If you're familiar with genetics than please help me out.Firstable,I just want to say that I'm very confused about haplogroup M mtdna.Why is it that indians,east asians,africans,australoid all share and habor this haplogroup? It just doesn't make sense,how exactly we are all related yet look totally different from eachother? It is said that the macro-haplogroup M, like its sibling N, is a descendant of haplogroup L3 which is african and came from africa.

I also read that this haplogroup is the most common and diserve among south asians where it peaks at indian(60%) and bangladesh(80%), southern pakistan (50%).it is also common and diverse among east asians (20%) at southeast asians at about (25%),it it is almost non existant in siberians,europeans,native americans,middle-easterners.Egyptians and ethopians (17-20%) also have moderate to high frequencies of haplogroup M,lower frequencies can also be found from low to moderate frequencies in all east africans and north africans countries.The semang negrito also have extremely high frequencies haplogroup M tribes such as the bateks (48%) medriq (87%).And all the adamanese tribes have 100% haplogroup M.Haplogroup M* is find in high frequency in arabian penisula.So what exactly does this all mean?

Another strange thing is I talked to some german teacher,he said that ancient people who harbor haplogroup M had archaic features and that were the ancestors of all modern people who harbor this mtdna and indians,negroids,mongoloids who all habor this gene look completely different to today's people.Like for example,he told me that mongoloids in past were much darker,bigger eyes and looked very different from east asians who were later effected by the ice age.I don't know how archaic indians looked but in other words the more darker and tribal,the more original they looked.

Here are example of what ancient and original mongoloids look like





And as can you this is what modern east asians look like.

I'm not sure about how archaic indians would have looked liked? this is my speculation,but according to scientists the more aboriginal the more original.

Modern indians



Veddas-This is properbly what ancient indians looked like,who does share some physical resemblence to indians but at the same time,their hairs and nose are different.They are part of the australoid race and are not considered caucasoid,there are not part of the negroid or caucasoid race.





The first russian (homosapien?) who morphology resembles somewhat caucasoid have australoid features like veddas too. Their hairs and nose are the same.

I know Indians and East Asians share this haplotype M but the two diverged (seprated) some 40,000 years ago. The AFricans do not belong to this haplootype as far as I know. The only others who share this are some of the Central Asians. The female ancestor(s) of most Indian people were proto-Asian.

Anyway, we (all humans) are connected someway. Africans migrated out only 60,000 years ago, which is relatively recently, if you think about it.

My understanding is that Indians are ancestral to both Europeans and East Asians after they migrated out of India long time ago. But some were to later return back to India in the form of Dravidians, later others from Central Asia (so-called Aryans around 10,000 years ago) and others from Asia through the Northeast.

If you look at genetic mapping of the world's populations, Indians fall in between Europeans and Asians. The upper and middle castes are quite close to Euroepans while the lower castes are about intermediary and the tribals are closer to Asians than they are to Europeans.

There is an excellent lecture on this and shows Indians are very distant to Africans, more distant than Euroepans are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPnLTmJfUu0

By the way, just to reitearate, the M haplotype in Indians are of a different variety to any other group that may carry this haplotype.

According to wikipedia.It says that the ethopians and egyptians belong haplogroup M1(ranging 17-20%) and found mostly in lower frequencies from all north africa to east africa,and very rare in middle east. Theres two hyphothesis origin of M,being either african or asian origin. While the decendant of M is decendant of L3, the M haplogroup could have mutated in asia.

From wikipedia: an african origin hypothesis

"The timing of the proposed migration of M1 and U6-carrying peoples from West Asia to Africa (between 40,000 to 45,000 ybp) is also supported by the fact that it coincides with changes in climatic conditions that reduced the desert areas of North Africa,"

From wikipedia: an asian origin hypothesis

"Haplogroup M1 has a restricted geographic distribution in Africa, being found mainly in North Africans and East Africa at low or moderate frequencies. If M had originated in Africa around before the Out of Africa migration, it would be expected to have a more widespread distribution"


This is what I got from wikipedia. It seems that africans,australoids(adamans,semangs ect), south asians( indians,pakistani,bengali ect) and east asians and south asians belong to a different macrohaplogroup M lineages

Haplogroup M1 [1] - found in North Africa, Horn of Africa, Mediterranean, and Middle East[1][3]
Haplogroup M2 [2] - found in South Asia, with highest concentrations in SE India and Bangladesh;[9] oldest haplogroup M lineage on the Indian sub-continent.[1]
M2a - most common in Bangladesh
M2b - most common in SE India
Haplogroup M3 [3] - found mainly in South Asia, with highest concentrations in west and NW India[9]
M4"45
Haplogroup M4 [4] - found mainly in South Asia but some sequences in Eastern Saudi Arabia
Haplogroup M4a - found in Gujarat, India[14]
Haplogroup M30 - mainly in India, found in Middle East and North Africa.
Haplogroup M37
Haplogroup M37a - found in Gujarat, India[14]
Haplogroup M5 [5] - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M5a - found in Orissa, India[14]
Haplogroup M6 [6] - found mainly in South Asia, with highest concentrations in mid-eastern India and Kashmir[9]
Haplogroup M6b - found in Kerala, India[14]
Haplogroup M7 [7] - found in East Asia, especially in Japan
Haplogroup M8
Haplogroup M8a: [8] - found in East Asia, especially in Japan
Haplogroup CZ
Haplogroup C [9] - found especially in Northeast Asia
Haplogroup C1 [10] - found in Asia and America (Native Americans and Hispanics in particular)
Haplogroup C4
Haplogroup Z [11] - found among diverse Eurasian populations: Hazara, Finns, Japanese, Sami and some Russians.
Haplogroup M9 [12] - found in East and Southeast Asia
Haplogroup E - a subclade of M9 - found especially in SE Asia
Haplogroup M10 [13] - small clade found in East Asia, Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, Central Asia, and southern Siberia
Haplogroup M11 [14] - small clade found especially among the Chinese and some Bangladeshis
Haplogroup M12'G
Haplogroup M12 [15] - small clade found in Japan
Haplogroup G [16] - found especially in Japan with some isolated instances in diverse places of Asia
Haplogroup M21 [17] - small clade found in SE Asia and Bangladesh
Haplogroup M27 [18] - found in Melanesia
Haplogroup M28 [19] - found in Melanesia
Haplogroup M29'Q
Haplogroup M29 [20] - found in Melanesia
Haplogroup Q [21] - found in Melanesia and Australia (Aborigines)
Haplogroup M31 [22] - found among the Onge, in the Andaman Islands[14]
Haplogroup M32 [23] - found in Andaman Islands
Haplogroup M33 [24] - small clade found in South Asia and Belarus
Haplogroup M33a - found in Gujarat, India[14]
Haplogroup M34 [25] - small clade found in South Asia
Haplogroup M34a - found in Karnataka, India[14]
Haplogroup M35 [26] - small clade found in South Asia and Slovakia
Haplogroup M39 [27] - found in South Asia[14]
Haplogroup M40 [28] - found in South Asia[14]
Haplogroup M41 - found in South Asia
Haplogroup M41b - found in Andhra Pradesh, India[14]
Haplogroup M41c - found in Andrah Pradesh, India[14]
Haplogroup M42 [29] - found among Australian Abrorigines
Haplogroup M48 [30] - rare clade found at least in Saudi Arabia
Haplogroup D - found in Eastern Eurasia, Native Americans, Central Asia[21] and occasionally also in West Asia and Northern Europe.

As far as I know, the mtDNA haplotype M of Indians are somewhat similar to the ones found in Asians and Central Asians but still relatively distant, after going their seperate ways. If Africans share this haplotype it will be obviously be of different grouping and much more distant, much more distant to the M haplotypes between Indians and Asians. We know that Africans are very differently featured such as kinky hair, very black skin, very broad nose (not being racist but pointing out the phenotype differences), etc. However, remember, too, that in the case of India, a West Eurasian mtDNA (female) haplotype (very Caucasoid in appearance) also came into India over a period of time. This haplotype is most widespread in Pakistan followed by Northwest India but is also found in other parts of India. Some mixed with other haplogroups of course.

I was watching the film Naya Daur the other day and I could honestly say most of the women in that film had semi-Asiatic features whereas most of the men had much more Europoid (Caucasoid) features, except few of the males in that film who had some Asiatic features as well.

Look at female lead in that film and see her significant Asiatic appearance(she is a Tamil). Despite the signficant Asian features about her, she and others still looked very Indian.

Vyjayanthimala http://movies.sulekha.com/albums/Vyjayanth...ijaynthim20.jpg (she had significant Asiatic features)

Chand Usmani http://s.chakpak.com/se_images/135366_215_...mani-poster.jpg (she looked much less Asiatic, although in certain angles she also looked a little Asiaic in features).

Some of the other women varied on how Caucasoid to Asiatic looking they were.

I have seen many Indian women who have similar features to above, but interestingly, no one in my family (females) have any Asian looking features). But to be honest, it is something we Indians do not care about because all us Indians are Indians, irrespective of the differences in features. If you go to a Bengali wedding, for example, you you will find some people who are very Caucasoid in appearance, some who who have small amount of Asiatic look about them and a few others could look very Asiatic. But subconciosuly, we think all Indians look same because in India, race does not have any offical status. Also, the fact that most Indians have at least some genetic similarities in that they share some ancestry, also plays a part in this. Even the low castes and tribals have that 'Indian' look.

Until recently when I got interested in the phenotype differences of human populations, I never took notice and use to think all Indians looked the same, but now that I do take an interest, I do realise we can vary slightly, and sometimes, significantly.

We know that Native Americans share very similar genetics with Asians and yet we can almost always tell a Native American from an Asian because they are now a race of their own, just like we Indians are (despite the different admixtures and racial strains that have gone into the mix). A Tamil (ones with signficant Austroloid mixture) still looks closer to a Punjabi than a Punjabi does to an European white.

By the way, it appears I was wrong about Indians being ancestral to Europeans; it might have been the Middle Easterners who were ancestral to Europeans rather than Indians and the Indo-Euroepan language was indeed brought over by Central Asian 'Aryans' into India. Indians, however, are ancestral to Southeast Asians (despite the marked difference in features).

Since haplogroup M most likely originated in asia it is considered proto-asian lineage.Genetic shows all indians,east asians,negritoes,adamanese are related but not in a genetic admixture sense.There are many dna papers that also say that east asians mutated from negritoes,according to genetics negritoes is the most distanced from africans and are much more related with east asians.According to anthropoligist their negroid like features is due to the adaption of enviroment but with 0% genetic relations with africans.Tamils are racially dark skinned caucasian, their australoid mixture is only in minority.In all respect they look racially caucasian,skull structure,features.Only the altitude effected their skin color.

The study of 1996 about the M haplogroup is outdated and not accepted in modern times.The M mtdna in indians is related with east asians but not in mongoloid sense,this haplogroup already existed in the negritoes and adamanese longer before mongoloids even existed racially. The M in india is not due neither mongoloid or negrito admixture.What is true is we all carry different subtype of haplogroup M that are related but mutated into different types.The mongoloid features only,started developing when they moved to east asia, where the climate and ice age started effect their appearance.And as for southeast asia it was ALWAYS inhabited by negrito groups for 100,000 years,their numbers were never over thousand.It was only after an archaic dark skin mongoloid type who existed in taiwan as long as 8000BC started an austronesians expansion around 5000-2500 BC from taiwan and spread to all southeast asia in small numbers and from those small mumbers,they grew to hundred millions of southeast asians today.

Those women...I don't see anything asiatic about them.Seriously,you can find so many british,swedish,irsh,africans,middle easterners who have similar features to that.It doesn't make sense that you can see mongoloid features on those actress.It just like in the past how west europeans used to think that east europeans were mixed with mongolians for having slanty eyes or flat noses,due to mongol invasion and turkic invasions.And because of it they think they have an mixture of asiatic/mongoloid blood in them,when in reality their genetic admixtures are small.(Although it's true that east asian mongoloid genetics is present east europe due to mongol and turkic invasions,it's genetic impact is small it's from 0.5 to 6% depening on the country,but mongols and turkic it did not effect western europe).

However we have many west europeans that look like this





These pictures you showed me..I see 0% asiatic features in these women,in fact those white people actually showed more resemblence to asiatic features than these women you posted.Seriously,I've seen so smany panish,italian,tunisians,greek people with features like that.




You can also find north african who are mostly caucasian with minority of black/african admixture and look like those bollywood actress.Only by using tunisian women of north africa as example shows those indians do not have anything asiatic in their appearance.




It doesn't make any sense at all that those indian women have significant asiatic features and it shouldn't be atttributed to haplogroup M (which isn't mongoloid until ancient humans started to arrived in east asia in different climate that effected their appearance into what east asians are today, the first M people were australoids,negritoes).North african people have 0% of mtdna M,yet some of their people have features that appear asiatic but absolutely unrelated with mongoloid features type.The truth is neither of them have asiatic genes,only their features are shaped a little different.They shouldn't be confused with real east asian features,because that is totally different from what we are showing in these women.




Although it's true,just like you said india do have some mongoloid admixtures from tibeto-burmans,austro-asiatic,mongols or turkic (kazakhs,uzbeks ect that kind of thing) but is not because of M mtdna.Besides the men would also inherit these features.The mens features are not neccesarily attributed to just y-dna or for women it's just mtdna,it doesn't work like that.Men could trace both y-dna and mtdna, but women can't trace their y-dna however the dna is still part of her and in the same would equally effect their appearance the say. There is no such thing as men looking more caucasian or women looking more asiatic or vice versa.According to genetics central asia today is an mix of mongoloid-altaic mongol-turkic with indo-european iranic people.Apart from siberians,mongolians,manchus.On average in physical appearance the kazakhs,kyrgyz,Altai are at least 70% mongoloid.Uyghurs,Uzbeks are 40% on average.While the turkmen are 25%.Although there is an high number of mongoloid among uzbeks,uyghurs like 3 or 4 out 10.



There are also many asian half breeds who can past for caucasian girls.One example is half chinese-half dutch girl kristen kreuk,his father is dutch and mother is chinese but because of the way her mother looks,it doesn't make sense to call her white girl.Since genetically,she is still an hybrid and mentally who knows how she idendify herself, only thing is her deceiving looks that appear like an white girl but racially still an eurasian girl.



Another guy,his name is brandom lee, he is the son of bruce lee.Who could pass for any average uzbek.He has more caucasian than chinese features,but he associates with his chinese rather than his european side.Regardless he is still an hybrid at the end of day,neither asian or white.



It's kind of interesting yes,the native americans are indeed related with asians,they kept their proto mongoloid appearance,their an ameridian mongoloid type.Just like how there are also pakistani caucasoids, arabids caucasoid,european caucasoids.They also look a lot like those group of first pictures I showed you which are the first type of mongoloids to have existed.East asians are generally light skinned,with more flater faces.Native americans are dark skinned,have much bigger and prominent noses,thicker foreheads and smaller brain than east asians.To be honest they resemble southeast asians more, accept that their nose,foreheads and bodies are much larger than southeast asians.






As I said east asians have generally flatter noses,flatter faces.You ussually don't see east asians with such big noses like native americans.

Again let us compare those women you showed with women from africa to europe because there is absolutely nothing about them that is asiatic,you can come across women of the different races and parts of the world who share similar features to those women and yet be completely different race.





Algerian women (Again mostly caucasian with minor african admixture)




Greek women




Italian women




So really,it doesn't make any sense that those bollywood women have asiatic features.The problem is the almond shape eyes that is the most trademark of asiatic people, and because of that,people would assume that people with asiatic eyes are indication of asiatic admixture.Than again this should come as no suprise to me,since east asians have been portrayed like this -___- and indeed is the most common eyes among east asian people.But reality is even among asiatic people there are variations of phenotypes too,without it being the result of genetic admixtures.

But even east asians (chinese,japanese,korean,taiwanese) can have eyes like these (that is shaped closer to caucasian but not exactly)

You do realise that Asian genes also exist in some Euroepans and Middle Easterners, don't you? Human migrations took place in different directions even in the last couple of thousand years. For example, Central Asian mongolian genes can be found all over Eurasia, in varying amounts. Carla Bruni, the italian model definately has some Asian ancestry.

Just highlighting some text from a major study on Indian population genetics.

The Visakhapatnam-Utah study examined both these genetic trails. They also looked separately at a large number of genetic markers that have been inherited from both sets of parents (bi-parentally inherited), thus creating three relatively independent data sets. The results of all the data sets substantiate that the lower castes are genetically closer to the Asian population (East Asian and South East Asian) while the higher castes are closer to Eurasian stock. The middle castes fall somewhere in the middle. The other interesting part of the result is that within the European stock, the higher castes are closer to East European stock than Western or Northern Europe. However, the women are found to be closer to the Asian than the Eurasian stock, though here again the higher caste women have a higher admixture of Eurasian genetic markers.

The results support that there was an influx of Eurasian people well after India was populated from Africa and later from the Fertile Crescent, the original centre of agriculture. It also shows that this layer integrated itself in society at the highest level. The male population had little vertical mobility and that is why the genetic make-up of the castes differs so significantly on the paternal side. The maternal side shows that there was larger vertical mobility and women could marry "up". This explains why the women as a group are closer to the Asian population; even the higher caste women are closer to the Asian population than their male counterparts.

This video backs this up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPnLTmJfUu0

The Austro-Asiatic speaking people of India are ancestral to SEA and East Asians. And many of the Austro-Asiatics were assimilated by the Dravdians in India itself. I think Indians are a historically mixed race people of Caucaosid, Austroloid (some may regard Austroloids as part of the wider Negroid family, though geneticists suggest they ar actually very different) and proto-Mongoloid. India is an ancient melting pot. But anthroplogically Indians are Caucasoid. The higher castes have a far higher Caucasoid element.

Even if the asiatic genes do exist from east europe to middle east,there's no way it could exist in north african people.

Genetics and racial anthopology are two different things.There's really so such thing as race to begin with,and that's what the video was trying to say.If we go back to history,we all came out from africa ,migrited and evolved from different enviroments to differents climate that change our phenotypes from like tens of thousands years ago.There is some misinterpretation with south indians mtdna M,indeed it's closely related with east asians (also with negritoes) but NOT in racially related which I think you believe...that indians are mostly an mixture of both caucasoid and mongoloid races.In other words something like modern central asian who an mix of both mongoloid/caucasoids,or better eurasian like those two half chinese people I showed you.This is not what south indians are at all.The M mtdna lineages in india are completely different from east asian and negritoes.The M lineages are related but it split and mutated,evolved into many different lineages from an extremmely long time ago.Check out the map of genetic distance of asians, negritoes and adamanese, we are very related with them,this should come as no suprised as our genetics have all evolved around asia.Anyway,my point is the M in india is not an racial marker of east asian,and I used to think it was an australoid marker but no,it's very different.We belong to different branches of M subclades.Adamanese were the first people have haplogroup M,east asians were the last to have haplogroup M. Indians are independent M lineages that differs from east asians but also related (not in racially mongoloid related).

Phylogeny of mtDNA haplogroup M in India (Chandrasekar et al. 2009)

M53 to M64; redefined/ascertained and characterized haplogroups M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M8′C′Z, M9, M10, M11, M12-G, D, M18, M30, M33, M35, M37, M38, M39, M40, M41, M43, M45 and M49, which were previously described by control and/or coding-region polymorphisms. Our results indicate that the mtDNA lineages reported in the present study (except East Asian lineages M8′C′Z, M9, M10, M11, M12-G, D in northeast india ) are restricted to Indian region.The deep rooted lineages of macrohaplogroup ‘M’ suggest in-situ origin of these haplogroups in India.

Wikipedia
"The M macrohaplotype in India includes many subgroups that differ profoundly from other sublineages in East Asia especially Mongoloid populations"

You are correct

I have been living in the UK for 10 years now and have never come across a white man or woman that remotely looks like an Asian but I have seen Indians that have a slight resemblance to Asians. As that video explained, people who live close to each other have a greater common history and thus you will find Asians are genetically the furthest from Africans, second furthest from Europeans and the closest to Indians (discount Native Americans and the Mongoloids of Central Asia as both are essentially Mongoloid people or have very strong admixtures). Indians are the most Asiatic of all the Caucasoid people of the world.

Also, don't forget, there is significant amount of direct Mongoloid lineage in quite a lot of North India. Even the Punjabis are found to be 14% Mongoloid in their DNA and it would be higher in some parts of Eastern India. The Finnish people of Europe are 7% Mongoloid.

By the way, in that video a North African woman was 86% European, 10% African and 4% Asian.

If an Indian person (of any caste) does a DNA test, I promise they will mostly be a mixture of European and Asian by ancestry, but generally European will make up more of his DNA.

The mtDNA M of India, though different to Asian variety, is nonetheless closer to Asians. In fact, this is the reason some geneticists are hesitant in putting Indians as Caucasoid because the M does not exist in any if the other Caucasoid populations. The Indian female ancestor was a proto-Asian but because of series of Caucasoid male lineages coming from outside India and mixing with existing Indian populations, the Indian females, by way if receiving genes from the Caucasoid males, have become much more Caucasoid looking than otherwise would be the case.

I've seen many white people with slight asiatic, these white were called chinesey because of the shape of their eyes and nose that resembled asiatic people.M lineages are not found in any caucasian people,that is why is proto asian lineage but by no means is asiatic race.There was no such thing as mongoloid or east asian looking people in india until people migration to east asia that started to developed these features.It was ice age that affected their appearance,caused their facial features to shrink.As I said the M lineages,existed in the so called australoid adamanese and negritoes population long time ago before indians and east asians even harbour this haplogroup.The veddas morphologically look more caucasoid but are considered australoid race.

India123,where are you getting your source that pujanbi is 14% mongoloid or asiatic? I know that pakistanis punjabis has some level of mongol dna C3-M217 (6.8%) in pakistan due to mongol invasion but I'm not so sure about punjabi indians.I want to see what kind of haplogroups they belong in both sides otherwise I wouldn't believe for an second.So far the only source about punjabi being 14% asiatic/mongolid is from the amateur Robert lindsay,who has no qualification to be spouting anything and he has made enough mistakes on his previous blogs to be trusted.For example this idiot said " I think kazakhs are 30% mongoloid " LMAO! What an stupid thing to say,should have done his research.The funny is he claimed uyghurs are more mongoloid than kazakhs? how more stupid could you get?

This is the quote from robert lindsay

"But Punjabis are 14% Asiatic.

The very heavy Mongoloid-Caucasoid mixes are in the North Turkics (Altai, etc.) . Also the Uighurs are ~40% Mongoloid. I think Kazakhs are 30% Mongoloid. You can for sure see Mongoloid influence in Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc. "

LMAO! yeah sure....kazakhs are 30% mongoloid and I've seen so many 50/50 hybrids who look more caucasian than asians and damn this idiot even thinks uighurs are more mongoloid than kazakhs? this guy say of the stupidest things ever.If uyghurs are indeed more mongoloid than that means uzbeks who closer relations with uyghurs are also more mongoloid? LMAO! what an fool! uzbeks and uyghurs are more caucasoid according anthropology.See how stupid this amateur is.Once again someone needs correct this fool.This idiot blocked me and many others for critisizing his pathetic works for making up theories of his own,and when he doesn't like it you are correcting him,he comes back with insults or blocks you to avoid further embarrasments.Firstable,he should at least know that the kazaks,Kyrgyz,Altai are among the most mongoloid looking turkic among the mixed-caucasoid/mongoloid groups.The mongoloid features average are at least over 70%.The yakuts turkic are most pure and are 100% mongoloid in phenotypes.

(Just in case he be reading this one day)
Here are average kazakhs look like, you could almost never find any caucasian looking kazakhs unlest you're russian or some special super model type.




Uyghurs- is properbly around 40% mongoloid in term facial but is much more caucasoid looking than kazakhs. Majority of uyghurs are more caucasoid (even though they are all heavily mixed) just like the uzbeks who are also heavily mixed.Although both has an high number of mongoloid looking turkic uyghurs like the uzbeks. On average physical level,they are more caucasoid than kazakhs in all ways.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uzbeks- on average is about 40% mongoloid.They are all an mixed race and properbly have as higher number of like 30-35% mongoloid uzbeks people than uyghurs.Some others have also absorbed and intermarried with ethnic tajiks and many uzbeks outside uzbekistan has also intermarried with other ethnic groups.I've been to uzbekistan..In some part you could find many uzbeks,where mongoloid features dominate like crazy.Actually you could find mongoloid looking uzbeks everywhere you walk.

Here are some examples



But regardless the uzbeks are still more caucasoid,not like mongoloid kazakhs or those supermodels goodlooking uzbeks.Majority of them are about as look half asian as any eurasians half breeds are.

Average uzbeks


I advice avoiding learning anything from that amateur lindsay robert,because his intelligence for such an simple discussion is far below average.Does it make any sense for him to say that kazakhs are only 30% mongoloid and look like the way they do.While we have so many 50/50 half breeds that are half chinese,half japanese,half koreans who look more caucasian than asian?

example of many caucasian looking half asians.

Half japanese


Half koreans

Punjabis are indeed 14% Asiatic. This could be due to one or combination of several factors. I read the Scythians and Huns might have carried some Mongoloid admixture in them when they came into India. Punjabis mostly reside in the Punjab, Himachel Pradesh and Delhi. These regions, especially Punjab and Himachel are close to the extreme Northern belt of India that is home to a lot of peope of Tibetan ethnicty. I am not talking about Tibetan refugees but Indians who are of Tibetan and Tibeto/Aryan ancestry. Some Punjabis also have Central Asian Mongol genes (remember the Mongols tried to invade India on several ocassions and there have always been some migrations from Central Asia into India through the ages and some of these people have carried some Mongoloid lineages. Then there were the Turko-Mongols in the form of the Mughals. I know they were Muslims but their genes have also penetrated non-Muslims in that region. In fact, Muslims of Indian Subcontinent are actually the most Caucasoid of all Indians because some fo them have signficant West Asian admcitures (Pathan, Iran).

Let me give you a few examples of famous Punjabis with signficant Asiatic features.

Manmohan Singh

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/200...jiabao55_26.jpg

http://www.topnews.in/files/Manmohan-Singh324.jpg

Rajesh Khanna, a famous actor and father of Twinkle Khanna.

http://chandrakantha.com/articles/indian_m...jesh_Khanna.jpg

Dev Anand, another famous actor.

http://tamilmovies.orutube.com/wp-content/...6/Dev-anand.jpg

Shammi Kapoor

Shammi kapoor, a very white looking actor, had signficant resemblance to Elvis Presley. Elvis had significant Native American ancestry.

http://bollywood501.com/classic_m/shammi_kapoor/index01.jpg

http://www.lookilikey.com/wp-content/uploa...vis-presley.jpg

I remember watching Om Shanti Om when it came on TV a while back and in one of the scenes they had Amitabh Bachan (another Punjabi) being interviewd and behind him were few guys who had strong Asian features. And I remember Amitabh's face looked rather quite similar to theirs in some ways. I actually found this clip on Youtube. Please check at 1:06 to 1:08. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RxGUTIzeig Compare his face with the guys behind him.

As for Robert Lindsey, I am sure he got his figures about Punjabis being 14% Asiatic from an authoratative source i.e. some genetic researh paper.

There is a good reason why India is known to be extremely diverse genetically.


Form Wikipedia: India a melting pot

South Asia has a long history of inter-ethnic marriage dating back to ancient history. Various groups of people have been intermarrying for millennia in South Asia, including groups as diverse as the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman peoples. Greeks, Huns, Persians, Arab, Turkic, Mongols (Mughals), and European women were taken as wives by local Indian men and vice-versa. On account of such diverse influences, South Asia in a nut-shell appears to be a cradle of human civilization. Despite invasions in its recent history it has succeeded in organically assimilating incoming influences, blunting their naive unsustainable wills for imperialistic hegemony and maintaining its strong roots and culture. These invasions however brought their own racial mixing between diverse populations and South Asia is considered an exemplary "melting pot" (and not a "salad bowl") by many geneticists for exactly this reason.However, South Asian society has never been completely free of ethnic strife and exploitation, and some groups have chosen to remain separate from mainstream social life. The divisiveness of the Caste System in India has permeated to every facet of the society. Ethnic conflicts in Pakistan between Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabis and Sindhis, as well as the racial genocide of Bengalis by Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, which included the West Pakistanis raping the East Pakistani Bengali women, who gave birth to thousands of War children, are other impediments to the melting pot thesis.

mtDNA is not classifiable as negroid, mongolid, caucosid, or austroloid.

I am not yet familiar with Maternal Mitochondrial grouping but I am more familiar with the Paternal Y Haplogrouping.

I don't believe in the debunked Aryan invasion theory which became the bible of the Nazis. (just kidding)

My interpretation is there is a Genetic Continuum between Australoids and Caucasoids in South Asia just like in Southeast Asia(SEA), there is a genetic continuum between the Mongoloids and the Australoids. Indians are not Aryans from Central Asia up north invading/colonising/interbreeding with Dravidians from the South. But rather the Aryans R1b Western European Caucasoid haplotype and Eastern European South Asian R1a, R2 haplotype descended via the P haplotype from the Australoid K haplotype(with its daugher L haplotype and its ancestral C haplotype are also found in South Asia) or in layman's term, both the Aryans and the Dravidians shared the same ancestry in South Asia with the former who went northward then going to Central Asia and to the Middle East, then finally going to Europe. R splitted from K via P haplotype. Mongoloid O haplogroup also came from the K haplotype. C, D, K haplogroups travelled southward into SEA then northwards with K splitting to the various O haplogroups of East Asians and SEAsians. N, P, Q, S, and T all splitted from K. P haplotype the immediate ancestry of R haplogroup as accdg to wiki splitted from K during 20,000 to 40,000 yrs ago from Central Asia and siberia which is quite impossible knowing that the last glacial maximum which started 70,000 yrs ago and ending 10,000yrs ago was all covered with ice or if not in a very inhospitable condition. I wager tropical South Asia as the place of the splitting of R from P just like L splitted from K in South Asia also just about the same time. Himalayan mountain ranges were covered with very thick glaciers which extended into the Hindu Kush mountain ranges(Hindu killer) preventing southward migration from Central Asia and the Middle East respectively refuting the Aryan invasion theory with the Aryans coming from the chilly north. So, you have in the wiki, R haplotype in about 20,000yrs ago either originated in South Asia, Central Asia or the Middle East. I wager South Asia is the correct one and not Central Asia for the above reason. And only in the end of the last glacial period during 10-15,000 yrs ago, when R migrated to the Middle East crossing the terrible Hindu Kush mountain ranges and to the arid Central Asia steppes, which then became hospitable as the glaciers retreated. Current researchers have it backwards, it should be northward migration and not southward migration as the icy sheet retreated and making the northern arid steppe areas more hospitable to humans.

Sumerians seemed to be related to the Austrics(Austro Asiatic plus Austronesian) of South Asia and SEA. The Sumerian civilization, the first civilization in the Middle East, sprung forth from the Indus civililizations.

Western Civilization owes itself to the Civilizations in Indus Valley. Western Civilization came from the Romans'. The Romans' from the Greeks'. The Greeks' from the Phoenicians and the Ancient Egyptians. Phoenicians' from the Sumerians'. Accdg to the Ancient Egyptian, their motherland was Punt in the Eritrean sea(Indian Ocean) and so the Brazilian scientist's story goes.

Btw, T haplotype also known as K2, a direct offshoot of K haplotype(Non African) is found among Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Indians particularly Dravidians and Austro-Asiatics. So proving that from South Asia, R haplogroup migrants together with T haplotype migrated northwards and westwards during the Deluvial period(end of the last Ice age) and with the T haplotype finding its way into the Middle East then to Northeast Africa to the horn of Africa. T haplotype found its way into Europe too and among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian and Indus Valley Civilizations were all interconnected.

Trivia: A famous member of the T or K2 haplogroup is Thomas Jefferson.

Well, there are contradictory studies on the origins of r1a1. Some studies suggest the Indian Subcontinent along with West Asia
as its origin while others obviously suggest Central Asia (or the steppes of Russia). The main argument for it originating in India is that even in a few of the tribal populations the r1a1 haplotype has been found to exist at quite a signficant frequency (up to 26%). Obviously it is found at much higher levels in caste groups, especially the upper castes, Pakistanis as well as many of the Muslims of India.

The reason why I think it might have its origins outside is because it is found at much higher levels among the higher castes (as opposed to lower castes) which suggests they may have established themselves as upper castes after arriving in India. But this does not mean an Aryan invason but rather a series of migrations from Central Asia around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. The date of these migrations are placed close to 10,000 years ago (by Spencer Wells, the geneticist behind Journey of Man) as opposed to around 4,000 suggested by some of the other sources.

Firstly most of the people currently living in East Punjab (Punjabi's) have migrated from Northern Part of India after the partition. Secondly i have never seen a Punjabi person with Asian features, not sure about genetics?

Manmohan Singh, Dev Anand, Rajesh Khanna are all Punjabi and I can definately see some Asiatic features on them. They are linked to in one of my above posts (above). In fact, they look even more Asiatic in video than they do in pictures. Of course they won't look like a typcial Asian but you can definately see some features. There are loads of people in the Indian Subcontinent with little and sometimes even signficant Asian features. Some of it is directly due to Tibeto-Burman admixture, some maybe Turko Mongol (particularly towards the Northwest) and some of it are not Asiatic but Austro-Asiatic (one of the historic race in India). You will see loads of low caste and tribal people, in particular, that have small eyes that look a little Asiatic or even features that look quite Southeast Asian.

None of the studies suggest that r1a1 originates in central asia. Maybe some speculation in studies 10 years ago, but not any recent ones. all point to southern asia orign/ main argument is related to the molecular variance not to numbers in tribal populations. molecular variance in highest in india and decreases with distance from indian center.

R haplogroup splitted from P haplotype, 20,000 yrs ago(Ice Age period).

If a class of people has a higher numbers of R haplogroup than to another class of people. That doesn't mean the former class are the source of R and interbreeding with another lower class to impart those R haplogroup. Ancient societies in prehistoric times tended to be clannish with ethnic taboos forbidding intermarriages between classes and other ethnic groups.

Since Europe has the higer numbers of R haplogroup, can we say R haplogroup originated from it.

The place with the higher molecular variance as what apac45 termed is the location of where the splitting occurs.

For one thing Western Asia as well as Central Asia, lack the K and P haplotypes, the immediate ancestry of R haplogroup. Those above areas can't be the areas where R originated. R just didn't appear out of nowhere. K haplotype with K* and MNOPS is found at a lower frequency in India but with higher frequency in SEA and Oceania but P haplotpe as P* the immediate ancestor of R haplogroups is found in higher frequency in India. P originated from K btw.

As a chinese born and brought up in India I get along better with the lower caste groups, S.Indians, nepalis and NE indians than the so called higher caste groups,maybe it is because of Mtdna M,our behaviours are very similar, so go figure.

I think vinod khanna with his mongolian like bubbily cheekbones,Rajesh khanna,Shakti Kapoor, kareena kapoors face cut is very N.Asian,back in the days when I had Geo and ARY Tv I noticed some pakistani actresses and newsreaders had that N.asian look to them, I mean they still looked pakistani, but at the same time they had some N. asian features, with most being very fair complexioned.

Well, some Pakistanis do have a little Central Asian Mongol (Mughal) genes in them as well and it shows up in a few people. You are right about Kareena Kapoor. In some pictures she does look a little Asiatic in her facial structure while in others much less. In the film Asoka in one of the songs she was dancing next to several guys who liked they were from the Northeast and I saw striking similarities between the shape of her face and theirs. But at the same time she is also Indian and Caucasoid (white) looking. Sometimes some people can border on having features of several racial types.

Indian DNA is mixture of all. The mixture % may vary place to place.

Malabar coastal and West india may have Middle East
Central India may have Mediterranean & Europe mixture
Cholamandal coastal may have South East Asian mixture
Chikkis border may have mongoloid mixture
People like Veddas will have negroid mixture

I may have missed this in one of the replies, but an explanation of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is probably useful here. It has nothing to do with gross physical appearance. mtDNA is the DNA carried in the mitochondria, a cell, which determines the conversion of chemical food into a form (ATP) the cells can use. mtDNA is only passed through the maternal line--it is not combined with the father--and it mutates in a predictable way over time, so is a good indication of lines, and when they split. mtDNA is a separate DNA chain from what most people think of as the DNA that determines characteristics--scientists think it is probably a remnant of a bacteria, which became symbiotic with animals, and then incorporated in them, a very long time ago--plants have something similar, the DNA for chloroplasts. The Y DNA, on the other hand, is the indicator of the paternal line and it is part of the (much larger) DNA that determines physical characteristics that determines what we are. However, there is also a problem using these markers as an indicator of any particular characteristic. They are markers and not the determination of a particular physical characteristic. And, interestingly, many of the physical/racial characteristics that we view as significant visually, are not very significant genetically. As an example, dark skin is an adaptation to tropical conditions and so various racial types can be found with lighter to darker skin, depending on where their ancestors were located. Various other physical characteristics, we see as significant, are also determined by exposure to environment over many generations rather than something more fundamental.

Mt-DNA – Negritos: Curiously no one but Africans claims kinship with Negritos but supposedly Hg M makes them ‘Oceanic’? Curiouser still is a shared phenotpye with African Pygmies!

Genetic testing places all the Onge and all but two of the Great Andamanese in the mtDNA Haplogroup M, found in East and South Asia, suggesting that the Negritos are at least partly descended from a migration of Proto-Australoids originating in eastern Africa as much as 60,000 years ago. This migration followed a coastal route through India and into Southeast Asia, eventually giving rise to the Australian Aborigines. Analysis of mtDNA coding sites indicated that these Andamanese fall into a subgroup of M not previously identified in human populations in Africa and Asia; these findings suggest an early split from these populations. [6] The Negrito peoples have one of the purest genetic pools of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) among anyone in humankind so their mtDNA serves as a baseline in studying Genetic Drift.[7]

http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Negrito


http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-5-26.pdf


The difference between African mt-DNA Hg L3 is ancestor to Asian M., are mutations We see M from L :

Haplogroup L3-e2b – 16189C

Haplogroup M – 16189?

Haplogroup L3-e2b – 16320C

Haplogroup M1 – 16320?

Haplogroup L3-e2b – 16223T

Haplogroup M18 – 16223?

Haplogroup L3-e2b – 195C

Haplogroup M30a – 195?


One test (L3-e2b) grouped me among the Central Africans and Sudanese. Another, that I was regionally East African.

Just goes to show that the devil is in the details.

Which mutation is East African? Sudanese? West African? Asian? Does it really matter?


I think it is important to understand this truth:

"...The mean proportion of the total species diversity that is contained within populations is 85.4%...Less than 15% of all human genetic diversity is accounted for by differences between human groups! Moreover, the differences between populations within a race accounts for an additional 8.3%, so that only 6.3% is accounted for by racial classification." Human Genetic Diversity : Lewontin's Fallacy