Orangepulp's DNA tribes results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangepulp

Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.

---

Well,
Karachay-Balkar cluster with Adygei
Nogais cluster with Chechens
Turkmens cluster with n.Iranians
Chuvash cluster with Russians
Turks cluster with Georgian/Armenians
Gagauz cluster with Balkan

Then where are these Turks?
http://i46.tinypic.com/1z56mi8.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/f1b6dw.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/b5llef.jpg

Btw Adygei-(Circassians) are closer to us than Armenians/Georgians according to these graphics. Do you know why? Because of mongoloid admixture among them. Circassians are highly influenced by the Kumans, even we can see this in their names (kazbolat, janbolat, beybars, arslan etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecheneg

Then 99% of the Turkic peoples on earth are not true Turks , even our closest relatives in central asia, the Turkmens are also only 16-17% Turkic (mongoloid) according to this shit. I'm 100% sure, they would estimate the ancient Seljuks only ~20% Turkic, if they had dna samples from them.

---

Yes, didn't you know that they completely refute our history?

According to their theory, we were turkified iranians/Aryans in central Asia and when we came to Anatolia, we also turkified Armenians and Greeks. But don't ask for proof about how we achieved this, turkifying millions of people without modern education methods because they don't have any answer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangepulp

Its not really about the monglid input if you ask me, if you look at map plots Anatolian Turks cluster closer to Armenians, Georgians, Kurds, Assyrians and not with Central Asian Turks. I think Anatolain Turks Caucasus input is different than Central Asian Turks.

---

Ofc Anatolian Turks cluster to our neighboring groups because we live here for 1000 years. If i put you in Ethiopia and come back after 1000 years, you can be sure that your descendants will cluster with Ethiopian blacks. This is something expected for anyone in the world, this is not something special to Turks. Also, you have to consider that just as we cluster to them, they also cluster to us.

Ofc Anatolian Turkish DNA is different than current central Asians because we left central Asia in 10-11th century and there was a lot of historical events after that like Ghengis Khans advance which completely altered central Asian population in 13th century. It`s been said that he killed 1/3rd of the central Asian people and the rest has been escaped from there.

At least half of the current central Asians migrated to there from further east. For example we know that current Uzbek people migrated there after Timurid era in 14th century and genetics wise they are not that related with Timurids of 14th century in Samarkand. Current Mongolian people also not much related with Ghengis Khan`s mongols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecheneg

Well,
Karachay-Balkar cluster with Adygei
Nogais cluster with Chechens
Turkmens cluster with n.Iranians
Chuvash cluster with Russians
Turks cluster with Georgian/Armenians
Gagauz cluster with Balkan

Then where are these Turks?
http://i46.tinypic.com/1z56mi8.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/f1b6dw.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/b5llef.jpg

Btw Adygei-(Circassians) are closer to us than Armenians/Georgians according to these graphics. Do you know why? Because of mongoloid admixture among them. Circassians are highly influenced by the Kumans, even we can see this in their names (kazbolat, janbolat, beybars, arslan etc)

---

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangepulp

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.

---

ok then, do you really believe that you are only 5.73% Turkic? Just because you have only 5% asian admixture?

We can compare admixtures based on K7b by Dienekes:
Samples//SA//////WA//////Sib/////Af////Southern//Atl_Bal//EA
Turkmens_Y 11 9.3 44.9 8.2 0.2 17.2 13.5 6.9
Turkish_D D 27 1 42.7 3.6 0 31.4 18.8 2.5
Turks Behar 19 1.4 43 4.6 0 30.3 18.3 2.4

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...QblVRR2c#gid=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecheneg

ok then, do you really believe that you are only 5.73% Turkic? Just because you have only 5% asian admixture?

---

No, I believe I am at least 10-15% Turkic in total because the Turks were not fully mongolid when they came to Anatolia, they brought other admixtures with them, now the exact percentage we can not know. I assume this also cause I and other Turks cluster with West Asians so the Turkic impact can't be more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangepulp

Were it not for the Turkic input Turks would be even closer to Armenians. I am not denying the Turkic input but it is not as domiant as the preturkic part. Todays Anatolian Turks are Turks because The Turks that first settled in Anatolia were strong conqueres that ruled Anatolia, natives intermingled with the Turks and gradually Turkified. Todays Turkish identity is not soley about genes, its about culture, language, religion any many other things.

---

You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

This kind of assimilation done by the minority only became possible after 18-19th century with the mass education methods. Before that times, the majority was always assimilating the minority, never the other way around. If that would be possible, then you can be sure that you wouldn't even find single Germanic speaking people in Europe and all of them would speak Latin today.

Why Latins couldn't achieve this in Europe despite the absolute control of Catholic church for centuries and their strict Latinization policies? Because they were minority and Germanic peoples were majority and unfortunately for them, they had no modern mass education methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SometimesYes

We can compare admixtures based on K7b by Dienekes:
Samples//SA//////WA//////Sib/////Af////Southern//Atl_Bal//EA
Turkmens_Y 11 9.3 44.9 8.2 0.2 17.2 13.5 6.9
Turkish_D D 27 1 42.7 3.6 0 31.4 18.8 2.5
Turks Behar 19 1.4 43 4.6 0 30.3 18.3 2.4

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...QblVRR2c#gid=0

---

according to this,, Turkmens(15,1%) are only x~2 times more mongoloid than Turks (7%)
(note that we are surrounded by non-Altaic neigbours for ~1000 years.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onur

You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

---

the Hazara people (descendants of the Mongol conquerors) lost their true idendity in Afghanistan, because they were less in numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pecheneg

according to this,, Turkmens(15,1%) are only x~2 times more mongoloid than Turks (7%)

---

Is that the just one difference you have recognized ? :eek:

Do you actually believe that Turks admixtures are identical or very similar to the Central Asian people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onur

You are right, the culture is what matters not genetics but i still didn't get any single proper answer about how a 10% Turkic minority alters the culture and language of 90% majority in 11-12th century? How come anyone does that without a massacre upon local peoples and without modern education methods?

This kind of assimilation done by the minority only became possible after 18-19th century with the mass education methods. Before that times, the majority was always assimilating the minority, never the other way around. If that would be possible, then you can be sure that you wouldn't even find single Germanic speaking people in Europe and all of them would speak Latin today.

Why Latins couldn't achieve this in Europe despite the absolute control of Catholic church for centuries and their strict Latinization policies? Because they were minority and Germanic peoples were majority and unfortunately for them, they had no modern mass education methods.

---

The same thing as Hittites imposed themselfs upon native Hattian people.According to the Battle of Kadesh description the Hattians and their Hittite masters looked different, the former were native Anatolians while the latter Indo-European invaders.Also Armenians who speak Indo-European language have 5% descent from Indo-European speakers who brought the Armenian language.