> the Indian population structure is I think, about 2,000 years younger. China's population has more or less one base Wouldn't your above statement that China'

> the Indian population structure is I think, about 2,000 years younger. China's population has more or less one base Wouldn't your above statement that China's population is a single base invalidate the OT's statement that China was more open to immigration? Reading that link and following up on ASI, it looks like this is a truly ancient population set, ie: 3rd oldest after the first or second wave of migration out of Africa and past the Middle East. So it is interesting that this population set merged with numerous other population sets to form all the variation we see in South and South East Asia.