Technically, they're white

Based

another wh*Toid
i spit on you cumskin albino monkeys

Attached: turks.jpg (480x360, 19K)

Red and basepilled

>European
>Pale skinned
>Even have blue eyed people and shiet
You're white

he's not Turk you retarded yakuboid

@92893617
never reply to me ever again cumskin
disgusting

Attached: turk3.jpg (360x532, 34K)

based

GTFO wh*Te Crackkker. Go back to your cave.

We are KARA BOGA and we honor the turks' struggle against the evil wh*Toid, it's why we wave a similar banner. The banner that will destroy wh*Tes

Attached: article-1371204-0B60868B00000578-278_964x638.jpg (964x638, 262K)

>According to a 2012 study on ethnic Turkish people, "Turkish population has a close genetic similarity to Middle Eastern and European populations and some degree of similarity to South Asian and Central Asian populations." At K = 3 level, using individuals from the Middle East (Druze and Palestinian), Europe (French, Italian, Tuscan and Sardinian) to obtatin a more representative database for Central Asia (Uygur, Hazara and Kyrgyz), clustering results indicated that the contributions were 45%, 40% and 15% for the Middle Eastern, European and Central Asian populations, respectively. For K = 4 level, results for paternal ancestry were 38% European, 35% Middle Eastern, 18% South Asian and 9% Central Asian. K= 7 results of paternal ancestry were 77% European, 12% South Asian, 4% Middle Eastern, 6% Central Asian. However, Hodoglugil et al. caution that results may indicate previous population movements (e.g. migration, admixture) or genetic drift, given Europe and South Asia have some genetic relatedness. The study indicated that the Turkish genetic structure is unique, and admixture of Turkish people reflects the population migration patterns. Among all sampled groups, the Adygei population (Circassians) from the Caucasus was closest to the Turkish samples among sampled European (French, Italian), Middle Eastern (Druze, Palestinian), and Central (Kyrgyz, Hazara, Uygur), South (Pakistani), and East Asian (Mongolian, Han) populations.[32] A study involving mitochondrial analysis of a Byzantine-era population, whose samples were gathered from excavations in the site of Sagalassos, found that the Byzantine population of Sagalassos might have left a genetic signature in the modern Turkish populations. Modern-day samples from the nearby town of Ağlasun showed that lineages of East Eurasian descent assigned to macro-haplogroup M were found in the modern samples from Ağlasun. This haplogroup is significantly more frequent in Ağlasun (15%) than in Byzantine Sagalassos.

BASED

meme study

>proxy populations: Kyrgyzes, Sardinians and Palestinians

now explain their relationship with Byzantine Era Anatolians and Turkmens.

Palestine=honorary kara boga

What does Turkic even mean? Do Tajiks and Kyrgyz people look like T*rkroaches? Aren't they pretty chinky like Kazakhs?

Attached: 1520400452368.jpg (559x836, 122K)

they compared the turkish population to many others (middle east, central asia and europe) to try to establish links
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904778/

>The protocols were approved by the Committee on Human Research of the University of California, San Francisco, and were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
>Geographical locations of samples used in this study. Turkish (Istanbul, Aydin, and Kayseri) and Kyrgyz samples are shown in red; populations from the HGDP are shown in black.

>Study Population, Genotyping, and SNP Quality Control
>Sixty-four unrelated Turkish samples (including one duplicate pair) from three locations in Turkey (Istanbul, Aydin, and Kayseri) were selected from participants in the Turkish Heart Study (Mahley et al., 1995). Istanbul is a cosmopolitan city of over 12 million and a major hub for other parts of Turkey. All Istanbul samples were selected from the city itself. Aydin is a mid-size city (population: 188,000) near the Aegean coast, and Kayseri is a relatively large city (population: 1,200,000) in central Turkey. Samples from the Aydin and Kayseri regions were selected from city centers and from several nearby towns and villages. All samples were obtained from individuals who were born and lived in these regions at the time the samples were collected (Fig. 1). In addition, 16 Kyrgyz samples were randomly selected from a Kyrgyz cohort obtained at the Kyrgyz National Center of Cardiology and Internal Medicine in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. All participants were queried about their ethnicity, and only participants indicating Turkish or Kyrgyz ethnicity were included in the study. Equal numbers of males and females were included, and all samples were obtained from healthy individuals under controlled conditions as described (Mahley et al., 1995).

Attached: nihms348116f1.jpg (800x383, 45K)

these are the latest generation of the Ottoman dynasty right?

Turkic speaking population aren't genetically homogeneous today
Turkic people are turkic speaking people that live (mostly) in central asia and the middle east today.

>Pakistanis

>kyrgyzes

>uyghurs

>Sardinians

>French

now explain their relationship with Anatolians and Turkmens.

As mentioned before: meme study

based BLACK BVLL

Yes but they intermarried with brits for centuries.
And the ottoman sultans already had more european than turkic DNA.
So they pretty much lost all traces to turkic people.

All muslims are sandniggers, therefore they aren't white

>And the ottoman sultans already had more european than turkic DNA.
So, like most modern turks?

they're not Ottomans.

Just some descendant of a British peasant. Only maternally Ottoman.

here's the last Ottoman alive

Attached: Nilhan Osmanoğlu.jpg (752x502, 70K)

Turks have no European DNA.

Greeks are literally Arabs. Turkics were Iranians with Asian admixture.

Well every human population is related to an other some degree, the point of the study is to establish the % of relationship
from what i understand they took samples from 3 places that represent turkey pretty well, istanbul, most population city, close to europe, aydin, coast aegian city and kayseri in deep anatolia. Kyrgyz are central asian so it's interesting to see how mcuh you are related to a central asian population.

They choose to compare with European (french, italian), middle eastern (levantine) and central asian/indian population for obvious reason:

for europe: WHG + EEF + ANE populations moved into Europe and Anatolia-Turkey, so turks are related to Europeans for that, some even belive the proto-indo european were from anatolia.
same with the levant, many levantine population and anatolian mixed since the neolithic
as for central asia, it's obvious, they want to see how much the seljukid conquest impacted anatolia

Algerian berbers, so native north africa, were compared to native "Finns" in scandinavia and they found a link
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/
>the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely ∼9,000 years

it's even more extreme that your study, yet it led to very unexpected results

Attached: 1024px-WestEurasia_admixture_crop.png (1024x536, 174K)

technically, poles arent human

hmmm yes these children in this tweet are true kara boga bulls
twitter.com/NilhanOsmanoglu/status/1007630159732789248

We're proud Iranics desu

>Kyrgyz are central asian so it's interesting to see how mcuh you are related to a central asian population.

Do you think every Central Asian is the same?

We descend from Turkmens. Who are closer to Middle Easterners than Kyrgyzes and more Indian shifted than Kyrgyzes.

>for europe: WHG + EEF + ANE populations moved into Europe and Anatolia-Turkey, so turks are related to Europeans for that, some even belive the proto-indo european were from anatolia.

Nope.

Ancient Anatolians are closer to Levantines than to Europeans

Attached: Central Asians.png (2067x1317, 891K)

looks like 15 years older Punjabi actress Maya Ali

Attached: maya-ali.jpg (1140x640, 321K)

meant for

Well no central asian aren't genetically homogenous, I said it here >Ancient Anatolians are closer to Levantines than to Europeans

If they're closer to levantine than to European, it's interesting to see how close they are/were to the levant and how close they are/were to Europe
I really don't see the issue here.

>We descend from Turkmens
Maybe on the Y-chromosoma/paternal line as they were males invaders (they travelled with the family but still) but on the mtDNA side? seems unlikely

Roman anatolia had 10 millions people, I don't see how central asian could have totally replaced 10 million people

Attached: urwhite.png (1400x1102, 610K)

>If they're closer to levantine than to European, it's interesting to see how close they are/were to the levant and how close they are/were to Europe

here

>Roman anatolia had 10 millions people, I don't see how central asian could have totally replaced 10 million people

10 million is an exaggrated claim

>Maybe on the Y-chromosoma/paternal line as they were males invaders (they travelled with the family but still) but on the mtDNA side? seems unlikely

One of your sources say Turks in Ağlasun have 15% Mongoloid MT dna.

Attached: Neolithic Egyptian.png (792x505, 115K)

blacker than you, muhammed

I've seen 8.2 millions in 14 CE and 9.2 in 164CE, it's not my numbers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population

but it seems that population was reduced snce the 6th century, because of the persian and arab wars, famine, diseases etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_Byzantine_Empire

I wonder what was the anatolian population when the seljuk came, I know that they destroyed a lot of cities and places and were pretty ruthless.

Also those are modern populations. We should use Anatolian Greeks, Armenians and Turkmens from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Iran to see what Turks are.

Like pic related.

Attached: converted rite.png (1376x739, 38K)

so it seems that the anatolian population was about 7 millions when the seljuk came,

They had 30,000 soldiers in Manzikert, how many to conquer all anatolia? hard to tell

Hm yeah, it makes more sense. Nice data

Attached: turkey demography.png (992x804, 124K)

so turks are closer to cappadocian greeks than to turkmen, good to know

Dumb wh*Toid, anyone who has less than 100% BLACK DNA is not BLACK.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification#Number_of_Pastoralists_of_Turkic_origin_in_Anatolia

>Number of nomads of Turkic origin that migrated to Anatolia is a matter of discussion. According to Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi, there were 200,000 Turkmen tents in Denizli and its surrounding areas, 30,000 in Bolu and its environment, and about 100,000 in Kastamonu and its environment.[17] [18]. According to a Latin source at the end of the 12th century there were 100,000 nomadic tents in the regions of Denizli and Isparta.[19]

>According to Ottoman tax archives, in modern day Anatolia, in Anatolia Eyalet, Karaman Eyalet, Dulkadir Eyalet and Rûm Eyalet provinces there were about 872,610 households in 1520s and 1530s; 160,564 of those households were nomadic, and the remainder were sedentary. Of four provinces, Anatolia province had the largest nomadic population with 77,268 households. Between 1570 and 1580, 220,217 households of the total 1,360,474 households in the four provinces were nomadic, and Anatolia Eyalet, which had the largest nomadic population with 77,268, saw an increase in its nomadic population. 116,219 households in those years in Anatolia Eyalet province were nomadic.[20].

1 tent means 1 family. 1 family in the middle ages mean at least 6 or 8 people.

So do the math.

6 or 8 people including elderly

yes

families used to be bigger.

there is always this problem with medieval records and numbers, but its seem it was substantial, at least enough to impact the 7 million of sedentary population.

in your own link tho the wiki page say this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification#Genetic_testing_of_language_replacement_hypothesis_in_Anatolia,_Caucasus_and_Balkans

only as babies

Attached: 2013-05-02-madagascar-cockroach-special-delivery-02.jpg (1180x787, 241K)

>In 2014, however, the largest autosomal study on Turkish genetics (on 16 individuals) concluded the weight of East Asian (presumably Central Asian) migration legacy of the Turkish people is estimated at 21.7%

>After eleven decades of Turkic migration to Anatolia including Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic people from Central Asia, Persia, Caucassia and Crimea, today's population is genetically in between Central Asia and indigenous historic Anatolia.[109][110]

>A haplogroup study in 2017 concluded that that the modern Turks are a hybrid population, comprising the original Anatolian stock, Turkic people, as well as other ethnicities from regions of the former Ottoman Empire.[115]

The page is filled with outdated studies that claim we're assimilated. But recent studies say otherwise. And they're also in that section.

Btw mongols killed like 90% of most of Iran I've read, I wonder how much new blood they bring to the iranian plateau