Printable View
I simply associated certain admixture components with each Anthropologically defined race before. It isn't fully known what ASI is yet but it is widely acknowledged that it is something related to Onge, obviously it is a mixed component. Keep being in denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
I don't know if you're pretending to not understand or just trolling. I already showed you with a genetic study that some Indian tribes have Onge admixture while most do not.
India has the most ethnic group and most sub-ethnic, sub-sub-ethnic groups in the world, there are properly more than 10,000+ Indian ethnicities and most sub-sub-sub ethnicity.
Most Indian people don't even know the names of most of these tribe nor understand their languages and sub-languages, most Indians will know nothing about them and have no interest in knowing and you came posting a random isolated tribe ????? If I have to guess it properly belongs to the Gond tribe and DNA shows they have both East Asian and Onge admixture to different degrees.
Have you forgotten this DNA study ? not all these tribes have pure ASI dna. Do you want me to bold the parts in circle in the blue colored parts to pinpoint the points I've made to you many times before ?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...3/10/roma2.png
@butlerking: stop giving this refried greaser wop the attention he craves.
There's a difference between West Eurasian, ASI , Onge like it shows in the coloring charts but you keep posting tribal people that have significant Onge admixture (although not significant enough that they look like Onge but enough that they don't have pure Veddoid phenotypes and look different in many of them )
Properly he is attention seeker but he is also too ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
Also let met just say..... the genetic chart I posted 100% accurate but it doesn't show the whole picture.
It is guaranteed that most South Asians do not have Onge admixture but there are some genetic variations even within their own tribe/caste but this entirely depends on the history of some locations. DNA may show 80% ASI, 20% West Eurasian with 0% Onge admixture on this tribe/or caste however they may also show Onge admixture within it's own group depending on the region history, this is nothing unusual due to assimilation of other tribes or intercaste marriage but will identify with the same caste and tribe.
Of course the DNA study is accurate, The Green represents ASI which is a mixed component. Those Isolated tribes have a significant ASI component.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
Coming from the guy who keeps linking Albino's trying to draw similarities.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
Stop projecting your insecurities onto everyone, I know it is hard being a short weak virgin dropout. There is no attention seeking here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
The entire premise is trying to deny Non-Caucasoid admixture with upper caste South Asians.
http://racialreality.blogspot.ca/201...-of-india.html Hate this blog all you want, he uses sources from other sites.
DNA evidence confirms what historians, linguists and anthropologists have long known but nationalists have denied: that Indians are mainly a mix of indigenous Australoids and intrusive Caucasoids. They're composed of two genetic components, one related to Andaman Islanders and the other to Western Eurasians, which is higher in upper castes. The estimated dates of admixture between the two are consistent with the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages from the northwest and probably also earlier events related to the spread of Dravidian languages and even agriculture.
You can keep citing a dumbass pseudo-scientist blogger. Yes he uses sources from other sites but the problem are his interpretations of the sources that he made up. Australoid is a stupid label that covers many different dark skinned anthropologically types.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
As for Caucasoid purity , it doesn't exist especially not your Italians anyway and it doesn't matter if you're north or south because neither of you have pure genetic structure.
Population Sub-Saharan African (>1%°)
African American 79.4%
Portugal 3.2%
Spain 2.4%
S. Italy 2.7%
Greece 1.9%
Sardinia 2.9%
N. Italy 1.1%
Sephardic Jews 4.8%
Ashkenazi Jews 3.2%
From the same study, estimates of Sub-Saharan African admixture proportions in Europe using STRUCTURE :
Population Sub-Saharan African (>0.1%°)
African American 77.2%
Portugal 2.1%
Spain 1.1%
S. Italy 1.7%
N. Italy 0.2% <-still not pure
Sardinia 0.2%
Sephardic Jews 4.3%
Ashkenazi Jews 2.6%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa...ture_in_EuropeQuote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
You got this from wikipedia and those figures come from this Plos Journal. It is counting pre-historic DNA from 11,700 years ago. The blog is a reliable source, you can't excuse it just because you disagree with his interpretation of the information, all the sources he uses are reliable.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0139784 That chart you used comes from this, I am pretty sure they are only analyzing MTDNA (DNA from females) in this so it isn't taking the full ancestry into account.
All these figures are under 5% anyway, it's insignificant, the most racially pure South Asians have at least 10-25% Non-Caucasoid admixture. The most racially pure ones being Pakistani's, Forward Caste North Indians, some Other Backward class ethnic groups and Forward Caste South Indians. Also depends on the individual to.
http://italianthro.blogspot.ca/2014/...elli-2012.html Only using 52 AIMS here and they accounted for significantly more SSA admixture.
Then a study using 291,184 SNPs, it shows far less Sub-Saharan admixture.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7IP49RXbPK...1,184_SNPs.png
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6639v2 Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
Did you measure the non-west Eurasian admixture in South Italians ? Your study is properly correct showing roughly 1.7% or even 2.7% Sub-Saharan admixture on South Italians and addition to that there's also East Asian admixture on the other corner the same goes for Spanish, North Italians, SiciliansQuote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
I could be wrong about your study having about the same admixture as the ones I've shown but Regardless, DNA shows you're not of pure west Eurasian.
Properly you chose the study of Italians, Spanish, Sicilians with the most European admixture as you can find. In other studies I'm sure they show even 3%. Also look at the other Europeans with East Asian admixture so I was correct when I said pure west Eurasian structure no longer exist and there's no such thing as pure Caucasoid genetically only anthropologically. South Asians are a mixture of West Eurasian and ASI , phenotypically they are mixture of Caucasoids and proto-Caucasoid traits.
Frequencies of haplogroup L lineages 1.20% to 22%
Country Region' Number tested Study %
Germany 333 Pliss et al. (2005) 1.20%
Italy Countrywide 583 Brisighelli et al. (2012) 1.20%[49]
Italy Countrywide 865 Boattini et al. (2013) 0.00%[50]
Italy Countrywide 240 Babalini et al. (2005) 0.40%[51]
Italy Tuscany 322 Achilli et al. (2007) 1.86%
Italy Tuscany 49 Plaza et al. (2003) 2.00%
Italy Latium 138 Achilli et al. (2007) 2.90%
Italy Marche 813 Achilli et al. (2007) 0.98%
Italy Central Italy 83 Plaza et al. (2003) 1.20%
Italy Lombardy 177 Achilli et al. (2007) 0.00%
Italy Piedmont 169 Achilli et al. (2007) 0.00%
Italy Sardinia 258 Pardo et al. (2012) 1.40%
Italy Sardinia 73 Plaza et al. (2003) 2.80%
Italy Sardinia 85 Sanna et al. (2011) 1.00%
Italy Sardinia (Ogliastra) 475 Fraumene C et al. (2003) 0.00%[52]
Italy Sardinia 96 Morelli et al. (1999) 0.00%
Italy Campania (South Italy) 313 Achilli et al. (2007) 0.32%
Italy Basilicata (South Italy) 92 Ottoni et al. (2009) 2.20%
Italy Apulia & Calabria (South Italy) 226 Achilli et al. (2007) 0.00%
Italy Southern Italy 115 Sarno et al. (2014) 0.00%
Italy Southern Italy 37 Plaza et al. (2003) 8.10%
Italy Sicily 106 Cali et al. (2003) 0.94%
Italy Sicily 105 Achilli et al. (2007) 1.90%
Italy Sicily 169 Plaza et al. (2003) 0.60%
Italy Sicily 198 Sarno et al. (2014) 1.01%
Italy Sicily 465 Romano et al. (2013) 0.65%[53]
South Iberia Spain & Portugal 310 Casas et al. (2006) 5.40%
Spain Countrywide 312 Álvarez et al. (2007) 2.90%
Spain Central Spain 50 Plaza et al. (2003) 4.00%
Spain North-West Spain 216 Achilli et al. (2007) 3.70%
Spain Galicia 92 Pereira et al. (2005) 3.30%
Spain Zamora 214 Álvarez et al. (2010) 4.70%
Spain Sayago 33 Álvarez et al. (2010) 8.18%
Spain Cordoba 108 Casas et al. (2006) 8.30%
Spain Huelva 135 Hernandez et al. (2014) 5.70%
Spain Catalonia 101 Álvarez-Iglesias et al. (2009) 2.97%
Spain Balearic Islands 231 Picornell et al. (2005) 2.20%
Spain Canary Islands 300 Brehm et al. (2003) 6.60%
Portugal Countrywide 594 Achilli et al. (2007) 8.90%
Portugal Countrywide 1429 Barral-Arca et al. (2016) 6.16%
Portugal Countrywide 549 Pereira et al. (2005) 6.83%
Portugal North 100 Pereira et al. (2010) 5.00%
Portugal Center 82 Pereira et al. (2010) 9.70%
Portugal Center 82 Plaza et al. (2003) 6.10%
Portugal South 195 Brehm et al. (2003) 11.30%
Portugal South 303 Achilli et al. (2007) 10.80%
Portugal Coruche 160 Pereira et al. (2010) 8.70%
Portugal Pias 75 Pereira et al. (2010) 3.90%
Portugal Alcácer do Sal 50 Pereira et al. (2010) 22.00%
Portugal Azores 179 Brehm et al. (2003) 3.40%
Portugal Madeira 155 Brehm et al. (2003) 12.90%
Portugal Madeira 153 Fernandes et al. (2006) 12.40%
Greece Crete 202 Achilli et al. (2007) 2.99%
Cyprus Cyprus 91 Irwin et al. (2008) 3.30%
This is frequencies of Haplogroup L lineages, MTDNA, the own link you had says it comes from a pre-historic source and this is only Haplogroup Lineages, Autosomal DNA shows all Italians have under 1% Sub-Saharan admixture.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...3andme-results! 23andme I am pretty sure counts all ancestry within 1000 years. If you take into account the entire Italian ethnic genome 10,000+ years, the total non-Caucasoid admixture is only 0.5-3% depending on the person.
The Indigenous population of India were not Proto-Caucasoids, they were Australoids and they were bred out through vast mixing between Onge, East Asians and Australoids themselves resulting in the modern Tribal Hybrid populations which are many Adavasi tribes.
As for Non-Caucasoid DNA Haplogroups in India.
https://www.quora.com/Are-Indians-mo...sian-Europeans I liked this guys explanation.
MTDNA
"60% Indians have mtDNA H & M that are of Onge, Andamanese or Negrito (non-Caucasoid) mtDNA variation. Rest 40% is Caucasian or central Asian Aryan haplogroups. More info : "
"An English mixed with an Arab is still 100% Caucasoid because they are both Caucasians. But that’s not the case in India. Indian mixture includes non-Caucasoid gene flows—which is quiet evident in our semi-Caucasoid, semi-Austro-Asiatic features. The Caucasoid or Aryan part starts from Punjab & Pakistan border . India is a non-Aryan mixed nation, with an Aryan past."
"Mitochondrial DNA[edit]
Analysis of mtDNA, which is inherited exclusively by maternal descent, confirms the above results. All Andamanese belong to M31 and M32 mtDNA, subgroup of M which is unique to Andamanese people.[32][34] The analysis of 20 coding regions in 20 samples of ancient Andamanese people and 12 samples of modern Indian populations changed the topology of the two lineages in South Asians. The data received suggests an M31a lineage in South Asians. This supports the genetic connection between South Asians and Andamanese people, which dates back to about 30kya.[42] Other mainland specific subgroup of M is distributed in the Asia, where it represents 60% of all maternal lineages.[41][43][44] According to Endicott et al. (2002), this haplogroup originated with the earliest settlers of India during the coastal migration that brought the ancestors of the Andamanese to the Indian mainland, the Andaman Islands, and farther afield to Southeast Asia.[45]"
Y-DNA
https://i.imgur.com/TB3eV7k.jpg There is also Haplogroup Q which is in small numbers with some of the more racially pure South Asian ethnic groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_..._of_South_Asia
Italians don't have any non-Caucasoid Y-DNA Haplogroups.
Y-DNA haplogroups are irrelevant compared to Autosomal DNA anyway, the Autosomaal DNA takes into account all of ones ancestry. This "proto caaucasoid" natives in India is nothing but a fantasy in my opinion, the Indigenous people were Haplogroup O and Q by Y-DNA, these are Non-Caucasoid lineages, they always have been.
mtDNA L in Europe comes from both pre-historic, alantic slave trade. Italians have from 0.2% to 2.7% Sub-Saharan admixture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
Indigenous population of India were the ASI proto-Caucasoids and some of them have interbred with Onge and East Asians and that's why they don't pure veddoid proto-Caucasoid morphologies.
Haplogroup O and Q are both markers expanded from East Asia/Southeast Asia and were not indigenous to India. Haplogroup O is only restricted in Eastern India and is no surprise the Austro-Asiatic tribes having different degrees of East Asian admixture and Q is almost mostly limited to Eastern India not western India. However haplogroup Q , O reaches only among the tribal population.
Like I said before, India is most diverse ethnically and linguistic population in the world. India itself would be like Europe today if there was no unification.
M31a in India is extremely rare, nearly non-existant with exception of some tribal people
Here are the indigenous haplogroups of South Asians people, nothing to do with Onge nor East Asians.
http://media.springernature.com/lw78..._Fig1_HTML.jpg
http://media.springernature.com/lw78..._Fig3_HTML.jpg
http://media.springernature.com/lw78..._Fig2_HTML.jpg
Indians are neither Caucasoid nor mixed. You just want Indians to mix with Whites in Canada by making them think they are genetic mongrels like mestizos or mulattos which is absolute nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
If you want to purify anyone, go make babes with some Murican, Latina, Mulatta, or even better just go for a MENA. They like you, not Indians.
Haplogroup O and Q are still present among some Upper Caste populations outside of Eastern India.Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_..._of_South_Asia
You are trying to prove that non-Tribal South Asians are racially pure Caucasoids, you believe the all of the ASI component itself represents this pseudo "Proto-Caucasoid" native race of India. This is nothing but a fantasy. It is widely acknowledged that the original ASI population, the first indigenous people of India don't exist in their purest form anymore.
https://www.nature.com/news/genomes-...ndians-1.12219 Genomes link aboriginal Australians to Indians. This seems like it was a back migration from India.
I am convinced the original race of India were the Australoids. The Australoids were effectively bred out through vast mixing with East Asians and to a lesser extent the Onge/Andamese/Negrito populations. This mixing resulted in the modern Adavasi populations who all have primarily Non-Caucasoid admixture but many of them have 5-15% Caucasoid admixture due to mixing with the Invading Dravidian Caucasoids and the later IndoAryan invaders most likely accumulated their non-Caucasoid admixture from mostly mixing with the already mixed Dravidians.
Indians are far more mixed than Italians and all Europeans, especially when you count Ancient DNA. When you count Ancient DNA, more non-Caucasoid admixture will appear, that is why on 23andme all Italians score under 1% SSA but in other DNA tests they score 1-3% SSA because those Autosomal DNA tests are counting all DNA 10,000+ years ago.
This K12 Ancient calculator is very accurate for South Asians, they used South Indian tribals as a reference population.
https://i.imgur.com/kQNnx6o.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EqNWxmT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/trndnfF.jpg This is the reference population they used and all South Asians core high amounts of this admixture. They have high amounts of this due to the South Indian tribal admixture, if there South Indian tribals were not included in this reference, they would have less than 5% admixture from this region. The South Indian tribals themselves (basically all of the Adavasi) have varrying amounts of Caucasoid admixture depending on the tribe, it can be safe to assume that at least 10-15% of this component (for South Indian tribals) would be Caucasoid. This is not much so overall, the Punjabi Rajput here would still have around 26% Non-Caucasoid admixture.
These are my results, this is one of the most accurate Ancient DNA calculators ever created. I only have around 1.8-2% Non-Caucasoid admixture counting all of my DNA from present to 10,000 years ago, I am pretty sure your Ancient DNA is accounting for everything, your entire genome from now until 10,000 years ago unlike 23andme which is only analyzing your raw DNA Data from up to 1000 years ago, essentially why my Sub-Saharan component on 23andme is only 0.3%.
https://i.imgur.com/FaQlX1M.jpg
Autistic repetition from the weak mentally ill virgin mixed race mutt, saying stupid things doesn't change the reality that I had sex with 8 South Asian females multiple times pathetic little virgin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
Italians are Caucasoid with slight negroid and Mongoloid admixture, you don't represent overall Italians because you're only 50% but regardless you're not PURE EITHER. You are 2.8% Negroid, properly your Italian parent is 5.6% Negroid. South Asians are pure Caucasoid but with a combination of West Eurasian and ASI proto/ancient Caucasoid while Europeans on the other hand do not have proto-Caucasoid traits. ASI is proto-Caucasoid and this isn't anywhere near a fantasy even Eickstedt placed Veddoids among the 'old-Europid race'Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
You keep saying " DRAVIDIAN CAUCASOIDS " yes we all know the dravidians are Caucasoid but I hope you get this clear in your head before you keep making more assumptions and misunderstandings.
1) They were Caucasoids that looked nothing like Europeans, Middle easterners but like modern day Southern Indians/Central Indians
2) Modern day Dravidian speakers are all Caucasoids-Veddoids like ancient Dravidians Caucasoid aka Veddoids Caucasoids.
The ancient population of Middle east, Central Asia already had a veddoid-Caucasoid population before the Semetic, West Asian farmers, Indo-European speaking migrants moved in.
I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY
The Visva-bharati Quarterly, Volume 33
https://books.google.co.uk/books/con...NBqpxn9rzwf5Nw
"Earliest Iranian Inhabitants were early caucasoids, who probably resembled some of the marginal caucasoids of Asia like the Veddas and Dravidians, more than they did the more sturdily built living central Europeans."
The Balangodese of Ceylon: Their Biological and Cultural Affinities with the Vedda, Volume 1
https://books.google.co.uk/books/con...JSVAydapkFeX3M
"Their Biological and Cultural Affinities with the Vedda Kenneth A. R. Kennedy. In Biasutti's (1951, Vol. ... 173) classifies the Vedda and other "anomalous tribes" of the subcontinent as one sub-group of the Caucasian Race. Bertin (1889) "
Do you understand now ? Veddas are classified as sub-group of Caucasian race and ancient Iran were more similar to Dravidian Caucasoids aka Veddoid-Caucasoids
What is this Southeast Eurasian cluster ? a new cluster some idiot made up? Did they included Veddoid with Onge again ? Keywords: possibly, somewhat.
It says believed to be somewhat similar ( what do you mean by somewhat similar to ) Onge, Jarawal tribal, SE Asians? Do they mean as in only 10-30% or 1-10% similar/related ???? if it's only somewhat similar than it can also be interpreted that among the 27.14% SE Eurasian admixtures found in Punjabi, only around roughly 1-3% or 5-8% are related at most. They also mention that it's relationship it's only a possibility not an actual fact like you had exaggerated it to be.
You're either similar or not similar and all they said was "somewhat similar" which means they are not even 50% related but way below it. It can only be interpreted to either as little similar to some degree similar, no more than that.
What is the definition of " somewhat "
* to a moderate extent or by a moderate amount;
* synonyms: a little, a bit, a little bit, to a limited extent/degree, to a certain degree, to some extent, to some degree, (up) to a point, in some measure, rather, quite, within limits.
Allow me to post this again.
There's a difference between West Eurasian, ASI , Onge
Europe = West Eurasian, West Asian, Southwest Asian (from Europeans to Arabs, North Africans, Kurdish, Afghans, Iraqi's
South Asian = ASI typical South Asian population and Veddoids
Onge = Adamanese, Jarawa
What do you see in the Punjabi section ?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...3/10/roma2.png
Not sure why you're wasting your time with that stupid non-Aryan Italian-Irish moron. Who cares who is Caucasoid?Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
We're 100% Indian and that's all that matters.
He needed to be taught a lesson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
A dumb unrealistic lie no one can take seriously. Fractal was right, I should just ignore you from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
More like Butler Cuck needed to be taught a lesson when he started citing Cultural marxist nonsense, he can't seem to debunk this can he?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
Quote:
Originally Posted by ButlerKing
Not gonna read old out-dated works of Anthropology. ASI is a mixed component, enjoy your fantasies or magically pure "Proto Caucasoid" Indians. The Indigenous people of India were Australoids who mixed with East Asians and to a lesser extent Onge, the Caucasoid Dravidian's further mixed with them when they migrated into India. When the Harrapan paper is published, it will clear up many things. No use debating it anymore.
:punjabidance 23andme showed me to be 0.3% SSA, this is Ancient DNA, the East African component probably has a .8% Caucasoid component. You are hellbent on trying to prove Indians are more racially pure Caucasoids, nothing but a fantasy, cut your South East Eurasian component in half and I am still more racially pure than you. :punjabidance
Indians are proto-Indic, and its you Europeans especially Southern Europeans who are the mixed breeds. Go away and stop caring about Indians non-Aryan.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusAurelius
south-asians to me look far less caucasoid.
I can literally find a European Facial features equivalent to every woman here if I really tried, it doesn't matter which caste, even Tribals, no Adavasi's on here since they have no access to the Internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashoeva
https://www.jeevansathi.com/matrimon...n-matrimonial/
The difference is many more of them have undesired Caucasoid features buy comparison. It doesn't matter which Caste, no phenotype will be universal for reach of them. They are all mixed, they look Caucasoid because a significant amount of their Non-Caucasoid admixture comes from the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...eudo-octoroons Much like the short Stub noses shown here.
http://imgdj.s3.amazonaws.com/jitend...pelganger.jpeg
There was never an Indigenous non-Caucasoid population in Italy and you actually think Southern Europeans are more mixed than South Asians, enjoy your delusions. ASI is a mixed component, always has been, always will be. Have fun being an insecure scumbag. I am sure you feel compelled to respond now since you are my easily trolled little cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fractal
What about the Northern Han Chinese? They are 100% Caucasoid enough anthropologically (despite their epicanthic folds) because of their long, narrow noses, but not genetically. They are almost pure Mongoloid/East Asian as in 99.9%, but less than the other Han Chinese (which are the purest Mongoloid genetically).
Pure Caucasoids didn't exist in real life, if you're talking about the people of the Caucasus. Yes, there's the purest West Eurasians in the world: Sardinians, Anatolians, and even Ainu Jomons (with hypothetical relation to the ASI people).
It's all an invention, a way to classify races.
Even South Asians can't be 'pure' Caucasoids. There is still a significant Mongoloid admixture from the Adivasis if you include those in South Asians. Though you're right about Indians primarily being of "Caucasoid" race.
Secondly, not everyone is pure of any race, especially Mongoloids, where Native Americans, which are supposedly part of the "Mongolian/Mongoloid" ethnic group aren't even 100% Mongoloid by genetics (with the exception of certain Han Chinese ethnic groups). Just a reminder, GENETICS =/= ANTHROPOLOGY. Sure, it's possible to be anthropologically full Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, or whatever... but definitely not genetically.
THIS has been strictly proven with FACTS. Thank you for reading and hopefully you understand everything what I said.
The exception, of course, can go to Koreans. Ethnic Koreans are known to be the most homogenous ethnic groups in the world. Not only can they pass as 100% Mongoloid phenotypically, but also genetically. According to DNA analyses of Koreans, the majority of Koreans, both modern and ancient, can have up to 100% East Eurasian related ancestry.Quote:
Sure, it's possible to be anthropologically full Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid, or whatever... but definitely not genetically.
Whether it's tied to endogamous culture/tradition or not, ethnicity estimates in Koreans may not score this amount as exactly 100.0%, but super super close to it.
There are a plenty of other ethnicities that belong to this exception as well. Those who weren't allowed to mix with other ethnicities under a strict law of endogamy for milennia. We've got the Sentinelese people, the world's untouched and isolated tribes who speak almost no language.
Real