Wrong. I didn't and don't deny the study. Post a link where I have done so.
Agenda driven most definitely. As is all genetics research such as this.
Post a link? Just like when I linked the thread where you made a mockery of yourself and made genetics to be some pseudo-science garbage based on who is more Aryan and Dravidian?
Anyways, that's pretty funny. You call this scientific study done by a respected processional geneticist agenda driven. Who are you to say that? You don't have a PHD in genetics or an expertise in the genetics field. Furthermore, you have clearly shown you have an agenda to separate Pakistan from India as much as possible
Also, are you that thick? You are denying the validity of the study by say its agenda driven like all genetic research which is a ridiculous and baseless claim. In addition, your claiming its results and meaning are different than what it clearly said on the source page and other genetic/dna websites throughout the web have agreed upon.
You've really not understood anything, have you?
If your conclusions from the data are true, your graphs or data whatever you call them imply that Jatts, Gujjars, Dalits from Uttar Pradesh are all the same and therefore mixed to the infinitessimal degree.
No, it wouldn't. It would imply Jatts, Gujjars and others like Sindhis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns and other Punjabis are genetically similar. Of course, these same groups would have genetic relationships with other South Asian groups like Uttar Pradesh Dalits but they would be closer to one another than these other groups. The fact is all South Asian populations are related to one another but to slightly different extents. This is what the research indicates. Also all populations in the world are mixed to varying degrees so it would be no different for South Asians.
Your stance is contradictory and you dont realize it. On the one hand, everyone in the northwest is genetically similar according to you, but on the other hand, Jatts, Gujjars, etc preserved their genetic differences from the Uttar Pradesh Dalits. You're clutching at very fine straws.
No, it's not and your making an *** out of yourself. Everyone in the northwest of the subcontinent is genetically similar save for isolated populations like the Kalash who are related but cluster with themselves. Jatts, Gujjars, etc. have preserved their sub-ethnicity and they are closer to other Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi and Pashtun populations but that doesn't mean they are completely separate from Uttar Pradesh Dalits which I haven't seen any studies on. Why don't you look at the other ethnic groups that are listed in Rosenberg's research like Marwaris, Gujaratis, and Marathis? There is an obvious relationship between them and more northwest populations like Punjabis and Kashmiris.
If you look at the clusters, you'll see the Northwest populations still have clear genetic relationships with people more south and east in the subcontinent. Anyone without an agenda can see this.
Your the one clutching at straws with your agenda. Why don't you go back to deciphering the Aryan and Dravidian admixture in South populations based on their ethnic groups. That's the kind of pseudo-science bullshit you're an expert in.
But because your conclusions are wrong, and you don't understand what the data you quote means, you've come to a ludicrous theory that Indian ethnic groups have remained pure over centuries. Nothing can be so incorrect. I'm not explaining such a simple thing to someone who has not yet grasped the basics of genetic marking results.
My conclusions are wrong? I already asked you to take apart all of the research done by professional geneticists and explain to me why I'm wrong yet you completely ignore that simple requst. With your expert knowledge on Aryaness and Dravidianess, I'm sure you'll have an easy time. I haven't come to the opinion that these ethnic groups are pure. I've come to the conclusions that certain sub-ethnic groups of Punjabis and other ethnicities rarely mix with other populations so the ethnic populations has remained relatively the same as of recently. Obviously, these groups are all admixed like any other populations but Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Kashmiris are closer to one another than to other populations.
Pakistani Punjabis have been Muslim for centuries, Indian Punjabis have been Hindu for centuries etc.
Indian Punjabis have remained majority Sikh in the most recent centuries. Also, religion has little effect on genetic relations of populations who still mostly marry based on sub-ethnicity/caste/tribe like Jatts, Gujjars, Khatris, Aroras, Rajputs, etc. Again, feel free to ask Indian Punjabis if you don't believe me.
On the whole they have not mixed as much as Koreans who have for the major part of their recent history been one country.
Mixed with who exactly? You claim Punjabis are extremely mixed with other populations when most of their admixture comes from centuries ago or even more ancient admixture when ethnic groups were still forming.
You quoted Rosenberg's research in the first place claiming everyone was similar based on that as evidence (even though it's not).
Explain why using Rosenberg's own research and data on the source page. Not using your agenda driven bullshit opinion. It will likely be difficult using your Aryan and Dravidian based scientific expertise.
The idea that Pakistani Punjabis are on average the same as Indian Punjabis is silly. If for no reason that for centuries Pakistani Punjabis would have had one religion, and Indian Punjabis another.
So, your saying Pakistani Punjabis are extremely different from their Indian Punjabi counterparts on the basis of religion? What a joke. If you said that on a genetics forum, you would be mocked for showing your agenda so blatantly but on this forum your applauded by a few incompetent users who love to see more separation between Pakistan and India on the basis of ethnicity.
Then there's the fact that a different set of sub ethnicities populate Pakistani Punjab compared to Indian Punjab.
What are these sub-ethnicities you speak? Please list them and their approximate populations. Jatts, Gujjars, Khatris, Rajputs, Aroras, Dogras etc. are all found in Indian Punjab and other groups mostly found in Pakistan like Aheers, Hindkowans and Saraikis are closely related to them. Don't list honorific titles like Syeds, Qureshis, etc. which aren't ethnic groups.
I think what i've said is more scientific than quoting a paper that you dont have a clue of the meaning of.
I think the
fact that you used the terms Aryan and Dravidian as scientific terms makes all your statements on genetics baseless and your agenda drive opinion of Rosenberg's research completely invalid.
Honestly, you can't just take back all of the comments your vehemently supported in the other thread. They make your claims and opinions on genetics appear to be nothing more than pseudo-science.
---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------
yeah i dont need ''bergs'' or ''steins'' or ''bergenhausers'' or ''rosenblatts'' to speak on my behalf
Yeah, I also think these famous Jewish geneticists don't care whether you disapprove of them speaking on Pakistani ethnic groups.
They'll continue to do their research and write papers while you sit there on your computer and disapprove.