0


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2,315/907 Given: 71/59 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2,315/907 Given: 71/59 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2,315/907 Given: 71/59 |
I find this study extremely suspicious too. If this study of Uyghur is correct that means Uyghur are suppose to be even more West/Eurasian/Caucasoid than Uzbeks and Turkmen
As we all know from other charts CHB is Chinese or a proxy to East Asian population and CEU Central Europeans or proxy to European.
UIG is Uyghur.
![]()


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2,315/907 Given: 71/59 |


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 13/0 Given: 17/1 |
This is so dumb and cringe worthy.
ASI is part of ENA, ENA peaks in Asians, Australasian, Oceanians. ENA is part of Crown Eurasians (ENA, ANE, WHG). None of the Crown Eurasians were "Caucasoid", so-called "Caucasoid" probably emerged in Near East as a mix of WHG/UHG + Basal Eurasian.
All West Eurasians today are mix of Crown Eurasian + Basal Eurasian. While Asians, Australiasians, Pacific Oceanians are purely ENA, while Native Americans are ENA + ANE.
We see the same in Europe, high WHG (one of crown Eurasian) admixture = Less Caucasoid facial morphology. While, high EEF/Neolithic farmer (which has Basal admixture) = More Caucasoid facial morphology.
![]()


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 2,315/907 Given: 71/59 |
You say ASI is part of ENA which included Asians, Australiasians, Pacific Oceanians
But ASI which peaks in South India produces the most Caucasoid morphology of all races ( without even having West Eurasian admixture). Physical features of the Veddoids were considered proto-Caucasoid/Europoid by many anthropologist because they resembled so much eachother while the same can't be said with the others.
![]()


| Thumbs Up/Down |
| Received: 9,048/383 Given: 14,230/1,009 |
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks