Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
This is an old map based on outdated Dienekes run. BTW the sample use there consisted of Vologda Russians that have elevated Asian admix compared to Russians. Additionally I have to point out that West Asian and Siberian are not equal in terms of admix. One is Caucasoid element close to Euro ones while the latter is quite foreign. Circular argumentation and unbased assumptions. How do you define what is foreign in Europe? So West Asian admix is more European than Siberian admix because most of today's Europeans have a good share of the former instead of the latter. That means that if most Europeans have excessive SS African admix in the future, and if as a consequence West Asian admix becomes marginal, then SSA admix has to be considered European whereas West Asian is more foreign. |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
Where is the better map? Here you go with a Polacko's genetic map ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
West Asian is just genetically much closer to European than both African and Siberian components so there's nothing arbitrarry about the things I say. |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
No, Padre Organtino, West Asians are closer to most Europeans than the Siberians because most Europeans have these West Asian non-European components. If Finnics are the ultimate and real Europeans, then Siberian is more European than West Asian. Why would you consider "Indo-Europeans" to be more European than Finnics? Think about it for a while and you'll notice the circle. |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
Nope, Georgians are also closer to Basques who have effectively zero Anantolian/West Asian component than any really Siberian population. You seem to have a trouble understanding that Caucasoid population have diverged from each other much later than from non-Caucasoid ones. Of course Northern Euros have a bit higher affinity with East Asians than otehr Caucasoids even without Siberian admix (common Paleolithic ancestry) but that's about it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
Georgian caucasoids are non-European. The whole question about genetic Europeanness (West Asian vs. Siberian) is just as relevant as the question who are more American, those who have predominantly English or German ancestry. |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
Finns are not as white as eggs. Damned eggs, 1000% Europeans.
---------- Post added 2012-04-26 at 18:40 ---------- Not really. I thought Finns being more admixed with East Asians than Russians was a commond knowledge to everyone including Finns themselves. |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
They're still closer to any European group than say Mongols. So once again - Russians having more Med and Anatolian than Finns does not prevent them from being more Euro genetically as they have less East Asian. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
|
Well "common knowledge" about Finns seldom match with scientific facts like we see here. Finns admixed with Koreans and Japanese, you say? I'm impressed we managed to screw all across Siberia. Georgians are closer to Europeans than Mongols are, okay. That's true. And that proves WHAT? The fact is that West Asians = non-European, Siberians = non-European. The Russians have more East Asian than the Finns. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|