Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

I have a small doubt: There are elements that justify the claim that there was a genetic discontinuity and modern berbers are not so connected to Moroccans LN. Am I misinterpreting what has been said here? I have never seen in any place the deny of the extremely indigenous condition of the berbers of North Africa and the Canary Islands. Aren't the Guanche as indigenous as I imagined?
 
Ygorcs: So KEB4 is basically 60% Barcin, which from what I gathered from earlier post is the Anatolian Neolithic source with little or no admixture from Levant_Neolithic/CHG/Iran_NEO. Is that basically correct

The Levant_PPNB is pretty clear, so Morroco_EN is 100% ANA, based on your G25

Well in my view, that will no work to get modern Sicilians, if Morroco_LN is 46% of the admixture in Modern Sicily, using their model, that would result in an estimated 12% of Berber type ancestry in Sicily, which is not plausible, don't you agree. I mean there is no way Modern Sicilians would plot where they plot with that much Berber_NA ancestry.
 
Ygorcs said:
Agreed. We can only examine the samples we have, preferably using the best samples (for instance, avoiding using samples that are not representative or are just too mixed between themselves that the results will be a lot less reliable). But I maintain that I see nothing "crazy" in my G25 models of South Italian samples. They may not be representative of the whole population, particularly because they're so few, but still they are there and they exist and are part of the population.

Now that I'm finally proving that Anatolia_N is indeed a pool of many Neolithic Anatolian samples (actually the Fernandes et al. supplement explicitly says that, though they don't specify which individual samples they're using and from where they are), I'm getting results that do not look that different from what previous studies have asserted, with the caveat that doing so will hide a bit of the CHG/Iran and Levant_N that may be there not because it arrived with ANF farmers, but due to later admixtures blended into a more unmixed Barcin-N population.

Levant_N is still there in my models (in lower proportions and fewer individuals, of course), but in all honesty I don't really think most geneticists were interested in making more complicated ancestry models with less profoundly divergent samples like Anatolia_N and Levant_N, particularly if they can clearly see that the proportions of the latter are so minor that they could be basically explained away by Anatolia_N and focus the model more on very divergent population movements, like Iran_N, Taforalt-related and Pontic-Caspian Seppe ones. There's also the issue of the aim of the study: they won't care about modelling a more convoluted demographic history involving a few percents of Levantine or North African ancestry when and if the aim of their study is to track Indo-European migrations or understand when Iran/CHG arrived in a certain part of the world (just some examples). Ultimately what I want to say is: the models aren't talking for themselves, they are also being modelled according to what the authors want to detect and to explain.

Let me show you one example just with Abruzzo and Sicilian Italians:

TargetDistanceGEO_CHGIRN_Ganj_Dareh_NITA_Grotta_Continenza_MesoLevant_PPNBMAR_ENRUS_Karelia_HGRUS_Khvalynsk_EnTUR_Barcin_NTUR_Boncuklu_NTUR_Kumtepe_NTUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_NWHG
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp0900.025743033.610.20.09.20.00.018.650.60.00.05.82.0
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp1400.027821624.25.80.05.60.00.021.641.40.01.617.82.0
Italian_Abruzzo:ALP1610.023109296.07.40.01.20.00.021.254.60.00.08.61.0
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp1620.018467100.010.20.00.80.00.021.232.20.00.032.82.8
Italian_Abruzzo:ALP2050.016340551.68.00.04.60.00.017.620.40.00.047.40.4
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp3800.016720060.06.81.22.60.00.021.022.00.05.041.40.0
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp5030.027987655.46.40.05.60.00.021.653.40.00.07.60.0
Italian_Abruzzo:Alp6160.024069865.08.60.02.20.40.019.053.80.00.011.00.0
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo130.028150550.010.60.07.20.00.020.253.20.00.05.83.0
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo140.020848261.07.00.02.00.00.022.236.80.00.031.00.0
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo150.018904000.88.60.00.00.00.022.641.60.00.024.81.6
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo160.018951650.45.00.00.00.00.021.419.80.01.049.82.6
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo170.017328163.84.40.05.00.00.025.651.40.00.09.40.4
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo190.019910653.26.60.00.00.00.021.426.00.00.041.61.2
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo200.019741456.28.00.00.00.00.021.851.00.00.012.20.8
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo210.027322783.63.60.01.00.80.020.430.40.00.036.63.6
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo220.017321844.03.20.00.00.00.022.637.40.00.031.61.2
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo230.026364232.65.40.00.00.05.617.630.20.00.038.60.0
Italian_Abruzzo:ItalyAbruzzo90.028222793.67.00.010.60.00.024.040.00.00.014.60.2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H0.019607215.83.80.04.01.00.017.433.20.08.425.21.2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H0.025409310.08.40.011.20.40.021.636.80.00.020.01.6
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H0.018392505.28.80.08.20.80.012.614.40.011.234.44.4
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H0.021701910.010.60.02.80.00.017.223.40.011.828.65.6
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H0.018928330.610.00.00.84.00.013.813.42.64.247.43.2
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H0.022914380.08.60.03.22.80.017.632.40.00.030.25.2
Average0.022011172.77.30.03.50.40.220.136.00.11.726.21.8

In other words, clustering the samples together as studies often do: 64.0% ANATOLIA_N (Tepecik-Ciftlik + Kumtepe included) + 10.0% CHG/IRAN + 3.5% LEVANT_N + 20.3% STEPPE + 1.8% WHG + 0.4% MOROCCO_EN (TAFORALT-LIKE)
Does that look really crazy, extremely implausible considering the entire history of the region? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


No the model looks plausible in light of Raveane et al 2019 Figure 2. The Anatolian Neolithic range documented in that study is 56% to 72%, so your 64% Anatolian is in line with their estimates. You are getting both CHG/IRAN_NEO showing up, which was also documented, North African is reasonable, about 2.4% if you average across Sicily, so ok. In particular case, the Levant estimate is consistent with what I get from Ancestry and NATGENO. The 0 WHG is a little off, but the Steppe could be picking some of that up with EHG?

Looks plausible. I agree.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
Ygorcs: So KEB4 is basically 60% Barcin, which from what I gathered from earlier post is the Anatolian Neolithic source with little or no admixture from Levant_Neolithic/CHG/Iran_NEO. Is that basically correct

The Levant_PPNB is pretty clear, so Morroco_EN is 100% ANA, based on your G25

Well in my view, that will no work to get modern Sicilians, if Morroco_LN is 46% of the admixture in Modern Sicily, using their model, that would result in an estimated 12% of Berber type ancestry in Sicily, which is not plausible, don't you agree. I mean there is no way Modern Sicilians would plot where they plot with that much Berber_NA ancestry.
Click to expand...

Morocco_EN is basically 100% Taforalt, which was ~55% earlier West Eurasian (Dzudzuana-like) + ~45% ANA if memory serves me well now.

Actually, it'd be a lot more than 12% Berber-like ancestry, because all known Berber populations have only 20-40% Taforalt/Morocco_EN admixture, so if you have ~10% Taforalt, that would probably mean at least 2x that amount in actual genetic contribution, the rest being easily confounded with European ancestry because it's mostly (though not entirely) ANF/EEF.

Yes, I agree it is not plausible at all, and that goes to show even professional geneticists can get seemingly good enough samples using a more parsimonious number of samples (e.g. 2-way, 3-way or 4-way models) without that actually showing the truth, just a very broad hint of the real thing. I don't understand what really went wrong in that model of Fernandes et al., which if taken as a really proximate representation of what early North Africans were like would mean a huge genetic replacement. I can only guess the problem is that they "forced" simpler models on the sample, and the only one that was good enough to account for the Morocco_EN and Levant_N (which in the end has a lot of Natufian and thus Taforalt-related ancestry, too), also having a bit of WHG (I think), in Sicilians was... Morocco_LN. So it "artificially" picks up a lot of Morocco_LN at the detriment of Anatolia_N and the unsampled Levant_N. That's what I think, but there may be other reason for that strange model.
 
Palermo Trapani said:
The 0 WHG is a little off, but the Steppe could be picking some of that up with EHG?

Looks plausible. I agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe that's happening, but do you really think most South Italians and especially Sicilians have that much higher WHG than ~2%? I've seen models that authors claimed were good enough and virtually or even totally lacked WHG (Fernandes et al.'s model, too, and they did included WHG in the model, but 0% was found, so the samples probably don't have any more WHG than Morocco_LN already had, that is, very little).
 
Thank you very much. The silence of the debaters already it is an answer. I believe that modern Jews and Greeks must be curious to know where they converge and where they diverge genetically speaking. IMHO, it will be interesting to talk a little bit more about this, in accordance to the title of thread. Thanks. I am definivaly out of here.
 
Ygorcs said:
Yes, maybe that's happening, but do you really think most South Italians and especially Sicilians have that much higher WHG than ~2%? I've seen models that authors claimed were good enough and virtually or even totally lacked WHG (Fernandes et al.'s model, too, and they did included WHG in the model, but 0% was found, so the samples probably don't have any more WHG than Morocco_LN already had, that is, very little).
Click to expand...

You know, I hate to keep posting this graphic, but...

Here we can see that you can model south Italians with having more than just 2% WHG. Infact, SItaly3 has is shown to have more than other Italian populations, albeit, much less steppe or EHG.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]
X5FQhf9.jpg
[/FONT]
 
Duarte said:
Thank you very much. The silence of the debaters already it is an answer. I believe that modern Jews and Greeks must be curious to know where they converge and where they diverge genetically speaking. IMHO, it will be interesting to talk a little bit more about this, in accordance to the title of thread. Thanks. I am definivaly out of here.
Click to expand...

You're right, let's all get back on topic, this thread is about Jews and Greeks.

Let us move the topic of sicily to here:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38120-The-Arrival-of-Steppe-Iranian-Related-Ancestry-in-Islands-of-West-Mediterranean​
 
Duarte said:
I have a small doubt: There are elements that justify the claim that there was a genetic discontinuity and modern berbers are not so connected to Moroccans LN. Am I misinterpreting what has been said here? I have never seen in any place the deny of the extremely indigenous condition of the berbers of North Africa and the Canary Islands. Aren't the Guanche as indigenous as I imagined?
Click to expand...

Yes, Duarte. I'm not sure all Morocco_LN individuals were like this, but the reference sample I have is clearly more related to North Africans (who are still mostly Berber whether they still speak and identify as Amazigh or not) than to anyone else, though not by much. They're reasonably, but not very close. Sometimes I think people forget only a minor (but very significant) part of Berbers' ancestry comes from Taforalt people, and at least some of them are very little admixed with Subsaharan Africans. So of course I think amateurish models that assume a notable but very minor Morocco_LN-like ancestry in Sicilians and other Southern Europeans make much more sense (historically, genetically, archaeologically etc.) than what some professional geneticists have been publishing as if those were their best possible models.

Distance to:MAR_LN:KEB.4
0.07736599Moroccan_North:MNA3
0.08080144Moroccan_North:MNA6
0.08179377Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T39
0.08412465Algerian:ALG200
0.08431946Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T35
0.08434668Algerian:ALG900
0.08694789Mozabite:HGDP01263
0.08713594Moroccan_North:MCH9
0.08899931Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T52
0.08941020Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T44
0.09028865Algerian:ALG600
0.09094180Moroccan_North:MNA1
0.09154340Moroccan_North:MCH13
0.09198705Moroccan_North:MOJ2
0.09220874Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T42
0.09229322Moroccan_North:MCH11
0.09295668Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T43
0.09315742Moroccan_North:MCH8
0.09375413Algerian:Algerian43A34
0.09397438Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T11
0.09417848Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T1
0.09488236Moroccan_North:MCH18
0.09513748Moroccan_North:MNA4
0.09580645Berber_Tunisia_Sen:BerSH2
0.09631119Tunisian:Tunisian20C4
0.09640865Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T13
0.09658848Algerian:ALG400
0.09672581Moroccan_North:MOJ6
0.09706255Algerian:ALG270
0.09846928Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T12


But the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age North African outliers (certainly immigrants) already found in Southern European aDNA samples were already A LOT more similar to modern Berbers, so not much change must've happened since at least 4,000-5,000 years ago in some Berber groups:

Distance to:ITA_Sardinia_C_o:I15940
0.03465093Saharawi:SAH18
0.04124894Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT20
0.04236071Saharawi:SAH44
0.04412651Saharawi:SAH14
0.04516684Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT11
0.04577736Saharawi:SAH6
0.04746344Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT8
0.04832829Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT14
0.04874327Saharawi:SAH10
0.04892856Saharawi:SAH27
0.04918180Saharawi:SAH24
0.04986860Moroccan_South:MOU5
0.05016646Moroccan_South:MOU12
0.05074819Saharawi:SAH48
0.05130656Saharawi:SAH59
0.05213772Saharawi:SAH22
0.05237483Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT18
0.05244748Saharawi:SAH49
0.05295931Saharawi:SAH40
0.05332797Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT17
0.05347347Saharawi:SAH41
0.05434979Moroccan_South:MOU18
0.05457672Saharawi:SAH34
0.05588236Saharawi:SAH2
0.05598773Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE12
0.05619042Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE11
0.05681788Saharawi:SAH9
0.05836823Saharawi:SAH21
0.05877143Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT3
0.05902834Mozabite:HGDP01268


Distance to:Iberia_Central_CA_Afr:I4246
0.04831599Moroccan_South:ERR18
0.05197604Algerian:ALG600
0.05240239Mozabite:HGDP01265
0.05281030Mozabite:HGDP01278
0.05305651Saharawi:SAH2
0.05392608Mozabite:HGDP01275
0.05400598Mozabite:HGDP01279
0.05400676Moroccan_North:MCH18
0.05438146Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T12
0.05443386Saharawi:SAH48
0.05520796Tunisian:Tunisian20C4
0.05560867Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT6
0.05592847Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T1
0.05598366Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE11
0.05621947Mozabite:HGDP01280
0.05625048Mozabite:HGDP01264
0.05654026Mozabite:HGDP01263
0.05761885Algerian:ALGH
0.05767058Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T16
0.05785401Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T11
0.05792286Algerian:ALG900
0.05817650Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T13
0.05822699Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE18
0.05856282Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T28
0.05879776Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T41
0.05882252Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T39
0.05897749Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T35
0.05898391Saharawi:SAH58
0.05957338Algerian:ALG400
0.05979081Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T52

 
Ygorcs said:
Yes, Duarte. I'm not sure all Morocco_LN individuals were like this, but the reference sample I have is clearly more related to North Africans (who are still mostly Berber whether they still speak and identify as Amazigh or not) than to anyone else, though not by much. They're reasonably, but not very close. Sometimes I think people forget only a minor (but very significant) part of Berbers' ancestry comes from Taforalt people, and at least some of them are very little admixed with Subsaharan Africans. So of course I think amateurish models that assume a notable but very minor Morocco_LN-like ancestry in Sicilians and other Southern Europeans make much more sense (historically, genetically, archaeologically etc.) than what some professional geneticists have been publishing as if those were their best possible models.

Distance to:MAR_LN:KEB.4
0.07736599Moroccan_North:MNA3
0.08080144Moroccan_North:MNA6
0.08179377Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T39
0.08412465Algerian:ALG200
0.08431946Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T35
0.08434668Algerian:ALG900
0.08694789Mozabite:HGDP01263
0.08713594Moroccan_North:MCH9
0.08899931Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T52
0.08941020Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T44
0.09028865Algerian:ALG600
0.09094180Moroccan_North:MNA1
0.09154340Moroccan_North:MCH13
0.09198705Moroccan_North:MOJ2
0.09220874Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T42
0.09229322Moroccan_North:MCH11
0.09295668Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T43
0.09315742Moroccan_North:MCH8
0.09375413Algerian:Algerian43A34
0.09397438Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T11
0.09417848Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T1
0.09488236Moroccan_North:MCH18
0.09513748Moroccan_North:MNA4
0.09580645Berber_Tunisia_Sen:BerSH2
0.09631119Tunisian:Tunisian20C4
0.09640865Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T13
0.09658848Algerian:ALG400
0.09672581Moroccan_North:MOJ6
0.09706255Algerian:ALG270
0.09846928Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T12

But the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age North African outliers (certainly immigrants) already found in Southern European aDNA samples were already A LOT more similar to modern Berbers, so not much change must've happened since at least 4,000-5,000 years ago in some Berber groups:

Distance to:ITA_Sardinia_C_o:I15940
0.03465093Saharawi:SAH18
0.04124894Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT20
0.04236071Saharawi:SAH44
0.04412651Saharawi:SAH14
0.04516684Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT11
0.04577736Saharawi:SAH6
0.04746344Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT8
0.04832829Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT14
0.04874327Saharawi:SAH10
0.04892856Saharawi:SAH27
0.04918180Saharawi:SAH24
0.04986860Moroccan_South:MOU5
0.05016646Moroccan_South:MOU12
0.05074819Saharawi:SAH48
0.05130656Saharawi:SAH59
0.05213772Saharawi:SAH22
0.05237483Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT18
0.05244748Saharawi:SAH49
0.05295931Saharawi:SAH40
0.05332797Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT17
0.05347347Saharawi:SAH41
0.05434979Moroccan_South:MOU18
0.05457672Saharawi:SAH34
0.05588236Saharawi:SAH2
0.05598773Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE12
0.05619042Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE11
0.05681788Saharawi:SAH9
0.05836823Saharawi:SAH21
0.05877143Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT3
0.05902834Mozabite:HGDP01268

Distance to:Iberia_Central_CA_Afr:I4246
0.04831599Moroccan_South:ERR18
0.05197604Algerian:ALG600
0.05240239Mozabite:HGDP01265
0.05281030Mozabite:HGDP01278
0.05305651Saharawi:SAH2
0.05392608Mozabite:HGDP01275
0.05400598Mozabite:HGDP01279
0.05400676Moroccan_North:MCH18
0.05438146Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T12
0.05443386Saharawi:SAH48
0.05520796Tunisian:Tunisian20C4
0.05560867Berber_MAR_TIZ:BerT6
0.05592847Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T1
0.05598366Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE11
0.05621947Mozabite:HGDP01280
0.05625048Mozabite:HGDP01264
0.05654026Mozabite:HGDP01263
0.05761885Algerian:ALGH
0.05767058Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T16
0.05785401Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T11
0.05792286Algerian:ALG900
0.05817650Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T13
0.05822699Berber_MAR_ERR:BerE18
0.05856282Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T28
0.05879776Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T41
0.05882252Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T39
0.05897749Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T35
0.05898391Saharawi:SAH58
0.05957338Algerian:ALG400
0.05979081Berber_Tunisia_Chen:T52
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer Ygor. Cheers dear fellow.(y)
 
Duarte said:
Thank you very much. The silence of the debaters already it is an answer. I believe that modern Jews and Greeks must be curious to know where they converge and where they diverge genetically speaking. IMHO, it will be interesting to talk a little bit more about this, in accordance to the title of thread. Thanks. I am definivaly out of here.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take such a debate as "personal", and let's remember that the first model proposed by Ygorcs had as an average for south Italians something like 9-10% Levant_N, which is quite too high, I daresay. The new model, with an average of 3.5, seems plausible.
 
I moved the last posts to this more on topic thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38120-The-Arrival-of-Steppe-Iranian-Related-Ancestry-in-Islands-of-West-Mediterranean
 
Dorquest said:

Great answer, I can tell you as a European American trying to claim you are a Native American would be cause for a great uproar - its not true. This should not be happening in Europe. No doubt these people have an agenda. No cultural or racial identity for Europeans - from Sicily to Ireland, Sweden to Russia. This includes also people of European decent all over the world. Would it be safe to say if Europe can’t be European then Japan can’t be Japanese, Korea can’t be Korean and Israel can’t be Jewish? I’m sure those people wouldn’t take that lying down.
Click to expand...
well i can just say that i have a european identity though that is quite questionable because i do not identify with the cultures of many parts of europe which can be quite different actually. so maybe i culturally identify more as swiss not european. and i don't really have a racial european identity either. if i had something like this i would either describe myself as swiss/italian maybe because that would be most accurate description of my background or simply as westeurasian. europeans are really just a geographic group that also happens to correlate roughly with culture or a cultural group that correlates roughly with geography because certain people outside of europe are quite european culturally in the sense of architecture or religion in my book. they are not a genetic group. and racially for me georgians, armenians, kurds, turks etc aren't really a different race. the genetic distances of europeans towards them are smaller than the distances within europe so it really wouldn't make sense. after all we are all made out of the same ancestral populations and no europeans don't just share 3 source populations like the expert is saying, that's just complete bs.
or what kind of racial identity do you have in mind?
 
These last posts are completely off topic.

I'll give you a few hours to copy and move them to another thread if you wish. After that I'm deleting them.

Don't ignore moderation again.
 
ratchet_fan said:
You may feel a kinship with Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, Turks but I highly doubt it is mutual. Also where does it stop then? Are Central Asian Turks the same as Europeans? What about North Indians?
Click to expand...

i'm certain in the case of georgia it is mutual. a lot of them call themselves europeans. and no they will certainly not say that they are a different race than euros. in the case of armenians they have strong ties with the greeks, they will certainly not call each other a different race either. anyways if it matters for you if things are mutual then it's clear that this is not about genetics but about feelings.
 
Dorquest said:
“racially for me Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, Turks etc. aren't really a different race. the genetic distances of Europeans towards them are smaller than the distances within Europe.” Are you talking about indigenous Europeans? Not recent immigrants from all four corners of the World, of which none have been allowed into Japan, Korea, or Israel. Why not call these COUNTIRES OUT?? Should be more - Multicultural when it come to these things.

This is a DNA site isn’t it? Even close West Eurasians {Georgians, Armenians, Kurds, and Turks don't plot in the same field as Europeans. Is this even debatable, seriously? But I'm sure we can pull up multiple charts DNA stats on this. There is one on this site Dodecad 12B ADMIXTURE. I wont want to try and steal their identity. I respect their cultural and racial identity. If there are people out there who believe the answer to WORLD PEACE is one country one intermixed people then just say it, don’t hide in the shadows - open borders for ALL. But that does mean for ALL, no exceptions, right? .....For me I like TRUE diversity. Differences do exist – what is wrong with that, would be a very boring World without it.

Intercontinental autosomal genetic distances based on SNPs
Sub-Saharan Africa (Yoruba) to Europe .153
East Asia {Japanese} to Europe .111
East Asia {Chinese} to Europe .110

Europe:
Bulgaria to Austria .001
Poland to Sweden .002
Northern Italy to Switzerland .003
Spain to Sweden .004
Russia to France .005
Click to expand...

bulgaria to austria .001 but northern italy to switzerland .003? sure. and where are all the people i mentioned? why just look at east asia and sub sahara africa again? look at the table here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059311v1.supplementary-material

irish/greek 0.006
greek/armenian 0.004
greek/lebanese 0.005

or on that one here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index
russian/italian:0.0088-0.012
italian/palestine:0.0064

i suggest you make a thread "the european race" or something and give your argumentation why this should exist despite these numbers if you want to continue this.

and actually, if you assume europeans as one race isn't that indirectly stealing a german nazis racial identity too by attributing it to yourself too? or isn't it also cultural theft if you consider the romans as part of your own people eventhough you live in sweden?
 
At Dorquest and Ailchu...continue this and you are both banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 190448 times.

Back
Top