What's new

Genetic Journey of a Pakistani

pakdefender

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
5,671
Reaction score
-8
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
First of all this is not meant to be a 'racist' thread or a thread about demeaning anyone else , its only about the genetic journey of a Pakistani ( myself ) so take it only in the spirit of science and nothing more.

As you will see , as human beings we are connected with each other in more ways than most of us know and yet each group of human beings is unique.

Anyway take it only as a scientific exercise and nothing more so here goes

Haplogroup : R1a


Y-DNA 12-marker matches


Country wise breakdown of Y-DNA 12 marker matches


Continental Journey
 
Last edited:
.
W/O much understanding of the meaning of genetic marking, here's something I'm copying off Wikipedia:-

Human population structure can be inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005). Individuals from 52 populations were examined at 993 DNA markers. This data was used to partitioned individuals into K = 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 gene clusters. In this figure, the average fractional membership of individuals from each population is represented by horizontal bars partitioned into K colored segments. Larger image available



I dropped Biology in secondary school but am taking bio-medical engineering
course these days.
 
.
I am trying to figure out who exactly are we Pakistanis?
Where did we Pakistanis originate from?


We are not Arabs, Persians, Turks or Indians.. Who are we?

I found this article I found really interesting....

Pakistanis ignorance to their roots

It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.

They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).
According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.

Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."
To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.

The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.

The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.

Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!
Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.
Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.

After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."
Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!

Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!
1) They were Cuacasianoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.
2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English.)
Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarriages between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.

Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."
Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!

"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).
The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.
What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.
So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.

Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseudo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."
Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.

Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"
The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.

Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.
The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.

Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.
Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.

Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a substitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!
Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!

Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.

Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:
-They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.

-They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo-Iranic language around the second milliniea BC.
Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.

-They are geographically located around the Indus river.

-They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.

-They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.
Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!

Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.
A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:
Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan
Posted by Pakistani

History of Pakistan: Pakistanis ignorence to their roots
 
.
While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.

Though I agree with most of the article I found the above quote questionable. This is the first time I have heard of 'colonies' of the IVC. Perhaps the author went too far in disproving the Indian connection to the IVC.
 
. . . .
it's very complicated to understand...can any intelligent man elaborate what the colorful bar-charts symbolize?
 
.
it's very complicated to understand...can any intelligent man elaborate what the colorful bar-charts symbolize?

Each individual is represented by a thin line partitioned into K colored segments. The segments are formed from the genetic data obtained from individuals using cluster analysis. The figure is used to find out how much an Individual genetic make up (or of race) is related to the geography. For Example, Bantu (S. Africa), a tribe is nearer to the genetic makeup of general population of Africa whereas Frenchman genetic makeup is nearer to the genetic makeup of general European population and 12 strands below the genetic makeup of a Bantu tribesman or at least 4 strands below the genetic makeup of general population of Africa

Hope this helps
 
.
Islam does not differentiates on DNA , its based on your faith and if you can stand side by side your brother in prayer (regardless of DNA) and bow before te god ....DNA and race is trivial when you are muslim

Perhaps thats answers your concern

Don't worry about the color dots , it will make every one dizzy just remember what Zaid Hamid says and wake up

Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/OTHERS get on with the plan

:pakistan:

All this billion dollar research when we already have answers given to us

God create Adam , and eve , and then humans populated earth
(Apologies to Hindu friends, I know you have other ideas)

Its funny how ppl draw arrows , and dots and colors and graphs , put the money where its needed
 
.
Most of what has been written in this thread is, frankly speaking, irrelevant to the topic but anyhow let’s continue

First up , let me state here that I’m a Muslim before anything else and DNA profiles and are not what really differentiate human beings , differentiation is based on 'Taqwa' alone ( now please don’t start on why is that , this is my belief so just let it rest )

Being informed means that when some one pulls out factually incorrect statements like 'Indians and Pakistanis are the same people' then there is an informed approach to explain that this is not the case and even 12-Marker Y DNA profiles are not sufficient to justify this link.

Since I started the topic, I think some explanations will help the readers.

All human beings carry their genetic code in their DNA.
All males have an XY chromosome pair. X comes from the mother and Y from the father. All females have XX chromosome pair where one X comes from the father and one from the mother.

The male sperm does not have mitochondrial DNA and this comes only from the mother side, the Y chromosome comes from the father.
In order to trace maternal lineage mitochondrial DNA is analyzed and for tracing paternal lineage Y chromosome is analyzed.

The Y chromosome has some unique characterises that it has a 'non recombining' portion which has helped trace a common marker ALL human populations. This single common marker is attributed to the 'Scientific Adam' and this originated in Africa.

When reproductive cells divide there is crossing over between chromosomes and there is 'swapping' or 'crossing' over at the chromosome level. There are proteins that help in chromosome replication but some times these proteins make 'mistakes' in chromosome replication which can lead to mutations.

Well that’s as abridged genetics as it can be.

Now coming to the 12-Marke Y DNA

Y DNA is studied for 12, 25, 37, 67 markers.

Going back to the results that I posted one can see there are number of exact matches for 12 Marker but NONE for 25, 37 and 67.

Which leads to a question.

How many matching markers can get two populations to be the 'same' , 12 , 25 , 37 or 67 ?

If we go below 12 and say match 6 markers the number of matches will be even MORE , which will allow for grouping even a wider percentage of the globe's human beings as the 'same' , wouldnt it ?

We can conclude at least one thing that 12-Marker matches are not sufficient to get two populations declared the 'same', they might share similar genetic material but they are NOT the same.

This is one thing we can conclude.

Now let’s look the R1a haplogroup which the results I got from FamilyTreeDNA show me to be part of.

I’m Pakistani from Lahore (Punjab) my paternal grandfather's village is Gujjar Khan , a small village in Punjab.

It safe to say that a large number of people in that village will have R1a haplogroup ( or at least the male members of the extended family of my paternal grandfather )

The presence of R1A in large sample of the Pakistani Population has been confirmed by many studies as well.

However R1A is not unique to Pakistan alone, R1A is found in other populations as well. For example:

Haplogroup R1a testing

Haplogroup R1a is found today across a large swathe of Asia and Europe and may have originated in South or Central Asia. R1a is most common among Pakistanis, Northern Indians, Russians, Ukrainians and the Kyrgyz and Altai peoples of Central Asia. In Europe R1a is the most common group in Slavic peoples and is also very common in Scandinavia. The presence of R1a in the British Isles is in the main due to Norse Viking ancestry, although Anglo-Saxons and Danes will have carried a smaller proportion there and there is a rare English-specific subgroup. It has been hypothesised that haplogroup R1a was carried to Europe by the Kurgan culture, who domesticated the horse.

The presence of R1A in populations in places like Ukraine, Poland have been used to find a link between the presence of R1A in the subcontinent with the 'Aryan Invasion Theory’, however R1A has also been found in Indian Tribal people which has been sited as proof that the R1A did not come from outside of the subcontinent and is not confined to the northern parts on the subcontinent. This is also being used to debunk the whole idea of the 'Aryan Invasion theory' since this is one thing that gets everyone riled up.

The final conclusion to draw is that, these Genetic studies are in-conclusive and while they give some insight into the commonality between human being these cannot be used conclusively to lump human beings together in one group.

I hope to see people contibuting in this thread based on their findings ( with an understanding of the topic also ) and not just googling and copy pasitng stuff.

Thank You
 
.
Islam does not differentiates on DNA , its based on your faith and if you can stand side by side your brother in prayer (regardless of DNA) and bow before te god ....DNA and race is trivial when you are muslim

Perhaps thats answers your concern

Don't worry about the color dots , it will make every one dizzy just remember what Zaid Hamid says and wake up

Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/OTHERS get on with the plan

:pakistan:

All this billion dollar research when we already have answers given to us

God create Adam , and eve , and then humans populated earth
(Apologies to Hindu friends, I know you have other ideas)

Its funny how ppl draw arrows , and dots and colors and graphs , put the money where its needed

I dont like it when people bring religion in every debate including science.... nevermimd ...

YAY TO YOUR POST!! ;):D
 
. .
:wave:Islam is science as well ever read Quran's translation things now discovered were int he Quran for 1400 Years..

Don't tell me you support going to mars when its pre written this is the world and it'll end right here on planet earth.:whistle:unless you believe in something else..

apart from christians/hindus etc beliefs...

Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H came as The Last Prophet and everything Prophecies already.. it started from earth it'll end here unless ofcourse you have a solid brief answer to support what's on the mars venus or jupitar for us all..
 
.
Islam does not differentiates on DNA , its based on your faith and if you can stand side by side your brother in prayer (regardless of DNA) and bow before te god ....DNA and race is trivial when you are muslim

There is no reason why one should not wonder about the journey of one's forefathers throughout history.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom