What's new

Whatever

Lol! Now that I think about it, I kind of wish I could have done business & medicine together, but yeah, my sanity would suffer as a result of that. :lol:

To be honest, both of them are great fields. You can't go wrong with either of them.
i kno a person who did both n shes earning in millions nw...n she did both from top most univ of pak:argh::girl_cray3:
 
i kno a person who did both n shes earning in millions nw...n she did both from top most univ of pak:argh::girl_cray3:

Wow, that's pretty cool. It must have been extremely tough though. At my previous university, there were a few students who did more than one Bachelors degree, but they were generally within similar fields for the most part. A combination of engineering with a MBA is pretty useful as well as far as career progress in concerned.
 
Wow, that's pretty cool. It must have been extremely tough though. At my previous university, there were a few students who did more than one Bachelors degree, but they were generally within similar fields for the most part. A combination of engineering with a MBA is pretty useful as well as far as career progress in concerned.
not very tough cuz medicine was her family's trend cuz thy hav like 100s of docs in family so parents encouraged her to be same but doing MBA was her dream...so she did it afta completin MBBS frm King edward....as her husband was also a doc n was her first cuzin n use to live in da same house b4 marriage too(their fathers wer brothers n were joined family):tongue: so all da family supportd her n her kids were looked afta by both husb n her parents...:tongue:

phonix gud nite :wave: talk to u later....:wave: im goin nw:wave:
 
not very tough cuz medicine was her family's trend cuz thy hav like 100s of docs in family so parents encouraged her to be same but doing MBA was her dream...so she did it afta completin MBBS frm King edward....as her husband was also a doc n was her first cuzin n use to live in da same house b4 marriage too(their fathers wer brothers n were joined family):tongue: so all da family supportd her n her kids were looked afta by both husb n her parents...:tongue:

phonix gud nite :wave: talk to u later....:wave: im goin nw:wave:

You are right, support from the family is always beneficial. Good night buddy, take care! :)
 
1455015_779588462057315_944418447_n.jpg


My college is the new Inter-NUST Cricket Champion..!! (Military college of signals) :D

The guy 5th from left is the commanding officer of MCS

The Champs beat H-12 team in a well played final in GHQ Cricket ground. Losing the toss, batting first they put up a very convincing tournament-highest total of 158 in 20 overs. Team H-12 was unable to perform at their best against the bowling attack of our team and were all out on 116.
 
funny Touch Screen vs Key Board+Mouse argument

StitchTech says:

"On a personal level, I’ve not gotten to the point where I’d rather consume content on a touch screen device. I prefer swiping my finger on a screen to navigate a website rather than being force to use a trackpad. This tells me all computers will be touchscreen soon, just like all mobile devices already are."

Really, Chris? Because you prefer touch screens is why all computers will be touchscreens soon? What hubris! As long as people continue to use monitors that sit on a desktop instead of their laps or in their hands, touch screens won't completely replace the mouse or pointing device. To move back and forth from the keyboard (which will always be necessary), the pointing/touch method will always be more convenient being close to the keyboard. And if you argue that a virtual on-screen keyboard will replace the desktop keyboard, then you now have a tablet, not a computer.

brendilon says:

"if you argue that a virtual on-screen keyboard will replace the desktop keyboard, then you now have a tablet, not a computer."
You're just flat out wrong on this last part. By no definition does a computer require a physical keyboard. The first computers didn't have keyboards of any kind. Your smartphone is a computer, your tablet is a computer. Your laptop is a computer and your desktop is a computer. Desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, Google Glass, smartwatch, these are all sub-types of computers.

As for the touch screen issue, I have on many occasions found myself reaching for my desktop computer screen to do things, often right after I've spent significant time on my tablet. On the other hand I've never found myself wishing I had a mouse when working with my tablet or smartphone.

Whether touchscreens become the way of the future on laptop or desktop machines remains to be seen. However, you sound a lot like the people who scoffed at the mouse and GUI when those were first developed.

npco543 says:

"You're just flat out wrong on this last part. By no definition does a computer require a physical keyboard"

While you are, of course, correct, you're missing the point. I'm pretty sure he meant that if you have a keyboard, you have a *traditional* computer - i.e. a desktop.

"As for the touch screen issue, I have on many occasions found myself reaching for my desktop computer screen to do things"

And as many times as I've heard this, I can honestly say I've never, not a single time, found myself reaching towards my desktop monitor, before or after any length of time using a touch-screen device. And incidentally, I'm continually wishing I had a mouse when trying to do any type of precision tasks on a tablet. Be it writing anything beyond a few short sentences, or having to select any type at all, the lack of precision inherent in a touch screen is maddeningly frustrating.

I'm not saying touch won't remain with us, and doesn't excel, as a primary input method for certain tasks/uses, but it's beyond absurd when people claim with absolute certainty (which I know you're not doing, but others are) that touch will be the one and only input method on all computing devices.

Chris' opinion that because *he* prefers touch input for *content consumption* tasks, all computers will necessarily move to touch input is, as StitchTech said, a shocking level of hubris.

brendilon says:

Actually, I think that as costs of touchscreen continue to drop, then yes, all consumer computer WILL incorporate touch input. Not everyone will use that aspect of the interface, but just as the CRT monitor has died for computers (and televisions as well), the non-touch screen will fall by the wayside.

Chris's opinion may not be worded terribly well, but he's right. What he's saying is that based on his own experience with the ease of use of touchscreen input, he believes that touchscreen input on all computers will become the norm. The level of nitpickiness by some of the posters is far more shocking than his lack of hubris.

npco543 says:

"Actually, I think that as costs of touchscreen continue to drop, then yes, all consumer computer WILL incorporate touch input. Not everyone will use that aspect of the interface, but just as the CRT monitor has died for computers (and televisions as well), the non-touch screen will fall by the wayside. "

That may come to pass, but I'm not so sure it's a certainty. Flat panel displays supplanted CRTs because they have many and significant advantages - they're far lighter, take up far less space, use less electricity, they're more consistent, easier to mass produce, easier to ship and store, the list goes on.

If all monitors end up including touch input, it'll simply be as a means to maintain a certain price point. In other words, the technology will become so cheap that manufacturers will include it just as a reason to maintain monitors at a given price point. It won't be because touch input is a superior, end-all, be-all input method... because it just isn't. It's great in many areas, but horrible in many others.

"Chris's opinion may not be worded terribly well, but he's right"

No, in precisely the way he worded it, he is not right. And it's not nitpicking to call someone out on a statement like that. Such myopic statements call into question his judgement and insight on the overall industry he serves.

brendilon says:

"It won't be because touch input is a superior, end-all, be-all input method... because it just isn't. It's great in many areas, but horrible in many others."

I've already outlined below how you're wrong here. Touch is absolutely superior to mouse input. I don't see the incorporation of touchscreen input into monitors replacing keyboards and I don't think Chris was arguing for that either, though he didn't explicitly address that one way or another.

The mouse is to the computer screen what the blackberry trackballs were to smartphones. They were very good technologies in their time, but just as the trackball fell by the wayside to the touchscreen, so too will the mouse.

You really love the word 'myopic' don't you? You must be quite nearsighted yourself because all you can see is what's happening right now and that what you perceive as what touch can or should be won't work for you. You seem to lack any ability to see beyond what IS at this moment and to see what is possible. Chris's perspective is confined to his own experiences, self-centered would be a better description. But you actively refuse to consider the perspectives of others as having any validity. Your attitude is the truly myopic one.

ScottJ says:

"Touch is absolutely superior to mouse input."

Wrong. It has a few advantages over mice and lots of disadvantages.

brendilon says:

And what are these disadvantages? Please, enlighten us all. Multi-touch alone makes a touchscreen superior. If you work in a visually creative industry the gestural nature of touch blows using a mouse out of the water.

So what disadvantage does touch offer over a mouse? Are you afraid your arm might get tired? I'll bet your wrist NEVER gets tired or sore from using a mouse and it's not as though carpal tunnel syndrome is a thing...

I'd love to know how many of the people speaking so dismissively of touchscreens have actually used them in a computer environment for any length of time. I would bet it's very few. before you offer your ever-so-insightful response, please tell us how much time you personally have spent working on a laptop or desktop with a touch screen. if you haven't spent any time on such a machine, just keep your mouth shut until you can speak from experience.

ScottJ says:

Easy.

-Precision
-Fingerprints
-Blocking the screen
-Ergonomics
-Looking stupid pointing at your computer screen

It's like talking to your computer. Cool in theory, dorky in practice.

Need more?

brendilon says:

-Precision - Have you used one? No? Then you really have no idea. I do more precision work in an hour than you probably do in a month and the experience I've had in working with my boss's machine have been extremely positive.

-Fingerprints - Really? Who gives a frack? I just put my hands all over my computer screen, I don't see a single fingerprint. They'll be there when it turns off, but who the heck cares? It's a tool not a piece of fine art.

-Blocking the screen - Right, because everyone is going to hold their hands in front of the screen the entire time they're working. We'll never, y'know, lower them. Especially to type.

-Ergonomics - Do you have a degree in ergonomics? Have you used one of these machines at length? No? Then you have no idea what you're talking about, so, stuff it until you have actually tried it.

-Looking stupid pointing at your computer screen - Do you know why talking to your phone/computer hasn't caught on? 1. There is a total lack of privacy, everyone around you knows exactly what you just Googled. 2. It's rude, nobody around you wants to know what you just Googled, or hear the email you're dictating to a client, consultant, associate, friend or family member. It's not because you look stupid doing it, look at the bluetooth earpieces people wear, look at the stupid fauxhawk haircuts that are trendy. Heck, look at hipsters in general. Dorky/stupid is a matter of perspective. People look stupid holding up tablets to take pictures, but overwhelmingly folks demand cameras on their tablets.

So, in short, your 'drawbacks' are
1. personal insecurities (looking stupid)
2. silly (fingerprints)
3. based wholly on assumptions you've made without actually using one of these devices at any length (hands blocking the screen, precision and ergonomics)

ScottJ says:

You have no idea what I have and haven't used. I could throw down my credentials to rebut your assumptions but what's the point? You'd just dismiss them out of hand just like you've dismissed the legitimate drawbacks to touch screen use on a desktop with weak rebuttals.

There's no way you can be as precise with a normal human finger as you can with a mouse. Impossible. It's physics. In fact, that's why modern touch interfaces use huge buttons and text to allow touch screens to be useful at all.

Fingerprints are a major problem. You can just shrug it off. Your rhetorical skills are weak so I don't blame you. It doesn't change the problem.

Please tell us what kind of design work you do where you can get away with a touch interface. Something tells me you won't say. Just a guess.

brendilon says:

You've got my credentials in a post below, I won't bother repeating it. Do you want my LinkedIn next? So what do you do chief? How much time have you spent working with touchscreens on a desktop? Are you going to tell me more about how I cant possibly do my job with a touchscreen when I know people who are doing it and know that most in the design industry are eager for such tools?

How exactly are fingerprints a major problem? When the screen is on, you can't see them (unless you're some slob smearing pizza grease all over your screen, and a screen is a lot easier to clean than a keyboard) and when the screen is off, who cares? So how are fingerprints a "major problem"?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about, do yourself a favor and just stop talking.

npco543 says:

I really try not to stoop to this level, but you really are a fool.

"-Precision - Have you used one? No? Then you really have no idea. I do more precision work in an hour than you probably do in a month and the experience I've had in working with my boss's machine have been extremely positive."

Oh, really. I bow to your physic powers to know what everyone else does on their computers. You do more precision work in an hour than I (or the person you were replying to) do in a month, huh? Really? I do 3D modeling, image editing, video editing and throw in some CAD/CAM... on a daily basis. What, pray tell, do you do in an hour that requires more precision than that?

"-Fingerprints - Really? Who gives a frack?"

Hmmm, I do. I'm continually making sure my monitor is clean so while I'm retouching images, I don't mistake fingerprints on the screen for blemishes in the image. It's actually rather important.

"-Blocking the screen - Right, because everyone is going to hold their hands in front of the screen the entire time they're working."

Really funny that someone who does more precision work in an hour than most do in a month apparently doesn't understand this point. It really makes me suspect you don't actually do any precision work. Here's why it's an issue - if I'm modeling an object to be manufactured, it's actually rather important that points in a mesh line up and/or are *exactly* where I need them to be. When the tip of a finger covers an area of upwards of 8,100 pixels (90x90 square), all of which are blocked while trying to move a single point, it makes moving a point with any precision, literally, impossible.

"-Ergonomics - Do you have a degree in ergonomics?"

No, I don't, and I suspect neither do you. But I can say with absolute certainty that lifting/holding an entire arm in the air requires more effort than laying said arm on a table and resting the hand on a mouse. And here again, precision comes into play - since when the entire arm is held in the air, the hand, and by extension, the tip of the outstretched finger is inherently less stable than a hand resting on a mouse on a table. But being the savant that you apparently are, I'm sure you happen to be able to hold your arm in the air with your outstretched finger, indefinitely and without a hair of movement or fatigue. Must be from all the precision work you do each hour of the day.

"-Looking stupid pointing at your computer screen"

I could care less how I look while I'm working, all I care about is what will enable me to do better work, or work more efficiently. And touch does neither.

So, in short, you are:

1. A fool
2. Most likely full of shit
3. Arrogant


brendilon says:

I've already given my credentials, twice. Apparently HOK with their Revit/Touch customizations are fools too. God only knows how they got to be so successful.

So, how much time have YOU spent using a touch enabled desktop? I can't help but notice that every time I have asked that question of anyone here, no one ever actually answers it. The only folks to have mentioned how much time they have spent using one were positive about the experience. having spent several days messing around with a touchscreen desktop and trying to see how well Autodesk's tools functioned with Windows 8 and a touchscreen interface, I can say from personal experience that it was ergonomically comfortable to use and I found no issues with precision.


ScottJ says:

Thanks. I had to get back to actual work so couldn't continue educating the fool. Apparently, the extra precision he gains by using touch interfaces allows him near infinite time to yammer on and on in opposition to logic and common sense.

I certainly wouldn't hire anyone whose logic faculty was so impaired that they would think for a moment that a finger touchscreen interface could ever be more precise than a mouse and keyboard, much less a drawing tablet.

Obviously, Brendlion has been raiding Snoop Lion's stash if he believes his own BS.


Bwahahahaha says:

I think it's safe to say you owned brendilon, or whatever his dumbass name is, and owned him hard! Fantastic response! Straight to the point with FACTS to back it up. He's clearly a fool, and everyone should just leave it at that... let him keep talking and talking... it will only serve to make him look more like the complete and utter fool he has shown himself to be thus far. We have to just relax and eventually come to the conclusion that some people in this world just do not possess even a sliver of basic logic... and leave it at that.
 
@al-Hasani

Did you read about the Kurgan hypothesis or model I referred to? This post will clarify some of the points I made in the past. This model refers to the spread of proto-Indo-European tribes & languages from a region around the Black Sea. That's also where the R1a & R1b haplogroups are generally considered to have arose. A region around the Black Sea, possibly present within the territories of Anatolia making it Western Asian in origin. That also proves that the Middle Eastern region back then itself was home to varying populations not always related to each other. Just because a haplogroup originates in the Middle East or around Western Asia (near the Black Sea) as in the case of R1a, does not imply that it originated among modern Semitic people in the region or has anything to do with them. Some even argue that the Philistines in the Bible were Indo-European speakers. Anyway, that's (around the Black Sea) where the PIE tribes resided & that's exactly where the proto-Indo-European language was spoken too. The Yamna culture is associated with them & this includes proto-Indo-Iranians as well, they are one segment of tribes among them. Of course Europe was already inhabited by a population residing there from Paleolithic times. The Neolithic farming revolution predates both proto-Indo-Europeans & proto-Semitic people or should I say Afroasiatic tribes of whom Semitic is one branch. After Afroasiatic migrations were complete, the proto-Semitic language was spoken in the Levant. This (neolithic) agricultural revolution spread from the Middle East both by migration & flow of knowledge, but this group wasn't Semitic or Indo-European.

This is exactly the point I was making in the "red line" (I can't remember the full name at the moment) thread. We both agreed regarding the Proto-Indo-Iranian migrations from Central Asia, but the mistake you made was to assume that I was referring to Central Asia when I spoke of other PIE tribes migrating. I never implied or stated that Southern or Eastern Europeans migrated from there, neither did I state they were "Central Asian nomads" as you call Indo-Iranians in a derogatory sense. In fact, I was referring to the Kurgan model & it's that map I kept referring you to on that thread. The Indo-Iranians had 2 migrations; one from the PIE homeland & the other from Andronovo. The remaining PIE tribes spread in other directions & the Latins tribes migrated from the PIE homeland to Italia & happen to be ancestors to the Romans. Similarly the Mycenaeans migrated from the same homeland to Greece. So the PIE tribes in Eastern, South Eastern & generally all of Europe migrated from the PIE homeland. That is exactly what I meant when I said all Indo-European tribes are related. These people established authority over the Paleolithic people in Europe & even assimilated with them. A similar thing happened with the Indo-Iranians in the East.

Another mistake that you made was to assume that there are no connections between the Indo-Iranians & other Indo-Europeans in Europe. That's not true, apart from the genetic connection I referred to earlier (R1 haplogroups) one factor upon which the Kurgan model is based, linguistics states that Sanskrit is one of the oldest Indo-European languages & the Rigveda shares names of deities with the proto-Indo-European religion. Dyaus Pitra for instance is the same as Zeus Pater & the Latin Jupiter; all 3 refer to the "sky father" in PIE religion. There are loads of other similarities but they will take too long to state. Moving on, the Latins & the Greeks while being actually Indo-European in language, culture, & genetics did mix with other groups as indicated by genetic studies, the same goes for Indo-Iranians. The Romans did assimilate a bit with the foreign Etruscans (Lydians of Anatolia, not Semitic), but they also considered Etruscans as tyrannical & drove out their kings from Rome. However, all of them remain primarily of Indo-European stock. Study up on different battles, slavery of women & children & you will learn about the assimilation took place between both men & women. That is why you find paternal & maternal lineages spread in large portions of the world albeit in very small percentages. Generally, most groups always marry among themselves, & nature has designed people to be attracted to their own. These nations are bound to share similarities with the East too seeing as they were in constant contact with Eastern nations.

Another mistake you made was the claim that the Indo-Europeans aren't a race. Well, technically the Semites aren't a race either. Both groups belong to the Caucasian race, but all of us continue to refer to Semitic, Indo-European & other Caucasians as separate races because of the difference in bloodline, language, & culture. The proto-Indo-European tribes share a common origin, just like how the Afroasiatic & later on its branches of tribes & languages which include proto-Semitic people share common origins. That is exactly why people state that the Thracians, Hellenic & Latin people were cousins to the Indo-Iranians, their languages are sister languages too. It's no different from how the Semitic tribes are cousins to each other. Moving on, the Indo-Iranians are definitely not primitive tribes that you assumed them to be. They had cultures & societies before the migrations from Andronovo as well, one of which is the Sintashta culture. Of course, that does not negate the fact that their best civilizations arose after the 2nd migration from Andronovo to the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, & the Indus after coming in to contact with the others over there. In the red line thread, you seemed to be confused about the word "Aryan". The 19th to early 20th century definition of the term that applies this identity to all Europeans is incorrect. The Sanskrit word "Arya" & its derivatives were only used by the Indo-Iranians to refer to themselves. This term was never used by any other proto-Indo-European tribes which include the Latins & others to refer to themselves. The Indo-Iranians or "Aryans" as they called themselves were huge in number & according to some claims their migrations from Andronovo to Afghanistan spanned over the course of a 1000 years.

Your last error on the "red line" thread was laughing off the claims of Shem, Ham, & Japheth & their relations to modern day people as presented in the Bible. If I remember correctly, you wondered why Semities would describe Indo-Europeans, but you accept that Shem is the father of Semites. Once again, it isn't Semites describing anyone but the Torah which is considered a divine book in Abrahamic religions. Biblical & even some Islamic scholars believe Shem to be the father of Semites, & Japheth to be the father of Indo-Europeans. Of course, this relates to religion, not science, even though science does prove that Indo-Europeans & Semites are a different branch of people, each with their own ancient languages & cultures. Flavius Josephus's identification of people might be worth referring to, but it might not be 100% accurate.

Javan; the son of Japheth according to the Bible is associated with the Ionians (an ancient Hellenic tribe), whereas Madai; son of Japheth is associated with Medians or Indo-Iranians in general sometimes according to the "Table of Nations". The point to be made here is that this is only a perspective of Abrahamic religions, even though the story of Noah's flood or a great flood does seem to occur in many cultures across the world. As far as the spread of Indo-Iranian languages is concerned in the Sub-Continent. It should be noted that the Indo-Iranians settled in the north-western regions of the Sub-Continent all the way to the Iranian plateau. There were travels in other regions too of course, but these were their primary settlements after the 2nd migration (Andronovo). Their political & cultural dominance in the Sub-Continent led to the spread of their languages. That's why even non-Indo-Iranian ethnicities speak languages descending from Sanskrit & Prakrit. In conclusion, all of this had to be clarified from the "Iran warns the US over "the Red Line"" (found the thread again) thread. I couldn't do it at the time because of the constant trolling & fighting among all of us back then. You made a number of mistakes on the Kurgan model's migrations & even accused me of making similar mistakes, while it's your own fault that you didn't read up on the entire Kurgan hypothesis. The Indo-Iranian migrations are a part of this model as is the culture of the PIE tribes which is proven by archaeological records. Well, these issues have finally been clarified. Note that there are other theories of origins as well, but this is the most dominant & accepted account. Alternative origin theories some of them foolishly ludicrous exist for all peoples, but this has the most scientific, genetic, archaeological, & let's not forget linguistic backing behind it.
 
@Desert Fox @DESERT FIGHTER @Shapur Zol Aktaf @Arabian Legend

@al-Hasani (You might be interested in this post as well, although it contains extra details such as the Harappans who weren't relevant to our discussions in the past.)

All of you may want to read post #39733 of this thread. This is a refutation of all the points that were made against the origins of the proto-Indo-Europeans along with other minor discussions regarding haplogroups, Semitic people, etc. In the "red line" thread that I mentioned in the previous post, there was too much trolling & little time for a serious discussion seeing as how late it was in my time zone. There is no real reason to bring up this topic again, but this issue seems to be repeated on multiple threads so a correct refutation & discourse is necessary. Of course, I also required clarifying myself & presenting my points in a more eloquent manner, something which simply couldn't be done while all of us were trolling. I need to add a few more details too, one of the claims was that haplogroups predate ethnicity. I already know that of course or I wouldn't have mentioned proto-Indo-Iranians evolving in to their modern day ethnicities, which include Pashtuns, Baloch, Kashmiri, etc. Furthermore, we are aware that Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups refer to the male paternal lineage & the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) refers to the maternal, that is school level biology.

On the thread mentioned in the previous post (that post is linked on this post) I noticed a minor confusion as to which ethnic group mixed paternally & maternally. One cause of this confusion arising was that my example only mentioned paternal mixture from one ethnic group & not the other way around, even though it's supposed to be understood that both mixed (paternally & maternally). It's always been the case that mixture from both sides has to be accounted for, even though I should have mentioned intermarriage occurring between men & women from all different ethnicities (Semitic, Indo-European, & the descendants of paleolithic & neolithic populations) on that thread earlier on, but I did clarify whatever confusion existed later on in the same thread. When we speak of mixture, both male & female mixture has to be taken in to consideration when discussing origins & even ancestral migrations, & that is evident by the spread of both male & female paternal & maternal lineages respectively. However, it's obvious that paternal lineage establishes descent. As mentioned earlier, most ethnic groups back then & even today generally marry their own because men & women are naturally attracted to individuals of their own ethnicities, & sometimes those of a similar appearance, culture, language & origins.

The Neolithic agricultural revolution led to migrations from the Middle East, not only to Europe but other parts of the world too. This is exactly what the population of the "near East" refers too. However, it should be noted that these people weren't Semitic or Indo-European. Their haplogroup is E1b1b if I am not mistaken, & it's associated with the spread of agriculture. The people belonging to the haplogroup G2a are also to be associated with this expansion in some cases. The proto-Indo-European haplogroup is R1a & the Western European dominant paternal lineage is R1b. Both groups are related, but the presence of Indo-European languages indicates that members of the R1a haplogroup dominated the continent resulting in the spread of their languages & cultures. Let's not forget that they assimilated with those belonging to R1b, just because they aren't dominant doesn't mean they are absent. Languages & cultures back then did not spread without migration even though language does not always indicate origins so genetic, linguistic, archaeological, & cultural factors are taken in to consideration together.

Any study can confirm all of this. The Indo-Iranians as indicated by all of those previously mentioned factors (genes, language, culture, et cetera combined) pass the test of descending from proto-Indo-Europeans. Proto-Greek speakers arrived from the PIE homeland as the Mycenaeans, genetics confirms their affinity to the PIE people as does their language & culture. Archaeological records of their chariots & bronze age tools show some similarity to PIEs & the Greek language broke off from proto-Indo-Iranian quite late according to multiple accounts. Their haplogroups are R1a & according to some a bit of R1b as well, it doesn't matter because both groups are related anyway. That further indicates the relation between the 2 (Indo-Iranian & Hellenic) groups, & this arrival of early Hellenic (Mycenaean) tribes to Greece led to them assimilating with the locals & dominating with their own traditions to form the early Greek civilization.

The Semitic haplogroup is J1 or as more informative sources call it "J-M267". This originated in Western Asia as well & spread with the travels of Semitic people & Phoenician colonies in North Africa way back. Arab migrations during the Islamic Caliphates era in North Africa played its role in this expansion too. J2 is a related haplogroup to J1 & the 2 groups intermingled a lot, & it (J2) has to do with both Middle Eastern & other populations of surrounding regions. As far as I know, J2 is not considered a Semitic marker the way J1 is. The J haplogroups in general are most dominant in Semitic speaking populations (Middle East primarily & North Africa (Carthage)) with their frequencies becoming lower in Europe & other parts of the world. Incidentally, the haplogroup J2 is also associated with bull worship, & there is some evidence of minor J2 paternal lineages existing on the Indus, but they were overwhelmed by the presence of R1a (Vedic Aryans). It's interesting to note that some Harappan seals before the Vedic era do contain images of a bull, & their presence has been noted in Harappa & Mohenjo-daro. I will add a link to a documentary on the Harappans for anyone that's interested. These people combined with their languages are for the most part extinct, but our modern day populations should have a varying degree of mixture with them (depending upon the region) especially from the maternal side. As history indicates, after the Harappans, Indo-Iranians dominated the Indus by language, culture, & blood.

Together, this indicates that a hell of a lot haplogroups & people resided & originated in Western Asia & the Middle East, but that does not mean that all those people & their heritages belong to modern Semitic people simply because they live in that region today. Proto-Semitic & proto-Indo-Europeans appear later on towards the end of the Neolithic expansion. Lastly, it must be added that in the Indus & Afghanistan region many ethnic groups still retain an appearance close to the purer Indo-Iranian, but like everywhere else on Earth, there has been corruption due to the mixture with Harappans & other locals in some areas more than others. That's enough for now, I might add more if I recall any other thing that needs clarification. All of the information contained in this post as well as the previous one is accurate & members interested in this topic may confirm it for themselves. As always, research on these subjects in still going on. Some people while claiming or assuming themselves to be experts or even claiming to be affiliated with or knowing them need to check their sources, & this goes for many people here including those that have been debated with in the past. The Kurgan hypothesis along with all these other origins of different nations are confirmed & studied upon by not only geneticists, but by archaeologists, linguists, historians, et cetera as well.

A documentary on the Harappans as mentioned previously is present here for anyone that's interested.

@Yzd Khalifa

You may want to read these 2 posts as well because I believe it was a thread you started where this topic was originally discussed leading to that thread's derailment. Trolling happens to deter serious discussions, & border line supremacist views are expressed quite often in topics such as these by a few people. These refutations & clarifications are necessary & the falsification of any historical event shouldn't be acceptable, but debate is always good.

Anyway, these posts should be very informative regarding those subjects, & members can do their own research if desired.

@flamer84

There was epic trolling quite a while back during a discussions of origins on a particular thread, these posts are a conclusion to that. The reason I mentioned you is because of my reference to the Thracians in the last post. I am pretty sure they resided in regions constituting modern day Romania as well. They were a mix of Paleolithic & PIE tribes with an overlay of Hellenic culture especially during Macedonian rule & later on Romanization too. I think they were somewhat related to the Dacians, except that Dacians had a Celtic or Scythian related culture.

@Aamna14

Do you have an interest in population origins, civilizations & the history of our region (Indus)? I think it's great if you do, because the subjects are important & interesting on their own. I like ancient military tactics & battles as well, especially the more famous battles from back then such as the Punic wars, Battle of Hydaspes, Macedonian siege of Tyre, etc.

Anyway, I hope everyone enjoyed the read.
 
Last edited:
@p(-)0ENiX Thanks for tagging me. Yes i do have an interest in ancient civilizations and especially those of our region i have always been intrigued on those accounts well not particularly the military aspect of it but the intertwining of different cultures and the influence they had on each other in terms of language, religion, artifacts and obviously lifestyle. Your post was an absolute treat to read please keep writing as i do enjoy reading such posts which are rare.
 
@p(-)0ENiX Thanks for tagging me. Yes i do have an interest in ancient civilizations and especially those of our region i have always been intrigued on those accounts well not particularly the military aspect of it but the intertwining of different cultures and the influence they had on each other in terms of language, religion, artifacts and obviously lifestyle. Your post was an absolute treat to read please keep writing as i do enjoy reading such posts which are rare.

Thanks, I did want to start a thread on Alexander the Great of Macedonia, but I am not sure if I will have the time to discuss it in a detailed manner, because I am busy with my studies. Apart from that, it would require asking members to watch a lengthy documentary, & a number of explanations need to be provided alongside that due to Alexander's controversial history leaving aside the military aspect of his life.

If I do start such a discussion though, I will mention you alongside some other members too.

@p(-)0ENiX I admire your interest in history; many of your posts were quite good..
keep posting good stuff.

Thanks.
 
Thanks, I did want to start a thread on Alexander the Great of Macedonia, but I am not sure if I will have the time to discuss it in a detailed manner, because I am busy with my studies. Apart from that, it would require asking members to watch a lengthy documentary, & a number of explanations need to be provided alongside that due to Alexander's controversial history leaving aside the military aspect of his life.

If I do start such a discussion though, I will mention you alongside some other members too.

Sure i would be really glad. I have read some of you're earlier posts on various historical contexts and i'd be looking forward to having a fruitful discussion on that subject. You do seem to be very well versed on the topic. Good luck with your studies.
 
Back
Top Bottom