@treopod from anthroscape writes
Id like to talk to that idiot you responded too, he is factually wrong about his entire statement.
ASI is not australoid and not Onge either, that is established fact. Onge cluster extremely far away from ASI, and extremely far away from australian aborigines as well, who in turn cluster extremely far away from ASI as well, none of these components are related at all.
The adivasi tribes of india do in fact carry some australoid/negrito admixture that is separate and unrelated to ASI, which is why they look archaic and non-caucasoid. But the main indian population (Indo-aryan and dravidian caste populations) do not have that admixture, it is restricted to these tribal populations.
ASI does not make you less caucasoid, as we dont know how pure ASI people looked like, for all we know, ASI had caucasoid features as well, as the majority of dravidian speakers who have the most ASI, look caucasoid with dark skin.
For example, Europeans have cromagnoid/paleolithic european admixture, which some central asian and middle eastern cacuasoid populations lack, but still each of these populations are classfied as caucasoid despite them being very different looking from each other, so indians should follow the same rule, despite the fact that they on average have 50% ASI, vast majority of the main population is still fully caucasoid in terms of anthropolical studies.