PDA

View Full Version : South Asian Admixture Graphs Analyzed, Please Read whole post



tamilgangster
07-02-2014, 10:41 AM
There are multiple racial elements in india, these charts all using different proxies, show various results but paint a story about many waves of migration. South asians are a mixture of Caucasoid, Australoids and mongoloids.

From this first graph, There is a distinct south asian component, in red that dominates. But among low castes and tribals that the green and blue. Those components peak in Papuan and SE asian population. In Yellow there is a component, which is absent among lower castes and tribals, but significantly elevated, NW populations and among S Indian brahmins. That yellow component, is found throughout west Asia but peaks among Northern Europeans. Also the Red South Asian Component, is also found in visible amount in west asian populations. After Iranians, Its most prominent in Caucasus populations, but weaker among arab and european populations.

http://www.harappadna.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Ref2_pops_K_7.png

This graph shows a South Asia only Component. There is another component in Purple, which is prominent in all the populations including low castes, but absent among tribals. Its higher in the NW regions and it peaks in the Caucasus. There is a component in Reddish Pink that is small but is very visible among Some gujus but not all. Im assuming its caste based, but this component is highest in NW europeans. Note that this component is more in high castes than in many Middle Eastern Populations. There is also a visible amount of East Asian in Blue, found in tribals, which is minimal among low castes in the south and nonexistent in the NW.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2013/01/CORE.10.png

THis CHart(Based off of genographic project) Lacks a South Asian specific component. THere are 2 main components. A component found In Siginificant proportion in West Asians, an SE asian Component. The SE asian component, accounts for both the australoid and Mongoloid found in South Asia. The SW asian component is dominant in all regions except east India. The likely reason why SE asian component is higher is due to mongoloid influence. There is also a visible component in Green which is visible in North and West India, but only only found in some South and East Indian populations. Its strongest among Europeans, but its lacking in Semetic populations.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-C2Y6J5yyoNjvU6mzWe-Sk28qYMvULOhxcsYFU9hS-dojctX_pYg-4HRTpUpN_4mU5gX8W-hpzWp2SC4fCZb2PDH3KarxpR2MjBV=s0

This chart shows 3 components in South Asia, West Asian, Onge and E asian. The West asian is the dominant one, but there is both significant Onge, and Visible E Asian.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ozINBCJWWwE/TccZUwFIMiI/AAAAAAAADrc/VMIRZtTfLEI/s1600/_4.png

From these graphs what can be Infered is that

1) South Asia is mostly West Eurasian/Caucasoid(50-80%) but there is significant amount of Australoid and mongoloid Present.
2) There were multiple waves of caucasoids that migrated to South Asia.
3) THe Australoid component in South Asia, is very distant from Papuans, and will show up as E asian or as part of the South Asian component, probably due to the Admixture being very ancient, this is hard to isolate. It is present in All South Asian populations, but higher in the south and least in the NW(but still visible >10%).
4) The Mongoloid component is of SE asian origin(via austroasiatics) and is found in highest amoung tribals and low castes. Its highests in the Eastern regions with moderate amounts in south and central India, but is almost nonexistant in NW regions.
5) Many graphs show south Asian populations as mostly having a South Asian Distinct component nonexistant outside south asia,(eg 2nd graph), but those same populations show up as predominantly Caucasoid(4th graph) This implies an archaic (proto)caucasoid population Existed, which is distinct to South Asia mixed with Australoids and Mongoloids Early On.
4) There is Another Caucasoid component that is significant in All south Asian Groups except Tribals. This component is most similar to Caucasus populations.
5) THere is another caucasoid Component, which is found in visible amount, only in Northern and Western India and among High Castes. THis component is distantly related to northern europeans, and is lacking among semetic populations.
6) There is very little to no gene flow from Semetic populations,(only found among jews, and a few muslim communities.)

5 Racial Elements of South Asia
1) Australoid
2) Paleomongoloid
3) south asian Distinct (proto)caucasoid
4) Caucasoid related Caucasus populations
5) Caucasoid related to Northern Europeans

1,2,3 are part of the ASI
4 and 5 constitute Part of the ANI

soulblighter
07-02-2014, 11:15 AM
There are no distinct "racial" elements and no "pure" australoid or mongoloid. All those ideas are from the 19th century and not science. Genetic variation is a tapestry with continuous variation (mostly correlated with geography) and not discrete bins. If we go by admixture, Kalash are their own "race". Look at each of those component 'K's as a specialization of a previous 'K' due to drift or other process. . By the way, are you North Korean/Kazakh? If so, it would be interesting to see your admixture results.

tamilgangster
09-16-2014, 01:00 AM
5 Racial Elements of South Asia: Based on Eurogenes K=7
1) Australoid: ASE
2) Paleomongoloid: East Eurasian
3) south asian Distinct (proto)caucasoid: ANE
4) Caucasoid related Caucasus populations: EEF
5) Caucasoid related to Northern Europeans: WHG

This is an estimate, this most likely does not correlate 100%, but these are the basic ancestral populations

Ebizur
09-19-2014, 02:10 AM
4) The Mongoloid component is of SE asian origin(via austroasiatics) and is found in highest amoung tribals and low castes. Its highests in the Eastern regions with moderate amounts in south and central India, but is almost nonexistant in NW regions.The fineSTRUCTURE/ChromoPainter analysis of Chaubey et al. (2014) has demonstrated that at least the Tharus from Uttarakhand have much more significant amounts of ancestry from an East Asian-, Tibeto-Burman-related source than they have from a Southeast Asian- or Austroasiatic-related source. I suspect that the same may be true for some other South Asians who inhabit the northern fringes of the Indian subcontinent.

ViktorL1
09-19-2014, 04:51 AM
5 Racial Elements of South Asia: Based on Eurogenes K=7
1) Australoid: ASE
2) Paleomongoloid: East Eurasian
3) south asian Distinct (proto)caucasoid: ANE
4) Caucasoid related Caucasus populations: EEF
5) Caucasoid related to Northern Europeans: WHG

This is an estimate, this most likely does not correlate 100%, but these are the basic ancestral populations

I'd be very careful about using 19th-century racial classifications and comparing them to the modern understanding of genetic clusters. While it is true that genetic clusters exist, and "East Eurasian" populations cluster closely, biologically discrete races do not exist. Instead, they exist on a gradent, with dissimilar groups being more opposite. Race certainly exists as a social concept, but it is not valid to speak of "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids".

Using terms like "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid", etc. only seems to encourage people who want to discuss classfications based on crainometrics, etc. This is a very slippery slope, and I think it deserves some sort of "sticky" post, to indicate that this is not scientifically valid.

tamilgangster
09-23-2014, 07:39 AM
I'd be very careful about using 19th-century racial classifications and comparing them to the modern understanding of genetic clusters. While it is true that genetic clusters exist, and "East Eurasian" populations cluster closely, biologically discrete races do not exist. Instead, they exist on a gradent, with dissimilar groups being more opposite. Race certainly exists as a social concept, but it is not valid to speak of "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids".

Using terms like "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid", etc. only seems to encourage people who want to discuss classfications based on crainometrics, etc. This is a very slippery slope, and I think it deserves some sort of "sticky" post, to indicate that this is not scientifically valid.

THese physiological definitions of race are still somewhat valid, but are just used to describe physical features, but they are not 100 percent accurate