Are Pashtuns descendents of lost tribes of Israel?

[Infiltrator]

Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Baloch, Northern Areas people are all from the same ancestral stock that moved to the Indus Valley from central Asia, thousands of years ago. The DIFFERENCE between each is the amount of Dravidianization each has undergone. I can post evidence for this, and will do say later.

The amount of dravidianization they have undergone? I thought you never stated that. I also could of sworn aryan and dravidian refer to language groups and not race.

Not really, at least not imo, since we have no solid idea what an Aryan looked like. However, we should be 99.9999% certain they looked like the characters in the Rig Veda. Some had coloured hair, some had coloured eyes, some were dark haired and dark eyed. The Punjabis are (on the whole, though not entirely) more dark haired and dark eyed than Pathans - this is because Pathans are more closer to the original Aryan stock, and less Dravidianized, or Persianized. The Pathans on the border with Afghanistan would be the closest to pure Aryans, at least in Asia. The Punjabis would be closer to being Aryans than say a Gujerati or a Rajput from Rajasthan.

Again, original Aryan stock and less dravidianized? Closer to being Aryans? Great stuff.

India is predominantly Dravidian. The Punjabis of India (excluding those that crossed over at Partition from Pakistan), are less Aryan than the Punjabis of Pakistan, who are less Aryan than the Pathans.

So East Punjabis i.e. Indian Punjabis are less Aryan than Pakistani Punjabis. Very well thought out and scientific statement there. Also, proves my statement on you saying Pakistani Punjabis are ethnically different than Indian Punjabis.

Outdated stuff. We know for a fact Baochis are from central asia, like Pathans in fact. Their language is another matter.

Balochis are from Central Asia? Could of sworn they were from Southeast Iran and Southwest Pakistan. So Iran and Pakistan are Central Asia now? I understand that some Baloch live in Afghanistan and neighboring areas but even Afghanistan is the most southern Central Asian country and is often groups with South Asia. What about their language? Balochi is a Northwestern Iranian language.

People can wish that they are from Israel, they can wish they're from Sri Lanka, but genetics will tell the truthful answer. And Pathans are from Central Asia and are very Aryan (which can be proved).

Pashtuns are very Aryan? It can be proved? Great to know Aryan is a scientific word.



These are some of the quotes from this thread I was referring to Roadrunner. You can deny it all you want but you really had no idea what you were on about in that thread.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/9380-races-pakistan.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/9380-races-pakistan-2.html

 

[roadrunner]

I didn't know anyone could hold a grudge for over 2 years for something i posted on a forum in reply to some troll about genetics! You must lead an interesting life, infiltrator I'm certainly not going to deny any of that since it seems more or less correct.

You can't read it seems. The bit about Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis - are you saying it's incorrect? As you go from East to West in the Punjab there is a clear change in the features of the people (Sikhs excluded). Tell me in your own words how your source, which doesnt even distinguish between Pakistani and Indian Punjabis, proves that statement incorrect?

point 2, you've proved yourself wrong as i was mentioning similar ancestral stocks 2 or 3 years ago.

wow. Notes on what i posted 3 years ago. I'm flattered

 

[Secret Service]

but not the Jewish Israel !

 

[XTREME]

They use to say the same thing for Kashmir too.

But I belong to Kashmir & have my Family Tree from Prophet Adam (A.S.) to me & I am not from the descendants of Jew

 

[roadrunner]

Here is the closest thing I can find to an original source. PLoS Genetics: Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure

I've seen that one before also.

If you can't find it, it's probably made up from someone's imagination.

There's many different reasons why it doesn't prove similar genetics. One reason is because markers do not show genetic similarity. They only show ancestral stock (itself very broad). There's a lot of variables.

 

[Infiltrator]

I've seen that one before also.

If you can't find it, it's probably made up from someone's imagination.

There's many different reasons why it doesn't prove similar genetics. One reason is because markers do not show genetic similarity. They only show ancestral stock (itself very broad). There's a lot of variables.

Someone's imagination? So Noah Rosenberg doesn't exist and that chart means nothing? Roadrunner, if anyone is a troll, you are. That chart has been on numerous race and genetic forums. No one has denied its validity. Don't try using logical fallacies to run away from the discussion. Just because I didn't find the exact page of the exact study's chart, doesn't mean its false and made up.

What I posted is a original source. It may may not have that specific chart but it shows a related chart. Also, the chart I posted is a type of genetic clustering. It compares individuals and how their genes cluster with another based on genetic similarity.

 

[Infiltrator]

I didn't know anyone could hold a grudge for over 2 years for something i posted on a forum in reply to some troll about genetics! You must lead an interesting life, infiltrator I'm certainly not going to deny any of that since it seems more or less correct.

You made a fool out of yourself and are now trying to laugh it off. I didn't hold a grudge over anything. I wasn't even on the forum 2 years ago and only joined around this past summer.

You can't read it seems. The bit about Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis - are you saying it's incorrect? As you go from East to West in the Punjab there is a clear change in the features of the people (Sikhs excluded). Tell me in your own words how your source, which doesnt even distinguish between Pakistani and Indian Punjabis, proves that statement incorrect?

I can't read? I can certainly read. Apparently, you expect everyone to understand your ridiculous interpretation of what you said. A clear change in the features of the people? What are you on about? Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Punjabis come from very similar ancestry and so do the various castes like Jatt, Khatri, Rajput etc.

Distinguish between Pakistani and Indian Punjabis? Why would it need to? The two populations are very similar and the differences are mostly down to culture and religion. You do realize hundreds and thousands of Punjabis lived on opposite sides of the border pre-partition?

point 2, you've proved yourself wrong as i was mentioning similar ancestral stocks 2 or 3 years ago.

wow. Notes on what i posted 3 years ago. I'm flattered

Proved myself wrong? You mean I've proven myself wrong? At least try to write with coherent English and correct grammar when criticizing me.

Finally, don't flatter yourself. I was just randomly browsing google while on this forum and that thread came up. You're the one that made a fool out of yourself throwing around the terms Aryan and Dravidian like they were scientific and essentially denied it like a page ago.

 

[roadrunner]

Someone's imagination? So Noah Rosenberg doesn't exist and that chart means nothing? Roadrunner, if anyone is a troll, you are. That chart has been on numerous race and genetic forums. No one has denied its validity. Don't try using logical fallacies to run away from the discussion. Just because I didn't find the exact page of the exact study's chart, doesn't mean its false and made up.

What I posted is a original source. It may may not have that specific chart but it shows a related chart. Also, the chart I posted is a type of genetic clustering. It compares individuals and how their genes cluster with another based on genetic similarity.

The 'related chart' shows nothing like what your chart shows.

Look at them both. Compare. You'll see why.

 

[roadrunner]

You made a fool out of yourself and are now trying to laugh it off. I didn't hold a grudge over anything. I wasn't even on the forum 2 years ago and only joined around this past summer.

Anyone who brings up a post from 3 years ago has made a note of it somewhere for a later reply. That's sad dude

I can't read? I can certainly read. Apparently, you expect everyone to understand your ridiculous interpretation of what you said. A clear change in the features of the people? What are you on about? Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Punjabis come from very similar ancestry and so do the various castes like Jatt, Khatri, Rajput etc.

Marker ancestry has nothing to do with race, or genetic composition.

Distinguish between Pakistani and Indian Punjabis? Why would it need to? The two populations are very similar and the differences are mostly down to culture and religion. You do realize hundreds and thousands of Punjabis lived on opposite sides of the border pre-partition?

What's so difficult to understand here? Indian Punjabis will not look the same as Pakistani Punjabis. It's the same for any ethnic group that is surrounded by different populations on its borders.

Proved myself wrong? You mean I've proven myself wrong? At least try to write with coherent English and correct grammar when criticizing me.

Finally, don't flatter yourself. I was just randomly browsing google while on this forum and that thread came up. You're the one that made a fool out of yourself throwing around the terms Aryan and Dravidian like they were scientific and essentially denied it like a page ago.

I couldn't remember it in all honesty. It was 3 years ago! You could remember it astonishingly.

Some advice. Don't get so worked up and start taking notes of my posts to recall years later. I'm sure you have better things to do

 

[LaBong]

It seems dravidian is the greatest insult one can inflict on pakistanis, even worse than being called jews!

 

[Infiltrator]

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article...RI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020215.g002

This is the original source. It is actually on the page I posted. Now, your ridiculous claims mean nothing.

Here is another picture from the same page that shows genetic clusters. Look how close Pashtuns, Punjabis, Kashmiris and Sindhis are.

PLoS Genetics: A Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal

---------- Post added at 04:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 AM ----------

The 'related chart' shows nothing like what your chart shows.

Look at them both. Compare. You'll see why.

I've found the original. Since you've proven that you have great knowledge of the terms Aryan and Dravidian, I take your interpretation of the chart with a grain of salt.

 

[Infiltrator]

Anyone who brings up a post from 3 years ago has made a note of it somewhere for a later reply. That's sad dude

What's sad is resorting to insults for bringing up old threads when you're the one that asked for them? I remember you requesting the specific thread, no?

Marker ancestry has nothing to do with race, or genetic composition.

You have no idea about genetics and aren't fit to comment on a chart you don't even believe is true.

What's so difficult to understand here? Indian Punjabis will not look the same as Pakistani Punjabis. It's the same for any ethnic group that is surrounded by different populations on its borders.

Of course, populations separated by an imaginary line will look completely different. Could of sworn the two populations lived amongst one another for hundreds of years before the partition. I suppose that means Pakistani Pashtuns and Afghan Pashtuns aren't even cousins. Same with Pakistani Baloch and Iranian Baloch. I guess you could even apply that to North and South Koreans.

What I find funny is that Amritsar and Lahore are only 55 KM apart. A 1 hour drive essentially. I'm surprised how different Indian Punjabis would be from the people living in the heart of Pakistan's Punjab province.

I couldn't remember it in all honesty. It was 3 years ago! You could remember it astonishingly.

Some advice. Don't get so worked up and start taking notes of my posts to recall years later. I'm sure you have better things to do

You couldn't remember it because you chose not to remember it. Some advice. Don't make posts about genetics and genetic clusters without any knowledge about them. Finally, I just found the thread today. I'm not surprised I remembered it.

 

[LaBong]

Well I don't know who's pure Aryan(sic) and dravidian aryan(sick!), but one thing for sure, present day Pashtuns have nothing to do with Sanskrit, both the Vedic and Classical variety of it.

 

[Infiltrator]

Well I don't know who's pure Aryan(sic) and dravidian aryan(sick!), but one thing for sure, present day Pashtuns have nothing to do with Sanskrit, both the Vedic and Classical variety of it.

Sanskirt is very close to Avestan. Sanskirt is the source of the Indo-Aryan languages while Avestan plays the role for Indo-Iranian languages. Since Pashto derives from Avestan, it is related to Sanskirt.



Anyways, I'm getting bored of this. This thread isn't very productive and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to with Current Events and Social Issues.

 

[LaBong]

Sanskirt is very close to Avestan. Sanskirt is the source of the Indo-Aryan languages while Avestan plays the role for Indo-Iranian languages. Since Pashto derives from Avestan, it is related to Sanskirt.



Anyways, I'm getting bored of this. This thread isn't very productive and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to with Current Events and Social Issues.

So is every Indo-European language.

Anyway Rig Vedic Sanskrit is closer to Avestan, not Classical Sanskrit.