Pakistan would become among top ten economies at its 100th anniversary: Ahsan Iqbal

[PakEye]

Economy turns around, indicators show positive change: Ahsan Iqbal

The Positive Indicators after PML(N)

 

[dawn_news]

You can't be taken seriously anymore. Go to sleep and stop being such an embarrassment. I will not be responding to you anymore.

I already told you don't quote me hinduvadi, but you keep coming back. Go to some hinduva forum where your claim can be taken seriously.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

Pakistan will become among the top 10 economies by 2047; Inshallah! Pakistani people just have to start choosing the right leaders!

However, in the current state, it is impossible. Want proof? It's a country where millions of people support, love and adore a treacherous traitor such as Altaf while also claiming to love Pakistan. Oxy"moronic" people much?

 

[INDIC]

This is what am asking him constantly that when in an academic debate you should post authentic and genuine academic and scholarly references and not your self-concocted baseless claims and figures which mainly stems from your hatred of a particular race, ethnicity, nation or community.

The problem with him is his blind hate for the Indians irrespective of their religion or background and that is why he also insults his own Muslim Pakistani Urdu speaking Muhajir country men by calling them names as Bhaiyas only because they are of Indian background though there are various races and biradaris among them but just because they have an Indian backgrounf he hates them also.

Feels sorry for him.

A combined team of Harvard Medical School and CSIR-Hyderabad is doing a genetic test of Indians since many years. They broadly divided Indian ancestry into two parts. ANI(Ancestral North Indians) related to other Indo-European people, ANI originated around 40,000-30,000 years ago, the ASI(Ancestral South Indians) originated from the African who migrated into India 65,000 years ago, the native Andamanese are distantly related to ASI. Unlike ANI, ASI are related to no race outside South Asia. A genetic test of 73 castes from India(also included Sindhis and Pathan) shows mix of ANI and ASI and result shows high amount of ANI and ASI among Indians who mixed between 4200-1900 years ago and certainly started practising endogamous caste system around first century. Most of the South Indians on average have 40-55% of ANI and most of the North Indians have 35-60% of ASI. Even the remotest and isolated tribes of India, like Paliyar Dravidian tribe of Tamil Nadu too have ANI ancestry. Now, the problem with Aryan invasion theory, the number of so called Aryans has to be extremely huge to penetrate every corner of India resulting in such high amount of ANI admixtures even in the remotest corner of India, that's not possible which put doubt on validity of Aryan invasion theory.

 

[dawn_news]

A combined team of Harvard Medical School and CSIR-Hyderabad is doing a genetic test of Indians since many years. They broadly divided Indian ancestry into two parts. ANI(Ancestral North Indians) related to other Indo-European people, ANI originated around 40,000-30,000 years ago, the ASI(Ancestral South Indians) originated from the African who migrated into India 65,000 years ago, the native Andamanese are distantly related to ASI. Unlike ANI, ASI are related to no race outside South Asia. A genetic test of 73 castes from India(also included Sindhis and Pathan) shows mix of ANI and ASI and result shows high amount of ANI and ASI among Indians who mixed between 4200-1900 years ago and certainly started practising endogamous caste system around first century. Most of the South Indians on average have 40-55% of ANI and most of the North Indians have 35-60% of ASI. Even the remotest and isolated tribes of India, like Paliyar Dravidian tribe of Tamil Nadu too have ANI ancestry. Now, the problem with Aryan invasion theory, the number of so called Aryans has to be extremely huge to penetrate every corner of India resulting in such high amount of ANI admixtures even in the remotest corner of India, that's not possible which put doubt on validity of Aryan invasion theory.

Wrong on so many levels. Only South Indians with 40-55% ANI are Brahmins, 95% of South Indians have 20-30% ANI. Please stop spreading bs when there is pretty good site harappadna.org to debunk your claims.

In north India only punjabis jats, khatris and kashmiris have 70% of ANI. Even in Punjab it depends on caste, for exemple punjabi dalit will have 50% ANI while jatt 70% ANI.

In India people with lowest ASI are Punjabi jats, khatris and Kashmiris who are 2-3% of Indian population, rest of North Indians have 40-50% ANI. In Pakistan people with lowest ASI are Baloch 14%, pashtun 20%, punjabis 30%, Sindhis 30%. In Punjab again it depends on caste because christian churas will have 45-55% ASI.

Every remote Indian tribe have ANI, these tribes usually have ANI between 10-15% rest is all ASI. That discrepancy in higher caste ANI-ASI and lower caste is the reason no one believes in OIT. Yes ANI are 30-40.000 years old and their origin is not South Asia. Otherwise ANI-ASI admixture dating should have been 30.000 years old at least instead of between 1900-4200 years old.

 

[INDIC]

Wrong on so many levels. Only South Indians with 40-55% ANI are Brahmins, 95% of South Indians have 20-30% ANI. Please stop spreading bs when there is pretty good site harappadna.org to debunk your claims.

In north India only punjabis jats, khatris and kashmiris have 70% of ANI. Even in Punjab it depends on caste, for exemple punjabi dalit will have 50% ANI while jatt 70% ANI.

In India people with lowest ASI are Punjabi jats, khatris and Kashmiris who are 2-3% of Indian population, rest of North Indians have 40-50% ANI. In Pakistan people with lowest ASI are Baloch 14%, pashtun 20%, punjabis 30%, Sindhis 30%. In Punjab again it depends on caste because christian churas will have 45-55% ASI.

Every remote Indian tribe have ANI, these tribes usually have ANI between 10-15% rest is all ASI. That discrepancy in higher caste ANI-ASI and lower caste is the reason no one believes in OIT. Yes ANI are 30-40.000 years old and their origin is not South Asia. Otherwise ANI-ASI admixture dating should have been 30.000 years old at least instead of between 1900-4200 years old.

@Nuri Natt medulla oblongata ke nut kas le tu.

 

[Malang Badshah]

Wrong on so many levels. Only South Indians with 40-55% ANI are Brahmins, 95% of South Indians have 20-30% ANI. Please stop spreading bs when there is pretty good site harappadna.org to debunk your claims.

In north India only punjabis jats, khatris and kashmiris have 70% of ANI. Even in Punjab it depends on caste, for exemple punjabi dalit will have 50% ANI while jatt 70% ANI.

In India people with lowest ASI are Punjabi jats, khatris and Kashmiris who are 2-3% of Indian population, rest of North Indians have 40-50% ANI. In Pakistan people with lowest ASI are Baloch 14%, pashtun 20%, punjabis 30%, Sindhis 30%. In Punjab again it depends on caste because christian churas will have 45-55% ASI.

Every remote Indian tribe have ANI, these tribes usually have ANI between 10-15% rest is all ASI. That discrepancy in higher caste ANI-ASI and lower caste is the reason no one believes in OIT. Yes ANI are 30-40.000 years old and their origin is not South Asia. Otherwise ANI-ASI admixture dating should have been 30.000 years old at least instead of between 1900-4200 years old.

Jatts in India are not just Punjabi. Rather Haryanvi Jatts far outnumber the Punjabi Jatts. Then there are Rajhasthani Jats, UP Jatts. Pakistan's 1st PM Liaquat Ali Khan was also a Haryanvi Jatt.

 

[khanboy007]

Nothing bad in being optimistic

but heres a look alike response from a member this democratic society

 

[ShahidT]

Wrong on so many levels. Only South Indians with 40-55% ANI are Brahmins, 95% of South Indians have 20-30% ANI. Please stop spreading bs when there is pretty good site harappadna.org to debunk your claims.

In north India only punjabis jats, khatris and kashmiris have 70% of ANI. Even in Punjab it depends on caste, for exemple punjabi dalit will have 50% ANI while jatt 70% ANI.

In India people with lowest ASI are Punjabi jats, khatris and Kashmiris who are 2-3% of Indian population, rest of North Indians have 40-50% ANI. In Pakistan people with lowest ASI are Baloch 14%, pashtun 20%, punjabis 30%, Sindhis 30%. In Punjab again it depends on caste because christian churas will have 45-55% ASI.

Every remote Indian tribe have ANI, these tribes usually have ANI between 10-15% rest is all ASI. That discrepancy in higher caste ANI-ASI and lower caste is the reason no one believes in OIT. Yes ANI are 30-40.000 years old and their origin is not South Asia. Otherwise ANI-ASI admixture dating should have been 30.000 years old at least instead of between 1900-4200 years old.

Nuri Natt, I'm not sure what this harappadna.org is, and whether they employ the scientific method (avoiding selection bias, sample verification etc.) as I'm sure you do not either unless you're involved in the 'project'.

however, the study which you were referring to can be read in it's entirety (beyond your given abstract), here:

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2013_AJHG_Priya_India_Date.pdf

let me quote a couple of sentences on the first page itself, which should make it clear where they are coming from.

[regarding date of speculated ANI and ASI admixture] "The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history"

they merely take a (or several) hypothetical period of admixture, for testing purposes (if you are familiar with research methodology), and nowhere do they confirm so and so as the definite time period where mixture occurred.

one of those hypothetical periods is prior to development of agriculture, based on the origin of distinct "ANI" ancestry being ~40,000 years ago as it was the date when the common West Asian and Indian mitoch. haplogroups split.

"Evidence for this comes from mitochondrial hapogroups (hg U2, U7, and W) that are most closely shared between Indians and West Eurasians diverged about 30,000-40,000 years BP."

another hypothetical period is post agriculture era, i.e. the theory that you propound, as addressed in the following paragraph:

"The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic affinities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Indo European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI."

this is the basic issue you are confused with, and indeed one of the lingering problems related to deciphering this historical puzzle. if you claim "pure caucasian" (whatever that means) so-called Aryans invaded south Asia, there would have to have been an incredibly large number to disseminate their markers into a very large, already settled, agricultural population of people (dravidians and/or descendants of early ASI populations). it is by common sense accepted that a small group cannot be the cause of such thorough distribution of this 'foreign' ancestry into even the most isolated of tribes in the mainland.

the amateurish mistake you seem to be making is that ancestry and genetic markers are not fixed, but dynamic, which evolve and diverge from larger groups based on local admixtures and environment. it is more plausible that language was carried to populations in south asia without a significant genetic admixture from outside in the past several thousands of years. rgvedic sanskrit speaking tribes may have brought native populations a relatively new language, which was changed significantly by the time mixture of dravidian words and standardization of sanskrit was done by Panini, to form what we know as Sanskrit or 'classical Sanskrit'.

even the above study has a sample of 571 individuals, which i'm sure you would agree is insufficient to capture the complexity and diversity of South asian gene pool. and this is a harvard medical research study which is much more humble about its limitations.

hope you understand the above points and debate on established research rather than citing a dubious harappa dna blog and its associated google spreadsheets over and over again, which has no academic credibility whatsoever, and after short lookup becomes clear is only a non serious hobby thing of some 'Zack Ajmal' fellow.

 

[dawn_news]

Nuri Natt, I'm not sure what this harappadna.org is, and whether they employ the scientific method (avoiding selection bias, sample verification etc.) as I'm sure you do not either unless you're involved in the 'project'.

however, the study which you were referring to can be read in it's entirety (beyond your given abstract), here:

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2013_AJHG_Priya_India_Date.pdf

let me quote a couple of sentences on the first page itself, which should make it clear where they are coming from.

[regarding date of speculated ANI and ASI admixture] "The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history"

they merely take a (or several) hypothetical period of admixture, for testing purposes (if you are familiar with research methodology), and nowhere do they confirm so and so as the definite time period where mixture occurred.

one of those hypothetical periods is prior to development of agriculture, based on the origin of distinct "ANI" ancestry being ~40,000 years ago as it was the date when the common West Asian and Indian mitoch. haplogroups split.

"Evidence for this comes from mitochondrial hapogroups (hg U2, U7, and W) that are most closely shared between Indians and West Eurasians diverged about 30,000-40,000 years BP."

another hypothetical period is post agriculture era, i.e. the theory that you propound, as addressed in the following paragraph:

"The third possibility is that WestEurasian genetic afinities in Inia owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Ino European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extrordinarily large to explain the fact that toay about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI."

this is the basic issue you are confused with, and indeed one of the lingering problems related to deciphering this historical puzzle. if you claim "pure caucasian" (whatever that means) so-called Aryans invaded south Asia, there would have to have been an incredibly large number to disseminate their markers into a very large, already settled, agricultural population of people (dravidians and/or descendants of early ASI populations). it is by common sense accepted that a small group cannot be the cause of such thorough distribution of this 'foreign' ancestry into even the most isolated of tribes in the mainland.

the amateurish mistake you seem to be making is that ancestry and genetic markers are not fixed, but dynamic, which evolve and diverge from larger groups based on local admixtures and environment. it is more plausible that language was carried to populations in south asia without a significant genetic admixture from outside in the past several thousands of years. rigvedic sanskrit speaking tribes may have brought native populations a relatively new language, which was changed significantly by the time mixture of dravidian words and standardization of sanskrit was done by Panini, to form what we know as Sanskrit or 'classical Sanskrit'.

even the above study has a sample of 571 individuals, which i'm sure you would agree is insufficient to capture the complexity and diversity of South asian gene pool. and this is a harvard medical research study which is much more humble about its limitations.

hope you understand the above points and debate on established research rather than citing a dubious harappa dna blog and its associated google spreadsheets over and over again, which has no academic credibility whatsoever, and after short lookup becomes clear is only a hobby of some individual called Zack Ajmal.

The paper clearly demonstrated the admixture date was between 1900-4200 years ago between 73 different groups from all over South Asia. Instead of years they explained it in generations. They came up with 1900-4200 years because they counted 1 generation as 29 years. So if we count it by 27 years then admixture date can be few hundred years here and there but not 40.000 years like before it was believed.

Anyway even this study does not make any claims, no study does weather aryans were indigenous to South Asia or not for obvious reasons. This is only about ANI which include every west asian group instead of just aryans. This study debunk yet another hindutva theory of ANI-ASI admixture being 40.000 years old.

Here is the map from where they have taken the samples.

 

[xyxmt]

According to Jim O'Neill Pakistan could become 18th largest Economy with GDP of 3.3 Trillion by 2050.

According to my forecast, at the end of PMLN tenure, Pakistan GDP will be above 450 billion.

 

[Malang Badshah]

The paper clearly demonstrated the admixture date was between 1900-4200 years ago between 73 different groups from all over South Asia. Instead of years they explained it in generations. They came up with 1900-4200 years because they counted 1 generation as 29 years. So if we count it by 27 years then admixture date can be few hundred years here and there but not 40.000 years like before it was believed.

Anyway even this study does not make any claims, no study does weather aryans were indigenous to South Asia or not for obvious reasons. This is only about ANI which include every west asian group instead of just aryans. This study debunk yet another hindutva theory of ANI-ASI admixture being 40.000 years old.

Here is the map from where they have taken the samples.

My dear as @ pegaam-e-muhabbat pointed earlier the sources your quoting have zero credibilty or authenticity. Even a poor and impoverished University from Ethiopia or Somalia will not even consider them for a comment but this does not matter to you because in reality your intention is not decent and serious academic debate rather blind hate and trolling which has completely left your brains fossilized.

 

[dawn_news]

My dear as @ pegaam-e-muhabbat pointed earlier the sources your quoting have zero credibilty or authenticity. Even a poor and impoverished University from Ethiopia or Somalia will not even consider them for a comment but this does not matter to you because in reality your intention is not decent and serious academic debate rather blind hate and trolling which has completely left your brains fossilized.

So Harvard University study have zero credibility? Lets hear it from Pak-One then the biggest hater of them all. Well of course world best universities from Afghanistan and Ehiopia studies should be taken more seriously instead of Harvard. Thats it if they study something to begin with, so at the moment all we have is poor Harvard with zero credibility

 

[Malang Badshah]

So Harvard University study have zero credibility? Lets hear it from Pak-One then the biggest hater of them all. Well of course world best universities from Afghanistan and Ehiopia studies should be taken more seriously instead of Harvard. Thats it if they study something to begin with, so at the moment all we have is poor Harvard

Am talking about those shitty blogs you were quoting as your 'academic' and 'scholarly' evidences and what the Harvard study actually says has very clearly been described by @pegaam-e-muhabbat which expresses serious doubts about a hypothesis ie Aryan invasion theory that you were trying to present as a universal truth to fulfill your agenda of getting Punjabi and Sindhi Banjaras, Gypsies and other 90% original native population of Punjab and Sindh to be declared as Rig Vedic Aryans which unfortunately will only just remain as your wet dream

 

[dawn_news]

Am talking about those shitty blogs you were quoting as your 'academic' and 'scholarly' evidences and what the Harvard study actually says has very clearly been described by @pegaam-e-muhabbat which expresses serious doubts about a hypothesis ie Aryan invasion theory that you were trying to present as a universal truth to fulfill your agenda of getting Punjabi and Sindhi Banjaras, Gypsies and other 90% original native population of Punjab and Sindh to be declared as Rig Vedic Aryans.

Which blog? I quoted Harward university study, again i don't expect you to know much anyway. If you read the paper which i doubt you will do or care, because your history knowledge is about things heard here and there to make your own mind and how you want to see them.

The study is about ANI-ASI admixture dating nothing more, they don't say anything else. Did you read what i wrote? I said repeatedly aryans are not indigenous, can you even read properly? Where did i claim aryans being indegenous to punjab? And Rig Vedic people homeland was Punjab, there is 0 doubt in it. Not Sindh or mainland India but Punjab.

Anyway talk of agenda coming from Pak-One is ironic