^^Be careful with conflating R1a and R1b in your post there.
Llort: If you don't even know the basics of how sexual selection works have no place in a discussion about genetics. Asking to have basic things explained to you, or being unwilling to quickly Google things yourself, shows that you do not value other people's time.
A few points:
The Neanderthal theory for light skin and light hair is myth making and has been disproved. My understanding is the genes responsible for light skin between modern Europeans and Neanderthal's are different and evolved independently, much like they did with Asians. And yes, Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.
Aryan and Indo-European were never synonymous. The word Aryan traditionally meant the peoples of Iran, and is still used for the Indian/Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans. The Nazi's never used Aryan as a term for Indo-Europeans either, do you really think they would call a people from the Russian steppe the master race?
As discussed on the previous page Dravidians are not the native peoples of India, they themselves were foreign invaders of the North. Beware taking a selective view of history. The Indo-Europeans, the Neolithic farmers, the Romans, the Greeks, the Huns and the Ottomans all launched their invasions from the South (East).
No one ever called the Indo-Europeans a "race", although in this discussion talking about a "race" isn't very helpful. "Races" we know today as European, Asian, African, Indian etc. did not exist at that time. The Indo-Europeans can best be described a loose grouping of tribes who had an ethnogenesis in the Russian steppe, included admixture from hunter-gathers and Neolithic farmers. There is genetic, archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence to support their existence as a "people". Beginning around 3500 B.C they tamed the horse and expanded in waves from their homeland.
Llort: If you don't even know the basics of how sexual selection works have no place in a discussion about genetics. Asking to have basic things explained to you, or being unwilling to quickly Google things yourself, shows that you do not value other people's time.
A few points:
The Neanderthal theory for light skin and light hair is myth making and has been disproved. My understanding is the genes responsible for light skin between modern Europeans and Neanderthal's are different and evolved independently, much like they did with Asians. And yes, Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.
Aryan and Indo-European were never synonymous. The word Aryan traditionally meant the peoples of Iran, and is still used for the Indian/Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans. The Nazi's never used Aryan as a term for Indo-Europeans either, do you really think they would call a people from the Russian steppe the master race?
As discussed on the previous page Dravidians are not the native peoples of India, they themselves were foreign invaders of the North. Beware taking a selective view of history. The Indo-Europeans, the Neolithic farmers, the Romans, the Greeks, the Huns and the Ottomans all launched their invasions from the South (East).
Quote: (02-18-2015 09:25 PM)POASTER Wrote:
What evidence is there that "Indo Europeans" were an actual race of people? Other than commonalities in language, are there any archeological finds showing a group of ancestors for all these peoples? Language doesn't necessarily correlate with descent. Jackie Chan speaks English, but he's not Anglo-Saxon.
No one ever called the Indo-Europeans a "race", although in this discussion talking about a "race" isn't very helpful. "Races" we know today as European, Asian, African, Indian etc. did not exist at that time. The Indo-Europeans can best be described a loose grouping of tribes who had an ethnogenesis in the Russian steppe, included admixture from hunter-gathers and Neolithic farmers. There is genetic, archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence to support their existence as a "people". Beginning around 3500 B.C they tamed the horse and expanded in waves from their homeland.