ITT we drop massive redpills on Anthropology
>There is no such thing as a European race, just a varying mixture of Yamnaya, Paleolithic Europeans, and Near easterners.
>The Yamnaya/ indo europeas are actually a 50% mixture of Cacuacasian population that mixed with Middle easterners and Ancient North Eurasian Population.
Yes?
White people were invented by an evil black scientist named Yakub.
Yamnaya weren't the only IE group
Southern and southeastern euros are still brown and are more similar to middle easterners. That pic basically confirms this
Native Americans
>Amerindians are their own race, separate from east asians.
>Amerindians derive 40% of their DNA from Ancient North Eurasian and 60% from Ancient East eurasian
>The east eurasian component of Native Americans actually split from the east asian lineage 35,000 years ago and completely separated 25 K years ago
>Similarly Europeans also split from an ancestral east Eurasian branch 41 K years ago.
> There is no such thing as a European race
Wow, americans are evolving! I'm proud
Drop redpills nigga
Europeans actually are descendant from East asians
>The node marked with the blue circle in figure 2 suggests that the East Asians are ancestral to the Europeans. The bootstrap value of the node is 99%. Therefore, both male and female lineages suggest that Europeans diverged from within East Asian ancestors or that they interbred with East Asian individuals up to a certain divergence time.
>41,000 years, or about 2,000 generations, are long enough to accumulate SNPs in the same loci in each lineage (Kimura 1983; Nei 1987) to account for the present genetic and phenotypic differences between the East Asians and Europeans, but too short to acquire independent loci between them. Recently, Liu (2012) reported on five genes responsible for the facial morphology of European people. The East Asian people must have the counterparts that differ at the SNP level from those in the European people. As our phylogenetic trees demonstrate, the European alleles at the five loci have diverged from the ancestral East Asian alleles.
>Our result contrasts with the traditional view that Europeans and East Asians simultaneously diverged from African ancestors 55,000 years ago. It is noteworthy, however, that Shinoda (2007) investigated into the haplogroups of mtDNA, and revealed a number of evolutionary haplotype lineages. The lineages include L3 (African), N (East Asian), W (European), and L3 to N to R (East Asian) and then HV (European) among others. Though they did not explain their results, their haplotype lineages can now be understood by our finding that the Europeans diverged from the East Asians. Therefore, the discrepancy between the traditional view and ours lies mainly in that the traditional view was based on autosomal genes that evolved much slower than Y-STR or mtDNA, and could not distinguish the evolutionary lineages at the individual level. Note that, as estimated earlier, the evolutionary rate of mtDNA is 2.4 × 10−8 per site per year, while that of nuclear neutral sequences is 2.0 × 10−9 per site per year (Fukami Kobayashi 2005). The discrepancy also is due to the fact that while we dealt with many male and female individuals in our study, the other studies did not.
I feel I was invoked
what do you mean, PeruANO?
Actually it was the WHG who were brown like Cheddar Man, ENF were the original lightskinned people
Actually the ANE themseves result from the mix of eastern siberians (related to east asians and native americans) and the original western siberians from which native americans and modern day siberians also descend
half of english dna is also sandnigger according to this pic
Yes there is a European race. Just because the borders between Europeans and neighbouring races like North African / Arab and Central Asian are a bit fuzzy (with interbreeding, etc.) doesn't mean that race isn't a biological reality.
Yes, there is much variation across Europe, for sure. But it is still true that Brits and Hungarians, for example, are more closely genetically related than Brits and Nigerians.
Races are a biological reality. Your leftist sperging will never change that.
do you even understand what you are saying?
do you have any source on the claim of ancient north eurasians?
Yes I do. Try making an argument.
Im not denying races dont exist , Im denying that unified European race exist. Hungarians are closer to english but that doesnt mean a european race exist.
The only people in europe who could possibly be their own race is Sardinians because they didnt mix their race as much as other europeans
Not, really, its just how i interpret data such as this
You are retarded
Ironically sardinians are the purest ENF
get a life
can you help me interpret this data? what do the numbers on the top mean?
also the point im trying to make is, a mixed race population cant be their own race.
for example do you consider Hapas or mulattoes to be their own race? thats exactly what the average european is a mixed race human, but the varying degree of mixture is what seperates northern europeans from souther or eastern
genetic distances
>There is no such thing as a European race
Well done
America's first steps
>But it is still true that Brits and Hungarians, for example, are more closely genetically related than Brits and Nigerians.
>but it's still true that Bolivians and Brazilians are more closely genetically related than Bolivians and Australian Aborigenes
>therefore the South American race exists
>a mixed race population cant be their own race.
if they stay endogamous long enough and the genepool gets evenly distributed, you could make this claim. Just about every population ever has had mixing events, this does not preclude the emergeance of new distinct populations.
But how do you find out the genetic distance for example of african and caucasoid from looking at this chart?
I like these charts instead
Im surprised when i looked at this chart that native americans are closer to norther europeans than east asians.
But this chart might wrong since I got it from this blog
dienekes.blogspot.com
that is true I guess there was an exception to what I said, but how long do you think it takes for endogenous to form in a population that is completely isolated in a vacuum?
You don't find genetic distances by looking at charts, moron. You find them by computing the Euclidean distance between genotypes plotted as points in n-dimensional space where each dimension is a single quantifiable parameter like the allele in a locus.
>endogenous
ethnogenesis
Nah I've seen charts like these before too and native americans are always closer to europeans than east asians, precisely due to ANE composites
This shows the futility of race as a scientific methodology, it provides no insight that could be interpreted better by replacing a clinal model with discrete, monolithic groups.
damn nigga chill, Im new to this, and can you please tell me if this chart is legit?
>Im not denying races dont exist , Im denying that unified European race exist
That's the same thing mate. Obviously Europeans are not homogenous - they can be broken down into smaller constituent parts, like Brits and Hungarians and Spaniards and Swedes, etc. But it is still true that race is a biologically real phenomenon. Spaniards have some North African admixture, but I think you'd find that the average Spaniard is still genetically more similar to the average Brit than they are to the average Moroccan.
Races are real, faggot. Deal with it.
>You are retarded
Picture related.
As long as it takes for genetic drift to disperse all the contributing alleles throughout the population evenly, so much so that there are no more easily distinguishable ancestral strains and just a pseudo-random distribution of markers instead. Graphically this would be exhibited as the formation of a clear, new cluster somewhere in between the various founder populations.
>the average Spaniard is still genetically more similar to the average Brit than they are to the average Moroccan.
that's false
>native americans are closer to norther europeans than east asians.
167 vs 137 it's close but they're closer to East Asians
This is true and the reason why many retards missinterpret PCA's, for each "K" sample group there is a new dimention, all the PCA's you see are plotted by projecting the n-dimentional model into a 2d plane, thats why sometimes you see ridiculously contradictory PCA's, they are showing different sides of the n-dimentional model
However, we CAN actually input genetic distances by averaging them from different testing methodologies to what we call autosomal distances, and we CAN make statements such as "native americans and europeans are more related than either group to african hunter gatherers", specially if we include cladistics
that's false
I don't know where the chart is from, so I cannot say. At a glance it looks more or less like what one would expect.
I don't think anybody is still using race in a purely scientific context. It can be a reasonably effective tool when having to do quick and dirty profiling, though. For example, regardless of the amount of European admixture or the specific breakdown of the contributions of the 5 major ancestral African population groups in each of the individuals, it is still a good decision to not stop in a neighbourhood where everybody is African American after dark.
and Northern Europeans are closer to East Asians than Native Americans because Native Americans are insanely drifted because of some of the most extreme inbreeding ever in Beringia despite all the ANE stuff
>for example do you consider Hapas or mulattoes to be their own race?
Yes, they are racially distinct.
South America is much more mixed than Europe because South America was colonised within recent history. Europe still mostly has the old stock that has been in Europe for thousands of years.
I guess the most dominant racial group of South America is mestizos - Native American / European hybrids. But obviously there are also blacks (Africans), and whites (Europeans).
But in any case, you're missing the most important fucking point. YES these lines can be blurred by interbreeding. BUT RACE IS STILL A BIOLOGICALLY REAL PHENOMENON.
Why do black Africans look different to white Europeans? Genetics. Why do about 30 - 40% of East Asians have a condition called "Asian Flush" which causes them to turn red when they drink alcohol - a condition which is seen in less than 1% of the rest of the global population? Genetics. Why do Africans have a higher rate of sickle cell anaemia than Europeans? Genetics. Why do Europeans have a higher rate of Cystic Fibrosis than other races? Genetics.
Races are genetically real, you fucking idiot. Just because the lines can be blurred by interbreeding, doesn't mean that race isn't a biologically real phenomenon. It IS a biologically real phenomenon.
Ok I was looking at it wrong, makes sense since native americans split about 10,000 years later than europeans from east asians.
But I wonder if this data is skewed from having used candadians native dna that had been mixed with eskimos?
Evidence please.
No, that is because of east siberian (closely related to east asians) migrations that happened roughly 6k years ago, which mostly arrived to finland and northern sweden, and no northern europeans are not genetically closer to east asians, they are still closer to native americans, the only reason why that doesn't show is because the ANE is already being considered as part of the composition for both and only differences are being measured
genetics and our skin
You don't understand genetic drift. Excessive inbreeding really did make them very different from other people. Africans also would be closer to f.ex Koreans than Native Americans if drift isn't accounted for.
See Europe is not a monolithic block with pseudorandom distribution, you can still identify the ancestral strains. Certain sub-groups like Finns, Icelanders, Basques, etc could indeed be counted as races of biological significance, though.
No?
Inbreeding doesn't make you genetically distant, low population numbers do so because then each personal mutation is more likely to be included into the general genepool, but inbreeding wont suddenly make your genes decay or morph accelerate
>ITT we drop massive redpills on Anthropology
say no more senpai
>no northern europeans are not genetically closer to east asians, they are still closer to native americans
Im gonna need a source on that
But like i said here It makes sense amerindians are closer to east asians since they split later than europeans from them. But like I said a confounding variable could be using North american amerindians with heavy eskimo heritage which would pull amerindians closer to east asians when in fact they are exactly in the middle between asians and europeans
>Inbreeding doesn't make you genetically distant
Yes it does over enough generations
>low population numbers do
Which Amerindians had over so many thousands of years during which they reproduced with their cousins or closer relatives in Beringia, Alaska and Siberia which lead to all kinds of funky mutations becoming extremely common in them.
gawd damn senpai this is too much, DELETE THIS POST before Jow Forums comes and talks about how europeans have a "creative spark" that asians dont!
Yeah.
The worst is when I see those retarded infographs plotting different preprocessed and graphically displayed PCA datasets on the same axes, completely ignoring the fact that the direction of the principal components determined by the variance of the set as a whole. There are a bunch of retarded charts floating around that have human distribution as a whole with an inset of European populations plotted on the same fucking plane.
>Anthropology
>genealogy
Does this really count as anthropology? Genuine question
But it's true tho. Why is the largest and most powerful and most intelligent Asian nation only a producer of products created and designed by white people?
Is the European inset plotted along the same principal component axes that were produced by the entire data set? If not, you might be looking at it from an entirely different angle in thousand dimensional space.
I dont see native american on this chart, are you trying to le trick me?
Can we please stop replying to the brit now?
How is studying the genetic makeup, historical spread and interaction between human populations not anthropology? It's one of the most important things to look at.
Yup ignore the european map at the bottom, couldn't find a version of the map without it
Its right there, look again
bro, the most influential designs in the West, come from asia. Asians invented all this shit by themselves. youre falling for the stupid meme that asians can only copy shit because of what china does in the present time.
It's one of the most important things to look at if you're talking about the genetic evolution of the human species. But if you're just talking about the lineage of subgroups or about haplogroups, it doesn't seem like it's all that relevant in comparison.
Wtf I'm not even that autist
>knowing how the various different populations that shaped the world came to be is not important
based tankie retard
>based tankie retard
You literally completely reworded what I wrote and distorted its essence. Reread what I really wrote, and then try to come up with a non-fallacious reply.
im only seeing mexican, colombian ,and peultolickan , if they used mestizos as native americans than that explains why they clustered closer to whites than east asians
No I didn't. I called you a tankie because we both know you are one.
As for your point, human evolution did not stop after the emergeance of homo sapiens. Genetic analysis massively helps us determine how humans spread across the world, when and why. It lets us recognize patterns that led to the formation of civilizations before history was a thing. It lets us observe and recognize physiological differences between different populations, their emergeance and spread. If you think anthropology is just about recording some singing niglets or photographing melanesian pottery you're pathetic.
biorxiv.org
page 25 figure c
they're closer to Mal'ta boy than East Asians since he wasn't fully Caucasoid but they definitely aren't close to Europeans
>I called you a tankie because we both know you are one.
No, you've made the assumption that I'm one because then you can convince yourself that you've "won the argument" on the sole basis of your prejudice against what you want my political beliefs to be, which is utterly ridiculous given I wasn't even trying to be argumentative (which is why I even took the time to write "genuine question" at the end of my initial post).
>As for your point, human evolution did not stop after the emergeance of homo sapiens. Genetic analysis massively helps us determine how humans spread across the world, when and why. It lets us recognize patterns that led to the formation of civilizations before history was a thing.
I see, thank you for an actual answer.
turks are just shitskins that were bullied to roleplay as blacks because of Jow Forums, like not getting any wasn't enough we had to fuck em up even more mentally
thanks based finngol man
NEXT MASSIVE REDPILL
IRANIANS ARE BUNCH OF MIDDLE EASTERNERS SAND NEGROS WITH SLIGHT EUROPEAN DNA THAT IS NATIVE TO EURASIA
>no european race
Ah yes, what an informative post, explain Europeans distinct racial and cranial features from.semites then in fact tell me a single feature real Europeans share with menas.
Except haplogroups don't tell you anything about intelligence or physical fitness etc as those are very specific genes
I recall a poster here noting that among intelligence associated genes, Englishmen and Italians shared 90%, Englishmen and Dutch shared 95%, but Englishmen and some subsaharan African group only shared 60%
Whoa you must be Iberian
European race and skull
Semitic skull
arent you that brown mestizo who thinks he's european ? because you claimed native americans wuz white like yamnya?
You're objectively wrong - see the picture here: Spanish is in the top right corner, next to all the European ethnicities, including British.
Moroccan can be found by going left from that European cluster. Further away from Spanish than British is from Spanish.
And it makes sense, too. Spaniards are PRIMARILY descended from European populations. You only have SOME admixture from North Africans from when the Umayyad Caliphate conquered Spain. But you are still primarily European.
Face it Jorge, Europeans are a distinct racial group - the best racial group. And we should band together for the benefit of us all.
this is cringe, please fuck off my thread Jow Forumstard
>PRIMARILY descended from European populations
lolno, we are anatolians/menas with some indo-nigger admixture
How is that a redpill?
This is basic anthropology. Those groups, ultimately, are also the decedents of other groups. That doesn't mean genetically similar European ethnicities can't be grouped together into a wider racial category.
Like I said, Spaniards are OBJECTIVELY closer related to Brits than they are to Moroccans.
Why are you so scientifically illiterate?
...
RACE=/GENETICS
Fucking mutt
mayans look closer to asians in this chart tho... dont you le trick me again PeruAno unless you actually have a study to prove Natives are closer to euros than east asian
>similar European ethnicities can't be grouped together into a wider racial category.
and that category would be?
stop posting fake data, I trust my eyes, not some made up shit using paint
It's not fake, you tard, it's fact, see picture. The most closely related populations (genetically) from portuguese people (its the same for you)
yeah yeah portuguese are suebic and therefore white, now fuck off
>You only have SOME admixture from North Africans from when the Umayyad Caliphate conquered Spain.
You are wrong in this one, because, north african(caucasoid) presence in the iberian peninsula or in the rest of europe has nothing to do with muslims from the 711 invasion) but with pre historic movments, neolithic and it's too small, 4%-7%. And people even doubt it is indeed berber, but iberian neolithic that is shared.
Good lad.
You're white, Domingo. If you're a normal white Spaniard, that is. Obviously Spain probably has some people with more North African admixture than others. But Spain is primarily white European.
No one need to be nordic to be white tard. And Nuno Gomes even if tanned is for sure europid (white med)
do you buy the theory that the original celts of the british isles were from spain?
or do you think they came across from gaul/france? or were they from spain, but descendants of the celts from near austria that came from the la tene/halstatt/bell beaker culture, and weren't genetically "spanish"? or did they go to spain and interbreed with the native populous? and what would the native spaniards even have been?
are celts less white than germanic peoples? are they the same group?
Sardinians get high whg admixture (they are 1/3 western hunter gatherer).
>you've made the assumption that I'm one
And I am right.
>I see, thank you for an actual answer.
No biggie.
This is absolutely true, it's hilarious to see persian diaspora teenagers dispute this while they look like dravidan mutts. There are some small enclaves of paler looking people in Iran but the vast majority of their collective gene pool is shared with the pre-Indo European civilizations that inhabited the region.
Why they would even dispute this is beyond me, considering that said pre-IE populations have a long history of civilization themselves, and that Iran is one of the most influential cultural regions in world history regardless of genetics.
Wtf, I never said native americans were closer to europeans than east asians, that makes no sense.
I said that Native Americans are closer to Europeans than East Asians are, those two are completely different things