U r talking nonsense ....Dravidians vary in skin colour and that
has nothing to do with where they came from...and there are dark
north Indians too... Telegu are very similar to Tamil people, and
they can understand and speak Tamil..
hi Midnight masala
I think I have already crossed path with you on this same topic
for more than 1 time already, and I have provided the answers in
the past as usual already.
Please take a look at this old thread and my replies quoted:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/2245/topics/355820
this reply:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/2245/topics/355820#post_9007125
in terms of
Southern beauties, i think you will agree that the brown skinned
Kanarese and Telagana are beautiful. they looked naturally tanned
and exhibit both a northern and southern admixture in their
looks
this reply:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/2245/topics/355820#post_9008299
south indian in themselves is also too big a territory
the four big states that are considered Dravidian and South Indian
are Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala
the admixture of Northern and Southern Indians can be seen easily
in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka (as I have mentioned in my earlier
post - the Telagana and the Kanarese). in itself, the language of
Telugu and Kannada also has more Sanskrit elements deeply embedded
within itself than Malayalam and Tamil
in Kerala, the Brahmins from the north whom settled down abt 800yrs
ago contributed to a sub-class of fairer people in Kerala.
you will find fair and very tanned people in Kerala itself
this reply:
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/2245/topics/355820#post_9008449
if you take time to read some anthropological articles you will
find that northern and southern indians no doubt look very
different across the subcontinent, there are not much difference in
their genetic markers
that means that since the Indo-Harrapan era when the Indo-Aryan
migrated and mixed with the supposedly local Elamite population
there has been much intermixture already and we cannot easily
demarcate a north and south indian biologically other than
outwardly physical appearances
(<< In this reply, I mentioned
that "northern and southern indians ... not much
difference in their genetic markers" in
April
2009 [credits: Dieneke's -->
>> by September 2009, the below article
[hereby referred as the 'new research results'] showed that
"It is now clear that they are different from each other
genetically as well")
I do know that Dravidians vary in skin colour if you talk about
in the linguistic sense. And I also do know that there are dark
north Indians.
But genetically, skin colour (& linguistical correlation)
still correlates with genetic markers at large, given recent
research on genetic distance.
From the (controversial yet scientifically substantiated)
scholarly website on anthropology:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/09/560k-snp-study-reveals-dual-rigin-of.html
I will quote only this important paragraph related to our
topic:
There is no evidence
that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers differ only in
language.
It is now clear that they
are different from each other genetically as
well,
and this difference is not an "internal affair" of India, but is
related to populations outside it. Indo-Aryan speakers differ
precisely in having a larger ANI component.
And I am talking nonsense??? 
