Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Vedic culture and its modern relevance


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#16    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 08 March 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Most Indians don't even know about the out of india theory....they still think that the Aryan Invasion was an actual event as they were taught that in school text books. Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India.

I'd like to see some sort of reference in support of the above bolded statement.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 08 March 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

You can be happy in repeating what the Linguists say or what the monopoly club say about these theories.They have been wrong every time but they never give up...and why should they give up? since every time they come up with a bull**** idea there are a lot of people who mindlessly accept them and repeat and promote them like they are facts.
Sounds like a plan.  I choose to ignore linguists, then.

Oops. I just found out that some Indian linguists support the Out of India theory.  Hmmm.  Must be bull*** then.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#17    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 08 March 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Most Indians don't even know about the out of india theory....they still think that the Aryan Invasion was an actual event as they were taught that in school text books. Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India.

I wasn't aware popularity of a theory had a bearing on its verity*. Which works out well for my OoB (Out of Brooklyn) theory. I feel like I need to work in another B to the theory name for some reason. It just seems like the right idea...

Quote

Similarly most people who realise the value of Ancient Indian knowledge and Spirituality are people who are not from India,Indians do not know the worth of their own culture and knowledge.

I'm so not going to unpack that idea. Let's just say that it's been a lead-in to lots of Really Bad Ideas throughout history.

Quote

No archaeological facts are being ignored while suggesting out of India theory.

Except all the ones that are inconvenient to its' argument. The ones virtually everyone else use to invalidate it.

Quote

You can be happy in repeating what the Linguists say or what the monopoly club say about these theories.

Yep. I'm happy to concede people with greater knowledge of a subject know more than I do. I'm humble like that. ;)

Quote

They have been wrong every time but they never give up...and why should they give up?

Quite right. When you fail at something the first time, why bother to ever get it right? Like Homer Simpsons says, "If at first you don't succeed, learn to never try." The only people who /learn/ from their mistakes are the weak ones.

Quote

...since every time they come up with a bull**** idea there are a lot of people who mindlessly accept them and repeat and promote them like they are facts.

That's right. Thank the stars /you/ were not at all like those kinds of people. (However, one of your statements above make a great deal more sense now...) You see straight to the heart of that matter, you.

Quote

Never mind you can wait till the mainstream starts promoting the Out of India theory before you start quoting it as fact and ridiculing other theories.

It's a deal! When the mainsteam linguistic community does a complete volte-face, I will no longer mock thr OoI model. But you have to play, too. When they accept the OoB model instead, you'll have to work fuggettaboutit into at least three setences a day.

Hey, that was fun. I haven't done this kind of line by line critique posts in /long/ time. It almost makes me miss Puzzler or Anagram von Orion. Or whatever his name was.

--Jaylemurph

*Although that pretty much is exactly your point, so it seems to me like you're arguing both sides here.

Edited by jaylemurph, 08 March 2013 - 08:17 PM.

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#18    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:58 AM

Orion Von Koch. AKA the other "he who shall not be named" (the main one is that dragon guy, remember?)

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#19    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,696 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:17 AM

Draconic Chronicler :td:

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#20    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:42 AM

View PostHarte, on 09 March 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

Orion Von Koch. AKA the other "he who shall not be named" (the main one is that dragon guy, remember?)

Harte

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 March 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Draconic Chronicler :td:


Stop, I say! Their names must not be said!

I remember both of them. Painfully so.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#21    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:21 AM

View PostHarte, on 08 March 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

I'd like to see some sort of reference in support of the above bolded statement.


Sounds like a plan.  I choose to ignore linguists, then.

Oops. I just found out that some Indian linguists support the Out of India theory.  Hmmm.  Must be bull*** then.

Harte
Some ?? majority of Indian linguists support the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory. Why the support it is a whole different ball game.

References-

1.
The opinion of the majority of professional archaeologists interviewed seems to be that there is no archaeological evidence to support external Indo-Aryan origins. Thus while the linguistic community stands firm with the Kurgan hypothesis archaeological community tends to be more agnostic.
According to one archaeologist, J.M. Kenoyer:

"Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-Yamuna valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts..."


The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT. Kennedy claims that the Harappan inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization are no different from the inhabitants of India in the following millennia. However, this does not rule out one version of the Aryan Migration Hypothesis which suggests that the only "migration" was one of languages as opposed to a complete displacement of the indigenous population.

2.


There are twelve accepted branches of the Indo-European family. The two Indo-Iranian branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian, dominate the eastern cluster, historically spanning Scythia, Iran and Northern India. While the exact sequence in which the different branches separated or migrated away from a homeland, linguists generally agree that Anatolian was the first branch to be separated from the remaining body of Indo-European.

Additionally, Graeco-Aryan isoglosses seem suggestive that Greek and Indo-Iranian may have shared a common homeland for awhile after the splitting of the other IE branches. Such a homeland could be northwestern India (which is preferred by proponents of the OIT) - or the Pontic steppes (as preferred by the mainstream supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis).

Mainstream opponents to the OIT (e.g. Hock) agree that while the data of linguistic isoglosses do make the OIT improbable it is not enough to unequivocally reject it, so that it may be considered a viable alterative to mainstream views, similar to the status of the Armenian or Anatolianhypotheses.


3.

The timeline of the breakup of Proto-Indo-European, according to what Elst calls the "emerging non-invasionist model" is as follows: During the 6th millennium BC, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were living in the Punjab region of Northern India. As the result of demographic expansion, they spread into Bactria as the Kambojas. The Paradas moved further and inhabited theCaspian coast and much of Central Asia while the Cinas moved northwards and inhabited the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, forming the Tocharians group of I-E speakers. These groups were Proto-Anatolian and inhabited that region by 2000 BC. These people took the oldest form of the Proto Indo-European (PIE) language with them and, while interacting with people of the Anatolian and Balkan region, transformed it into its own dialect. While inhabiting Central Asia they discovered the uses of the horse, which they later sent back to Urheimat. Later on during their history, they went on to take Western Europe and thus spread the Indo-European languages to that region. During the 4th millennium BC, civilization in India was evolving to become the urban Indus Valley Civilization. During this time, the PIE languages evolved to Proto-Indo-IranianSome time during this period, the Indo-Iranians began to separate as the result of internal rivalry and conflict, with the Iranians expanding westwards towards Mesopotamia and Persia, these possibly were the Pahlavas. They also expanded into parts of Central Asia. By the end of this migration, India was left with the Proto-Indo-Aryans. At the end of the Mature Harappan period, the Sarasvati river began drying up and the remainder of Indo-Aryans split into separate categories. Some travelled westwards and became the Mitanni people by around 1500 BC. The Mitanni are known for their links to Vedic culture, after assimilating and establishing a presence in the Hurrian homeland, they established a culture very similar to that of Vedic India. Thus the Mitanni language is still considered Indo-Aryan. Others travelled eastwards and inhabited the Gangetic basin while others travelled southwards and interacted with theDravidian people.


4.

The theory has most recently been defended by S.G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst, and Nicholas Kazanas. Nicholas Kazanas presented a paper in JIES, where Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory. In the latter issue of JIES, Kazanas responded to all his critics in the article ‘Final Reply’. OIT proponents argue that the language dispersal model proposed by Johanna Nichols in the paper "The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread" can be adapted to support OIT.. They shift the locus of the IE spread from the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana as proposed by her to Northwestern India.

Current OIT proponents propose that there is no necessary link between the fact that Sanskrit is not the oldest form of IE and the hypothesis that India is not the oldest habitat of IE. It is perfectly possible that a Kentum language which we now label as PIE was spoken in India, that some of its speakers emigrated and developed Kentum languages like Germanic and Tokharic, and that subsequently the PIE language in its Indian homeland developed and satemized into Sanskrit (Elst 1996-227).







Major Criticism
  • Postulating the PIE homeland in northern India requires positing a larger number of migrations over longer distances than it would do if it were postulated to be near the center of linguistic diversity within the family. That is, it is argued that a homeland in Central Asia is the simpler theory ( Dyen 1965, p. 15 cited in Bryant 2001, p. 142)Mallory (1989)
  • Indic PIE languages show influence from contact with Dravidian and Munda - if PIE were spoken close to Dravidian and Munda all PIE languages would show these features. That is the contact between Indic and Dravidian/Munda must have occurred after the split of PIE meaning that proto-Indic speakers would have moved into contact with Dravidians and Mundans(Parpola 2005).. (Mallory 1989)[page # needed].
  • To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars in order to make a deep enough period of migration to allow for the longest migrations to be completed.(Mallory 1989)[page # needed]


Sorces-
http://koenraadelst..../keaitlin1.html
http://indo-european...of_India_theory


#22    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:28 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 08 March 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

I wasn't aware popularity of a theory had a bearing on its verity*. Which works out well for my OoB (Out of Brooklyn) theory. I feel like I need to work in another B to the theory name for some reason. It just seems like the right idea...



I'm so not going to unpack that idea. Let's just say that it's been a lead-in to lots of Really Bad Ideas throughout history.



Except all the ones that are inconvenient to its' argument. The ones virtually everyone else use to invalidate it.



Yep. I'm happy to concede people with greater knowledge of a subject know more than I do. I'm humble like that. ;)



Quite right. When you fail at something the first time, why bother to ever get it right? Like Homer Simpsons says, "If at first you don't succeed, learn to never try." The only people who /learn/ from their mistakes are the weak ones.



That's right. Thank the stars /you/ were not at all like those kinds of people. (However, one of your statements above make a great deal more sense now...) You see straight to the heart of that matter, you.



It's a deal! When the mainsteam linguistic community does a complete volte-face, I will no longer mock thr OoI model. But you have to play, too. When they accept the OoB model instead, you'll have to work fuggettaboutit into at least three setences a day.

Hey, that was fun. I haven't done this kind of line by line critique posts in /long/ time. It almost makes me miss Puzzler or Anagram von Orion. Or whatever his name was.

--Jaylemurph

*Although that pretty much is exactly your point, so it seems to me like you're arguing both sides here.
How do you decide that someone knows more then you? Is it enough that they claim that they know more,are we to not to rely on our own critical thinking faculties? Approach of repeating only what the mainstream says sounds more like a religious tendency. Agreed everyone makes mistakes but the true scholars always entertain alternatives even when they are fully convinced of the contrary, that in my opinion would be true humility and a scholarly approach. Nothing of value can be achieved with a closed mind and by ridiculing alternatives.


#23    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:51 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 09 March 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

How do you decide that someone knows more then you? Is it enough that they claim that they know more,are we to not to rely on our own critical thinking faculties?

It is, as you say, a matter of critical thinking faculties, insofar as I can reasonably and honestly apply those skills. If I (like a lot of people here) grossly over-estimate what I know, and somehow equate twenty minutes of internet research time on a given subject, then I lose the ability to correctly judge others' authority. Generally speaking, I the less I know about a subject the more I'm inclined to trust people with advanced degrees in that subject. It isn't fool-proof obviously, and I essentially have the ability to increase my own knowledge of a subject by study to be able to further rate others. And it's also possible for someone without advanced degrees to be very knowledgable.

Then it becomes a matter of recognizing how people use data and then use analysis to interpret the data logically. If people (like the L, for instance) want to talk about linguistics, but uses terminology from 75 or 100 years ago, this indicates he either doesn't know what he's talking about or is using data that is no longer useful. Or if he uses rational data to make irrational points -- a muppet once used the word orange in a sketch, therefore all muppets originate in Kerala, for instance.

Importantly, (like science) it's an on-going process rather than a one-time event, where you have the ability to change your mind. But like science, there are still general trends that it is more useful to assume are true than to pick out constant exceptions.

Quote

Approach of repeating only what the mainstream says sounds more like a religious tendency. Agreed everyone makes mistakes but the true scholars always entertain alternatives even when they are fully convinced of the contrary, that in my opinion would be true humility and a scholarly approach. Nothing of value can be achieved with a closed mind and by ridiculing alternatives.

It is better to entertain alternatives, but not all alternatives are equal. It's deeply unfair and deeply undemocratic, yet it's undeniably true. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. I can theorize the moon spontaneously reformed itself out of Spam (or even Amour Potted Meat Food Product), but even if I truly, deeply, honestly believe that, should we send new missions to the moon just to check its' make-up? Obviously not.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#24    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,286 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 08 March 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

How do you conclude that the R1 haplogroup originated near the Caspian sea? lol....and then spread out from there?DNA studies on mummies having R1 haplogroup doesn't mean that it originated there geographically." And undoubtedly these people were the ones who spread the Indo....." lol XD. You are more sure then the people you are quoting.
I'm sorry, but I usually go with the side that has the best... most... evidence. And that is the Kurgan Theory in this case. Even if the OIT is right, Indo-European would have HAD to have gone through that region. It must have. The fact that the R1A group does not show in India till a little later, and... not in as great a percentage... shows that it immigrated there, and started somewhere else. That somewhere else is generally considered to be the steppes around the Caspian.

If you don't think the people near the Caspian spread Indo-European, then how do you propose it got to Europe? Technically my comment is true with the Kurgan Theory or the OIT.

You seem to LOL without cause and just to try to appear Authoritative.

View Postkmt_sesh, on 09 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Stop, I say! Their names must not be said!

I remember both of them. Painfully so.
Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#25    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 10 March 2013 - 05:17 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....

I have to say, I never minded him much, either. He was pin-point focused on his dragons and almost never wanted to talk about anything non-Dragon related. And he never claimed any non-Dragon expertise. Other than, you know, /everything/ for him was dragon-centred. He even had a sense of humor.

Now, OvK: I still never figured out why someone who knew everything posted here, and then refused to discuss any points. I assumed he, like Jesus, ascended directly to the Empyrean to tell god directly what he was doing wrong.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#26    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:32 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 09 March 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

It is, as you say, a matter of critical thinking faculties, insofar as I can reasonably and honestly apply those skills. If I (like a lot of people here) grossly over-estimate what I know, and somehow equate twenty minutes of internet research time on a given subject, then I lose the ability to correctly judge others' authority. Generally speaking, I the less I know about a subject the more I'm inclined to trust people with advanced degrees in that subject. It isn't fool-proof obviously, and I essentially have the ability to increase my own knowledge of a subject by study to be able to further rate others. And it's also possible for someone without advanced degrees to be very knowledgable.

Then it becomes a matter of recognizing how people use data and then use analysis to interpret the data logically. If people (like the L, for instance) want to talk about linguistics, but uses terminology from 75 or 100 years ago, this indicates he either doesn't know what he's talking about or is using data that is no longer useful. Or if he uses rational data to make irrational points -- a muppet once used the word orange in a sketch, therefore all muppets originate in Kerala, for instance.

Importantly, (like science) it's an on-going process rather than a one-time event, where you have the ability to change your mind. But like science, there are still general trends that it is more useful to assume are true than to pick out constant exceptions.



It is better to entertain alternatives, but not all alternatives are equal. It's deeply unfair and deeply undemocratic, yet it's undeniably true. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. I can theorize the moon spontaneously reformed itself out of Spam (or even Amour Potted Meat Food Product), but even if I truly, deeply, honestly believe that, should we send new missions to the moon just to check its' make-up? Obviously not.

--Jaylemurph
The same scepticism that you apply to internet researchers or claims made by people without degrees should also be used to analyse data put forward by the mainstream or people with degrees. You cannot discount information coming from a person bearing a degree just based on the assumption that he/she would know more.All i am saying is we should apply a uniform yardstick to all claims from all sources.


#27    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:40 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but I usually go with the side that has the best... most... evidence. And that is the Kurgan Theory in this case. Even if the OIT is right, Indo-European would have HAD to have gone through that region. It must have. The fact that the R1A group does not show in India till a little later, and... not in as great a percentage... shows that it immigrated there, and started somewhere else. That somewhere else is generally considered to be the steppes around the Caspian.

If you don't think the people near the Caspian spread Indo-European, then how do you propose it got to Europe? Technically my comment is true with the Kurgan Theory or the OIT.

You seem to LOL without cause and just to try to appear Authoritative.


Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....
Please tell me what evidence has convinced you of the Kurrugan Hypothesis? Is it archaeological? Is it cultural? When you will eliminate all forms of credible evidence you will only be left with some sort of Linguistic assumption which is subject to interpretation. If you are satisfied with such evidence then there is no argument between us.
As far as genetics is concerned...there is no way to pin down a particular gene to a particular geographical location at all.All you can do is analyse genetic information and comment on how long a gene has existed in a particular geographical location depending on the age of the sample.As little as twenty people (or a single family) carrying a specific gene could have travelled to any location and current analyses of the entire population in that region might be bearing that gene....Doesn't mean that the gene originated in that location.
But it is always a safe bet to side with what the majority is saying.....but sadly there is no real gains in such endeavours.


#28    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,286 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:29 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 11 March 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

As far as genetics is concerned...there is no way to pin down a particular gene to a particular geographical location at all.All you can do is analyse genetic information and comment on how long a gene has existed in a particular geographical location depending on the age of the sample.As little as twenty people (or a single family) carrying a specific gene could have travelled to any location and current analyses of the entire population in that region might be bearing that gene....Doesn't mean that the gene originated in that location.
Yet... if... IF, mind you... hundreds of samples are found in many locations and all correspond to the theory, it would be a pretty solid theory. To my knowledge and as well as I've been able to find online... Over the last 3 years.... I've seen the majority of evidence pointing that R1A came out of the Caspian area. And the genetics show that this genetic type migrated into Europe, the Middle East and down into India... all at the time of the supposed movement of Indo European into those areas.

So either the Kurgan Theory is probably right, or the Kurgan type peoples gained their language out of India at some earlier time.... which AFAIK is not supported by any analysis done to this point.

It is fine to be Skeptical. But, there comes a point where you are requiring people to "Do their own research", in order to not automatically discount them, that you are asking for each person to be an expert in Language, DNA, History and probably a half dozen other subjects... and a Degree apparently is not good enough..... When the internet (with scientific published sources noted) says one theory is the main contender for XYZ reasons, it is a good bet that XYZ are real reasons.

Edited by DieChecker, 11 March 2013 - 08:36 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#29    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:23 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 March 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Yet... if... IF, mind you... hundreds of samples are found in many locations and all correspond to the theory, it would be a pretty solid theory. To my knowledge and as well as I've been able to find online... Over the last 3 years.... I've seen the majority of evidence pointing that R1A came out of the Caspian area. And the genetics show that this genetic type migrated into Europe, the Middle East and down into India... all at the time of the supposed movement of Indo European into those areas.

So either the Kurgan Theory is probably right, or the Kurgan type peoples gained their language out of India at some earlier time.... which AFAIK is not supported by any analysis done to this point.

It is fine to be Skeptical. But, there comes a point where you are requiring people to "Do their own research", in order to not automatically discount them, that you are asking for each person to be an expert in Language, DNA, History and probably a half dozen other subjects... and a Degree apparently is not good enough..... When the internet (with scientific published sources noted) says one theory is the main contender for XYZ reasons, it is a good bet that XYZ are real reasons.
So again you seem convinced by the presence of R1 haplotype in that region in old mummies but like i said that there is no way to conclude that R1 haplotype was native to that region only....when the global population was low at that point of time even small migrations from one location to another could make an entire genotype disappear from one location and reappear in another.Similarly there is no way to conclude that the r1 haplotype migrated to India and Europe from the Caspian as this haplotype could have already been present in these geographic locations. The allelic frequency can be impacted by various other factors like culture,mating preferences etc. So what you think is a strong foundation for your belief is not really that strong. The presence of a higher frequency of R1 haplotype in the caspian region can also be due to the tribe carrying that gene migrating to the Caspian at a particular time in ancient history.Again there is no way to determine from where and why until you try to find clues in their lore,culture,mythology and archaeological evidences.

Also just believing something because so many people are saying it ,is not a practice i can adhere to as i am too sceptical for putting blind faith in these interpretations.


#30    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:11 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 March 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Draconic Chronicler :td:
What part of "He who must not be named" do you not understand?

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users