're-
Right...
Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (
mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor.
The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history.
Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources.
Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.
Reread what you posted very slowly. I have not disputed the origins of dravidians at all. Nor have I associated them with north Indians, Aryans or the IVC. In fact, the dravidian speakers are the victims of the Indo-European aggression.
The second part of this "conclusion" is merely obfuscation. Elsewhere in the very article you quoted (if you bothered to read it in full) it is stated that there is in fact no one "distinctive south Asian y chromosome landscape".
"The phylogeography of the HG R*-M207 spans Europe, the Caucasus, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia; therefore, the hypothesis that there is an HG R*-M207 expansion locus central to all these regions is both plausible and parsimonious. This is consistent with our observation that HG R*-M207 is observed at a maximum of
3.4% frequency in Baluchistan and Punjab regions, whereas, in inner India, it is 0.3%"
That's odd isn't it? This particular locus is more concentrated in Balochistan and is present as far away as Europe, but is minimally preserved in inner India. Are you implying that a locus originating in inner India and spreading outwards is now less frequent than it is in its various destinations? How is that plausible? Why did it die out in inner India but propogate elsewhere? Is it not more likely that this gene came from elsewhere and pervaded inner India to a degree, in addition to the documented flow into Europe?
Now read this bit VERY carefully because clearly, you're not actually a geneticist.
" Although any recent immigration from Central Asia would have undoubtedly contributed some R HGs to the pre-existing gene pool (together with other lineages frequent in Central Asia, such as C3 and O sub groups), other
potential events—such as range expansions of Ice Age hunter-gatherers into peninsular India from other source regions,
not necessarily far from the mountains extending from Baluchistan to Hindu Kush, on both sides of which the R1a frequency is currently the highest—could have also contributed significantly to the observed distributions, both in India and in Central Asia (Kennedy
2000). In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages. The current absence of additional informative binary subdivision within this HG obfuscates potential different histories hidden within this HG, making such interpretations as the sole and recent source area overly simplistic. "
Now, the inference made (and seized upon by you cutty pasty types) that there is no evidence that central Asia is the donor of and not the recipient of R1a lineages is a pure conjecture and a superfluous statement. Why? Because there is no conclusive evidence of the contrary either! The parts I highlighted speak clearly of conjecture and hypothesis. This paragraph is simply stating that both possibilities are possible, which is not the same as evidence for these loci spreading out of India.
We know full well that both theories are plausible. This was always true. However the weight of genetic, linguistic and circumstantial evidence lies in favour of a critical migration event into India. The wording of the conclusion is indeed fascinating given the ambiguity, inconclusiveness and outright conjecture elsewhere in this article. But wait a minute...
Here's why the conclusion seems to contradict the actual data and statements made elsewhere in the same article:
"This study was supported by grants from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, and the Indian Statistical Institute (to P.P.M.); National Institutes of Health grant GM28428 (to L.L.C.-S.); and Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 04-04-48639 (to L.A.Z.)."
Mercifully, professional publications declare vested interests.
The day that ceases, God help us all.
