you are.

 

[Shamsher1990]

Don't talk nonsense like the @Shamsher1990 talks.

We Pakistanis have little to nothing in common with you Indians.

Now go home.

LOL, @Cobra Arbok See, you can do that any day.

But not as ridiculous as you are.

Sure Mian-ji sure!

 

[Rusty]

There are people who have a interest in cars, horses, coins, trainspotting, dogs, flowers and some of us have interest in history.

Who exactly are North Indians?

All the indo European language speakers.

 

[Hamza913]

I would love it if you gave me a piggy back ride.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Don't talk nonsense like @Shamsher1990 talks.

We Pakistanis have little to nothing in common with you Indians.

Now go home.

I am not even claiming Pakistanis and Indians are the same. Indians and Paksitanis have similarities and differences. It is debateable whether the similarities outweigh the differences. We have already had that debate. Out of all the differences between Indians and Pakistanis, skin color is the most superficial, and in most cases is not as different as you want to think. Why are you so keen to start arguments with me? I was having a good discussion with IP.

Don't deny it you would want the same thing too

 

[Hamza913]

Here is Lahore and they look totally different than Gujaratis.

A lot of those people do look different to the people in @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan 's pictures.

Don't deny it you would want the same thing too

I can't tell if you're joking or this forum's first open homosexual...

 

[Mamluk]

I am not even claiming Pakistanis and Indians are the same. Indians and Paksitanis have similarities and differences. It is debateable whether the similarities outweigh the differences. We have already had that debate. Out of all the differences between Indians and Pakistanis, skin color is the most superficial, and in most cases is not as different as you want to think. Why are you so keen to start arguments with me? I was having a good discussion with IP.

Forget Pakistanis, even Indians within India are not same.

Punjabi, Tamil and Manipuri are 3 different nations. Brought together with British gunpowder.

If Colonial Dutch conquered all the way up to Southern China, today you would have Chinese and Indonesians living in same country but that does not make them same people.


@Iqbal Ali @Indus Pakistan

 

[Cobra Arbok]

All the indo European language speakers.

That is a bit too broad as that would include Bengalis, Assamese, and Odias, who I would not consider North Indians. Sinhalese and Maldivian are also Indo-Aryan languages, are Lankans and Maldivians north Indian?

Forget Pakistanis, even Indians within India are not same.

Punjabi, Tamil and Manipuri are 3 different nations. Brought together with British gunpowder.

I agree. Although because most Indians are hindu, Indians in Tamil Nadu and Punjab do have cultural similarities that tie them together. I think the biggest differences between India and Pakistan are geography and religion, All others stem from those main differences. At the end of the day, the 2NT as envisioned by Jinnah was based on religion not ethnicity.

But that is off topic. Today, Indians and Pakistanis are two different people. It pisses me off when someone of either nationalities says we are the same. If that were true, why did we separate? With that being said we have to be objective. There are definitely more similarities than some here want to admit.

 

[Shamsher1990]

Forget Pakistanis, even Indians within India are not same.

Punjabi, Tamil and Manipuri are 3 different nations. Brought together with British gunpowder.

Same can be said about almost all the nations.
USA: Southern states and Norther state brought together by a brutal civil war.
Russia: Integrated with a bloody war mongering.
Japan: Brought together on the force of sword of Nobunaga.

But that is off topic. Today, Indians and Pakistanis are two different people. It pisses me off when someone of either nationalities says we are the same. If that were true, why did we separate? With that being said we have to be objective. There are definitely more similarities than some here want to admit.

They are two different nationalities and majority follower of two different religion. Thats where most of their differences end and commonality, atleast between north Indians and Pakistani, begin.

US and Canada are surely two different countries but their nationals have way more commonalities than differences. Thats roughly the situation between India and Pakistan. Infact thats what roughly Jinnah even wanted.

 

[Hamza913]

You do know that IVC "ASI" do not have R1a haplo-group unlike modern day Pakistani. From the research it seems IVC inhabitants were ancestors of modern day dravidians.

For the umpteenth time, nobody has a monolithic ancestry.

 

[Mamluk]

Russia: Integrated with a bloody war mongering.

Russians don't see non-Russians in the conquered land as same nation.

Japan: Brought together on the force of sword of Nobunaga.

He united same ethnic group speaking same language.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Here is Lahore and they look totally different than Gujaratis.

Thanks for proving my point.

Tall, thin, overall different facial features: long nose, large eyes, thicker eyebrows, more facial hair.

Compare to Iran. Notice similar facial features.

Afghanistan. Similarities.

India...