11th June 2015
Genetics/DNA is doesn’t even validate well known (historical) invasions, what light can it throw on OIT?
A couple of people have opposed the evidence I’ve provided against OIT by suggesting that there is no genetic evidence of an “invasion” (AIT).
In the booklet that I published a few days ago, I noted reasons why genetic evidence is not useful as far as the OIT theory is concerned.
But also note that I’m NOT advocating AIT. All I’m saying is that OIT is incorrect, particularly its “strong” form which says that RV was formed in 5000bc and then spread the ideas that are found in some scattered forms across the middle east and central Asia. That OIT (in the form it is promoted by Hindutva fanatics) is false doesn’t make AIT true. Please keep that in mind.
So here's why genetics (at least in its current form and shape) is unsuited to language/cultural/religious research. Let me explain.
1) Genes don't tell us what language someone speaks or which god someone prays to. People within the same family often speak different languages and worship different gods. One of my grandmothers spoke a form of Panjabi that I could barely understand. I speak no Panjabi although I understand it. It is quite possible that my children won’t understand or speak any Indian language.
2) Political/religious leadership often (almost always) involves a very few people; sometimes just a handful. At times these people don't even marry (or marry within the family, as with the Egyptian pharaohs). English spread in India because of the economic benefits it provided, not because of genetic intermixing. If you test the average Indian, you’d hardly find any trace of British DNA. Inter-mingling of populations can take many forms and shapes. The Roma gypsies have migrated towards Europe and now reportedly have roughly 70 per cent European DNA, but their language/ culture remains Indian. On the other hand, a single Chengiz Khan’s tribe could sweep down and cause a sharp change in the bloodline of a vast number of people, by destroying the males and fertilising the females.
3) There is clear evidence that even HUGE and historically well documented invasions have left no trace on populations. A study showed that Romans and Vikings left no trace on the English DNA.
4) Finally, genetic science is at a very early stage of development. It is unable to throw any conclusive light on anything to do with language/ culture. We need to wait for at least 10 years before anything meaningful emerges from this field. At the moment, all kinds of views can be easily “justified” on the basis of “genetic” data.