A Recent Comment on Human Genetics and Races

Here is a recent comment on the Peopling of India post by an Indian commenter. I will answer his questions later on in the post:

Please try to answer all of this long winded set of questions, thanks. Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

I am just a journalist who has researched the subject for a few years now. I have no formal credentials whatsoever.

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

That data is very interesting. I think it claims that the Indians are very old and consist of two stocks, North Indian and South Indian. North going back 40,000 YBP and South going back 70,000 YBP. Problem is that if you go back that far, all Indians looked something like Aborigines. Indeed the Aborigines were partly created by an infusion of proto-South Indian stock (Carpenterians) 12,000 YBP went by boats to Australia.

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Pakistanis are pretty hard to tell apart from the rest of Indians, yes. But it does appear to be a separate small race amid the Indids.

All of the Indo-Aryans are indeed pretty closely related nowadays, even archaic types like Tamil types. The archaic types are so close to the rest probably through mass interbreeding. All people on the subcontinent are close genetically. The Iranians are fairly close to the Indians, but they are somewhat more distant. The Iranians are the link between the Europeans and the Indians via the Italians. It works like this:

Italians -> Iranians -> Indians

Groups separated by only one arrow are fairly closely related. By two arrows, not so close.

So you see the Iranians are the link between the Caucasians of the East and West.

All Europeans are not that closely related. The groups in the Caucasus are very distant from the rest, as are Turks, Russians, Jews, Orkney Islanders, Sardinians, Basques and Sami at the very least. At lesser distance, but still far from the rest are Yugoslavians and Greeks.

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

No one knows what the Dravidians are. At the least they seem to be the basic cross between the ancient Australoids of India with the more modern Aryan types from the steppes in the north. There is also evidence of an infusion of ancient Caucasoid stock moving into India 12-17,000 YBP from the area between Lebanon and the coast of Iran. These people may have been related to the ancient Elamites, and Dravidian languages may be related to Elamite. Genetically, this stock looked like Arabs. So the Dravidians may be in part ancient proto-Arabs or proto-Iranians.

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

Tribals at this time are genetic Caucasians but have skulls that are Australoid.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

No, it is not correct that Europe, Caucasus, and the Middle East were initially inhabited by Australoids. The Caucasus and the Middle East were originally inhabited by Africans. Europe was originally inhabited by proto-Caucasians, but they did not look much like White people. They may have still looked like East Africans or Masai. Later on, they looked a lot like Amerindians from the US Northwest.

The original Australoids did come out of East Africa as Africans, but they turned into Australoids. And the Australoids were the first race out of Africa, correct. The survivors of this first group are people like the Andaman Islanders and the Mani.

However, the Caucasian race has a different provenance. They came out of East Africa as Africans too, but more recently, only 42,000 YBP. So Caucasians are a more recent split from Blacks. The proto-Caucasian stock may have resembled the Masai, but no one really knows. They moved into the Middle East and then to the Caucasus and South Russia. There, they met with migrating proto-Chinese types (maybe resembling Ainu). From a mixture 2/3 Ainuid and 1/3 Masai type, the Caucasians were born. The Asiatic eyefold was somehow lost.

In Asia, the Australoids progress into modern Asiatics by evolution. The progression occurs first in NE Asia and later in SE Asia. Ancient SE Asians look like Melanesians.

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

Yes, everyone outside of Africa mixed with Neandertals, maybe in the Middle East first, then later in Europe.

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

Kalash are a completely separate race of Caucasians. Caucasians are split into two races – Kalash and Non-Kalash.

Veddoids, Tamils, tribals, etc, are Caucasians by genes and Australoids by skulls.

Nagas, etc. in the Northeast are Mongoloids.

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Based on genes, I think that they are some sort of Asiatics. I do not know about the Andamans. The Andaman genes are very distinct, but how distinct I am not sure.

The Mani in Thailand have genes that look Thai.

The Aeta in the Philippines have genes that look Filipino.

Etc, etc.

However, if you do race by skull type, all Negritos are members of the Australoid race, as are Tamil types and others that look like Tamils in India.

Genetically, the Australoid Race only has Aborigines and Papuans in it.

By skulls, it consists of Ainus, Melanesians, Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, Tamils, Veddoids, tribals and similar South Indian types and Fuegian Amerindians.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

19 thoughts on “A Recent Comment on Human Genetics and Races”

  1. Hey Robert, is there a Caucasoid-Mongoloid continuum and a separate Caucasoid-Negroid contimuum? You said Berbers and Bedouins were near the boundary on the latter right? Also I’ve read that haplogroups are more accurate for genetics than autosomal DNA because haplogroups don’t change whereas autosomes do. In terms of haplogroup E3b, Berbers are closest to negroids because other clades of haplogroup E are black and
    Berbers are the only non-negroid people within the E group. Also you said jews don’t have any negroid genes, but a good portion of them are E3b, just like the Berbers.

    1. I don’t believe that. I would love to see that on a chart somewhere. This is, I have never seen the Andaman Islanders charted. All I know is that they form their own two distinct branches on the human tree.

      Ainu are over there Japanese and Koreans. I can’t imagine that Andamanese would be over by the Japanese and Koreans on a chart.

  2. By skull, I can’t see how Australian aborigines and Andamanese Negritos are related. They look distinctively different. The Ainus, however, do look like cold-adapted Australian Aborigines.

    If I were to go by skull alone, I would guess that today’s East Asians are a mixture of both Ainu-like people and Andamanese-like Negrito (and other Negrito in South East Asia) populations. Among these Negrito populations were groups that looked very much like African Bushmen, who had been completely assimilated in ancient times.

    Just by looks alone, today’s East Asians look to be more of a cold-adapted Negrito type than they are cold-adapted Australian Aborigine type (i.e. Ainu).

    The neoteny of these Negritos (and the African Bushmen) is close, if not at the same level, as that of today’s East Asians. The two groups also look very similar in regards to their overall phenotype.

    Caucasians seem to have more of this Aborigine mixture than East Asians do and seem to lack the Negrito component, which is replaced by the East African Masai-like component that you mentioned above.

    Blacks, especially those from West Africa (i.e. Nigroids), are a likely a mixture of every sapien population that walked this earth.

    1. East Asians are derived from Ainu types in the north and Negrito/Melanesian types in the South.

      West Africans are a source of every race, not a mixture. They are the seed that sprouted all the trees.

      Caucasians seem to be the one group that is not derived from Australoids. Looks can be deceiving. When you mix Australoids with Mongoloids, you get a Caucasoid-looking type.

  3. I think that you, Robert, and modern anthropologist place too little emphasis on phenotype. Would you say it is unlikely for a population to retain their Physical features while their genes mutate to something different?

    1. Genes can go very different while phenotype remains the same. Sardinians are way off the charts related to Europeans, but they look the same.

      Sometimes people’s genes look close, but they look very different. Thai Negrito genes look like Thai people. Filipino Negrito genes look like Filipino people.

  4. “Kalash are a completely separate race of Caucasians. Caucasians are split into two races – Kalash and Non-Kalash.”

    How are the Kalash a separate race from Caucasians? They look stereotypically Caucasian.

    Also what groups of people would full under both the Kalash group and non-Kalash group?

  5. The more I look at race the more it seems they all overlap to some degree. Some East Asians do indeed have facial structure that looks somewhat Negroid.

    Couldn’t someone like the Belgian tennis player Kim Clijsters pass for an Australoid if she was somewhat darker?

  6. Indians always seem to occupy a genetic intermediary of Caucasoid and Mongoloids whenever I look at a gene mapping chart, with the higher castes closer to Caucasoid and lower castes closer to Mongoloids. I have seen some Indians even in the higher castes that have signficant Asian features whilst being Caucasoid n the whole.

    Famous Indian actor http://l.yimg.com/t/movies/movietalkies/20070813/09/rajeshkhanna-2b-1_1186978680.jpg

    Another famous actor http://tamilmovies.orutube.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dev-anand.jpg

    The two guys above are both Punjabi and Hindu upper caste. Since they are not Muslim, their signficant Mongol features are unlikely to be Mughal. In any case, the number of Muslims with Mughal Mongol features is not a huge number because quite a lot of the Mughal soldiers were actually Afghan/Iranian rather than Mongol (although some were as were the initial rulers, though their successors became less and less Mongol in appearance because they mostly married Persian and Rajput women) and before that of ocurse Muslim rulers in India were Turk and Afghan.

    So what explains the Mongol features of the two guys above, for example?

    I have seen it in some other Indians who are very Caucasoid looking yet even they have some Asian features about them, even if it is the slightest amount.

    Also, in those gene mapping charts, the Pakistanis are always shown to closer to Caucasoids than Indians, including the upper caste Brahmins, so you are right on that count. I think Pakistanis have a signficant amount of West Asian (Afghan and Iranian) admixture hence they are closer to Caucasoids.

    Here are various findings by geneticists.

    “We see average East Asian affiliation at levels around 25% for South Asian Indians. Others working on Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplotypes have seen a similarly significant level of East Asian affiliation for this population:

    Rosenberg et al., 2002 showed considerable East Asian affiliation in South Asian Indians and other Central Asians (from 10-40%, depending on the ethnicity, see Figure ROSENBERG , Central Asian columns, k=4).

    Underhill et al., 2001 showed a significant frequency of East Asian Y-chromosome haplotypes in South Asian Indians and Near Eastern populations (from 5-15% of all Y-haplotypes, depending on the region, see Figure UNDERHILL ).”

  7. Robert, are todays Elamites the dark skinned Iranians? Is their any Elamite identity/tribe in Iran? Is Harappan civilization an extension of Elamites? Seems like India’s very similar racially to Iran w/the exception of Australoids.

    1. Nobody knows who the descendants of the Elamites were and nobody knows what color they were. They’re not dark-skinned Iranians if there even is such a thing.

      The Elamites may have gone on to be the Dravidians of India. There is a possibility that the languages are related. Hence, Harappan, settled by dark-skinned people in the north of India and Pakistan, may have been a Dravidian culture. I believe the Harappan script has never been deciphered.

      Sure the Whiter Indians are from the same ethnic and linguistic stock as the Iranians. The language family is called Indo-Iranian. The Indo-Iranians were formed in Northwestern Kazakhstan never the lower end of the Ural Mountains 5,500 YBP.

      They migrated south, stopping a couple of times in Turkmenistan. They made it down to India and Iran 3,500 YBP. There are remains of their settlements around the Northwest Frontier Province and Chitral in Pakistan. Indians are 65% Indo-Iranian White people and 35% Dravidian, more Dravidian to the south.

      1. I mean dark by Irans standards, perhaps more Southern. I assumed Elamites were essentially how Persians generally depicted their soldiers. Elamites likely served IE elite and blended with them. IE culture was so dominant Elamite identity was lost. Elamites lack the Aboriginal Indian DNA Dravidians acquired, so they are not that dark but darker than your average Greek looking Anatolian.

        1. Dravidians are only 35% Australoid. The other 65% is some sort of dark Caucasoid. Elamites were gone by a long time ago. The Elamite migration to India was supposedly 8,000 YBP. And there is a good linguistic connection by Elamite and Dravidian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *