:D Turkish DNA closer to South Asian than Central Asian / East Asian

[Fractal]

It's only a few Hindus that claim our ancestry, most just try to claim us as fellow South Asians or claim our land as part of "Akhand Bharat" and some don't even care much about Pashtuns. It's mainly just South Asian Muslims that froth over Pashtuns.

Mainly Kashmiris and Jatts, yes. Gujarati Patels are as far removed from being Pashtun or Persian as Greeks are to Icelanders.

[Fractal]

Oh look, Desi-crated In-cels so very triggered
If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied to SA first when he wasn't even talking to your slimy Patel ass. First it was your fellow Hindu Dindu who tried to claim closeness with others first (Turks in this case). Note that it's so obvious that no one in this thread, not Turks, not Italians, not Pashtuns, not Kurds wants anything to do with your kind. So before whining about Indians being besieged how about just pissing off from everyone since your very presence is offensive oh you most undesirable of races

Thats not the attitude of my Chinese employees, the ones that work for us at our hotels, and at the start up companies we own.

Show some respect Wang Liu.

Also, trust me. Write it down. I want nothing to do with those groups. Genetically, ethnically, or culturally. Nothing.

[Thambi]

LET ME JUST POST THIS AGAIN


" The largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics predicted that the weight of Central Asian migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%.[4] The authors conclude on the basis of previous studies that "South Asian contribution to Turkey's population was significantly higher than East/Central Asian contributions,

continued low level migration from South Asia into Anatolia." They note that these weights are not direct estimates of the migration rates as the [B]original donor populations are not known[B] [5][6] "



LIKE THE STUDY SAYS. No one can say if their South-Central Asian contribution was Central Asian Turks or it was Gypsy.

Couldn't they get it from iranians? I mean they have the baloch, as well as s.asian in their dna. South asian haplogorups are limited in that region since turks didnt get mixture from the south asian groups. The fact that balkan roma are the only ones with high H makes my point even stronger. They are the closest to the original gypsy population that left india. I mean they are low caste. Their highest haplogroup frequency had to be H or R2. L, R1a, J are found in them as well, but percentage wise its lower than H. H forms the highest percentage in pretty much all low caste south asian groups. The other gypsies with different autosomal dna and haplogroups are extremely admixed or converted. I just feel gypsies are so randomly brought up. Quite out of the blue. Their presence is stronger in eastern europe than turkey and even in east europe most of the people get no more than 1-2% south asian, if even that. Gypsies got admixed from other groups, but they didn't spread their dna to the same extent.

Besides, How do you explain those turkish gedmatch dna stats then? Siberian+East asian makes up way more than south asian. If south asian+baloch/gedrosian makes a "true" south asian, then wouldn't a central asian be admixed as well? with baloch, ne euro, east asian, siberian? Baloch has been there for like 10k years and as I mentioned it came from an iranic population. Balochis are iranic. They are not south asian. They just geographically live there. Infact balochis are less south asian than pashtuns. Balochistan was never part of south asian history lol. It was always part of persian empire. Since the british rule, it became part of our region. You should know some of the history.

Anyways it could just be some ancient caucasian type component that's just there and balochis happen have that component in highest percentage. I'm not saying some of the west eurasian couldn't have come from the migrating south asian populations, but most indian populations have more south asian than baloch or at least both at similar percentages. So if these turkish people have 2-3% south asian, their west eurasian contribution from those groups could be nothing more than 2-3%. So thats a grand total of 4-6%. That is still lower than the east asian/siberian components. I'm just bringing the original part of this discussion. Bhai, just have that desi pride. that extra 5% south asian isn't gonna make us any closer to them. Btw what part of india is your family from?

[Fractal]

Oh look, Desi-crated In-cels so very triggered
If you really didn't care you wouldn't have replied to SA first when he wasn't even talking to your slimy Patel ass. First it was your fellow Hindu Dindu who tried to claim closeness with others first (Turks in this case). Note that it's so obvious that no one in this thread, not Turks, not Italians, not Pashtuns, not Kurds wants anything to do with your kind. So before whining about Indians being besieged how about just pissing off from everyone since your very presence is offensive oh you most undesirable of races

I take that as a compliment. To get ahead in the USA, one has to be slimey, especially in business. Ruthless and aggressive and its why Patels are #1 here and the most successful and wealthiest of all Indian groups.

This country was built on sliminess, from land grabbing and slaughtering Native American savages, to the African Slave trade, to using Chinese peasants for railwroad construction.

Just don't ever compare me to greasy nasty middle easterners, please.

And don't be jealous of the Aryan race, Mr. Wang Liu.

[Gangrel]

--

Let me add salt to the wound and post mine, this is also considering the fact that my mtDNA is most likely South Asian

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 37.48
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 21.06
3 SW_Asian 19.87
4 WHG 11.49
5 Siberian_E_Asian 4.62
6 SE_Asian 2.54
7 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 1.92
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.02


Finished reading population data. 118 populations found.
9 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Azeri @ 5.717062
2 Turkish @ 8.769002
3 Kurd_N @ 9.343232
4 Iranian @ 9.774139
5 Adygei @ 9.946453
6 Kumyk @ 10.189904
7 Georgian @ 10.881948
8 Abkhasian @ 11.070022
9 Azeri_Dagestan @ 11.325201
10 Armenian @ 11.662483
11 Chechen @ 12.651782
12 Georgian_Jew @ 13.922104
13 Lezgin @ 15.20069
14 Kurd_C @ 15.711334
15 Iranian_Jew @ 16.028674
16 Druze @ 19.530734
17 Cypriot @ 19.97384
18 Iraqi_Jew @ 20.052865
19 Lebanese @ 20.107254
20 Syrian @ 20.209596

[lameduck]

Couldn't they get it from iranians? I mean they have the baloch, as well as s.asian in their dna. South asian haplogorups are limited in that region since turks didnt get mixture from the south asian groups. The fact that balkan roma are the only ones with high H makes my point even stronger. They are the closest to the original gypsy population that left india. I mean they are low caste. Their highest haplogroup frequency had to be H or R2. L, R1a, J are found in them as well, but percentage wise its lower than H. H forms the highest percentage in pretty much all low caste south asian groups. The other gypsies with different autosomal dna and haplogroups are extremely admixed or converted. I just feel gypsies are so randomly brought up. Quite out of the blue. Their presence is stronger in eastern europe than turkey and even in east europe most of the people get no more than 1-2% south asian, if even that. Gypsies got admixed from other groups, but they didn't spread their dna to the same extent.

Besides, How do you explain those turkish gedmatch dna stats then? Siberian+East asian makes up way more than south asian. If south asian+baloch/gedrosian makes a "true" south asian, then wouldn't a central asian be admixed as well? with baloch, ne euro, east asian, siberian? Baloch has been there for like 10k years and as I mentioned it came from an iranic population. Balochis are iranic. They are not south asian. They just geographically live there. Infact balochis are less south asian than pashtuns. Balochistan was never part of south asian history lol. It was always part of persian empire. Since the british rule, it became part of our region. You should know some of the history.

Anyways it could just be some ancient caucasian type component that's just there and balochis happen have that component in highest percentage. I'm not saying some of the west eurasian couldn't have come from the migrating south asian populations, but most indian populations have more south asian than baloch or at least both at similar percentages. So if these turkish people have 2-3% south asian, their west eurasian contribution from those groups could be nothing more than 2-3%. So thats a grand total of 4-6%. That is still lower than the east asian/siberian components. I'm just bringing the original part of this discussion. Bhai, just have that desi pride. that extra 5% south asian isn't gonna make us any closer to them. Btw what part of india is your family from?

but Baloch are very different culturally and to an extent physically from mainstream iranians , they are best described as a unique population with close ties to IVC and Hindukush,

[Thambi]

but Baloch are very different culturally and to an extent physically from mainstream iranians , they are best described as a unique population with close ties to IVC and Hindukush,

I didn't say they were iranians, but rather iranic. Pashtuns fall into the same category. Turkish people most likely got the baloch component through the iranians instead of getting it directly from south asian groups. Actually they could have been original IVC people since south indians and baloch share similar haplogroups, but autosomally baloch people are very different now from south asians. They are more similar to west asian groups with a bit african influence and ASI influence.

[ButlerKing]

Couldn't they get it from iranians? I mean they have the baloch, as well as s.asian in their dna. South asian haplogorups are limited in that region since turks didnt get mixture from the south asian groups. The fact that balkan roma are the only ones with high H makes my point even stronger. They are the closest to the original gypsy population that left india. I mean they are low caste. Their highest haplogroup frequency had to be H or R2. L, R1a, J are found in them as well, but percentage wise its lower than H. H forms the highest percentage in pretty much all low caste south asian groups. The other gypsies with different autosomal dna and haplogroups are extremely admixed or converted. I just feel gypsies are so randomly brought up. Quite out of the blue. Their presence is stronger in eastern europe than turkey and even in east europe most of the people get no more than 1-2% south asian, if even that. Gypsies got admixed from other groups, but they didn't spread their dna to the same extent.

Besides, How do you explain those turkish gedmatch dna stats then? Siberian+East asian makes up way more than south asian. If south asian+baloch/gedrosian makes a "true" south asian, then wouldn't a central asian be admixed as well? with baloch, ne euro, east asian, siberian? Baloch has been there for like 10k years and as I mentioned it came from an iranic population. Balochis are iranic. They are not south asian. They just geographically live there. Infact balochis are less south asian than pashtuns. Balochistan was never part of south asian history lol. It was always part of persian empire. Since the british rule, it became part of our region. You should know some of the history.

Anyways it could just be some ancient caucasian type component that's just there and balochis happen have that component in highest percentage. I'm not saying some of the west eurasian couldn't have come from the migrating south asian populations, but most indian populations have more south asian than baloch or at least both at similar percentages. So if these turkish people have 2-3% south asian, their west eurasian contribution from those groups could be nothing more than 2-3%. So thats a grand total of 4-6%. That is still lower than the east asian/siberian components. I'm just bringing the original part of this discussion. Bhai, just have that desi pride. that extra 5% south asian isn't gonna make us any closer to them. Btw what part of india is your family from?

Some got it from Iranians and some got it from South Asian.

Their South Asian ASI ancestry ranges from 0.1% to 5.1% so their ANI ancestry would also range from anything 0.3% to 15.1% ( or at high as 5.1 to 10.1% ). ANI here is west Eurasian of North Indian type. Ancestral North Indian.

Combining South Asian ASI + ANI ancestry in Turks would be 0.4 to 20.4% depending on the individual.

Afghanistan was once part of India and Pakistan had always been part of India. The Balochi people are also significantly ASI mixed but a lot lower.

You are wrong, I don't claim Turks to be South Asian but just that they have a lot more South Asian ancestry than they think.

[Hudayar]

LET ME JUST POST THIS AGAIN


" The largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics predicted that the weight of Central Asian migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%.[4] The authors conclude on the basis of previous studies that "South Asian contribution to Turkey's population was significantly higher than East/Central Asian contributions,

continued low level migration from South Asia into Anatolia." They note that these weights are not direct estimates of the migration rates as the [B]original donor populations are not known[B] [5][6] "



LIKE THE STUDY SAYS. No one can say if their South-Central Asian contribution was Central Asian Turks or it was Gypsy.





YOU ARE WRONG

You are wrong to just classify Gypsies as H, R2, L since even in India they are a diverse group coming from different origins. Different gypsies sub-tribes would have differences in Y-DNA just like the gypsies in Europe, some have extremely high R1a



7 major Romani populations tested

http://radikal.ru/lfp/s009.radikal.r...38d1fa.png/htm


For example Hungarian Roma have 43.48% Happlogroup R ( 24.78% R1a + 18.70% R1b ) , other gypsies have it at 20-30% of haplogroup R.

Other European or Caucasus Romani have either 30-40% Haplogroup J and other like Macedonian Roma have 29% E and others also have 30-35% I1a.






Like it's already mentioned in wikipedia. Haplogroup H is not the modal haplogroup for all gypsies because some have it less than 10

Haplogroup H

" Y-DNA Haplogroup H1a occurs in Romani at frequencies 7–70%. Unlike ethnic Hungarians, among Hungarian and Slovakian Romani subpopulations "

Haplogroup H exist only highly in the Balkan Roma but is low at other Roma and almost non-existant in Slovakian Romani population.

ALSO

Among Hungarian and Slovakian Romani subpopulations, Haplogroup E-M78 and I1 usually occur above 10% and sometimes over 20%. While among Slovakian and Tiszavasvari Romani the dominant haplogroup is H1a, among Tokaj Romani is Haplogroup J2a (23%), while among Taktaharkány Romani is Haplogroup I2a (21%).[150]



Balochi/Gedrosian is a South Asian component along with ASI however I don't understand why genetic studies doesn't considered South Asian even though it originated from South Asia and later spreaded to neolithic Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia.


Balochi originated from Balochistan which is mostly in modern day Pakistan and Pakistan used to be part of India. Geographically even Afghanistan is considered South Asia and Afghans, Pakis, North Indians are all related by Y-DNA R1a the only differences are their percentages of ASI admixture.

SOUTH CENTRAL ASIAN is located in Afghanistan/Pakistan (Pakistan was part of India )







Really their ASI was only 45% ? Than non-ASI admixture is still 55% even before some intermixing with Afghans.

Turkish people also have 15% Balochi, who's to say that a portion of it's DNA did not came from Gypsy's Balochi components?

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.co...71-2164-15-963
here's the study
study literally says nothing about "central asian heritage". rather, east asian heritage. so 21.7% is east asian not central asian


The study says
For instance, we do not know the exact genetic relationship between current-day East Asian populations and the Turkic speakers from Central Asia who migrated into Anatolia about 1,000 years before present. In fact, Hodoglugil and Mahley, using HGDP genotyping data, predict that South Asian contribution to Turkey's population was significantly higher than East/Central Asian contributions [13], suggesting that the genetic variation of medieval Central Asian populations may be more closely related to South Asian populations, or that there was continued low level migration from South Asia into Anatolia. Another possibility is Ancient North Eurasian genetic contribution to both the historical Anatolian and East Asian populations [28], which might have been interpreted as migration in this dataset.