I never said dark green is European...Caucasoid yes, but not European. In europeans is a sign of gypsy ancestry (see the two gypsy Romanians, are the ones who show high dark-green levels).
.They are caucasoid, but not European. Caucasoid populations have the same skull, like Europeans, any scientists can agree, but genetically we are different, Europeans create their own cluster, like the dark-blue component
Well, how many European populations are just "dark blue"?
Let's count them - oh its none!
Not all are that different, but many are in particular those shown as deviating form European phenotypes more strongly, for example Turkish people with foreign/new influences:What are you talking about ? The haplogroups J, J1 and J2 were born THERE, and are STILL TODAY the majority of haplogropus in those areas. What makes you think they were genetically different ??
The Western Turkish people without strong foreign/Eastern admixture are phenotypically often rather European too...
And I'm not just talking about Coon, but all anthropologists which dealt with the samples, from the time they were found to now.Im talking about genetics, not pseudoscience from Coon, the same who considered Egyptians and Arabs the same type as Iberians.
So is talking crap, me, if I rely on GENERATIONS of anthropologists and anthropometric, with practically all coming to THE SAME RESULTS - only the interpretation in detial varied, or you, if just dismiss this facts?!
Here is a newer study for example:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08...ture-into.htmlMoreover, the results highlight the utility of craniometric data for assessing patterns of past population dispersal and gene flow.
Genetic perspective is on-line with what physical anthropologists SINCE GENERATIONS already knew, if being more competent in their field.
I'm just waiting for the first data from Kurgan groups remains and that of Anatolian-South Eastern European Neolithics...
Nonsense. The intepretation in detail varies, but how can it vary if comparing Mediterranoids with Armenoids?This is IRRELEVANT to the matter now. This thread is about SCIENCE, and GENETICS, not about pseudoscience and typology, who varies a lot depending on who does it.
You don't even need to measure to see the difference, what you say is ridiculous.
Do you think all the generations of anthropologists were not capable of measuring the skull? Even if they would have measured wrong, some militers, in the larger samples this doesn't change the whole result.
You are in denial...
To begin with, West Asian is much stronger in Europe than the other components, to go on, it also depends on the runs, because the same names might not mean the same thing in any case.Do you realize that if we were to consider West-Asian as a European component, we should also consider the Southwest-Asian, South-Asian, and all the Caucasoid component ??
But while South West Asian and South Asian is surely less European than WA, just look at the Fst-distance, which is as important as the distribution almost, especially if considering the make up of the West-North West, you can't really say that A CERTAIN AMOUNT of SWA or SA makes somebody less European, because these components are present up to the North, in the East, among various obviously very European populations.
Fact is, there are rather limits for the proportions, so making up a border for European or not makes more sense if using proportions, rather than excluding components which are in Europe since ages and a constitutive part of the European genpool.
Well, I'm not even 100 percent sure all of WA entered Europe in early Neolithic times, SWA even less sure - it seems most likely by now, but it might have entered later (Late Neolithic to Metal Ages) too.Actually the Southwest-Asian surely entered in Europe in the Neolithic waves, just like the West-Asian component. See, we are turning around in circles, you are confusing caucasoid with specific-european Alleles.
That's like saying the only real Europeans are European Neandertalers and the few percentages Europeans have are "real European", while all the rest isn't.
There are only older and younger, more or less related, more or less European components, if they being distributed so evenly in most European populations.
Also, the Fst distance is crucial:
If you make West European "the golden standard", which is reasonable, you get see who's closer...
Below 0,1 is Europid one could say for example.
Mediterranean is not even closer to West European than West Asian, but equidistant (almost) to all the other main components of Europe (including WA and SWA).