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

[ButlerKing]

Most likely the DNA was contributed by Indian Gypsies who intermixed with Turkish people explaining why modern Gypsies Turkish look more like Turkish people than Indian


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

" Autosomal studies with recent methodology estimate the Central Asian contribution in Turkish people at 13-15%[1][2][3] noting that results may indicate previous population movements (e.g. migration, admixture) or genetic drift, given the fact that Europe and South Asia have some genetic relatedness. "


" 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, 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." They note that these weights are not direct estimates of the migration rates as the original donor populations are not known, and the exact kinship between current East Asians and the medieval Oghuz Turks is uncertain. For instance, genetic pools of Central Asian Turkic peoples is particularly diverse and modern Oghuz Turkmens living in Central Asia are with slightly higher West Eurasian genetic component than East Eurasian.[5][6] "

[Pennywise]

ButlerKing is so happy

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d2/f2/8d/d2f28d51325518ae75186541e3457305.jpg

[ButlerKing]

ButlerKing is so happy

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d2/f2/8d/d2f28d51325518ae75186541e3457305.jpg

I find it funny that you Turks call other mutts

According to one autosomal analysis, the Turkish genetic pool falls within the following categories: [34]
38% Caucasian,
11% European early farmers,
7% European hunter-gatherers,
14% South Central Asians, <---------- South Asians:p
10% Near Eastern,
3% Ancestral Altaic, <--- Mongoloid
5% Tungus Altaic, <--- Mongoloid
3% East Siberian, <--- Mongoloid
2% South East Asian, <---- Mongoloid
3% North African,
1% Arctic, <---- Mongoloid
1% South Indian, <---- South Asian :p
1% Austronesian. <---- Mongoloid

You Turks are mixture of 14% Mongoloid and 15% South Asian.

The category Caucasus also consists the largest part of the genetics of several Turkic peoples, including the Turkmens.

East Eurasian admixture solely ranges from 0-3% in Eastern Turkey (which has a Kurdish-majority population in some provinces), through 6-9% in Central Anatolia, to 13-18% in Western Anatolia.[35]

[Pennywise]

I find it funny that you Turks call other mutts

According to one autosomal analysis, the Turkish genetic pool falls within the following categories: [34]
38% Caucasian,
11% European early farmers,
7% European hunter-gatherers,
14% South Central Asians, <---------- South Asians:p
10% Near Eastern,
3% Ancestral Altaic, <--- Mongoloid
5% Tungus Altaic, <--- Mongoloid
3% East Siberian, <--- Mongoloid
2% South East Asian, <---- Mongoloid
3% North African,
1% Arctic, <---- Mongoloid
1% South Indian, <---- South Asian :p
1% Austronesian. <---- mongoloid

You Turks are mixture of 13% Mongoloid and 14% South Asian.

The category Caucasus also consists the largest part of the genetics of several Turkic peoples, including the Turkmens.

East Eurasian admixture solely ranges from 0-3% in Eastern Turkey (which has a Kurdish-majority population in some provinces), through 6-9% in Central Anatolia, to 13-18% in Western Anatolia.[35]

No wonder Indians have 80 IQ. The South Asian component is more likely South Central Asian component which is exist among Central Asian Iranics. As it is mentioned in the study the source of it unclear and it may have been carried out by mediveal Oghuz migrations, which is the most likely scenerio. We don't know the exact genetic structure of the Oghuz migrants nor the Central Asia during that period.

[ButlerKing]

No wonder Indians have 80 IQ. The South Asian component is more likely South Central Asian component which is exist among Central Asian Iranics. As it is mentioned in the study the source of it unclear and it may have been carried out by mediveal Oghuz migrations, which is the most likely scenerio. We don't know the exact genetic structure of the Oghuz migrants nor the Central Asia during that period.

No wonder Turkish people have a low I.Q

Open your slanty eyes....... South Central Asian component is dominant in South Asian population


http://i48.tinypic.com/14y4i0.png

[Pennywise]

No wonder Turkish people have a low I.Q

Open your slanty eyes....... South Central Asian component is dominant in South Asian population


http://i48.tinypic.com/14y4i0.png

These are mostly Iranic peoples from Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Dravidians/Gypsys from the depths of India unlike you. That's what I said. They're in Central Asian cluster.

[RN97]

No wonder Indians have 80 IQ. The South Asian component is more likely South Central Asian component which is exist among Central Asian Iranics. As it is mentioned in the study the source of it unclear and it may have been carried out by mediveal Oghuz migrations, which is the most likely scenerio. We don't know the exact genetic structure of the Oghuz migrants nor the Central Asia during that period.

Do you really believe Turks are genetically closer to Kazakhs compared to Afghans? :confused:

[ButlerKing]

These are mostly Iranic peoples from Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Dravidians/Gypsys from the depths of India unlike you. That's what I said. They're in Central Asian cluster.


You wish !!!

For K = 4 level ancestry were 38% European, 35% Middle Eastern, 18% South Asian and 9% Central Asian.


Punjabi are predominant 70-80% South Central Asian components + 20-30% South Indian. However Punjabi cluster with Northwest Indians not with dravidian speakers. Other Indians like Sindhi are predominant South Central Asian. Dravidian speakers from South India are predominant South Indians

They are not Central Asian, they are South Asian !!!! YOU TURKS ALSO HAVE GYPSIES BLOOD !!! Your Indian blood came through the Gypsies migrant however Gypsies Turks are not South Asians ( who are no longer Indians ).

Of course I'm not saying all Turks are 18% South Asian but the fact that you have 1% South Indian on average is proof that the Central South Asian component are contributed from South Asian people.

Central South Asian = West Eurasian + South Indian

http://i57.tinypic.com/a4wmyx.png

Turks shows a degree of East Eurasian admixture but even their West Eurasian have a good degree of South Asian dmixture

http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png

[Pennywise]

Do you really believe Turks are genetically closer to Kazakhs compared to Afghans? :confused:

What Kazakhs have anything to do with this?

[ButlerKing]

Gypsies in Turkey
Romani people in Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people_in_Turkey

Gypsies were in Turkey in 9th century already


The Romani people (Turkish: Roman/Çingene) in Turkey are an ethnic minority. They descend from the times of the Byzantine Empire. Records about their presence in 9th century Asia Minor exist, where they arrived from Persia. With the expanse of the Ottoman Empire Turkish Romani settled also in Rumelia (Southern Europe under the Ottoman rule). Sulukule is the oldest Romani settlement in Europe. The descendants of the Ottoman Romani today are known as Xoraxane Romani and are of the Islamic faith.[1]


There is many possibilities how south asian dna intruded Turks

1 Turkmen had south asian dna

2. Gypsies ----Indian men/women mated with Turkish men/women hence Y-DNA L and mtDNA M2

[Pennywise]

You wish !!!

For K = 4 level ancestry were 38% European, 35% Middle Eastern, 18% South Asian and 9% Central Asian.


Punjabi are predominant 70-80% South Central Asian components + 20-30% South Indian. However Punjabi cluster with Northwest Indians not with dravidian speakers.
Other Indians like Sindhi are predominant South Central Asian.

They are not Central Asian, they are South Asian !!!! YOU TURKS ALSO HAVE GYPSIES BLOOD !!! Your Indian blood came through the Gypsies migrant however Gypsies Turks ( who are no longer Indians ).

Of course I'm not saying all Turks are 18% South Asian but the fact that you have 1% South Indian on average is proof that the Central South Asian component are contributed from South Asian people.

Central South Asian = West Asian + South Indian

http://i57.tinypic.com/a4wmyx.png

Turks in this study show high level of East Eurasian admixture but even their West Eurasian have a good degree of South Asian dmixture

http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png

My Dravidian friend, you are going full retard again. The south Asian component is mediveal among Turks and its origin is unclear. Oghuz Turks probably got this by mixing with local Central Asian Iranics as they also have significant amount of it. Now cut this trolling. It's getting boring.

[RN97]

What Kazakhs have to do with this?

Because OP said that you're closer to south asians than to central Asians.

[Pennywise]

Because OP said that you're closer to south asians than to central Asians.

Turks are genetically very distant to both populations. Cental Asia genetically is not homogeneous. We have some affinities with Turkmens for instance but not with Kazakhs and Kyrgyz.

[ButlerKing]

My Dravidian friend, you are going full retard again. The south Asian component is mediveal among Turks and its origin is unclear. Oghuz Turks probably got this by mixing with local Central Asian Iranics as they also have significant amount of it. Now cut this trolling. It's getting boring.


How stupid, you claim this has nothing to do with South Asians even though it predominates in the South Asian population ? How do you explain your South Indian admixture ? all South Asians have South Indian admixture so why is it present in Turks ?


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/carousel/nature09103-f3.2.jpg

[Pennywise]

How stupid, you claim this has nothing to do with South Asians even though it predominates in the South Asian population ? How do you explain your South Indian admixture ? all South Asians have South Indian admixture so why is it present in Turks ?


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/carousel/nature09103-f3.2.jpg

Read my post again. The South Asian admix is seem to be mediveal and Oghuz Turks got this by mixing with Central Asian Iranics. They came to Anatolia from Western Central Asia and Khorasan region. Not from New Delhi. It's equally ridiculous to say that Syrians have SSA admix because they have direct ancestors from Nigeria. Get it dumbass?

[ButlerKing]

What in-denial.

Turkish have 4.21% haplogroup L and 0.57% haplogroup H. These Y-DNA haplogroups are typical of Gypsies and also there is 4% South asian mtDNA of South Indian maternal ancestry.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Turkey_Y_chromosome(in_20_haplogroups).png

[ButlerKing]

Read my post again. The South Asian admix is seem to be mediveal and Oghuz Turks got this by mixing with Central Asian Iranics. They came to Anatolia from Western Central Asia and Khorasan region. Not from New Delhi. It's equally ridiculous to say that Syrians have SSA admix because they have direct ancestors from Nigeria. Get it dumbass?


Tell me, do these Gypsy Turks look South Asian or typical Turkish ?

Their phenotypes are closer to Turkish/Armenian/Kurdish

http://i60.tinypic.com/4hvzib.png
http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/01/A8/i000001A8.jpg
http://www.globalcelebration.com/uploads/images/Gallery/missions/Foosteps-of-Paul/Gypsies11.jpg
https://www.irisglobal.org/gallery/gal/November%202007/IMG_3397.jpg


Real Gypsies ( pure form ) looked like this

http://www.ursulasweeklywanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00-Moria-and-Anita_1495.jpg

[Pennywise]

^Mortimer is Gypsy from Serbia too, he is genetically %70 European, lel. They are mixed too. Your argument is invalid. Plus gypsies are quite distinguishable from ethnic Turks by phenotype vise.

[ButlerKing]

^Mortimer is Gypsy from Serbia too, he is genetically %70 European, lel. They are mixed too. Your argument is invalid. Plus gypsies are quite distinguishable from ethnic Turks by phenotype vise.

There is Indian Y-DNA/mtDNA in Turks.
Autosomal shows you have South Asian component
Gypsies who are of India origin are now predominant anatolian Turks genetically (through intermixing )

And you're telling the South Asian component in Turks have nothing to do with South Asian ? who are you trying to kid.

[Pennywise]

There is Indian Y-DNA/mtDNA in Turks.
Autosomal shows you have South Asian component
Gypsies who are of India origin are now predominant anatolian Turks genetically (through intermixing )

And you're telling the South Asian component in Turks have nothing to do with South Asian ? who are you trying to kid.

God knows where and when those haplogroups came or who are the donors. :lol: You Indian supermarket cashier in UK with %80 IQ is really funny.

[ButlerKing]

God knows where and when those haplogroups came or who are the donors. :lol: You Indian supermarket cashier in UK with %80 IQ is really funny.

You Turks only sell fruits, Kebab and contribute little to the economy of UK.

Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern + minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic.

[ButlerKing]

No wonder Indians have 80 IQ. The South Asian component is more likely South Central Asian component which is exist among Central Asian Iranics. As it is mentioned in the study the source of it unclear and it may have been carried out by mediveal Oghuz migrations, which is the most likely scenerio. We don't know the exact genetic structure of the Oghuz migrants nor the Central Asia during that period.


These are mostly Iranic peoples from Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Dravidians/Gypsys from the depths of India unlike you. That's what I said. They're in Central Asian cluster.

Your opinion is funny why do you call it "Central Asian iranic" or "Central Asian cluster" when it predominant it South Asian. Does it offend you if it was called " South Asian Iranic " ?

It's placed in the South Asia section because it dominates in South Asia not Central Asia so you're wrong to call it central Asian iranic

http://i48.tinypic.com/14y4i0.png


The thing is South Asian have different level of South Indian admixture otherwise the South Central Asian component is absolute typical components of North India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. North and Pakistan can have 20-40% South Indian where as Afghan have only 10-15% but they all have predominant South Central Asian components ( South Asian Iranic not Central Asian Iranic )


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/28/article-2151143-1357BCFC000005DC-54_306x423.jpg

Light green South Asian Iranic
Dark green South Indian

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2011/01/ethio1.png

[ButlerKing]

Please, more discussion on the Turkish DNA south Asian component.

This means Turks are mix of West Eurasian + Mongoloid + South Asian

[Deniz]

Please, more discussion on the Turkish DNA south Asian component.

This means Turks are mix of West Eurasian + Mongoloid + South Asian

Which Turks?:ranger

[Böri]

This forum turn more degenerated every new day. Gypsy now? Lol but normal in the end. Anatolia crossroads and depend citizen giving samples. With new Syrian refugees influx in 10 year people will say Turks are Semites. Yeah 'Turks are Gypsy Semitic,

[ButlerKing]

This forum turn more degenerated every new day. Gypsy now? Lol but normal in the end. Anatolia crossroads and depend citizen giving samples. With new Syrian refugees influx in 10 year people will say Turks are Semites. Yeah 'Turks are Gypsy Semitic,

Gypsy Turks look more closer to Turkish anatolian phenotypes than to South Asians due to inter-mixture.

[Squall Leonhart]

Dude you make weird topics.

[TenaciousTopologist]

Yet another anthronut white guy hoping he can inseminate our women by posting shit suggesting we are more western/euro/caucasoid.

[Thambi]

Kinda late on this discussion but genetic tests show turkish people are more central/east asian than south asian. South central asian is shared by many ethncities in west asia and south asia. Its not purely a south asian component. However east asian/siberian are pure east asian/mongoloid components and these components form a higher percentage among most turkish people compared to pure south asian, in this case south indian dna. South indian can reach up to 90% in south indian tribes such as irulas and paniyas. South indian is a pure south asian component. The rest are all through migrations throughout history.

[Hadouken]

:picard1:

turks score only 4-5% on average south asian on autosomal dna and 0% on 23andme or similar

just lol

[Fractal]

You Turks only sell fruits, Kebab and contribute little to the economy of UK.

Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern + minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic.

lol.

[RN97]

:picard1:

turks score only 4-5% on average south asian on autosomal dna and 0% on 23andme or similar

just lol

It depends on what "south Asian" is. If we're talking south-Indian like, then it is indeed low. However if we're talking Baloch-like, it's not really so insignificant as the study posted by BK shows.

[Hadouken]

It depends on what "south Asian" is. If we're talking south-Indian like, then it is indeed low. However if we're talking Baloch-like, it's not really so insignificant as the study posted by BK shows.

the baloch / southcentral asian component is usually not considered to be a south asian (or "proper" south asian) component and is similar to CHG . even certain europeans score 5-10% of it too

what is funny is that BK says : "Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern + minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic."

so yes his people (south asians) who are a mix of baloch + ASI are only a little south asian but turks who have very little south asian are worth this thread :rolleyes: . oh and of course according to him gypsies are europeans and have nothing to do with indians even though they score 5 times or so more south asian than turks (and other west asians)

if this is not trolling and complexed agenda then I dont know

[Gangrel]

retarded butlerking think south central asian = dravidian or some shit :picard1:

[RN97]

the baloch / southcentral asian component is usually not considered to be a south asian (or "proper" south asian) component and is similar to CHG . even certain europeans score 5-10% of it too

what is funny is that BK says : "Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern + minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic."

so yes his people (south asians) who are a mix of baloch + ASI are only a little south asian but turks who have very little south asian are worth this thread :rolleyes: . oh and of course according to him gypsies are europeans even though they score 5 times or so more south asian than turks (and other west asians)

if this is not trolling and complexed agenda then I dont know

It clearly is not like CHG as you can see that north caucasians score quite little of it. It is Iranic south asian I guess. Europeans that score it is likely due to admixture from indo-Europeans. Turks have it from Iranics they mixed with most likely. All Iranics have and pretty much always had south Asian admixture. I know he did it to troll, but Turks do have south Asian admixture as do N/ E. Europeans. Turks have a bit more than N/ E. Euros though.

[Thambi]

@Hadouken I think OP was trying to say that they are more south asian shifted than east asian shifted. Even that is not true though since turkish people do have more affinity towards east asians than south asians. The only middle easterners that have a decent amount of indian influence are iranians. Many of them show up 10-15% south asian on ancestrydna tests and show about 6-7% south asian on many gedmatch tests. Rest of middle eastern people have almost no indian affinity.

[Hadouken]

It clearly is not like CHG as you can see that north caucasians score quite little of it. It is Iranic south asian I guess. Europeans that score it is likely due to admixture from indo-Europeans. Turks have it from Iranics they mixed with most likely. All Iranics have and pretty much always had south Asian admixture. I know he did it to troll, but Turks do have south Asian admixture as do N/ E. Europeans. Turks have a bit more than N/ E. Euros though.

the "south asian" in west iranics is little . like a few % only . east iranics have a lot more but a lot of it is not asi either

and regarding caucasus

here 2 georgian examples and 1 Chechen example

Chechen

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 41.35
2 South_Central_Asian 25.90
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 13.57
4 Ancestral_Altaic 5.69
5 South_Indian 3.54
6 European_Early_Farmers 2.72
7 Near_East 1.80
8 East_Siberian 1.52
9 Paleo_Siberian 1.27

----

2 Georgians


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 53.14
2 South_Central_Asian 20.4
3 Near_East 7.71
4 European_Hunters_Gatherers 5.86
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.88
6 European_Early_Farmers 1.76
7 North_African 1.54
8 Arctic 1.41
9 Amerindian 0.99
10 Melano_Polynesian 0.9
11 Khoisan 0.85
12 Archaic_Human 0.19
13 Australoid 0.19
14 Paleo_Siberian 0.17

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ossetian ( ) 7.1
2 Adygei ( ) 7.63
3 Kakheti ( ) 7.87
4 Balkar ( ) 8.05
5 Armenian_Yerevan ( ) 8.15
6 North_Ossetian ( ) 8.46
7 Armenian ( ) 9.18
8 Kabardin ( ) 9.95
9 Assyrian_Arzni ( ) 10.17
10 Chechen ( ) 10.62
11 Circassian ( ) 11.5
12 Kumyk ( ) 11.99
13 Abkhasian ( ) 14.48
14 Jew_Tat ( ) 14.66
15 Cirkassian ( ) 15.09
16 Turk_Trabzon ( ) 15.09
17 Georgian ( ) 15.34
18 Adjara ( ) 15.55
19 Azeri_Dagestan ( ) 17.98
20 Georgian_Megrelia ( ) 18.07


---



Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 61.22
2 South_Central_Asian 19.59
3 Ancestral_Altaic 4.71
4 European_Hunters_Gatherers 4.47
5 Near_East 3.29
6 South_Indian 1.53
7 Tungus-Altaic 1.27
8 European_Early_Farmers 1.1
9 Arctic 0.83
10 East_African 0.58
11 Khoisan 0.34
12 Australoid 0.34
13 Austronesian 0.24
14 Archaic_African 0.23
15 Amerindian 0.11
16 Archaic_Human 0.1
17 Paleo_Siberian 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Adjara ( ) 2.94
2 Abkhasian ( ) 3.1
3 Georgian ( ) 3.12
4 Georgian_Svan ( ) 4.2
5 Georgian_Megrelia ( ) 4.59
6 Georgian_Tbilisi ( ) 6.97
7 Georgian_Imereti ( ) 7.74
8 Kakheti ( ) 8.43
9 Turk_Trabzon ( ) 11.29
10 Georgian_Laz ( ) 12.18
11 Ossetian ( ) 14.79
12 North_Ossetian ( ) 17.03
13 Balkar ( ) 17.15
14 Adygei ( ) 17.86
15 Armenian_Yerevan ( ) 19.02
16 Armenian ( ) 19.37
17 Circassian ( ) 19.58
18 Assyrian_Arzni ( ) 21.27
19 Kabardin ( ) 22.02
20 Chechen ( ) 22.66


---

next thread : the brotherhood between Georgians and Indians !

[Fractal]

the "south asian" in west iranics is little . like a few % only . east iranics have a lot more but a lot of it is not asi either

and regarding caucasus

here 2 georgian examples


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 53.14
2 South_Central_Asian 20.4
3 Near_East 7.71
4 European_Hunters_Gatherers 5.86
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.88
6 European_Early_Farmers 1.76
7 North_African 1.54
8 Arctic 1.41
9 Amerindian 0.99
10 Melano_Polynesian 0.9
11 Khoisan 0.85
12 Archaic_Human 0.19
13 Australoid 0.19
14 Paleo_Siberian 0.17

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Ossetian ( ) 7.1
2 Adygei ( ) 7.63
3 Kakheti ( ) 7.87
4 Balkar ( ) 8.05
5 Armenian_Yerevan ( ) 8.15
6 North_Ossetian ( ) 8.46
7 Armenian ( ) 9.18
8 Kabardin ( ) 9.95
9 Assyrian_Arzni ( ) 10.17
10 Chechen ( ) 10.62
11 Circassian ( ) 11.5
12 Kumyk ( ) 11.99
13 Abkhasian ( ) 14.48
14 Jew_Tat ( ) 14.66
15 Cirkassian ( ) 15.09
16 Turk_Trabzon ( ) 15.09
17 Georgian ( ) 15.34
18 Adjara ( ) 15.55
19 Azeri_Dagestan ( ) 17.98
20 Georgian_Megrelia ( ) 18.07


---



Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 61.22
2 South_Central_Asian 19.59
3 Ancestral_Altaic 4.71
4 European_Hunters_Gatherers 4.47
5 Near_East 3.29
6 South_Indian 1.53
7 Tungus-Altaic 1.27
8 European_Early_Farmers 1.1
9 Arctic 0.83
10 East_African 0.58
11 Khoisan 0.34
12 Australoid 0.34
13 Austronesian 0.24
14 Archaic_African 0.23
15 Amerindian 0.11
16 Archaic_Human 0.1
17 Paleo_Siberian 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Adjara ( ) 2.94
2 Abkhasian ( ) 3.1
3 Georgian ( ) 3.12
4 Georgian_Svan ( ) 4.2
5 Georgian_Megrelia ( ) 4.59
6 Georgian_Tbilisi ( ) 6.97
7 Georgian_Imereti ( ) 7.74
8 Kakheti ( ) 8.43
9 Turk_Trabzon ( ) 11.29
10 Georgian_Laz ( ) 12.18
11 Ossetian ( ) 14.79
12 North_Ossetian ( ) 17.03
13 Balkar ( ) 17.15
14 Adygei ( ) 17.86
15 Armenian_Yerevan ( ) 19.02
16 Armenian ( ) 19.37
17 Circassian ( ) 19.58
18 Assyrian_Arzni ( ) 21.27
19 Kabardin ( ) 22.02
20 Chechen ( ) 22.66


---

next thread : the brotherhood between Georgians and Indians !

Precisely. Very little genetics in common between MENAs and Indians. Explains why Iranians and Arabs have greasy body odor and Indians have body odor due to diet (curry).

Don't know about Kurds and Turks.

[RN97]

the "south asian" in west iranics is little . like a few % only . east iranics have a lot more but a lot of it is not asi either

and regarding caucasus

here 2 georgian examples
orgians and Indians !
I was talking about this:
http://i48.tinypic.com/14y4i0.png

IDK what south central Asian is based upon. What calc. is that?

[Hadouken]

@Hadouken I think OP was trying to say that they are more south asian shifted than east asian shifted. Even that is not true though since turkish people do have more affinity towards east asians than south asians. The only middle easterners that have a decent amount of indian influence are iranians. Many of them show up 10-15% south asian on ancestrydna tests and show about 6-7% south asian on many gedmatch tests. Rest of middle eastern people have almost no indian affinity.

why did you bump this thread anyway ? :D

6-7% south asian on autosomal is not much btw. . we (turkey kurds) score that . I score 6% on average and 0% on 23andme . we score only a little bit more than other west asians . even georgians can score 3-4%

iranians usually score higher than 6-7% . they score more like 10-15% but they are still very different from indians


here an example for you regarding getmach

Kurdish (my own results)



1 West_Asia 43.21
2 SW_Europe 20.72
3 SW_Asia 16.66
4 NE_Europe 8.29
5 South_Asia 5.24
6 Siberia 1.5
7 West_Africa 1.27
8 Americas 1.13
9 NE_Asia 0.77
10 SE_Asia 0.62
11 South_Africa 0.58

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Kurdish 3.77


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

some other west asians :

Georgian

1 West_Asia 46.89
2 SW_Europe 25.43
3 NE_Europe 11.91
4 SW_Asia 9.55
5 South_Asia 3.17
6 Siberia 0.93
7 SE_Asia 0.78
8 Oceania 0.36
9 West_Africa 0.34
10 South_Africa 0.31
11 Americas 0.29
12 East_Africa 0.05

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Abkhasian 2.69



Armenian



1 West_Asia 43.16
2 SW_Europe 29.15
3 SW_Asia 18.35
4 NE_Europe 4.3
5 South_Asia 2.51
6 Siberia 2.25
7 NE_Asia 0.21
8 South_Africa 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Armenian 3.48


another Armenian




1 West_Asia 45
2 SW_Europe 28.01
3 SW_Asia 18.14
4 NE_Europe 3.43
5 South_Asia 2.66
6 Americas 1.55
7 South_Africa 0.88
8 Siberia 0.32

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Armenian 3.51

-----

[Hadouken]

Precisely. Very little genetics in common between MENAs and Indians. Explains why Iranians and Arabs have greasy body odor and Indians have body odor due to diet (curry).

Don't know about Kurds and Turks.

dont even start with your trolling just sayin . good that you left us out of it though

and the results I posted which you quoted are Georgians

and nobody talked about Arabs either

[Thambi]

why did you bump this thread anyway ? :D

To fire up the discussion more :P Lol jk. I was just commenting on random threads that came in my "similar threads" section below. Tbh now I'm regretting this haha. I shouldn't have brought this back up.

[ButlerKing]

@Hadouken I think OP was trying to say that they are more south asian shifted than east asian shifted. Even that is not true though since turkish people do have more affinity towards east asians than south asians. The only middle easterners that have a decent amount of indian influence are iranians. Many of them show up 10-15% south asian on ancestrydna tests and show about 6-7% south asian on many gedmatch tests. Rest of middle eastern people have almost no indian affinity.

Thank you !! This part that bolded absolutely explain the whole point of this thread. The original point of this thread was simply to prove Turks are also mutts and that they also have South Asian DNA in their genetic make up. I had a little skirmish with a few Turkish member on this thread back they seemed to despise South Asians . It so happen a new DNA study claims Turks are more genetically related with South Asian population than they are to East Asian/Siberian population.

[ButlerKing]

the baloch / southcentral asian component is usually not considered to be a south asian (or "proper" south asian) component and is similar to CHG . even certain europeans score 5-10% of it too

what is funny is that BK says : "Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern + minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic."

so yes his people (south asians) who are a mix of baloch + ASI are only a little south asian but turks who have very little south asian are worth this thread :rolleyes: . oh and of course according to him gypsies are europeans and have nothing to do with indians even though they score 5 times or so more south asian than turks (and other west asians)

if this is not trolling and complexed agenda then I dont know


You just want to accuse of trolling in order to discredit the facts I presented to this thread. You don't even understand the original point of this thread and why it was created. Before this thread was made the Turkish member said Indians and South Asians were " Australoid " , " slumdogs " , "Dravidian mutts"....which is funny coming from a population who are a genetic mixture of Mongoloid, Caucasoid, South Asian. They were claiming they have no genetic connection with South Asians but sadly for them a new study came and it shows a significant genetic relationship between Turkish people and South Asian.

Here are some facts you should learn

1. Balochi people and ASI people are located in SOUTH ASIA. They are both Asians.
2. Balochi-like DNA and ASI are both indigenous South Asian components.
3. Not South Asian proper ? It's not like people from West Asia and Central Asia have proper DNA either.

What makes you think that ASI is the only proper South Asian DNA ?

I only call it middle eastern DNA because it's predominant in Middle east Iranic population but in reality it's also the predominant DNA of North/Northwest Indians, Pakistani, Afghan, Balochi people who are all South Asian hence I also called it " South Asian Iranic " and truth be told the Iranic component originated from what is today North India and Afghanistan and migrated to Central Asia and other Middle east countries along with the ASI people this explains why almost every high percentage Iranic DNA population have ASI admixtures. Since ancient times all South Asian were already a mix of Middle eastern and ASI people.



What does it say here ?

" 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[5][6] "

As for Gypsies, I'm pretty sure they originated from India but racially they are a different genetic population from modern day South Asians. The Turkish gypsies look barely anything like a Indian person this can only mean they had intermixed so heavily so it's most likely a large chunk of the South Asian gene pool in Turkish population are Indian to begin with.

Gypsies DNA is 80-100% West Eurasian + 10-20% South Asian. North Indians are generally 55-60% West Eurasian and it almost all of it's DNA can be said to be Iranic/West Asian however modern day Middle easterners are also a mix of Iranic and Arabic Southwest Asian while Central Asian is a mix of Mongoloid, Iranic.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2013/10/roma2.png

[Fractal]

Thank you !! This part that bolded absolutely explain the whole point of this thread. The original point of this thread was simply to prove Turks are also mutts and that they also have South Asian DNA in their genetic make up. I had a little skirmish with a few Turkish member on this thread back they seemed to despise South Asians . It so happen a new DNA study claims Turks are more genetically related with South Asian population than they are to East Asian/Siberian population.

I don't agree, Sir Butler King. In my opinion, turks are genetically more related to East Asians/Siberians as well as other MENA groups rather than South Asians.

[ButlerKing]

Precisely. Very little genetics in common between MENAs and Indians. Explains why Iranians and Arabs have greasy body odor and Indians have body odor due to diet (curry).

Don't know about Kurds and Turks.

This is absolutely wrong in all every level. I don't like MENAs but the there more than 60-80% haplogroup similarity between them and this can attest their common genetic link. It would be extremely difficult to say there is very little genetic relationship.

Don't listen to these ignorant people claiming it's not PROPER SOUTH ASIAN DNA. There is no such thing a proper Central Asian DNA either nor is there such a thing as proper Middle eastern DNA but there is a common large link between all of them.

[Hadouken]

You just want to accuse of trolling in order to discredit the facts I presented to this thread. You don't even understand the original point of this thread and why it was created... it's because the Turkish member said Indians were " Australoid mutts" , " slumdogs " which is funny coming from a population who are mix of Mongoloid, Caucasoid, South Asian. They were claiming they have no genetic connection with South Asians but sadly for them a new study prove a significant genetic relationship.

Here are some facts you should learn

1. Balochi people and ASI people are located in SOUTH ASIA. They are both Asians.
2. Balochi-like DNA and ASI are both indigenous South Asian components.

What makes you think that ASI is the only proper South Asian DNA ?

I only call it middle eastern DNA because it's predominant in Middle east Iranic population but in reality it's also the predominant DNA of North/Northwest Indians, Pakistani, Afghan, Balochi people who are all South Asian hence I also called it " South Asian Iranic " and truth be told the Iranic component originated from what is today North India and Afghanistan and migrated to Central Asia and other Middle east countries along with the ASI people this explains why almost every high percentage Iranic DNA population have ASI admixtures. South Asian since ancient times were already a mix of Middle eastern and ASI people.



What does it say here ?

" 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 contributions5][6] "

As for Gypsies, I'm pretty sure they originated from India but racially they are a different genetic population from modern day South Asians. The Turkish gypsies look barely anything like a Indian person this can only mean they had intermixed so heavily so it's most likely a large chunk of the South Asian gene pool in Turkish population are Indian to begin with.

Gypsies DNA is 80-100% West Eurasian + 10-20% South Asian. North Indians are 55-60%


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2013/10/roma2.png

no you are definitely a troll . and if anybody calls indian any names then it is because you guys are constantly shitposting and trolling . again and again and again . cut it already we are all sick of it

but regarding the "australoid" mutts . I wouldnt call you that but the australoid component in you guys is higher than the baloch component in turks haha xD just shooting in your own foot again

and I already proved you wrong regarding what you say

the baloch component is even scored by south europeans in 5-10% range and turks score 12-15% or so usually up to 20% max. but it is not the baloch component what makes south asians often distinctly south asian because as I showed you chechens and georgians score like 20-25% baloch/southcentral asian on calculators too . it is a component that is similar to chg or something . will you now open a thread about the georgian-chechen-indian brotherhood or what

what makes indians often distinctly indian looks is the ASI admixture . and beside of that you dont have the mediterranean ancestry/components that turks do . the caucasoid component you guys score the most is baloch . you are basically a mix of baloch + ASI + a little east euro . turks are very different to you ....

also what do you mean with "every high percentage Iranic DNA population have ASI admixtures" ?

we are iranics and we score very very little asi . it is no higher than non iranic west asians. we just have some southcentral asian ancestry in form of pasthun/tajik/maybe baloch like aka protoindoiranian from 5000 years or so ago it is time that you stop your nonsense and accept the reality already and give us a fucking break already will you

here my K9 ASI

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 37.28
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 22.35
3 SW_Asian 20.75
4 WHG 7.95
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.37
6 SE_Asian 2.53
7 Siberian_E_Asian 1.91
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.86

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Azeri 3.37
2 Kurd_N 5.79
3 Iranian 6.57
4 Georgian 7.48
5 Abkhasian 7.66
6 Turkish 8.54
7 Armenian 8.58
8 Azeri_Dagestan 8.61
9 Adygei 8.83
10 Kumyk 9.31
11 Georgian_Jew 10.02
12 Chechen 11.11
13 Kurd_C 11.42
14 Iranian_Jew 12.07
15 Lezgin 13.38
16 Druze 16.16
17 Iraqi_Jew 16.34
18 Lebanese 17.1
19 Cypriot 17.41
20 Syrian 17.42


---



a north indian

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 53.49
2 Ancestral_South_Indian 16.71
3 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 11.28
4 SE_Asian 8.62
5 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 4.76
6 WHG 3.64
7 SW_Asian 1.50



--

a south indian

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 49.21
2 Ancestral_South_Indian 24.35
3 SE_Asian 19.8
4 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 3.44
5 W_African 1.92
6 SW_Asian 0.79
7 Siberian_E_Asian 0.5

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Bengali 4.69
2 Burusho 18.89
3 Paniyas 19.95
4 Punjabi 20.2
5 Pathan 23.31
6 Puliyar 23.9
7 Ho 26.01
8 Kharia 27.13
9 Kurd_SE 27.25
10 Pashtun_Afghan 27.35
11 Tajik_Afghan 27.99
12 Kalash 28.45
13 Brahui 29.01
14 Balochi 29.03
15 Uzbek_Afghan 29.71
16 Makrani 30.88
17 Hazara_Afghan 31.98
18 Tajik_Pomiri 33.56
19 Papuan 33.61
20 Ust_Ishim 33.75


be quite now

[ButlerKing]

It clearly is not like CHG as you can see that north caucasians score quite little of it. It is Iranic south asian I guess. Europeans that score it is likely due to admixture from indo-Europeans. Turks have it from Iranics they mixed with most likely. All Iranics have and pretty much always had south Asian admixture. I know he did it to troll, but Turks do have south Asian admixture as do N/ E. Europeans. Turks have a bit more than N/ E. Euros though.

Yes, this is because Iranics originated from what is geographically South Asia between what is today North India and Afghanistan and later along with ASI population they migrated to Middle east and Central Asia. For your info there is indegenious Veddoid population in Central Asia and and as far as Saudi Arabia.

You should be careful to say Turks had this DNA from Central Asia Iranic because the Roma/Gypsies from Turkey ( who were there since 9th century ) also have large chuck of this Iranic DNA and it's either they already had DNA when they migrated or they acquired this large admixture from Afghan/East Iran ( there's also a gypsy population in those country and many of them look quite Afghan like ).

Gypsy population in Turkey

"officially about 500,000 Romani in Turkey.[1][2][3][4] By different Turkish and Non-Turkish estimates the number of Romani is up to 4 or 5 million [5][6] "


All modern day Turkish gypsies are heavily mixed and most of them can assimilate into the Turkish population without a problem

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/02/dd/13/02dd13021409c7ffb366ea10a5908500.jpg
http://www.eurasianet.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/galleria/toh_russia_b_02.jpg


Conclusion: Modern day Turkish population have Iranic components from both South Asian Iranic and Central Asian Iranic.

[Hadouken]

what a son of a whore you are ....


again my eurasia k9 asi scores : this alone fucks up all your lies and agenda and disproves it

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 37.28
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 22.35
3 SW_Asian 20.75
4 WHG 7.95
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.37
6 SE_Asian 2.53
7 Siberian_E_Asian 1.91
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.86

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Azeri 3.37
2 Kurd_N 5.79
3 Iranian 6.57
4 Georgian 7.48
5 Abkhasian 7.66
6 Turkish 8.54
7 Armenian 8.58
8 Azeri_Dagestan 8.61
9 Adygei 8.83
10 Kumyk 9.31
11 Georgian_Jew 10.02
12 Chechen 11.11
13 Kurd_C 11.42
14 Iranian_Jew 12.07
15 Lezgin 13.38
16 Druze 16.16
17 Iraqi_Jew 16.34
18 Lebanese 17.1
19 Cypriot 17.41
20 Syrian 17.42


---

nice cherrypicking of gypsies btw. . you want me to show you turkish gypsies ? ... (btw. even some of the people on the pics you posted either dont pass or are not even clearly visible)

[ButlerKing]

the baloch / southcentral asian component is usually not considered to be a south asian (or "proper" south asian) component and is similar to CHG . even certain europeans score 5-10% of it too

what is funny is that BK says : "Genetic of Pakistan/North Indians is predominant middle eastern+ minority South Indian. Turks have both South Indian and South Asian Iranic."



Now what the hell is that ? What makes you think is also not South Asian proper ?

It's called Central / South Asian because this component reaches highest frequencies on those and it's where it originated.

You're a fool if you think this component it's only Central Asian Iranic. Only the Tajiks who are Iranic have this component highly and other Kyrgyz/Tajik mix in Southwestern Kyrgyzystan aswell as other Uzbek Tajik. There are also Tajiks living in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and the high yellow colored pie chart represents Central South Asian DNA.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TJCuJVizYSI/AAAAAAAAClY/KT6PkWSIZnM/s1600/centralasianmartinez.jpg

[Hadouken]

Now what the hell is that ?

It's called Central / South Asian because this component reaches highest frequencies on those and it's where it originated.

You're a fool if you think this component it's only Central Asian Iranic. Only the Tajiks who are Iranic have this component highly and other Kyrgyz/Tajik mix in Southwestern Kyrgyzystan.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/02/dd/13/02dd13021409c7ffb366ea10a5908500.jpg

you are pretty pathetic tbh.

I already shoved you the truth in your smelly ass in the posts above

deal with it and move on and stop your obsession

[Fractal]

This is absolutely wrong in all every level. I don't like MENAs but the there more than 60-80% haplogroup similarity between them and this can attest their common genetic link. It would be extremely difficult to say there is very little genetic relationship.

Don't listen to these ignorant people claiming it's not PROPER SOUTH ASIAN DNA. There is no such thing a proper Central Asian DNA either nor is there such a thing as proper Middle eastern DNA but there is a common large link between all of them.

likewise. And the ones here are delusional. MENAs are far more hated in the USA, along with Latinos, Blacks, mongoloids, etc than Indians are.

But not sure why you're so adamant in trying to connect us to them. Of course there are genetic overlaps but I don't think we're related much at all.

[Fractal]

you are pretty pathetic tbh.

I already shoved you the truth in your smelly ass in the posts above

deal with it and move on and stop your obsession

MENAs smell far worse than Indians you people have a greasy body odor.

Deal with it.

[Hadouken]

MENAs smell far worse than Indians you people have a greasy body odor.

Deal with it.

there is nothing to deal with because everybody knows it is not true :D

you guys are just pathetic . one should put you both in a sack and then hit on it with a baseball bat ....you will always hit the right guy

just shut the fuck up already wtf is wrong with you guys for real now omg

[ButlerKing]

you are pretty pathetic tbh.

I already shoved you the truth in your smelly ass in the posts above

deal with it and move on and stop your obsession

Wrong picture, my comment was referring to this DNA chart not the Turko gypsies (who are genetically far more closer to Turkish than they are to Indians )

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TJCuJVizYSI/AAAAAAAAClY/KT6PkWSIZnM/s1600/centralasianmartinez.jpg

You have ASI admixture and just because you have it low percentages does not mean all your Iranic like DNA have nothing to do with South Asians.

Many South Asian population have varying degrees of ASI dna, even if the gypsies have it in low percentages. You are properly more South Asian genetically than you think.

[Hadouken]

Wrong picture, my comment was referring to this DNA chart not the Turko gypsies (who are genetically far more closer to Turkish than they are to Indians )

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TJCuJVizYSI/AAAAAAAAClY/KT6PkWSIZnM/s1600/centralasianmartinez.jpg

You have ASI admixture and just because you have it low ASI does not mean all your Iranic DNA have nothing to do with South Asians. Also many South Asian population have varying degrees of ASI dna, even if the gypsies have it in low percentages.

havent you seen my score ? are you fucking kidding me or what ? it is very very little . and non iranic west asians score similar and indians score A LOT more of course . it is not even comparable in the slightest

pretty sick that we even discuss it any further after all the evidence I gave

I made everything clear . the thread is done

[ButlerKing]

be quite now

You are so wrong...... IRANIC it's also proper South Asian hence the reason every genetic study calls it's South Asians (or sometimes Central-South Asian ). You need to be more educated.

Listen there is no pure Iranic or pure Balochi DNA. Even the Balochi people are mixed with ASI themselves.

http://www.reckontalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Everything-About-Baluchistan-Pakistans-War-Conflict-Freedom-8.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Men_in_Zaranj-cropped.jpg

But the DNA component it's call " Central-South Asian " for a very good reason

Do you want to know what the reason is ?


1) It's because it originated in Central-South Asia ( duh !!!! )

2) Because it is a indigenous to Central-South Asian ( duh again !!! )

This is CENTRAL-SOUTH ASIA




Here is a map of all South Asia

https://oneinsevenpeople.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/south-asia.jpg

And here is Afghanistan sometimes included as Central Asia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Map_of_Central_Asia.png/902px-Map_of_Central_Asia.png



Do you understand now ?

[ButlerKing]

South Central Asia


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/28/article-2151143-1357BCFC000005DC-54_306x423.jpg

[Hadouken]

is this real life :picard1:

it is south-central asian not central south asian . it is basically the southern part of central asia

afghanistan and tajikistan is not south asia . they score more south asian than us west asians but not as much as you south asians and especially not as much asi as you . and you are right that the nowdays balochs are also admixed and not pure baloch/gedrosia anymore but that just proves my point any further that you talk bullshit because that even makes it clearer that the baloch component is not to be based on modern baloch people

in any case this doesnt have anything to do with my people or turks because we are not from southcentral asia . as I said only 25% or so of our ancestry is from there and it is old so possible that those people were not the same as nowdays southcentral asians to begin with

and for the 3rd fucking time I showed you my scores but here one time more for your idiotic brain

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 37.28
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 22.35
3 SW_Asian 20.75
4 WHG 7.95
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.37
6 SE_Asian 2.53
7 Siberian_E_Asian 1.91
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.86

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Azeri 3.37
2 Kurd_N 5.79
3 Iranian 6.57
4 Georgian 7.48
5 Abkhasian 7.66
6 Turkish 8.54
7 Armenian 8.58
8 Azeri_Dagestan 8.61
9 Adygei 8.83
10 Kumyk 9.31
11 Georgian_Jew 10.02
12 Chechen 11.11
13 Kurd_C 11.42
14 Iranian_Jew 12.07
15 Lezgin 13.38
16 Druze 16.16
17 Iraqi_Jew 16.34
18 Lebanese 17.1
19 Cypriot 17.41
20 Syrian 17.42


you are an indian and have not much to do with central asians let alone west asians so why are you so obsessed . you have NOTHING to do with turks xD what a sicko

[ButlerKing]

havent you seen my score ? are you fucking kidding me or what ? it is very very little . and non iranic west asians score similar and indians score A LOT more of course . it is not even comparable in the slightest

pretty sick that we even discuss it any further after all the evidence I gave

I made everything clear . the thread is done

Actually I think you misunderstood me.

The original point of this thread was to prove Turkish people are also mutts. I'm only here now because you said " IT'S NOT SOUTH ASIAN PROPER " . I'm proving you wrong again and again. It is also South Asian proper because that's where it originated from.

You're foolish to think that only the ASI component can represent proper South Asian component. There is no population with a pure IRANIC component because like I said Central Asia is mixed with Mongoloid and Middle eastern is mixed with Southwest Asian ( Arabic like DNA ) but I'm fine to call it middle eastern as well but you won't find any ethnic group with pure Iranic. You Kurds and Iranians are not predominant Iranic, the South Asian Balochi are way more Iranic than you are despite being ASI mixed to quite a degree.

[Hadouken]

Actually I think you misunderstood me.

The original point of this thread was to prove Turkish people are also mutts. I'm only here because you said " IT'S NOT SOUTH ASIAN PROPER " . I'm proving you wrong again and again. It is South Asian proper because that's where it originated from.

You're foolish to think that ASI is the only component that makes South Asian proper. There is no population with a pure IRANIC component because like I said Central Asia is mixed with Mongoloid and Middle eastern is mixed with Southwest Asian ( Arabic like DNA ) but I'm fine to call it middle eastern as well. You Kurds and Iranians are not predominant Iranic either the South Asian Balochi are way more Iranic than you are.

every population is "mixed" if you want

I showed you georgian , chechen etc. results . they score even more of it than turks as you see . I can show you more if you want

if like you say ASI is not the only component that makes south asian proper ...then you basically saying that you guys are nearly 100% south asian ...yet you at the same time claimed that you are "middle eastern + south asian" so how does this shit work . you are trying to make your own system to force any connection to turks

and we are not the same as iranians btw. . we have differences . at least for us turkey kurds thats the case . iranians score a little different in some things . just as a side note . balochs have more neolithic iranian than us if I am not wrong so yes I think you are right . but that component is distinct from ASI but balochs have a lot more asi than us (we score almost none as I showed you already)

I think you are mixing up some things in your head

you should state which calculators you want to see comparisons of populations instead of posting chaotic stuff . for example tell me a gedmatch calc and I will show you turkish and indian results etc

[ButlerKing]

is this real life :picard1:

it is south-central asian not central south asian . it is basically the southern part of central asia

afghanistan and tajikistan is not south asia . they score more south asian than us west asians but not as much as you south asians and especially not as much asi as you . and you are right that the nowdays balochs are also admixed and not pure baloch/gedrosia anymore but that just proves my point any further that you talk bullshit because that even makes it clearer that the baloch component is not to be based on modern baloch people

in any case this doesnt have anything to do with my people or turks because we are not from southcentral asia . as I said only 25% or so of our ancestry is from there and it is old so possible that those people were not the same as nowdays southcentral asians to begin with

and for the 3rd fucking time I showed you my scores but here one time more for your idiotic brain

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 37.28
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 22.35
3 SW_Asian 20.75
4 WHG 7.95
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.37
6 SE_Asian 2.53
7 Siberian_E_Asian 1.91
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.86

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance

1 Azeri 3.37
2 Kurd_N 5.79
3 Iranian 6.57
4 Georgian 7.48
5 Abkhasian 7.66
6 Turkish 8.54
7 Armenian 8.58
8 Azeri_Dagestan 8.61
9 Adygei 8.83
10 Kumyk 9.31
11 Georgian_Jew 10.02
12 Chechen 11.11
13 Kurd_C 11.42
14 Iranian_Jew 12.07
15 Lezgin 13.38
16 Druze 16.16
17 Iraqi_Jew 16.34
18 Lebanese 17.1
19 Cypriot 17.41
20 Syrian 17.42


you are an indian and have not much to do with central asians let alone west asians so why are you so obsessed . you have NOTHING to do with turks xD what a sicko



You keep showing me these meaningless genetic results. I'm not claiming Turks and Kurds are genetically South Asian.


Why I made this thread:

The original of this point was to prove Turkish people are mutts, of course I also knew this new DNA study would partially annoy Turkish members. Long before I created this thread I had a few skirmish with the Turkish members and they made disrespectful comments so this thread was also like my little revenge.

I'm only now replying because you think only the component ASI is the real South Asian component. YOU ARE EXTREMELY WRONG.

If you have ASI admixture than you will also have a portion of your IRANIC admixture from South Asians. When gypsies migrated and intermixed I believed they also carried both of these components. Genetically Northwest Indians are not even closer to ASI. No one can prove that every Iranic admixture in Turkish people are not from South Asian.

[ButlerKing]

every population is "mixed" if you want

I showed you georgian , chechen etc. results . they score even more of it than turks as you see . I can show you more if you want

if like you say ASI is not the only component that makes south asian proper ...then you basically saying that you guys are nearly 100% south asian ...yet you at the same time claimed that you are "middle eastern + south asian" so how does this shit work . you are trying to make your own system to force any connection to turks

and we are not the same as iranians btw. . we have differences . at least for us turkey kurds thats the case . iranians score a little different in some things . just as a side note . balochs have more neolithic iranian than us if I am not wrong so yes I think you are right . but that component is distinct from ASI but balochs have a lot more asi than us (we score almost none as I showed you already)

I think you are mixing up some things in your head

you should state which calculators you want to see comparisons of populations instead of posting chaotic stuff . for example tell me a gedmatch calc and I will show you turkish and indian results etc

Like seriously, I really don't care about the rest of the stuff you said.

My point to you: ASI and Iranic/(or Balochi-like ) are both indigenous proper South Asian components that's why I also called it South Asian Iranic.


I call it middle eastern because it's also very high among their Iranic population. I'm aware myself ASI and IRANIC are not the same thing but both of them are ancestral components to most Indians. To say only ASI is the real South Asian DNA would mean Pakistani, North Indians are not proper South Asians either.

[Hadouken]

You keep showing me these meaningless genetic results. I'm not claiming Turks and Kurds are genetically South Asian.


Why I made this thread:

The original of this point was to prove Turkish people are mutts, of course I also knew this DNA study would partially annoy Turkish members. Long before I created this thread I had a few skirmish with the Turkish members and they made disrespectful comments.



I'm only now replying because you think only the component ASI is the real South Asian component. YOU ARE EXTREMELY WRONG.

If you ASI admixture than you will also have a portion of your IRANIC admixture from South Asians. When gypsies migrated and intermixed I believed they also carried both of these components. Genetically Northwest Indians are not even closer to ASI.

dude dont you understand . even an ape would have understood by now ...I explained all very well

how are they meaningless ? they just dont match your agenda but it is how it is bro

there is nothing wrong with south asian admix either . otherwise we wouldnt post our results and hide it . but we score only a little bit of it . there are also calcs which have "south asian" component and turks score around 4% on average while indians score 60-80% or so (would need to run again to check but it is something around that)

the gedrosia is often not seen as a south asian (proper) component and even georgians/chechens etc. as I showed you score 20-25% of it

btw. on your second post of this thread you quoted a mdlp k23 calculator result to desperately trying to prove a point but now you say "meaningless calcs" . lol :D are you kidding me ? double standards as usual . you trolls are pretty annoying

well here for you a south indian result of the same calc


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 South_Indian 69.21
2 South_Central_Asian 21.13
3 South_East_Asian 3.26
4 Tungus-Altaic 2.01
5 Australoid 1.44
6 Melano_Polynesian 0.96
7 Austronesian 0.78
8 Archaic_African 0.62
9 East_African 0.52
10 Ancestral_Altaic 0.05
11 Khoisan 0.02

[Böri]

Actually, I even happen to be more Japanese than not only Indian but also more than Arabian (SW Asian). try better next time.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 39.28
2 Gedrosia 15.44
3 Atlantic_Med 10.81
4 North_European 8.42
5 East_Asian 8.13
6 Siberian 7.58
7 Southwest_Asian 6.95
8 South_Asian 2.31
9 Northwest_African 0.7
10 Southeast_Asian 0.37

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turks (Behar) 9.95
2 Turkish (Dodecad) 10.62
3 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 15.83
4 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 15.98
5 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 16.37

[ButlerKing]

dude dont you understand . even an ape would have understood by now ...I explained all very well

how are they meaningless ? they just dont match your agenda but it is how it is bro

there is nothing wrong with south asian admix either . otherwise we wouldnt post our results and hide it . but we score only a little bit of it . there are also calcs which have "south asian" component and turks score around 4% on average while indians score 60-80% or so (would need to run again to check but it is something around that)

the gedrosia is often not seen as a south asian (proper) component and even georgians/chechens etc. as I showed you score 20-25% of it

btw. on your second post of this thread you quoted a mdlp k23 calculator result to desperately trying to prove a point but now you say "meaningless calcs" . lol :D are you kidding me ? double standards as usual . you trolls are pretty annoying

well here for you a south indian result of the same calc


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 South_Indian 69.21
2 South_Central_Asian 21.13
3 South_East_Asian 3.26
4 Tungus-Altaic 2.01
5 Australoid 1.44
6 Melano_Polynesian 0.96
7 Austronesian 0.78
8 Archaic_African 0.62
9 East_African 0.52
10 Ancestral_Altaic 0.05
11 Khoisan 0.02


No, you call me a troll to discredit my point.

Average Indians may score 60-80% but for Pakistani, North/Northwest Indians, Afghans it would be only 25-48% but this also depends on the group and their population is 500 million which is nearly the whole population of Europe. It's like you're trying to tell me that only South Indians can be called the purest Indians (or proper South Asians )

You are wrong. The racial type of North Indians were formed even before the Aryan invasion theory. They've always been a mixture of Iranic/West Eurasian and South Indian ( ASI )

[Hadouken]

Actually, I even happen to be more Japanese than not only Indian but also more than Arabian (SW Asian). try better next time.

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 39.28
2 Gedrosia 15.44
3 Atlantic_Med 10.81
4 North_European 8.42
5 East_Asian 8.13
6 Siberian 7.58
7 Southwest_Asian 6.95
8 South_Asian 2.31
9 Northwest_African 0.7
10 Southeast_Asian 0.37

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turks (Behar) 9.95
2 Turkish (Dodecad) 10.62
3 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 15.83
4 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 15.98
5 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 16.37

Georgian scores more gedrosia than you

dmix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 52.73
2 Gedrosia 21.23
3 North_European 12.45
4 Southwest_Asian 7.22
5 Atlantic_Med 5.31
6 Siberian 0.83
7 Sub_Saharan 0.16
8 South_Asian 0.07

Single Population Sharing:


so according to the theory of butthurtking georgia should be annexed to india :laugh:

[Hadouken]

No, you call me a troll to discredit my point.

Average Indians may score 60-80% but for Pakistani, North/Northwest Indians, Afghans it would be only 25-48% but this also depends on the group and their population is 500 million which is nearly the whole population of Europe. It's like you're trying to tell me that only South Indians can be called the purest Indians (or proper South Asians )

You are wrong. The racial type of North Indians were formed even before the Aryan invasion theory. They've always been a mixture of Iranic/West Eurasian and South Indian ( ASI )

no . the component that I am talking about gives 50-60% or so for north indians too

and I didnt say only south indians are proper south asian . dont put words in my mouth

and yes I already said many times that indians are neolithic iran + onge + a little steppe

[Fractal]

No, you call me a troll to discredit my point.

Average Indians may score 60-80% but for Pakistani, North/Northwest Indians, Afghans it would be only 25-48% but this also depends on the group and their population is 500 million which is nearly the whole population of Europe. It's like you're trying to tell me that only South Indians can be called the purest Indians (or proper South Asians )

You are wrong. The racial type of North Indians were formed even before the Aryan invasion theory. They've always been a mixture of Iranic/West Eurasian and South Indian ( ASI )

West Eurasian is the better term and not Iranic. Modern day Semitic looking Iranians looked nothing like ANI.

Aryan Invasion Theory isn't even true but yes I agree. And its funny how they try to associate us with Onges when that's complete BS.They are closer to Semites than we'll ever be to Andamanese Islanders.

Anyways I agree with the MENAs that we have no genetic relations in common

[Fractal]

You keep showing me these meaningless genetic results. I'm not claiming Turks and Kurds are genetically South Asian.


Why I made this thread:

The original of this point was to prove Turkish people are mutts, of course I also knew this new DNA study would partially annoy Turkish members. Long before I created this thread I had a few skirmish with the Turkish members and they made disrespectful comments so this thread was also like my little revenge.

I'm only now replying because you think only the component ASI is the real South Asian component. YOU ARE EXTREMELY WRONG.

If you have ASI admixture than you will also have a portion of your IRANIC admixture from South Asians. When gypsies migrated and intermixed I believed they also carried both of these components. Genetically Northwest Indians are not even closer to ASI. No one can prove that every Iranic admixture in Turkish people are not from South Asian.

Who cares about a bunch of Semite looking kebabs.

[Hadouken]

West Eurasian is the better term and not Iranic. Modern day Semitic looking Iranians looked nothing like ANI.

Aryan Invasion Theory isn't even true but yes I agree. And its funny how they try to associate us with Onges when that's complete BS.They are closer to Semites than we'll ever be to Andamanese Islanders.

Anyways I agree with the MENAs that we have no genetic relations in common

idiot I already told you there is no such thing as "semitic" component . semitic is linguistic and if you mean arab there is a red sea component peaking in bedouins and we score only a few % of it while you guys score 20-35 % or so australoid/onge depending on person and place of origin

I am not "trying to associate you" with onges ...a big part of your dna is onge . it is the reality and not my fault either but it seems that you dont like it otherwise you wouldnt try to be a smartass with the semitic thing

nothing wrong with the semitics btw. . I accept my sw-asian do you accept your onge ?

[Marmara]

Gypsy genetic impact on Turkish people is logically zero. They were the bottom of society and nobody would marry them. Genetic studies in Turkey considers all ethnicities Turkish including Gypsies, besides, it's impossible to speak about an average Turkish genetic makeup, it depends on the region. If this study was made in an area where a lot of gypsies live it would make sense. A lot of Turkish individuals shared their results, South Asian makeup in all of them were so little that they could be ignored, not even close to this "Average".

[Fractal]

idiot I already told you there is no such thing as "semitic" component . semitic is linguistic and if you mean arab there is a red sea component peaking in bedouins and we score only a few % of it while you guys score 20-35 % or so australoid/onge depending on person and place of origin

I am not "trying to associate you" with onges ...a big part of your dna is onge . it is the reality and not my fault either but it seems that you dont like it otherwise you wouldnt try to be a smartass with the semitic thing

nothing wrong with the semitics btw. . I accept my sw-asian do you accept your onge ?

No its not. Onge/Australoid is not part our genetic component at all, and Butlerking and Bavhat have already shed light on this.

I accept my veddoid, dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and all that, ancestral south Indian.

[Hadouken]

No its not. Onge/Australoid is not part our genetic component at all, and Butlerking and Bavhat have already shed light on this.

I accept my veddoid, dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and all that, ancestral south Indian.

how have they shed light on this

many indians posted results and they all score those components in high amounts . I also run indian kits myself

I am not pulling this out of my ass . nor do I mean it as an insult . it is how it is though and I just state it . am I the only honest person here or what this is so fucked up tbh

[ButlerKing]

there is nothing wrong with south asian admix either . otherwise we wouldnt post our results and hide it . but we score only a little bit of it . there are also calcs which have "south asian" component and turks score around 4% on average while indians score 60-80% or so (would need to run again to check but it is something around that)

the gedrosia is often not seen as a south asian (proper) component and even georgians/chechens etc. as I showed you score 20-25% of it


Problem with this calcs because they include only ASI/South Indian as South Asian DNA. In other words Turks are scoring 4% South Indian admixture but real South Asian admixture should be 11-12% South Asian. The rest of their South Central Asia admixture are properly from Central Asia or from the Gypsies who had had mixed with the Iranic population of Afghanistan populations before their migration to Turkey.


Yellow Green is East Asian and Amerindian
Blue is west Eurasian
Dark Purple is South Indian/ASI

http://i59.tinypic.com/30dfkzk.png


Now the question is how many of those blue/west Eurasian originated from South Asian ? Most North Indians are not even more genetically closer to ASI. It's hard to estimate because Indians and Pakistani also have different groups with only 30-35% ASI admixture. If a North Indian who is 60% West Eurasian/40% ASI mixing with a European women than their child will produce a 20% ASI but it doesn't change the fact their offspring are still 50% Indian/South Asian and their west Eurasian are a South Asian type aswell.

[Marmara]

And those scoring central south Asians are punjabis not Dravidians. Punjabi movement in Anatolia is recorded, they brought Sufism in Turkey, sufis around Konya province would probably cluster with Afgans

[Hadouken]

Problem with this calcs because they include only ASI/South Indian as South Asian DNA. In other words Turks are scoring 4% South Indian admixture but real South Asian admixture should be 11-12% South Asian. The rest of their South Central Asia admixture are properly from Central Asia or from the Gypsies who had had mixed with the Iranic population of Afghanistan populations before their migration to Turkey.


Yellow Green is East Asian and Amerindian
Blue is west Eurasian
Dark Purple is South Indian/ASI

http://i59.tinypic.com/30dfkzk.png


Now the question is how many of those blue/west Eurasian originated from South Asian ? It's hard to estimate because Indians and Pakistani also have different groups with only 30-35% ASI admixture
If a North Indian who is 60% West Eurasian/40% ASI mixing with a European women than their child will produce a 20% ASI child but it doesn't change the fact their offspring are still 50% Indian/South Asian and their west Eurasian are a South Asian type aswell.

uhm NOOOO as I said already the south asian components are not only ASI in the calcs . there are calcs with south asian and calcs which have ASI and ASE

and turks score 4% of the south asian component that is not only ASI . the ASI component is almost 0% in turks

have you understood now ?

turks do NOT score 11-12% south asian

[Hadouken]

btw. Irish member scores 10% gedrosia/baloch


Ibericus could you please plot me? Many thanks. :)

Population
Gedrosia 10.16
Siberian 0.21
Northwest_African -
Southeast_Asian -
Atlantic_Med 37.86
North_European 46.55
South_Asian -
East_African -
Southwest_Asian 0.21
East_Asian -
Caucasus 5.01
Sub_Saharan -

just lol at you butlerking ...just lol

[ButlerKing]

Gypsy genetic impact on Turkish people is logically zero. They were the bottom of society and nobody would marry them. Genetic studies in Turkey considers all ethnicities Turkish including Gypsies, besides, it's impossible to speak about an average Turkish genetic makeup, it depends on the region. If this study was made in an area where a lot of gypsies live it would make sense. A lot of Turkish individuals shared their results, South Asian makeup in all of them were so little that they could be ignored, not even close to this "Average".


You wish. If there's zero genetic impact of Gypsies in Turkey than how do you explain why Gypsies look like this.

There is a estimated 500,000 to 4 million gypsies in Turkey.

They look Turkish due to intermixing ( although they properly also mixed with Afghans )


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJvx_DUgxFk

Gypsy haplogroup ( South Asian/Indian) haplogroup in Turks

Turkish have 4.21% haplogroup L and 0.57% haplogroup H. These Y-DNA haplogroups are typical of Gypsies and also there is 4% South asian mtDNA of South Indian maternal ancestry.

This is only South Indian haplogroup type so you have include the Gypsies with North Indian type Y-DNA. Not even all Gypsies from India today carried haplogroup L and H and even when they did the percentage can be on 50% but I do believe they also have Afghan-admixture before their migration to Turkey so properly their ASI admixture have been diluted on their migration to Turkey.

[Hadouken]

double post . TA is slow again

[Hadouken]

gypsies in turkey look VERY different from turks unless they are mixed . and even the mixed ones often look different . the women in that video dont pass either lol

I will post gypsies from turkey later to show you

[ButlerKing]

gypsies in turkey look VERY different from turks unless they are mixed

I will post gypsies from turkey later to show you

You wish. I had watched a documentary on them previously and almost all of them look like typical Turkish also there are also 4% South Indian haplogroups in Turkey and this is not even the total percentage of South Asian haplogroups.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8BnK_husY

I also don't get what makes you think ASI component in Turkey is 0%. The autosomal DNA of Turks of Turkey shows 2% to 5% ASI admixture (the purple color which is the highest in South Indian and in some North Indian tribals ). Your study clearly shows only South Indian ASI admixture. They couldn't calculate the west Eurasian admixture that came from South Asians since it's similar to Middle easterner/West Asian.

[ButlerKing]

Even the dark skin Turkish women look no different to a darker skin Roma-Turk and I've seen many of them with very light skinned or almost white.

Also it's not like these Turkish Turks are a light skin people themselves so let's not even think about " the darker the gypsy is the more Indian he is ". I've seen ignorant people tell me gypsies with dark skin have high level of Indian admixture.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/31/16/36C00FF000000578-0-image-a-52_1469977519084.jpg
http://www.ifj.org/uploads/pics/TURKEY_MEDIA_CRAMPDOWN_OZAN_KOSE__AFP.jpg

[Hadouken]

You wish. I had watched a documentary on them previously and almost of them look like typical Turkish also there are 4% South Indian haplogroups in Turkey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8BnK_husY

I also don't get what makes you think ASI component in Turkey is 0%. The autosomal DNA of Turks of Turkey shows 2% to 5% ASI admixture (the purple color which is the highest in South Indian and in some North Indian tribals ). Your study clearly shows only South Indian ASI admixture. They couldn't calculate the west Eurasian admixture that came from South Asians.

what I wish ...YOU wish that gypsies look turkish . also werent gypsies european in your mind and "have nothing to do with indians" and now suddenly you try to use gypsies to make an overlap between your people and turks . haha wow ..

I have clicked through the video and most dont pass as turks . only very few . a few would pass more as kurdish than turkish also ..I am kurdish and I say it no problem there you have it but 90% of gypsies dont pass as either kurd or turk . and often the mixed ones also say they are gypsy btw. . there is a somewhat famous girl on turkish tv who is half turk half gypsy but she also says she is gypsy etc.

gypsies dont look turkish

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N3YAiEovXMA/T5lEo8th7iI/AAAAAAAAAKE/SEDq2EiAzes/s1600/16.jpg

gysy politicain

https://cdn.media.gazeteduvar.com/2016/11/ozcan-purcu.jpg

https://galeri12.uludagsozluk.com/536/turkiye-nin-ilk-siyahi-milletvekili_872960.jpg

https://img.sondakika.com/haber/126/romanlari-kakava-heyecani-sardi-5984126_o.jpg

--

and regarding the calculators

turks dont score 2-5% ASI . they score 4% south asian and close to 0% ASI (like 1% or so give or take)

I can show you results

it is not "my study" it is several calculators

"They couldn't calculate the west Eurasian admixture that came from South Asians."

there are specific ASI calcs and calcs with south asian component that has west eurasian in it . I repeat turks score 4% of south asian and close to 0% asi

as I showed you I score 1.86% asi only myself

[ButlerKing]

what I wish ...YOU wish that gypsies look turkish . also werent gypsies european in your mind and "have nothing to do with indians" and now suddenly you try to use gypsies to make an overlap between your people and turks . haha wow ..

I have clicked through the video and most dont pass as turks . only very few . a few would pass more as kurdish than turkish also ..I am kurdish and I say it no problem there you have it but 90% of gypsies dont pass as either kurd or turk . and often the mixed ones also say they are gypsy btw. . there is a somewhat famous girl on turkish tv who is half turk half gypsy but she also says she is gypsy etc.

gypsies dont look turkish

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N3YAiEovXMA/T5lEo8th7iI/AAAAAAAAAKE/SEDq2EiAzes/s1600/16.jpg

gysy politicain

https://cdn.media.gazeteduvar.com/2016/11/ozcan-purcu.jpg

https://galeri12.uludagsozluk.com/536/turkiye-nin-ilk-siyahi-milletvekili_872960.jpg

https://img.sondakika.com/haber/126/romanlari-kakava-heyecani-sardi-5984126_o.jpg

--

and regarding the calculators

turks dont score 2-5% ASI . they score 4% south asian and close to 0% ASI (like 1% or so give or take)

I can show you results

it is not "my study" it is several calculators

"They couldn't calculate the west Eurasian admixture that came from South Asians."

there are specific ASI calcs and calcs with south asian component that has west eurasian in it . I repeat turks score 4% of south asian and close to 0% asi

as I showed you I score 1.86% asi only myself

I don't know how your DNA study works. There are other results that at least showed 1.05% ASI admixture or 2.8% but I do believe different regions produce different results because even their Mongoloid differs from 2-3% to 13-18% depending on the regions.

Actually I just wanted to prove Turkish people are much more mutts than they think.

Gypsies originated from South Asia just like DNA components like ASI and Iranic but the Gypsies are no longer ethnically Indian nor genetically just like Iranic can longer be called South Asian only. Some say gypsies properly originated from Afghanistan or Pakistani although most theory including Wikipedia points to India. Many even claimed they were Egyptians nomads.


I've seen many Turkish people with that skin color. So what ?
Is a good thing I posted before you posted this because people like you it's always judging them by their skin color.
I've seen many South Asians with way lighter skin than Europeans

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03332/turkey-bomb_3332049b.jpg
http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/791650/stream_img.jpg
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/D8TP51/paris-france-turkish-people-protesting-against-turkish-government-D8TP51.jpg

[Hadouken]

:picard1:

I am on phone right now. I will respond later in a few hours when I am on computer

[ButlerKing]

what I wish ...YOU wish that gypsies look turkish . also werent gypsies european in your mind and "have nothing to do with indians" and now suddenly you try to use gypsies to make an overlap between your people and turks . haha wow ..

I have clicked through the video and most dont pass as turks . only very few . a few would pass more as kurdish than turkish also ..I am kurdish and I say it no problem there you have it but 90% of gypsies dont pass as either kurd or turk . and often the mixed ones also say they are gypsy btw. . there is a somewhat famous girl on turkish tv who is half turk half gypsy but she also says she is gypsy etc.



I didn't say Gypsies only look European but most European gypsies will of course look Europeans. In all places that gypsies migrate to they will eventually start looking like the local people.

Original gypsies from India would look like these.

https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/8999/274429/f/2314769-Indian-Gypsies-0.jpg


They definitely don't look like Turkish Roma gypsies

https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8515/8537808583_c3726dd847_b.jpg

[Fractal]

I didn't say Gypsies only look European but most European gypsies will of course look Europeans. In all places that gypsies migrate to they will eventually start looking like the local people.

Original gypsies from India would look like these.

https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/8999/274429/f/2314769-Indian-Gypsies-0.jpg


They definitely don't look like Turkish Roma gypsies


Precisely. European Gypsies are mixed with Europeans and MENAs - look nothing like Dalits or the Doma people in Rajasthan.

[Mr. Anybody]

ı dont think that ı have gypsy dna..as like that majority of turkeys people ı seen

[Thambi]

Thank you !! This part that bolded absolutely explain the whole point of this thread. The original point of this thread was simply to prove Turks are also mutts and that they also have South Asian DNA in their genetic make up. I had a little skirmish with a few Turkish member on this thread back they seemed to despise South Asians . It so happen a new DNA study claims Turks are more genetically related with South Asian population than they are to East Asian/Siberian population.

The thing is you weren't comparing the south asian/east asian makeup in the turkish dna as your thread originally inteded. Instead, it seems like you were just ranting about turks having a lot of south asian infleunce. As you saw few turkish members that posted here had almost 10-15% combo of eastasian/siberian with 2-3% south asian. It's already proved that east asian presence is higher in turkish people than south asian. Now if we are just talking about just south asian dna in turkish individuals, without including east asian discussion, then the south asian dna is still relatively low. ASI +iran neolithic forms vast majority of indian dna. Thats true. The source of iran neolithic in south asians, and rest of west eurasians could have come from a general migrating neolithic farmer type population around 5-10k years or so. But one thing forsure is that the ORIGINAL source of the iran neolithic is NOT from south asians. I'm asking you how do you know that gypsies gave them baloch/gedrosian? Gypsies were majority low caste and Y-dna haplogroup of H, R2, L with occasionally R1a. All those combined form 5.7% of haplogroups in turkey. R1a could actually be from central asia since they have it as well, so the 5.7% could be lower. Also there is no cline for baloch/iran-neolithic in south asia. Pretty much the average for baloch from south india to afghanistan is around 35%. Infact a south indian midcaste velama has slightly more baloch at 36% than a pashtun at 34%. This component is present in all west eurasians. We can't say that indians gave all those people the baloch/gedrosian component. That sounds silly tbh.

I'm south indian and not a high caste either. I have relatively high baloch and iran-neolithic. As I said there is no cline with this component among south asians so its illogical to say that this component is present in west eurasians through indians. If it was through indians, then turkish people should have about the same south asian as baloch/gedrosian. If a turk has 15-20% baloch, then they should have 15-20% south asian. Gypsies came from rajasthan as low caste tribals. The original gypsies would have been from meghawal tribe who have 45% south indian, 37% baloch, 5% caucasian and 6% NE-euro.

These are my results
harappa:
1 S-Indian 53.7
2 Baloch 37.19
3 Caucasian 4.32
4 NE-Asian 1.52
5 SE-Asian 1.2
6 SW-Asian 1.1
7 Papuan 0.45
8 American 0.4
9 Mediterranean 0.12

MDLP k23b
1 South_Indian 57.2
2 South_Central_Asian 33.63
3 South_East_Asian 1.75
4 Near_East 1.65
5 Caucasian 1.48
6 Ancestral_Altaic 1.02
7 Tungus-Altaic 0.9
8 Melano_Polynesian 0.86
9 Austronesian 0.43
10 Subsaharian 0.27
11 Australoid 0.23
12 Archaic_African 0.19
13 Amerindian 0.19
14 Archaic_Human 0.16
15 African_Pygmy 0.02

Near east neolithic K13
1 ANCESTRAL_INDIAN 46.67
2 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 41.18
3 SE_ASIAN 3.98
4 PAPUAN 2.9
5 EHG 1.84
6 CHG_EEF 1.7
7 SUB_SAHARAN 1.61
8 SHG_WHG 0.11

[Hadouken]

I don't know how your DNA study works. There are other results that at least showed 1.05% ASI admixture or 2.8% but I do believe different regions produce different results because even their Mongoloid differs from 2-3% to 13-18% depending on the regions.


you dont know how anything works . and those are not my "studies" . many turks have posted their results and I have turkish kit numbers

besides of that I also have tested myself and posted my own results unlike you . :rolleyes:

the mongoloid number is more diverse and has a bigger intervall but the south asian has not much of an interval . as I said already 1000 times turks score 4% autosomal south asian and close to 0% ASI like one will get 1% another one 0% another one 2% etc. but it is NEVER EVER higher than 3-4% even in the most atypical case no matter from which "region"




Actually I just wanted to prove Turkish people are much more mutts than they think.

turks themselves always say it and many even embrace it . they post their results too unlike you




Gypsies originated from South Asia just like DNA components like ASI and Iranic but the Gypsies are no longer ethnically Indian nor genetically just like Iranic can longer be called South Asian only. Some say gypsies properly originated from Afghanistan or Pakistani although most theory including Wikipedia points to India. Many even claimed they were Egyptians nomads.


Iranic Urheimat is not south asia you annoying bastard . it is central asia / southrussia

and as I said for the 10000th time I also posted my results we score very little south asian . east iranics have a lot more south asian than us but even them have less than you indians




I've seen many Turkish people with that skin color. So what ?
Is a good thing I posted before you posted this because people like you it's always judging them by their skin color.
I've seen many South Asians with way lighter skin than Europeans

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03332/turkey-bomb_3332049b.jpg
http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/791650/stream_img.jpg
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/D8TP51/paris-france-turkish-people-protesting-against-turkish-government-D8TP51.jpg


lol typical indian obsession with light skin and foreign people 100000km west of him again

I wasnt talking about skin color . other than indeed being darker than average turks ...gypsies in most cases have different facial features and dont pass well trust me

the photos you posted prove nothing because

1. first pic are kurds and they are also not even typical kurds . we dont even know those people ...always people with unidetified ethnicities get posted . did you know that there are gypsies in southeast among kurds too ? and also arabs ? the arabs in turkey are often pretty exotic and dark

people like ibrahim tatlises are often posted as a typical kurd for example even thoug he is half arab .

also many people literally are under the sun 24h and are very tanned . the weather is very hot in south and southeast turkey and also pretty hot in central turkey

you know what is funny ? . I dont say that these men are gypsy or arab mixed of course but in my province we have almost no gypsies and arabs at all and funnily enough we (kuds) look like this :

http://s24.postimg.org/6fvcpbigl/image.jpg

http://s11.postimg.org/nadro7plf/1399151478.jpg

http://s4.postimg.org/rpxoqnljh/dersimliler_isci_katliamina_sessiz_kalmadie10792.j pg

http://www.gazetesonhavadis.com/uploads/FCK/11182252_10153267712739805_9173413936941080701_n.j pg

http://s3.postimg.org/s7gbuy9n7/drsim.jpg

http://up.picr.de/30277393xk.jpg


and kurds from other provinces often dont look like those men in the pic you posted either . but of course there are many dark kurds too and I posted dark kurds . there is nothing wrong with dark people either . I already included the maximal darkness (untanned of course) of how dark a kurd can be without being either admixed , heavily tanned , or extremely atypical in my galleries . but people like you dont have a clue and also try to misrepresent us because of your inferiority complex

I have posted lik 100000 kurds already and also genetic results

if you want to see how typical kurds look you can check this thread http://w11.zetaboards.com/anthroworld/topic/30258444/1/#new

if you want to see typical turkish people then check this thread : http://w11.zetaboards.com/anthroworld/topic/11460865/1/#new

and the men in your pic are still 1000 times lighter than the average indian anyway are you fucking kidding me dude

http://i.imgur.com/NJvOWVd.jpg

^ this is how I imagine anthro indian trolls lined up when one gets banned another one comes etc. lol

and dont come with "but they are not north indians" blablabla . I know that indians are diverse and some even can be as light as europeans and even pass as europeans facially but even most north indians look distinctly indian and have too foreign facial features to pass in turkey . 90% dont even fit well in east iran to be honest . north indians are just more caucasoid and also lighter but most are still unpassable in turkey

I have seen many indians where I live . I already said it before there are many indian students here and I see them often . and here in a park where I go running often there are sometimes people playing cricket . they look VERY distinctly south asian for the most part and can not even pass as gypsies in turkey in most cases

but you dont need to meet indians to know how they look . the indians that indian forum members themselves posted are good enough

--

2. of course gypsies look different from place to place but still most gypsies do NOT pass as turkish . they are also diverse though and I dont know why the fuck we are talking about gypsies anyway . gypsies score much more south asian than any west asian does btw. . even the balkan ones score like 20%


3. I hope you stop now . trust me I dont even dislike indians at all . but you are talking nonsense over and over . you have an agenda and that is not okay . so stop your obsession already

[Hadouken]

The thing is you weren't comparing the south asian/east asian makeup in the turkish dna as your thread originally inteded. Instead, it seems like you were just ranting about turks having a lot of south asian infleunce. As you saw few turkish members that posted here had almost 10-15% combo of eastasian/siberian with 2-3% south asian. It's already proved that east asian presence is higher in turkish people than south asian. Now if we are just talking about just south asian dna in turkish individuals, without including east asian discussion, then the south asian dna is still relatively low. ASI +iran neolithic forms vast majority of indian dna. Thats true. The source of iran neolithic in south asians, and rest of west eurasians could have come from a general migrating neolithic farmer type population around 5-10k years or so. But one thing forsure is that the ORIGINAL source of the iran neolithic is NOT from south asians. I'm asking you how do you know that gypsies gave them baloch/gedrosian? Gypsies were majority low caste and Y-dna haplogroup of H, R2, L with occasionally R1a. All those combined form 5.7% of haplogroups in turkey. R1a could actually be from central asia since they have it as well, so the 5.7% could be lower. Also there is no cline for baloch/iran-neolithic in south asia. Pretty much the average for baloch from south india to afghanistan is around 35%. Infact a south indian midcaste velama has slightly more baloch at 36% than a pashtun at 34%. This component is present in all west eurasians. We can't say that indians gave all those people the baloch/gedrosian component. That sounds silly tbh.

I'm south indian and not a high caste either. I have relatively high baloch and iran-neolithic. As I said there is no cline with this component among south asians so its illogical to say that this component is present in west eurasians through indians. If it was through indians, then turkish people should have about the same south asian as baloch/gedrosian. If a turk has 15-20% baloch, then they should have 15-20% south asian. Gypsies came from rajasthan as low caste tribals. The original gypsies would have been from meghawal tribe who have 45% south indian, 37% baloch, 5% caucasian and 6% NE-euro.

These are my results
harappa:
1 S-Indian 53.7
2 Baloch 37.19
3 Caucasian 4.32
4 NE-Asian 1.52
5 SE-Asian 1.2
6 SW-Asian 1.1
7 Papuan 0.45
8 American 0.4
9 Mediterranean 0.12

MDLP k23b
1 South_Indian 57.2
2 South_Central_Asian 33.63
3 South_East_Asian 1.75
4 Near_East 1.65
5 Caucasian 1.48
6 Ancestral_Altaic 1.02
7 Tungus-Altaic 0.9
8 Melano_Polynesian 0.86
9 Austronesian 0.43
10 Subsaharian 0.27
11 Australoid 0.23
12 Archaic_African 0.19
13 Amerindian 0.19
14 Archaic_Human 0.16
15 African_Pygmy 0.02

Near east neolithic K13
1 ANCESTRAL_INDIAN 46.67
2 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 41.18
3 SE_ASIAN 3.98
4 PAPUAN 2.9
5 EHG 1.84
6 CHG_EEF 1.7
7 SUB_SAHARAN 1.61
8 SHG_WHG 0.11

omg bro you rock :D agree 100%

good to see that not all of you are idiotic trolls . I liked you from the beginning

I also noticed most south indians are more proud and less trollish

[Gangrel]

omg bro you rock :D agree 100%

good to see that not all of you are idiotic trolls . I liked you from the beginning

I also noticed most south indians are more proud and less trollish

There was a stereotype I heard about that, that South Indians are better/smarter people than North Indians, maybe it's true

[lameduck]

South Central Asia means Hindukush+Balochistan region of Afghanistan/Pakistan

[Hadouken]

There was a stereotype I heard about that, that South Indians are better/smarter people than North Indians, maybe it's true

there are other good indian members from north india too thats also one of the reasons why I am not insult indians too much . it would be unfair towards them only because there are people like butthurtking they dont deserve it

but it is really are pushing limits....

[Thambi]

omg bro you rock :D agree 100%

good to see that not all of you are idiotic trolls . I liked you from the beginning

I also noticed most south indians are more proud and less trollish

LOL bro I just go by logic. West asians in general have very limited gene flow from the subcontinent, so this whole discussion of gypsy dna in turks and all other crap sounds like BS. Now if afghans said that they have no indian influence, I would have laughed at that, but turks saying they have no indian infuence makes perfect sense. You should see how pashtuns despise indians. Idk what many of them have against us but they even say they are more related to northern europeans than to indians.

[Hadouken]

LOL bro I just go by logic. West asians in general have very limited gene flow from the subcontinent, so this whole discussion of gypsy dna in turks and all other crap sounds like BS. Now if afghans said that they have no indian influence, I would have laughed at that, but turks saying they have no indian infuence makes perfect sense. You should see how pashtuns despise indians. Idk what many of them have against us but they even say they are more related to northern europeans than to indians.

afghans score more south asian than west asians but a lot less than south asians . and their ASI is a LOT lower also

they are different from indians to be fair . in fact to be half north indian genetically they would need to be half north caucasus . thats how they get modelled


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Kumyk +50% Pathan @ 2.702866


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Abkhasian +50% GujaratiA @ 4.815619



Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Chechen +50% Kashmiri @ 3.366829

they also look different from indians for the most part . especially from south indians

a decent amount of afghans can pass in west asia indiviudally but only very few indians can . afghans also have more european dna than indians (ehg , whg etc.)

-

[lameduck]

LOL bro I just go by logic. West asians in general have very limited gene flow from the subcontinent, so this whole discussion of gypsy dna in turks and all other crap sounds like BS. Now if afghans said that they have no indian influence, I would have laughed at that, but turks saying they have no indian infuence makes perfect sense. You should see how pashtuns despise indians. Idk what many of them have against us but they even say they are more related to northern europeans than to indians.

only some internet Pashtuns might hate Indians , some Pashtun nationalist think Pashtuns are the ultimate specimens of mankind and look down on everyone , its mostly these type of Pashtuns who hate Indians.Educated pashtuns accept link with high cast NW South Asians

[lameduck]

You are so wrong...... IRANIC it's also proper South Asian hence the reason every genetic study calls it's South Asians (or sometimes Central-South Asian ). You need to be more educated.

Listen there is no pure Iranic or pure Balochi DNA. Even the Balochi people are mixed with ASI themselves.

http://www.reckontalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Everything-About-Baluchistan-Pakistans-War-Conflict-Freedom-8.jpg


these are Pashtuns not Baloch neither they look like one, here are more balochs

https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/5901a1a81896f-jpg.435350/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/5901bca4002c7-jpg.435351/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/5901a74723ebc-jpg.435352/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/5901a1805fa75-jpg.435353/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/salman-rashid-jpg.435354/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/marri-jpg.435355/
https://defence.pk/pdf/attachments/532021698-jpg.435356/

[Thambi]

afghans score more south asian than west asians but a lot less than south asians . and their ASI is a LOT lower also

they are different from indians to be fair . in fact to be half north indian genetically they would need to be half north caucasus . thats how they get modelled


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Kumyk +50% Pathan @ 2.702866


Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Abkhasian +50% GujaratiA @ 4.815619



Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Chechen +50% Kashmiri @ 3.366829

they also look different from indians for the most part . especially from south indians

a decent amount of afghans can pass in west asia indiviudally but only very few indians can . afghans also have more european dna than indians (ehg , whg etc.)

-

no i agree bro they definitely have more west asian influence than south asian. They are an iranic population so it makes sense. What I was saying was they usually just hate to admit they have any indian/south asian dna in them. They claim greek ancestry from alexander, arab and jewish ancestry, mongol ancestry but they never claim indian ancestry. It could be trolls like lameduck mentioned but many of them online do completely ignore the indian mixture. Maybe we are ugly in their eyes, not sure lol.. In terms of euro yes they have more euro than most south asians except for punjabis. Especially jatts who have more NE euro and mediterranean combo than afghan pashtuns.

[spik]

Turks are mostly Anatolian genetically.

[ButlerKing]

The thing is you weren't comparing the south asian/east asian makeup in the turkish dna as your thread originally inteded. Instead, it seems like you were just ranting about turks having a lot of south asian infleunce. As you saw few turkish members that posted here had almost 10-15% combo of eastasian/siberian with 2-3% south asian. It's already proved that east asian presence is higher in turkish people than south asian. Now if we are just talking about just south asian dna in turkish individuals, without including east asian discussion, then the south asian dna is still relatively low. ASI +iran neolithic forms vast majority of indian dna. Thats true. The source of iran neolithic in south asians, and rest of west eurasians could have come from a general migrating neolithic farmer type population around 5-10k years or so. But one thing forsure is that the ORIGINAL source of the iran neolithic is NOT from south asians. I'm asking you how do you know that gypsies gave them baloch/gedrosian? Gypsies were majority low caste and Y-dna haplogroup of H, R2, L with occasionally R1a. All those combined form 5.7% of haplogroups in turkey. R1a could actually be from central asia since they have it as well, so the 5.7% could be lower. Also there is no cline for baloch/iran-neolithic in south asia. Pretty much the average for baloch from south india to afghanistan is around 35%. Infact a south indian midcaste velama has slightly more baloch at 36% than a pashtun at 34%. This component is present in all west eurasians. We can't say that indians gave all those people the baloch/gedrosian component. That sounds silly tbh.

I'm south indian and not a high caste either. I have relatively high baloch and iran-neolithic. As I said there is no cline with this component among south asians so its illogical to say that this component is present in west eurasians through indians. If it was through indians, then turkish people should have about the same south asian as baloch/gedrosian. If a turk has 15-20% baloch, then they should have 15-20% south asian. Gypsies came from rajasthan as low caste tribals. The original gypsies would have been from meghawal tribe who have 45% south indian, 37% baloch, 5% caucasian and 6% NE-euro.

These are my results
harappa:
1 S-Indian 53.7
2 Baloch 37.19
3 Caucasian 4.32
4 NE-Asian 1.52
5 SE-Asian 1.2
6 SW-Asian 1.1
7 Papuan 0.45
8 American 0.4
9 Mediterranean 0.12

MDLP k23b
1 South_Indian 57.2
2 South_Central_Asian 33.63
3 South_East_Asian 1.75
4 Near_East 1.65
5 Caucasian 1.48
6 Ancestral_Altaic 1.02
7 Tungus-Altaic 0.9
8 Melano_Polynesian 0.86
9 Austronesian 0.43
10 Subsaharian 0.27
11 Australoid 0.23
12 Archaic_African 0.19
13 Amerindian 0.19
14 Archaic_Human 0.16
15 African_Pygmy 0.02

Near east neolithic K13
1 ANCESTRAL_INDIAN 46.67
2 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 41.18
3 SE_ASIAN 3.98
4 PAPUAN 2.9
5 EHG 1.84
6 CHG_EEF 1.7
7 SUB_SAHARAN 1.61
8 SHG_WHG 0.11


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 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.




Gypsies were majority low caste and Y-dna haplogroup of H, R2, L with occasionally R1a. All those combined form 5.7% of haplogroups in turkey. R1a could actually be from central asia since they have it as well, so the 5.7% could be lower.

[B] 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.ru/i308/1411/9e/fcf1cc38d1fa.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]



If it was through indians, then turkish people should have about the same south asian as baloch/gedrosian. If a turk has 15-20% baloch, then they should have 15-20% south asian.

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 )

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/26/ee29a677664047ae84d450de0b6a807f_18.jpg




The original gypsies would have been from meghawal tribe who have 45% south indian, 37% baloch, 5% caucasian and 6% NE-euro.


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?

[ButlerKing]

the mongoloid number is more diverse and has a bigger intervall but the south asian has not much of an interval . as I said already 1000 times turks score 4% autosomal south asian and close to 0% ASI like one will get 1% another one 0% another one 2% etc. but it is NEVER EVER higher than 3-4% even in the most atypical case no matter from which "region"

Like really ? There is 5.57% of South Indian Y-DNA haplogroups and 4% on mtDNA and you say it's 0% and this is not even including haplogroup other North Indian/west Eurasian haplogroups which Gypsies also carry and would most certainly be tainted by ASI admixture. How can you say ASI is 0% ????? Are you telling the 4% South Asian have nothing to do with South Asians if so why the hell they call it South Asian ?

Didn't I already showed you this ?????

The yellow/green is Mongoloid
Blue is West Eurasian
Purple is ASI / South Indian <----------- PAY ATTENTION TO THIS COMPONENT.

The purple makes up 2/3 of South Indian components and it's present in Turks !!!!!!! South Indian have 1/3 West Eurasian. As for North Indians they have 55-65% West Eurasian, their ASI admixture is ussually as low as 28-47% in most Cases.

Now assuming the gypsies who already had some intermixed with Afghan and later migrated to Turkey. I estimate their ASI admixture admixture would be 30% and 70% West Eurasian.

http://i59.tinypic.com/30dfkzk.png




turks themselves always say it and many even embrace it . they post their results too unlike you

Except they believe they have have nothing to do with South Asian. By genetic studies not even gypsies are more than 25% South Asian and not even most North Indians are more than 45% South Asian.

South Asian admixture in this Turk study is only 0.1% to 5.1% but I'm pretty sure they only included ASI admixture because they generally don't include the west Eurasian components of Indians.
http://i57.tinypic.com/a4wmyx.png


South Asian DNA includes both South Asian Iranic + South Asian ASI so real DNA in Turks should make up 5-11% in Turks. Other South Asian-like related DNA properly claim from Central Asia or other populations


Let's look at this DNA chart again. Europe in this chart is also wrongly labeled as Europeans but at least they sorted the out the ASI and ONGE

Europe (Pink) = West Eurasian admixture. Europeans, West Asian, Southwest Asian
South Asia ( Green ) = South Asian population or indigenous ASI
Onge ( Blue ) = Onge/Great Adamanese related DNA


South Asian population are mixture of West Eurasian and ASI population.

Gypsies in this study would only be 0-20% ASI but real DNA would properly be 35-40% South Asian if we include their original South Asian type west Eurasian admixture. Regardless though Gypsies are predominately more related with European and MENA's west Eurasian. They just have some South Asian ASI and South Asian Iranic admixture.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2013/10/roma2.png








Iranic Urheimat is not south asia you annoying bastard . it is central asia / southrussia

and as I said for the 10000th time I also posted my results we score very little south asian . east iranics have a lot more south asian than us but even them have less than you indians

I'm talking about the Balochi component aka ( also known as ) SOUTH-CENTRAL-ASIA

which originated


Map of Northwest South Asia, they are all genetic cousins.

http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/~/media/Research/Files/essays/dalrymple/images/inafpakdark.jpg

No where is Balochistan ? it's in region mostly in Pakistan, between Afghanistan and North India.

http://www.frontline.in/multimedia/dynamic/03089/fl09_balochistan_k_3089052g.jpg





lol typical indian obsession with light skin and foreign people 100000km west of him again

I wasnt talking about skin color . other than indeed being darker than average turks ...gypsies in most cases have different facial features and dont pass well trust me

the photos you posted prove nothing because

1. first pic are kurds and they are also not even typical kurds . we dont even know those people ...always people with unidetified ethnicities get posted . did you know that there are gypsies in southeast among kurds too ? and also arabs ? the arabs in turkey are often pretty exotic and dark

people like ibrahim tatlises are often posted as a typical kurd for example even thoug he is half arab .

also many people literally are under the sun 24h and are very tanned . the weather is very hot in south and southeast turkey and also pretty hot in central turkey

you know what is funny ? . I dont say that these men are gypsy or arab mixed of course but in my province we have almost no gypsies and arabs at all and funnily enough we (kuds) look like this :

http://s24.postimg.org/6fvcpbigl/image.jpg

http://s11.postimg.org/nadro7plf/1399151478.jpg

http://s4.postimg.org/rpxoqnljh/dersimliler_isci_katliamina_sessiz_kalmadie10792.j pg

http://www.gazetesonhavadis.com/uploads/FCK/11182252_10153267712739805_9173413936941080701_n.j pg

http://s3.postimg.org/s7gbuy9n7/drsim.jpg

http://up.picr.de/30277393xk.jpg


and kurds from other provinces often dont look like those men in the pic you posted either . but of course there are many dark kurds too and I posted dark kurds . there is nothing wrong with dark people either . I already included the maximal darkness (untanned of course) of how dark a kurd can be without being either admixed , heavily tanned , or extremely atypical in my galleries . but people like you dont have a clue and also try to misrepresent us because of your inferiority complex

I have posted lik 100000 kurds already and also genetic results

if you want to see how typical kurds look you can check this thread http://w11.zetaboards.com/anthroworld/topic/30258444/1/#new

if you want to see typical turkish people then check this thread : http://w11.zetaboards.com/anthroworld/topic/11460865/1/#new

and the men in your pic are still 1000 times lighter than the average indian anyway are you fucking kidding me dude

http://i.imgur.com/NJvOWVd.jpg

^ this is how I imagine anthro indian trolls lined up when one gets banned another one comes etc. lol

and dont come with "but they are not north indians" blablabla . I know that indians are diverse and some even can be as light as europeans and even pass as europeans facially but even most north indians look distinctly indian and have too foreign facial features to pass in turkey . 90% dont even fit well in east iran to be honest . north indians are just more caucasoid and also lighter but most are still unpassable in turkey

I have seen many indians where I live . I already said it before there are many indian students here and I see them often . and here in a park where I go running often there are sometimes people playing cricket . they look VERY distinctly south asian for the most part and can not even pass as gypsies in turkey in most cases

but you dont need to meet indians to know how they look . the indians that indian forum members themselves posted are good enough

--

2. of course gypsies look different from place to place but still most gypsies do NOT pass as turkish . they are also diverse though and I dont know why the fuck we are talking about gypsies anyway . gypsies score much more south asian than any west asian does btw. . even the balkan ones score like 20%


3. I hope you stop now . trust me I dont even dislike indians at all . but you are talking nonsense over and over . you have an agenda and that is not okay . so stop your obsession already

It's nonsense simply because you don't like it just like I find it nonsense when everyone tries to define "ASI " as the only real South Asian components


Are you trying to deny Roma (aka Gypsies ) from Turkey are not heavily mixed with Anatolian Turks ?

Are you trying to deny genetic exchanges between Anatolian Turks and Anatolian Gypsies ?


Are you trying to say the Indian haplogroups in Turkish population have no Indian influence ?


Do you not think Turkish people having 5.57% South Indian haplogroup Y-DNA and 4% on mtDNA means something ? Or that their South Asian ancestry is possibly even higher if their Y-DNA and mtDNA are North Indian/West Eurasian. There are 500,000 to 4 million Gypsies in Turkey, you think such a large number means no genetic contribution to modern Turkish population.

SORRY, I KNOW YOU DISLIKE THIS

But the fact that the genetic study said this ----------------> "South Asian contribution to Turkey's population was significantly higher than East/Central Asian contributions, 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



Here are Romani Turkish gypsies in group photos (not your cherrypicked individuals )


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wc96EKwR8ls/UZSrRQgZ0NI/AAAAAAAAB1A/lK1jIV0rruU/s1600/sapanca+kad_nlar.jpg

http://bianet.org/system/uploads/1/articles/spot_image/000/119/593/original/selendi_romanlar2_501.jpg

https://rumisapprentice.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dsc00915.jpg

It's the same with all the Roma places they migrate to.

The Roma in this video would easily pass for any modern day Turkish. Even pure Turkish with darker skin look less white than these gypsies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY6QvxMHS5c

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Like really ? There is 5.57% of South Indian Y-DNA haplogroups and 4% on mtDNA and you say it's 0% and this is not even including haplogroup other North Indian/west Eurasian haplogroups which Gypsies also carry and would most certainly be tainted by ASI admixture. How can you say ASI is 0% ?????

Didn't I already showed you this ?????


The yellow/green is Mongoloid
Blue is West Eurasian
Purple is ASI / South Indian <----------- PAY ATTENTION TO THIS COMPONENT.

The purple makes up 2/3 of South Indian components and it's present in Turks !!!!!!! South Indian have 1/3 West Eurasian. As for North Indians they have 55-65% West Eurasian, their ASI admixture is ussually as low as 28-47% in most Cases.

Now assuming the gypsies who already had some intermixed with Afghan and later migrated to Turkey. I estimate their ASI admixture admixture would be 30% and 70% West Eurasian.

http://i59.tinypic.com/30dfkzk.png




Except they believe they have have nothing to do with South Asian. By genetic studies not even gypsies are more than 25% South Asian and not even North Indians are more than 45% South Asian.

South Asian admixture in this Turk study is only 0.1% to 5.1% but I'm pretty sure they only included ASI admixture because they generally don't include the west Eurasian components of Indians.
http://i57.tinypic.com/a4wmyx.png


South Asian DNA includes both South Asian Iranic + South Asian ASI so real DNA in Turks should make up 5-11% in Turks. Other South Asian-like related DNA properly claim from Central Asia or other populations


Let's look at this DNA chart again. Europe in this chart is also wrongly labeled as Europeans but at least they sorted the out the ASI and ONGE

Europe (Pink) = West Eurasian admixture. Europeans, West Asian, Southwest Asian
South Asia ( Green ) = South Asian population or indigenous ASI
Onge ( Blue ) = Onge/Great Adamanese related DNA


South Asian population are mixture of West Eurasian and ASI population.

Gypsies in this study would only be 0-20% ASI but real DNA would properly be 35-40% South Asian if we include their original South Asian type west Eurasian admixture. Regardless though Gypsies are predominately more related with European and MENA's west Eurasian. They just have some South Asian ASI and South Asian Iranic admixture.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2013/10/roma2.png








I'm talking about the Balochi component aka ( also known as ) SOUTH-CENTRAL-ASIA

which originated


Map of Northwest South Asia, they are all genetic cousins.

http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/~/media/Research/Files/essays/dalrymple/images/inafpakdark.jpg

No where is Balochistan ? it's in region mostly in Pakistan, between Afghanistan and North India.

http://www.frontline.in/multimedia/dynamic/03089/fl09_balochistan_k_3089052g.jpg





It's nonsense simply because you don't like it just like I find it nonsense when everyone tries to define "ASI " as the only real South Asian components


Are you trying to deny Roma (aka Gypsies ) from Turkey are not heavily mixed with Anatolian Turks ?

Are you trying to deny genetic exchanges between Anatolian Turks and Anatolian Gypsies ?


Are you trying to say the Indian haplogroups in Turkish population have no Indian influence ?


Do you not think Turkish people having 5.57% South Indian haplogroup Y-DNA and 4% on mtDNA means something ? Or that their South Asian ancestry is possibly even higher if their Y-DNA and mtDNA are North Indian/West Eurasian. There are 500,000 to 4 million Gypsies in Turkey, you think such a large number means no genetic contribution to modern Turkish population.

SORRY, I KNOW YOU DISLIKE THIS

But the fact that the genetic study said this ----------------> [I]"South Asian contribution to Turkey's population was significantly higher than East/Central Asian contributions, 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 [I/]



Here are Romani Turkish gypsies in group photos (not your cherrypicked individuals )


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wc96EKwR8ls/UZSrRQgZ0NI/AAAAAAAAB1A/lK1jIV0rruU/s1600/sapanca+kad_nlar.jpg

http://bianet.org/system/uploads/1/articles/spot_image/000/119/593/original/selendi_romanlar2_501.jpg

https://rumisapprentice.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dsc00915.jpg

It's the same with all the Roma places they migrate to.

The Roma in this video would easily pass for any modern day Turkish. Even pure Turkish with darker skin look less white than these gypsies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY6QvxMHS5c


You’re still alive???! I swear to god one day you will give yourself a brain anourism thinking up and posting so much random shit.

[ButlerKing]

You’re still alive???! I swear to god one day you will give yourself a brain anourism thinking up and posting so much random shit.

Why do you call it random shit or like Haudoken calling me a troll. There's two reasons for this.

1. To discredit the genetic evidence I presented
2. To make it seem I'm not serious about this

Such tactics always are used over and over again when they can't swallow what they don't like.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Why do you call it random shit or like Haudoken calling me a troll. There's two reasons for this.

1. To discredit the genetic evidence I presented
2. To make it seem I'm not serious about this

Such tactics always are used over and over again when they can't swallow what they don't like.

1. I don’t care about the evidence you presented.

2.I didn’t even read what you wrote or have any clue about what this thread is all about.

3. You’re crazy and obsessed with weird stuff.

4. You’re still not ethnically British.

[Fractal]

You’re still alive???! I swear to god one day you will give yourself a brain anourism thinking up and posting so much random shit.

He thinks analytically and logically, if Indians aren't computer engineers or business owners where we employ the likes of you, we take our intellectual endeavors to outside hobbies.

In his case, it's anthrogenetics. For others its computers, paleontology, etc

[SardiniaAtlantis]

He thinks analytically and logically, if Indians aren't computer engineers or business owners where we employ the likes of you, we take our intellectual endeavors to outside hobbies.

In his case, it's anthrogenetics. For others its computers, paleontology, etc

Italians happen to be one of the most business minded, and entrepreneurial groups in America. I myself am a business owner, as are a lot of people in my family. Also your constant need to attacking others, and attempt to proclaim the superiority of your “kind” actually speaks to an inferiority complex that you are attempting to cover and cope with. Get help.

[Fractal]

Italians happen to be one of the most business minded, and entrepreneurial groups in America. I myself am a business owner, as are a lot of people in my family. Also your constant need to attacking others, and attempt to proclaim the superiority of your “kind” actually speaks to an inferiority complex that you are attempting to cover and cope with. Get help.

No they are not. They are actually one of the poorest, and they are complete low IQ morons compared to Indians.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

No they are not. They are actually one of the poorest, and they are complete low IQ morons compared to Indians.

I don’t want to argue with you tbh, I just wish you get help for this issue.

[Fractal]

I don’t want to argue with you tbh, I just wish you get help for this issue.

Yet you randomly quoted Butlerking.

1. Indians are one of the most successful in the USA, if not the most.

2. We own more businesses than italians. fuck your little olive spaghetti restaurants and the mafia

3. We run Silicon Valley

4. We make up a disproportioate number of doctors and scientists, and we're numbered at only 4 million.

5. We have one of the strongest communities. Why else do you still see Hindu temples everywhere, and why do we date and marry out the least in comparison to other groups?

But yeah I don't feel like debating you either.

[ButlerKing]

You only need to ask yourself. Do some research and answer it for yourself because I know my answer.

1. Are there Indian haplogroups in Turkey ? ( Yes there is )
2. Do genetics confirm a South Asian component in Turkey ? ( Yes they do )
3. Is there million of gypsies in Turkey ? ( Yes there is )
4. Do Gypsies in Turkey look heavily mixed ? ( Yes they do )
5. Are there any genetic exchanges ? ( Yes, obviously)


ONLY THING NOW I AGREE..... not all the Balochi components in Turkey came from gypsies even I would think it's too stupid because the Central Asian Seljuks are mixture of Mongoloid and Iranic Central Asian. However if they have 2-4% ASI admixture than the should have 2x to 3x the South Asian Balochi admixture. Because even the South Indian haplogroup like L, H, R2 in Turkey should also be contaminated by west Eurasian likewise and other other gypsies haplogroup with west Eurasian/North Indian Y-DNA R1a, R1b should also be contaminated by ASI admixed DNA.

It would be STUPID to say all West Asian/Balochi/Gedrosian components in Turkey are from Gypsies however if there is South Asian ASI admixture in Turkey than there should also be at least the same level South Asian types Balochi/West components although I believe it should be 2x higher based on the fact they migrated from North India ( I don't know if the original gypsies were 45% ASI or not, I do believed they it had some diluted by the time their migration to Turkey ).

[Hadouken]

butlerking I will make it as short as I can because of so much text . I can not reply to everything especially since life is too short to spend it on something like this . if you at least would understand and acknowledge what I am saying

I will show you ASI scores of turks

Turk from Aydin/Konya

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 28.4
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 20.71
3 SW_Asian 18.8
4 WHG 14.17
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 7.73
6 Siberian_E_Asian 6.23
7 SE_Asian 2.42
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 0.84
9 W_African 0.7

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.63
2 Kumyk 8.97
3 Adygei 10.07
4 Chechen 12.04
5 Azeri 12.23
6 Azeri_Dagestan 14.1
7 Lezgin 14.96
8 Kurd_N 16.43
9 Iranian 16.51
10 Armenian 16.82
11 Sicilian 17.16
12 Georgian 17.5
13 Abkhasian 17.55
14 Georgian_Jew 17.6
15 Maltese 18.08
16 Cypriot 18.23
17 Greek 18.48
18 Lebanese 18.91
19 Syrian 19.48
20 Druze 19.82


-----

Turk from Sivas (this one has more than average but it is atyipcal . and still less than 5% )


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 33.91
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 25.54
3 SW_Asian 20.71
4 WHG 9.64
5 Ancestral_South_Indian 3.18
6 SE_Asian 2.82
7 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.34
8 Siberian_E_Asian 1.85

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.3
2 Azeri 7.86
3 Armenian 8.44
4 Kurd_N 9.7
5 Georgian 9.92
6 Georgian_Jew 10.81
7 Iranian 10.85
8 Abkhasian 11.29
9 Adygei 11.82
10 Kumyk 12.27
11 Iranian_Jew 12.47
12 Azeri_Dagestan 13.42
13 Cypriot 13.86
14 Druze 14.35
15 Chechen 14.69
16 Lebanese 15.11
17 Kurd_C 15.25
18 Iraqi_Jew 15.51
19 Syrian 16.15
20 Lezgin 17.54


--

Turk I think somewhere from central anatolia

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 28.35
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 23.94
3 SW_Asian 22.60
4 WHG 10.40
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 7.17
6 Siberian_E_Asian 3.70
7 SE_Asian 2.52
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.33

---


another Turk . he used to be a member here but is inactive . I dont remember his homeprovinces well anymore

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 32.94
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 24.16
3 SW_Asian 20.68
4 WHG 11.52
5 Siberian_E_Asian 3.52
6 SE_Asian 3.4
7 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.98
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 0.72
9 W_African 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 3.43
2 Azeri 7.61
3 Armenian 10.01
4 Adygei 10.53
5 Kumyk 10.66
6 Kurd_N 10.94
7 Georgian 11.47
8 Georgian_Jew 11.94
9 Iranian 12.17
10 Abkhasian 12.44
11 Azeri_Dagestan 13.1
12 Chechen 13.5
13 Iranian_Jew 14.05
14 Cypriot 14.24
15 Druze 15.12
16 Lebanese 15.43
17 Syrian 16.31
18 Iraqi_Jew 16.47
19 Lezgin 16.52
20 Kurd_C 16.7

-----

another Turkish member here


1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 33.67
2 SW_Asian 21.87
3 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 21.68
4 WHG 7.09
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.65
6 Siberian_E_Asian 5.02
7 SE_Asian 3.21
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.81


# Population (source) Distance
1 Azeri 4.92
2 Turkish 6.11
3 Kurd_N 9.12
4 Iranian 9.28
5 Armenian 10.29
6 Kumyk 10.3
7 Adygei 10.43
8 Georgian_Jew 10.61
9 Azeri_Dagestan 11.21
10 Georgian 11.41
11 Abkhasian 11.64
12 Iranian_Jew 12.73
13 Chechen 12.81
14 Kurd_C 14.48
15 Lezgin 15.24
16 Druze 15.34
17 Lebanese 15.62
18 Iraqi_Jew 15.89
19 Syrian 16.09
20 Cypriot 16.52


----


another turk . I am not sure about his homeprovince but I am guessing karabük and/or izmir

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 29.36
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 23.93
3 SW_Asian 20.72
4 WHG 14.55
5 SE_Asian 4.6
6 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 3.07
7 Siberian_E_Asian 2.58
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 4.51
2 Azeri 11.52
3 Kumyk 12.25
4 Adygei 12.54
5 Armenian 13.36
6 Cypriot 13.94
7 Sicilian 14.65
8 Kurd_N 14.78
9 Georgian_Jew 14.88
10 Chechen 15.11
11 Georgian 15.44
12 Maltese 15.53
13 Iranian 15.79
14 Lebanese 15.93
15 Azeri_Dagestan 15.98
16 Druze 16.21
17 Abkhasian 16.44
18 Syrian 16.74
19 Iranian_Jew 17.05
20 Greek 17.25


---

regarding gedrosia/baloch component : I already explained you but here look at this

Irish member scores 10%


Ibericus could you please plot me? Many thanks. :)

Population
Gedrosia 10.16
Siberian 0.21
Northwest_African -
Southeast_Asian -
Atlantic_Med 37.86
North_European 46.55
South_Asian -
East_African -
Southwest_Asian 0.21
East_Asian -
Caucasus 5.01
Sub_Saharan -

another member of mostly west european descend scores also 9%


Please try me?


Population
Gedrosia 9.18
Siberian -
Northwest_African 0.65
Southeast_Asian -
Atlantic_Med 31.46
North_European 39.92
South_Asian 0.52
East_African -
Southwest_Asian 4.17
East_Asian -
Caucasus 14.10
Sub_Saharan -

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Yet you randomly quoted Butlerking.

1. Indians are one of the most successful in the USA, if not the most.

2. We own more businesses than italians. fuck your little olive spaghetti restaurants and the mafia

3. We run Silicon Valley

4. We make up a disproportioate number of doctors and scientists, and we're numbered at only 4 million.

5. We have one of the strongest communities. Why else do you still see Hindu temples everywhere, and why do we date and marry out the least in comparison to other groups?

But yeah I don't feel like debating you either.

All that stuff is good, and true....so why the hell do you attack random ethnic groups? Just be happy with knowing that without the need to attack others randomly because that is a sign of feeling inferior not superior which btw is also a fucked up feeling superior to others based on ethnicity. Superiority or inferiority is down to individual character not to ethnic reasons.

[ButlerKing]

butlerking I will make it as short as I can because of so much text . I can not reply to everything especially since life is too short to spend it on something like this . if you at least would understand and acknowledge what I am saying

I will show you ASI scores of turks

Turk from Aydin/Konya

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 28.4
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 20.71
3 SW_Asian 18.8
4 WHG 14.17
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 7.73
6 Siberian_E_Asian 6.23
7 SE_Asian 2.42
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 0.84
9 W_African 0.7

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.63
2 Kumyk 8.97
3 Adygei 10.07
4 Chechen 12.04
5 Azeri 12.23
6 Azeri_Dagestan 14.1
7 Lezgin 14.96
8 Kurd_N 16.43
9 Iranian 16.51
10 Armenian 16.82
11 Sicilian 17.16
12 Georgian 17.5
13 Abkhasian 17.55
14 Georgian_Jew 17.6
15 Maltese 18.08
16 Cypriot 18.23
17 Greek 18.48
18 Lebanese 18.91
19 Syrian 19.48
20 Druze 19.82


-----

Turk from Sivas (this one has more than average but it is atyipcal . and still less than 5% )


Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 33.91
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 25.54
3 SW_Asian 20.71
4 WHG 9.64
5 Ancestral_South_Indian 3.18
6 SE_Asian 2.82
7 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.34
8 Siberian_E_Asian 1.85

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 6.3
2 Azeri 7.86
3 Armenian 8.44
4 Kurd_N 9.7
5 Georgian 9.92
6 Georgian_Jew 10.81
7 Iranian 10.85
8 Abkhasian 11.29
9 Adygei 11.82
10 Kumyk 12.27
11 Iranian_Jew 12.47
12 Azeri_Dagestan 13.42
13 Cypriot 13.86
14 Druze 14.35
15 Chechen 14.69
16 Lebanese 15.11
17 Kurd_C 15.25
18 Iraqi_Jew 15.51
19 Syrian 16.15
20 Lezgin 17.54


--

Turk I think somewhere from central anatolia

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 28.35
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 23.94
3 SW_Asian 22.60
4 WHG 10.40
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 7.17
6 Siberian_E_Asian 3.70
7 SE_Asian 2.52
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.33

---


another Turk . he used to be a member here but is inactive . I dont remember his homeprovinces well anymore

1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 32.94
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 24.16
3 SW_Asian 20.68
4 WHG 11.52
5 Siberian_E_Asian 3.52
6 SE_Asian 3.4
7 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.98
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 0.72
9 W_African 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 3.43
2 Azeri 7.61
3 Armenian 10.01
4 Adygei 10.53
5 Kumyk 10.66
6 Kurd_N 10.94
7 Georgian 11.47
8 Georgian_Jew 11.94
9 Iranian 12.17
10 Abkhasian 12.44
11 Azeri_Dagestan 13.1
12 Chechen 13.5
13 Iranian_Jew 14.05
14 Cypriot 14.24
15 Druze 15.12
16 Lebanese 15.43
17 Syrian 16.31
18 Iraqi_Jew 16.47
19 Lezgin 16.52
20 Kurd_C 16.7

-----

another Turkish member here


1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 33.67
2 SW_Asian 21.87
3 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 21.68
4 WHG 7.09
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 5.65
6 Siberian_E_Asian 5.02
7 SE_Asian 3.21
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.81


# Population (source) Distance
1 Azeri 4.92
2 Turkish 6.11
3 Kurd_N 9.12
4 Iranian 9.28
5 Armenian 10.29
6 Kumyk 10.3
7 Adygei 10.43
8 Georgian_Jew 10.61
9 Azeri_Dagestan 11.21
10 Georgian 11.41
11 Abkhasian 11.64
12 Iranian_Jew 12.73
13 Chechen 12.81
14 Kurd_C 14.48
15 Lezgin 15.24
16 Druze 15.34
17 Lebanese 15.62
18 Iraqi_Jew 15.89
19 Syrian 16.09
20 Cypriot 16.52


----


another turk . I am not sure about his homeprovince but I am guessing karabük and/or izmir

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 29.36
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 23.93
3 SW_Asian 20.72
4 WHG 14.55
5 SE_Asian 4.6
6 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 3.07
7 Siberian_E_Asian 2.58
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.19

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkish 4.51
2 Azeri 11.52
3 Kumyk 12.25
4 Adygei 12.54
5 Armenian 13.36
6 Cypriot 13.94
7 Sicilian 14.65
8 Kurd_N 14.78
9 Georgian_Jew 14.88
10 Chechen 15.11
11 Georgian 15.44
12 Maltese 15.53
13 Iranian 15.79
14 Lebanese 15.93
15 Azeri_Dagestan 15.98
16 Druze 16.21
17 Abkhasian 16.44
18 Syrian 16.74
19 Iranian_Jew 17.05
20 Greek 17.25


---

regarding gedrosia/baloch component : I already explained you but here look at this

Irish member scores 10%



another member of mostly west european descend scores also 9%

So it's a lot more than you said. You said it's nearly 0%

South Indian in this study is 2.40% now if we chop out some of that South Central Asian component
than real South Asian ancestry would be 6.70% South Asian admixture. Not as high as I wanted it to be but also nowhere as low as you claimed it is. It's possibly even higher because we don't know for sure just how much ASI admixture the gypsies had when they migrated or who they mixed mix.

Let's say the Roma Turkish gypsies had 70% South Central Asian and 30% ASI


MDLP K23b results:
https://i.imgur.com/Qn4kP8a.png
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 34.39
2 South_Central_Asian 15.50
3 Near_East 8.90
4 European_Early_Farmers 8.65
5 Tungus-Altaic 7.69
6 European_Hunters_Gatherers 6.95
7 Ancestral_Altaic 5.28
8 East_Siberian 3.68
9 South_Indian 2.40
10 North_African 2.30
11 Arctic 1.45


Eurogenes K13 results:
https://i.imgur.com/d0XUBEl.png
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 28.69
2 East_Med 22.87
3 West_Med 11.93
4 Siberian 8.88
5 Red_Sea 5.77
6 North_Atlantic 5.70
7 Baltic 5.26
8 South_Asian 4.70
9 East_Asian 4.32
10 Amerindian 1.01



Dodecad K12b results:
https://i.imgur.com/pip2lRO.png
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 35.88
2 Gedrosia 15.28
3 Southwest_Asian 11.23
4 Atlantic_Med 10.86
5 North_European 8.34
6 East_Asian 7.13
7 Siberian 6.35
8 South_Asian 2.75
9 Northwest_African 1.91



Eurasia K9 ASI Results:
https://i.imgur.com/uK8zKoG.png
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 29.47
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 20.14
3 SW_Asian 16.95
4 WHG 10.55
5 Siberian_E_Asian 8.14
6 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 6.76
7 SE_Asian 6.63
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.34


Yes ASI admixture is low in study that's why I said ASI / South Indian admixture is 0.1% to 5.1% in Turks and I presented it with my study but the biggest problem is they don't include ANI ( Ancestral North Indian components ) which I think would be 0.3% to 15.3% among the Turkish population because Gypsies would definately have ANI admixture and especially when they had mixed with other higher South Asian population with higher west Eurasian admixtures.

[Hadouken]

I dont know why you keep talking about gypsies the whole time . turks are not mixed with gypsies . those gypsies who are mixed with turk or vice versa they know it and state it but vast majority of turks have nothing to do with gypsies

and I said nearly 0% which is the truth as you see . some score 0.7 for example . there are also turks that score 0% I can show you too like this turk from trabzon

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 34.29
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 26.96
3 SW_Asian 22.76
4 WHG 9.63
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.96
6 Siberian_E_Asian 2.06
7 SE_Asian 1.34


--

in any case it is very very low dude I showed you evidence so just suck it up and move on





Not as high as I wanted it to be but also nowhere as low as you claimed it is.

lol poor guy :) very pathetic tbh


-

everything I claimed is true and I back it up with results too

I think you should seek help btw. . a therapy or something .

[Hudayar]

South Asian/Indian admixture never goes beyond 5%. The 2012 study is absolutely retarded and its methods are laughable. Does it actually tell us about the admixture or does it just tell your distance to other populations? If latter then the study should not be taken seriously.
But thank them for Aydın samples. Though some non-aydın Turks were found in their Aydın samples.

here's some Turk results for example
# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 40.39
2 South_Central_Asian 14.94
3 Near_East 9.68
4 European_Early_Farmers 7.3
5 European_Hunters_Gatherers 6.7
6 Tungus-Altaic 5.68
7 Ancestral_Altaic 2.9
8 North_African 2.78
9 South_East_Asian 2.25
10 Melano_Polynesian 2.11
11 East_Siberian 1.75
12 Amerindian 1.49
13 South_Indian 1.31
14 Arctic 0.54
15 Archaic_African 0.15
16 Archaic_Human 0.03


# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 37.33
2 Mediterranean 27.48
3 NE_European 10.73
4 SW_Asian 7.25
5 E_Asian 5.81
6 S_Indian 4.29
7 Siberian 2.81
8 Horn_Of_Africa 2.4
9 Amerindian 1.26
10 Beringian 0.63
11 S_African 0.02

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 27.76
2 East_Med 25.93
3 Siberian 11.61
4 West_Med 10.53
5 North_Atlantic 7.55
6 East_Asian 6.13
7 Baltic 5.09
8 Red_Sea 2.25
9 South_Asian 2.19
10 Amerindian 0.84
11 Northeast_African 0.08
12 Oceanian 0.06


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 23.12
2 West_Asian 20.92
3 West_Med 12.85
4 Baltic 12.09
5 Siberian 10.19
6 North_Atlantic 7.31
7 East_Asian 6.37
8 Red_Sea 4.52
9 South_Asian 1.52
10 Oceanian 1.08
11 Amerindian 0.04

[ButlerKing]

I dont know why you keep talking about gypsies the whole time . turks are not mixed with gypsies . those gypsies who are mixed with turk or vice versa they know it and state it but vast majority of turks have nothing to do with gypsies

and I said nearly 0% which is the truth as you see . some score 0.7 for example . there are also turks that score 0% I can show you too like this turk from trabzon

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 34.29
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 26.96
3 SW_Asian 22.76
4 WHG 9.63
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 2.96
6 Siberian_E_Asian 2.06
7 SE_Asian 1.34


--

in any case it is very very low dude I showed you evidence so just suck it up and move on



lol poor guy :) very pathetic tbh


-

everything I claimed is true and I back it up with results too

I think you should seek help btw. . a therapy or something .


OMG !!!!

There are 4-5 million gypsies in Turkey and most of them look nothing like South Asian. You really think there was no massive genetic exchanges ?

The fact that there is 4-5% South Indian haplogroups in Turkey ( not even including North Indian ones ) and the million of Roma Gypsies looking more Turkish than Indian is prove of their genetic exchanges, you don't even need genetic study to prove this logic. You can't tell me there is no significant South Asian ancestry in Turkish Turks, by significant I will say Turkish Turks have 12% real South Asian ancestry ( ASI and ANI ) while the other South-Central Asian have more to do with Iranic population

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/308a0c8989cc4b3eb1640a5682083197/turkey-gypsy-music-festival-celebrating-start-of-summer-istanbul-photo-brww12.jpg

I can show you Turks with 0% Mongoloid to 22% Mongoloid admixture. ( East Eurasian = Siberian + East Asian )


https://i.hizliresim.com/vEB25v.png

Some Turks show only 0-3% Mongoloid admixture but of course I'm aware that East Turkey having low Mongoloid admixture is possibly due to Kurdish samples instead of Turkish.

I'm not sure if East Turkey samples are based on Turkish Turks or ethnic majority Kurds.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KCiXuLgcW6w/VQ1J0GQXNdI/AAAAAAAABYM/cpRmyaFT7qg/s1600/Kurdistan%2BHypocristan%2BTurkey%2Badministration% 2Bmap2.jpg
http://www.iranreview.org/file/cms/files/kurdistan1.gif

[Hudayar]

South Asian/Indian admixture never goes beyond 5%. The 2012 study is absolutely retarded and its methods are laughable. Does it actually tell us about the admixture or does it just tell your distance to other populations? If latter then the study should not be taken seriously.
But thank them for Aydın samples. Though some non-aydın Turks were found in their Aydın samples.

here's some Turk results for example
# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 40.39
2 South_Central_Asian 14.94
3 Near_East 9.68
4 European_Early_Farmers 7.3
5 European_Hunters_Gatherers 6.7
6 Tungus-Altaic 5.68
7 Ancestral_Altaic 2.9
8 North_African 2.78
9 South_East_Asian 2.25
10 Melano_Polynesian 2.11
11 East_Siberian 1.75
12 Amerindian 1.49
13 South_Indian 1.31
14 Arctic 0.54
15 Archaic_African 0.15
16 Archaic_Human 0.03


# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 37.33
2 Mediterranean 27.48
3 NE_European 10.73
4 SW_Asian 7.25
5 E_Asian 5.81
6 S_Indian 4.29
7 Siberian 2.81
8 Horn_Of_Africa 2.4
9 Amerindian 1.26
10 Beringian 0.63
11 S_African 0.02

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 27.76
2 East_Med 25.93
3 Siberian 11.61
4 West_Med 10.53
5 North_Atlantic 7.55
6 East_Asian 6.13
7 Baltic 5.09
8 Red_Sea 2.25
9 South_Asian 2.19
10 Amerindian 0.84
11 Northeast_African 0.08
12 Oceanian 0.06


# Population Percent
1 East_Med 23.12
2 West_Asian 20.92
3 West_Med 12.85
4 Baltic 12.09
5 Siberian 10.19
6 North_Atlantic 7.31
7 East_Asian 6.37
8 Red_Sea 4.52
9 South_Asian 1.52
10 Oceanian 1.08
11 Amerindian 0.04

also Turkmens also have South Indian admixture in them, Greeks and some Armenians lack it. So it could be explained by Turkmen gene influx although it's kinda unstable. Some Turkmen tribes have almost no S. Indian admixture whereas some have as high as 10%.

[Hadouken]

OMG !!!!

There are 4-5 million gypsies in Turkey and most of them look nothing like South Asian. You really think there was no massive genetic exchanges ?

The fact that there is 4-5% South Indian haplogroups in Turkey ( not even including North Indian ones ) and the million of Roma Gypsies looking this is prove of their genetic exchanges. So you can't tell me there is no significant South Asian ancestry in Turkish Turks.


I can show you Turks with 0% Mongoloid to 22% Mongoloid admixture.



Some Turks show only 0-3% Mongoloid admixture Of course I'm aware that East Turkey having low Mongoloid admixture is possibly due to Kurdish samples instead of Turkish.


haplogroup is a very small part of your dna and is not even worthy of mention here . I showed you turkish results . period

many gypsies are mixed with anything ...they are also diverse . but it doesnt matter . you can argue about them having mix of this or that but turks have no gypsy admix . like if all gypsies had turkish admix it wouldnt change that most turks dont have gypsy admix . so the discussion is nonsense and gypsies are not the issue

and mongoloid admix also has nothing to do with it

I am kurdish and I score 2.5-6% mongoloid depending on calculator btw. . lol

[Fractal]

damn you two are still at it

[Hudayar]

Here's a Turk from Gümüşhane
# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 34.06
2 Gedrosia 14.47
3 Atlantic_Med 12.9
4 North_European 9.94
5 Southwest_Asian 9.09
6 Siberian 9.71
7 East_Asian 5.82
8 Southeast_Asian 1.95
9 South_Asian 1.89
10 Northwest_African 0.17

[ButlerKing]

haplogroup is a very small part of your dna and is not even worthy of mention here . I showed you turkish results . period

many gypsies are mixed with anything ...they are also diverse . but it doesnt matter . you can argue about them having mix of this or that but turks have no gypsy admix . like if all gypsies had turkish admix it wouldnt change that most turks dont have gypsy admix . so the discussion is nonsense and gypsies are not the issue

and mongoloid admix also has nothing to do with it

I am kurdish and I score 2.5-6% mongoloid depending on calculator btw. . lol

I take it you haven't watched this video. How Indian do you think they look? Do they look Indian or Turkish ? Now if Gypsies are supposed to look originally South Asian than how do you explain these Gypsies who had been in Turkey for 1200 years. You think more than a thousand years of living in Turkey meant no intermixing.

If they influenced Gypsies physically than it must also been Gypsies have influenced the DNA of Turkish Turks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8BnK_husY&t=752s

[ButlerKing]

also Turkmens also have South Indian admixture in them, Greeks and some Armenians lack it. So it could be explained by Turkmen gene influx although it's kinda unstable. Some Turkmen tribes have almost no S. Indian admixture whereas some have as high as 10%.

Turkmen South Indian admixture could be a different scenario.

Yes, I've seen Turkmen with 0.2% S.Indian and others with only 1-2%. I've also seen one with 11.5%.

Central Asia also have it's own gypsies population aswell but not sure if it's intermixing. Turkmen also took many slaves from Middle east and North India during their nomadic raids. Some of them could really be Turkified Iranian, Afghan, Indians. Or some of them are Iranian Turkmens who migrated back to Turkmenistan and they most certainly have ASI admixture more than 8%

It seems the area of South Turkmenistan was a region for Iranic people who have significant ASI admixture ( 10-15%, sometimes 19% )


TURKOMANS

" The Turkomans observe a difference between their children from Turkoman mothers, and those from the Persian female captives whom they take as wives, and the Kazakh women whom they purchase from the Uzbeks of Khiva. The Turkomans of pure race enjoy full privileges, while the others are not allowed to contract marriages with Turkoman women of pure blood, but must choose themselves wives among the half-castes and Kazakh captives.

As there exists a great animosity between the Yamuds and Goklans they do not intermarry, although they reckon themselves of equally noble lineage. The same hatred is extended to the Tekke Turkomans, whom the Goklans and Yamuds, moreover, look upon as their inferiors, being, according to their genealogies, the descendants of a slave-woman, whilst they are the posterity of a free-woman. (p. 71) "

The more intimate connection of the Astrakhan and Kazan Tartars with the Mogols can be traced in their features; with the Nogay it is less visible. In like manner, the Turkomans further off in the desert, and the Uzbeks of Khive, have more of the Mogol expression than the Turkomans who encamp near the Persian frontier. The frequent intercourse of the Nogay, in latter years, with the Cherkess, seems to have improved their race; and notwithstanding the enmity that exists between the Turkomans and the Persians, it is still not unlikely that their close vicinity should have produced on the former a similar effect in a lapse of several centuries. The fact we have seen, that the Turkomans marry Persian women, when they take them as prisoners. The Turkoman women are, like the men, tall, and when young, well-shaped; their faces are rounder than those of the men; the cheek-bones less prominent; the eyes black, with fine eye-brows, and many with fair complexion; the nose is rather flat; the mouth small, with a row of regular white teeth. In a word, a great number of the younger part of the community might be reckoned as fair specimens of pretty women. (p. 73)

[Mingle]

LOL bro I just go by logic. West asians in general have very limited gene flow from the subcontinent, so this whole discussion of gypsy dna in turks and all other crap sounds like BS. Now if afghans said that they have no indian influence, I would have laughed at that, but turks saying they have no indian infuence makes perfect sense. You should see how pashtuns despise indians. Idk what many of them have against us but they even say they are more related to northern europeans than to indians.

Pashtuns don't say we're closer to Northern Euros than Indians. Some Pashtuns just lash out a bit against Indians for trying to Desify us and making us the subject of their complexes. Usually, these are North Indics (especially Punjabis) and Indic Muslims. South Indian Hindus and Sri Lankans don't have that weird Pashtun obsession/inferiority complex that North Indics and Indic Muslims have.


no i agree bro they definitely have more west asian influence than south asian. They are an iranic population so it makes sense. What I was saying was they usually just hate to admit they have any indian/south asian dna in them. They claim greek ancestry from alexander, arab and jewish ancestry, mongol ancestry but they never claim indian ancestry. It could be trolls like lameduck mentioned but many of them online do completely ignore the indian mixture. Maybe we are ugly in their eyes, not sure lol.. In terms of euro yes they have more euro than most south asians except for punjabis. Especially jatts who have more NE euro and mediterranean combo than afghan pashtuns.

A few uneducated morons claim Jewish ancestry because of that centuries old myth, but we will never claim Mongol or Arab or Greek ancestry. We do have some South Asian DNA, but there is nothing wrong with not saying we aren't of South Asian descent. The people with the ancestry fetish (who mainly claim just Pashtun ancestry) are Indic Muslims, followed by Hindu/Sikh North Indians. Pashtuns mostly just see themselves as Pashtuns.

[Fractal]

Pashtuns don't say we're closer to Northern Euros than Indians. Some Pashtuns just lash out a bit against Indians for trying to Desify us and making us the subject of their complexes. Usually, these are North Indics and Indic Muslims. South Indian Hindus and Sri Lankans don't have that weird Pashtun obsession/inferiority complex that North Indics and Indic Muslims have.



A few uneducated morons claim Jewish ancestry, but we will never claim Mongol or Arab or Greek ancestry. We do some have South Asian DNA, but there is nothing wrong with not saying we aren't of South Asian descent.

What are you on? No South Asian Hindu wants to be associated with Pashtuns. They are definitely Jatts or Pakistanis if they try to make a connection to your grup.

Definitely not Gujaratis...LOL.

You think Hindus want to be associated with a group that's associated with terrorism, the Taliban, Islam, kebabs, looking Arab, etc?

Please get real.

[Mingle]

What are you on? No South Asian Hindu wants to be associated with Pashtuns. They are definitely Jatts or Pakistanis if they try to make a connection to your grup.

Definitely not Gujaratis...LOL.

You think Hindus want to be associated with a group that's associated with terrorism, the Taliban, Islam, kebabs, looking Arab, etc?

Please get real.

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.

[Taiji]

Yet you randomly quoted Butlerking.

1. Indians are one of the most successful in the USA, if not the most.

2. We own more businesses than italians. fuck your little olive spaghetti restaurants and the mafia

3. We run Silicon Valley

4. We make up a disproportioate number of doctors and scientists, and we're numbered at only 4 million.

5. We have one of the strongest communities. Why else do you still see Hindu temples everywhere, and why do we date and marry out the least in comparison to other groups?

But yeah I don't feel like debating you either.Oh look, Desi-crated In-cels so very triggered :laugh:
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 :laugh:

[Taiji]

All that stuff is good, and true....so why the hell do you attack random ethnic groups? Just be happy with knowing that without the need to attack others randomly because that is a sign of feeling inferior not superior which btw is also a fucked up feeling superior to others based on ethnicity. Superiority or inferiority is down to individual character not to ethnic reasons.He's just overcompensating and lashing out of insecurity and bitterness. A constant obsession with being superior and inferior are from the same coin, products of an inferior mind. People who are truly proud of their culture love themselves and can love others without the need to put others down. It all boils down to confidence. Italians and Italian Americans are awesome :p

[Fractal]

Oh look, Desi-crated In-cels so very triggered :laugh:
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 :laugh:

Okay.

[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 :laugh:
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 :laugh:

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 :laugh:
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 :laugh:

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 :laugh:

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 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.





[B] 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.ru/i308/1411/9e/fcf1cc38d1fa.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 )

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/26/ee29a677664047ae84d450de0b6a807f_18.jpg





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.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-963
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.