I'll start:
>China and Korea
Koreans are basically Chinese, who speak some butchered form of Chinese, but claim they are Siberians
I'll start:
>China and Korea
Koreans are basically Chinese, who speak some butchered form of Chinese, but claim they are Siberians
Other urls found in this thread:
abc.net.au
twitter.com
How far back are we calibrating these genetics? China isn't "genetically the same". Han Chinese aren't "genetically the same". I'm not sure anywhere today is "basically genetically the same", once you mince the details of various human breeds before 30k ya.
70-80% shared DNA markers = "basically the same"
Litterally all Europeans, even with outliers like Fins and Sardinians they are still pretty homogenous.
Are you counting Slavs in that. They're noticeably different from other Europeans. You might not be able to tell the difference between any North/Western/Southern Europeans, but even the untrained eye can tell that Slavs apart from other Europeans At least the males.
Fucking biggots, you should all feel ashamed
DNA says piss off
Humans are 99.8% identical to Chimps. A 30 to 20% difference is massive.
>dat Hidustan calmly waiting to swallow everything around it soon like a zombie invasion
...
Why are scientific facts being put up for debate?
>Humans are 99.8% identical to Chimps
Not this popsci meme again
All Europeans are more closely related to each other than anyone outside of Europe
>I learned about genetics from the Discovery channel
>The post
Well that's just incorrect, unless you want to argue that Anatolia, the Levant and Central Asia are part of Europe.
And the Caucasus of course. Granted, a lot of people consider it part of Europe for some reason.
It's funny all the banter that southern Europeans receive as in all of them are "half-Arab".
But then you see acutal genetic studies and the average Spaniard is more closely related genetically to the average Russian or German than to the average Moroccan.
Many Iberians and Sicilians have North African admixture, Germans and Russians usually don't have that.
Yes, but that's not your average.
However, North African influence is actually pretty common among all Europe and comes from the Neolithic farmers, southern Europeans just received some additional and more recent waves of that.
How do you tell Slavs from other Europeans?
Getting back to OP's point, but possibly more cultural than genetic:
>Norwegians and Swedes
>Hindus and Sri Lankans
>Australia and New Zealand
>Nicaragua and Honduras and Guatemala
Their similarity is almost comical, though they would be very offended if you compared one to the other.
That's simple, they all look like the untermenschen in Nazi propaganda because it used slavs as models for geopolitical reasons.
Actually, did anyone notice that the groups targeted by the Nazi propaganda machine are the most recognizable European ethnicities to us today? Jews, Slavs, Gypsies... and "Nordics" I guess.
>Share 70-80% DNA
Ok
Not him, but Slavs generally have different faces. It's hard to explain, but I can spot a Slav fairly easily. The easiest way to describe it for me is that the women look very often Vulpine.
>linking China and Korea
Please, Kim. There's more genetic diversity going North to South in China than there is comparing Korea and Japan, which are actually the same fucking people but you fuckers just can't admit it.
Looks like a perfectly normal human being to me, user. Pretty sure OP meant haplogroups, though.
Iranians, Turks, Caucasians (Georgians, Armenians, Azeri's)
Check every genetic map in existence, they're pratically the same.. Iranians have a higher Caucasian component than the Turks and the Turks have a higher East Asian component than Iranians.
North Indians and Pakis are essentially the same people. Punjabis are especially similar due to the way the partition occurred.
Yep, I'm sure you could immediately tell my slavic face appart from Klause, living 15km down the road from me, while Vasiliy from Novosibirsk would be virtually indistinguishable from me.
You have never met any of those groups, have you? Turks do not even originate from that region, and Iranians and Caucasians are as different as Germans and Italians
>Turks do not even originate from that region
Here we go
You can also see how many of the iberian lands that were reconquered first from islam are at the max.
>implying they didn't come from the Eurasian steppe
Here we go indeed
>Implying every part of Europe the Red Army went isn't littered with Russian DNA
Most turks in Turkey are not genetically turks, or barely. No nomadic people has enough balls to completely exterminate and repopulate Anatolia, with it's old history of settled civilization. Would not even happen if the ghost of Tamerlane with nukes conquered it.
>Kruger from Berlin is more slavic than me, since the Red Army never went through 95% of Yugoslavia
gas the untermensch and all that
...
>implying Iranians didn't come from the Eurasian steppe
Irish and Scots. The scots were a Gaelic tribe that migrated from Ireland to Scotland and subjugated the Picts, introducing goidelic culture
The Irish influence was more of a dispersion of their culture through settlement as opposed to subjugation. Admittedly there is plenty intermixing but Scots are more robust and not such fucking degenerates. Also there is more Norse/Anglo/Continental DNA in Scotland.
Banamas are within that category. Most of genetical structure is pretty fundamental
Nice buzzwords fagget
Slavs sit in crouching position
Nice input retard
Is comfy position, why problem?
why doesn't /pol/ ever cite their sources?
What does "degenerate" mean when you say it?
Arabs, Berbers, Jews, Kurds, Iranians, Turks, Circassians, Georgians, Armenians, Copts, and Greeks are all essentially the same people.
They do speak different languages and wear different "national costumes".
But they have the exact same genetics, phenotype, and racial phylogeny.
It is a non-technical term for the Irish being unproductive and violent
I have never seen a collection of ethnic groups who hate each other so much.
Complete lack of sourcing is near ubiquitous on this site. Thinking non-/pol/ is any better is just confirmation bias on your part
So we can dismiss this as 19th century meming from a retard
Or accept it as 21st century memeing on a malaysian manga website
...
Though he did pull that number out of his ass, clearly he's referring to the variance within humans
Modern Turks are basically genetically identical to the ancient Anatolians. The only things the invading Turks did was bring with them their language, culture and religion, which the native folk adopted and took as their own.
>Turks are actually Turkic
The Turk/Kurd/Caucasian/Iranian genetic cluster has been pretty well established by now.
>Non-Sino Tibetan language
>Some butchered form of Chinese.
Do you expect /pol/acks posting on Veeky Forums to know anything about linguistics?
wow @ the yoruba and japanese both being completely 100% pure
and the yukagir
It's probably some sort of arbitrary starting points, that they'd then see how much related groups deviate from the starting 'pure' group even though it would be a a mix itself to some extent.
This is extremely wrong.
You guys are wrong
gets it. Yoruba aren't pure, no African population is
For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.
first summer for Veeky Forums already /int/ and /pol/ as fuck. get out, discuss this shit elsewhere. very tired of hiding threads today so I can talk about history. if talking about history bores you than please get the fuck out, thanks.
saging reply, I encourage you to do the same if you insist on posting this kind of bullshit here
>autist
>melting down on Veeky Forums
>Chinese
>a thing
>laughingvaginas.jpg
So there are no pure human populations.
The genetic variance within races is more varied than between races.
/thread
Depending on how granular you go, you can find more ancestor populations or less purity.
For example if "Subsaharan African" is a grouping then you might find that Yoruba are like 99% Subsaharan African, but if you look at "West African" and "Central African" then Yoruba will be 80% Western African and 20% Central African, and so on.
Sometimes you get more counter-intuitive results too. At the bottom of this pic, you see how East African "purity" varies when you consider 10, 11, or 12 groups (adding "Ethiopic" and "Ethio-Somali") Of particular interest is the "Ari Blacksmith" tribal population that seems to be heavily mongrelized Nilo-Saharan with 10 groups, purer Ethiopic with 11 groups and almost pure Ethiopic with 12 groups.
Also look at the Somali groups.
A better example than East Africans might be Latin American mestizos. If you consider "European" and "Amerindian" as groups then they are 50% European and 50% Amerindian hybrids, but if you consider "Mestizo" as a group then they are 100% Mestizo.
lankans, bangalis, hindus, pakis, australian aboriginese
ukrainians, russians
ashkenazies, italians, sephardis
>Ancient Anatolians
What does this mean? The Hitties? Greeks? Also, didn't the Turk's ancestors the Seljuq Turks wipe out/genetically displace the Greeks on Anatolia and with the Ottomans increased Arab/Persian mixture basically removing any Mongoloid features on them that their ancestors had?
romas, lomas, domas, indians, australian aborigines
>What does this mean? The Hitties? Greeks?
Yes.
The research shows that the modern populations inhabiting various regions of Anatolia are usually closely related to the people who lived there in Antiquity. So Western Anatolians are related to Ionian Greeks, Northern Anatolians are related to Pontic people, Central Anatolians are related to Luwians etc.
The main signs of relatively modern genocide/displacement is in the East, due to what happened to Kurds and Armenians.
>didn't the Turk's ancestors the Seljuq Turks wipe out/genetically displace the Greeks on Anatolia
Nope.
Turks in Anatolia ended up a lot like Hungarians in Pannonia.
back to /pol/
>oreans are basically Chinese, who speak some butchered form of Chinese, but claim they are Siberians
That's wrong. The Korean language is considered a language isolate or relative of Japanese and the Altaic languages (if you believe they are a real language group).
Korean has borrowed extensively from Chinese, but it's not "related" to Chinese any more than it is related to English.
Korean language has been sinicized since the ancient times even before its Three Kingdoms period.
I'm saying this because there were waves of prehistoric, neolithic and paleolithic migrations from the Chinese plains as well as historical migrations from ancient and medieval times from China (most Korean surnames directly originate from Chinese migrants) that would far outweigh any "Altaic" component (the entire concept of Altaic is discredited)
t. Korean who started to accept the past
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Brunei
Thailand/Laos
Vietnam/Cambodia
India/Pakistan
Liberia/Sierra Leone
North East Africa
The Balkans - Russia and Ukraine, Slavs in general.
Arab countries
Chinese countries
USA/Canada
Argentina/Uruguay
El Salvador/Honduras
Bolivia,Peru, and Ecuador
Portugal/Spain
Scandinavia and Germanic countries
Turkic nations
I wouldn't discredit the possibility of an Altaic influence. I like to entertain the idea that Korean and Japonic were originally Austronesian with some wave of Altaic nomads coming through (as did go on to happen centuries later) at some point before recorded history and influencing their culture, though probably the Japanese to a lesser extent.
The reason why the Altaic elements are more difficult to prove is because of all the general problems in Korean and Japonic linguistics with scarce attestation from earlier periods along with heavy Sinicization.
>Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Brunei
Malaysia definitely does not belong in that group.
Romania and Moldova
>Scandinavia and Germanic countries
does anybody ever contest this difference? Of course dutch and danish people are verrrry similar
gypsies are indian
australian aboriginals are indians
big deal. i am indian
what is with all the butthurt?
>The Fertile Crescent
What the fuck happened? And why didn't Egypt suffer the same fate?
>muh half Chinese muhnority
abc.net.au
>bigot
>a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
So yourself?
kek
Tibet and Bhutan
China and Myanmar (Burma)
filipinos and amazonian indians
mexicans and chinese
irish and polish
germans and russians
moroccans and italians (ashkenazis inclusive)
also moroccans and cubans, puerto ricans
>Mexicans and Chinese
>Mexicans don't get any of the perks of being Chinese like IQ and work ethic
JUST
What's up with Kosovo?
Native vocabulary is less than a third of the language and less than a half even in everyday speech, it's been creolized to hell and back so much that it's like media lengua. Japanese was never this language-cucked by comparison, despite kanji.
Koreans are a mix of East Asian agriculturalists
and Siberians.
If the Buyeo/Goguryeo brought Koreanic into the peninsula that raises the question whether the Jin/Sam Han spoke Japonic.
If Buyeo happens to be Tungusic that would weaken arguments that Goguryeo was "Korean".
It's the face, generally prominent cheeks, straight jawlines
Where the hell are the French?
>Norwegians and Swedes
Only "Norwegians" east of Telemark and south of Trondelag 2bh
Funnily enough, the modern Scot generally has more in common with the English than the Irish thanks to the influx of Norwegians, paralleling the Saxon and Danish settlements of England.
The base Celts were essentially identical across the Isles anyway.
they do, also add south thai and native singaporean to more accurate