Re: DNA, genetics and population dynamics: debunking the aryan invasion propagan

There is another issue: asymmetry of an explanation. For instance, the
length of the shadow of pole can be explained by the length of the
pole and inclination; however, the length of the pole cant be
explained by the length of the shadow of the pole. Of course, in
mathematical terms, both equations are related; so are propositions.
The same fallacy is commited when people try to give genetic
explanations of caste, or of religion, etc.

Re: DNA, genetics and population dynamics: debunking the aryan invasion propagan

I am not in particular addressing Chandrakant's. There is a general
issue of using genetics in these invasion or migration or indigenous
explanations.

Lets look at the scenario of 'speculative' invasionist hypothesis; in
which way genetics has any bearing on this invasionist hypothesis.

The questions like "Why P?" presupposes that P is a fact or a
theoritical claim of a theory. In other words, that facts that the
genetic explanation use is not evidence. It merely presupposes another
background theory, which in this case is invasionist speculation.
Given this, how to prove the credence of a theory: find some facts
that the background theories of invasionist theories don't explain or
predict, and that the invasionist speculation predicts.

Look at the genetic explantion of caste: This theory presupposes that
there exists a caste, and try to give an explanation that there is
some genetic peculiarity or essense among this group of caste. This
explanation is not evidence of the existence of caste; at most, what
it does is this: there is a continuity. Do a lil thought experiment:
pick up 100 couples, and make sure their offspring don't marry folks
out of this group for 2000 years. Assume one can find some pecularity,
either genetic or not, among this group. This at most shows that they
and their offspring haven't copulated with other group. But it does
not tell why this group (100 couples) came into being. Here one finds
verses in book to explain. One assumes many unacceptable theories in
interpretating these books. Thus far, nobody questioned the logical
structure of the these background theories in interpreting. And these
background theories are not part of grammar, phonetics, morphology, etc.

Underhill 2009 proves Afpak origin of R1a1 (M17)

Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a