Are Basques the only true Natives of Europe ?

Are Basques the only true Natives of Europe ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230663
biological-concepts.com/views/search.php?term=62
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Basques simply have a much smaller percentage of Indo-European invader in them. Many Europeans descent from a raging warband of steppe dwelling male horse riders.

According to your own map they mostly descend from Anatolians

Pronbably not but you could argue they are the most indigenous out of all extant groups in terms of language at least.
On the other hand Indo-Europeans are thought to have come from Samara Russia which is slightly on the European side of the Urals.

So who were the Natives ?

Basques aren't white, and this can be seen today in how they are generally commie terrorists prone to chimping out.

Europeans are made out of three groups.

-Major groups
-Neolithic farmers from Anatolia. These people had light skin and gracile builds with dark hair and eyes (although some later depigmentated further with blondism).
-Cro-magnon hunter-gathers, blue eyed and tanned because their diet allowed them to get enough vitamin D from animal products and thus, depigmentation was not necessary. Their influence stayed dominant in Northern Europe as it was far less attractive for the neolithic farmers to settle here (due to the climate).

Minor influences
-The Steppe riders from the Ukraine, these people are thought to have spread the indo-European languages. They had a massive disbalance between the male-female ratio. 1/10 was a woman so these guys would raid villages and rape your ancestral mother untill their little bastards were born. They were tall and had superior technology (horse riding). Literally the Chads of pre-historic Europe.

These "steppe raiders" were a mix themselves. Half Euro-Siberian Caucasoids(with genetic ties to Native Americans), half Caucasus natives similar to Georgians.
So a Brit/German or whatever is essentially a 4 way mix of all these groups. Basques are much less steppe raider of course but their Y-chromosomes are almost entirely steppe and nobody is sure why this is so.

are Germans, Poles, Austrians, Swiss, Danish, Dutch, Belgian and Slovenian the same people?

so germans, the dutch, the irish and the porties have no genes? are we actually robots?

Genetically yes, more or less.

The neaderthals most likely

But they aren't even '''humans'''

They are technically humans, just a different species

So we can consider black people a different species ?

yes

>homo neanderthalensis
>not homo

inb4 painfully obvious gay joke

Subspecies would be a better classification.

You know why this is? The early church had a lot of greek, italian and anatolian priests. These priests went out fucking every women they wanted because they were messengers of god and there were no dna tests around.

The eastern jewish groups seem to have ruthenian genes with turkic admixture due to slavery.

Basques are all paternally descended from a single man 4-5000 years ago, it didn't need to be a big invasion.

deus kera is said to be the basque language. It is said it is the remnant of the old iberian language. iberians didnt speak gaelic. They are a viscayan people. And speak the viscayan tongue. As to say who is the true native europe is like deciding who is more native american the sioux or the algonquins.

Sami

Samis are from Mongolia, try again spurdo

The Sami emigrated to Sweden after the Swedes,

Sami have been Laapland since prehistoric times.

Some of our more Finnish and Scandi cultural elements might have come later.

According to Sami linguist Ante Aikio you've been in Lapland for under 2000 years.

Potentially, they have a lot in common at least geographically with the oldest known inhabitants of the European continent going back to the Ice Age and the.

Their population has the world's highest concentration of the A- blood type.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

Which was then not Sweden.

>I don't have a clue but here's a wikipedia article which is unrelated

This is why Veeky Forums doesn't work

>Half Euro-Siberian Caucasoids(with genetic ties to Native Americans)

which Native Americans?

>>>/kys/

Every single one from Patagonia to Alaska.

bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

>This additional "tribe" is the most enigmatic and, surprisingly, is related to Native Americans.

But not related to East Asians at least by much.

>Every single one from Patagonia to Alaska.

they're not all the same you know.

It doesn't matter they all have this genetic component which was also in Indo-Europeans.
I'm very familiar with the paper discussed in the BBC article.

>this genetic component

there exist universal genetic components that all human groups share, please be more specific.

>is familiar with the paper
>chooses to link the big black cock instead of just linking the fucking paper

Variant is as far as you can go, they're fully cross-fertile with other humans and our genepools almost completely overlap.

>Sami have been Laapland since prehistoric times.

So have Swedes. They emigrated there from Siberia after the last Ice Age circa 10,000 years ago, the Saami still lived in Siberia until much later.

No, it is objectively true that "races" of mankind would be broken into subspecies if we used the same classification methods we used for animals. Where the lines where would be drawn if debatable tho.

Not all humans are equally related you know, you're closer to your mother than your cousin and so on.

The Reich laboratory of Harvard have sequenced a large number of ancient skeletons from Europe and Asia to understand how Europe was settled. They found that there were three distinct groups(which has been increased to four since then) that contributed DNA to modern Europeans. One of these groups was disproportionately similar to Native Americans compared to the others but wasn't much more similar to East Asians.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230663

No, that's completely wrong. Breeds of dog are more different from one another than human variants are, there is no classification system which would subdivide modern humans into multiple species.

>a large number of ancient skeletons from Europe and Asia

likely an extremely small sample of those ancient populations

>Native Americans

this term is clearly problematic

Swedes are Danish migrants.

Okay you're trolling. I'm not playing along.

I'm talking about ~7,000BC, no Denmark or Sweden then.

More different in what regard?
Sub species is generally determined by 90 or 95% rule. You would mix two populations together and if they could be re sorted into their theorised groups by eye 95% accuracy, you would consider the two groups different subspecies.

>Sub species is generally determined by 90 or 95% rule.

Well then since humans share 99.99% of their DNA, by your own admission there is only one human species.

>You would mix two populations together and if they could be re sorted into their theorised groups by eye 95% accuracy, you would consider the two groups different subspecies.

This is not how subspecies are determined.

>lol Native Americans all have """this genetic component"""

No, they are not all the same.

9/10 people living on the two American continents died after exposure to European diseases.

There are not enough of them left to draw meaningful conclusions about the larger part of the genetics of the people who's information has been totally lost.

Ever consider that the modern native people they tested may have some more recent European genetic contamination?

The 95% rule isn't to do with DNA
biological-concepts.com/views/search.php?term=62
Plz educate yourself on biology before bullshit ting, senpai
Also, in what regard are breeds of dogs more different than humans populations?

...

>Also, in what regard are breeds of dogs more different than humans populations?

Take your pick. Genes,morphology, behavior, in pretty much any way you could name.

>lions

You DO realise that lions aren't humans, right? They have different numbers and types of genes, what constitutes a subspecies for lions doesn't translate directly into humans.

So you concede that the human races should be considered subspecies?
The difference in dogs are a bit weird because of the way that humans have manipulated them over the years. By use of selective breeding, we have allowed different surface indicators to manifest. In terms of DNA, they're much closer genetically than human populations.

...

Except all humans are part of the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, as well as the same species.

...

>les /pol/ pics

The information doesn't become wrong because it came from a board you don't like.

African and Asiatic lion aren't different species but subspecies

The limits that divide species and subspecies in biology are fuzzy and imprecise, this is used by both "racists" and """antiracists""" to play with semantics and push their agendas. Just stop discussing this.

How are they fuzzy? The rule seems pretty clear cut to me. If you know a better way to categories species and subspecies, plz share.

>THE rule
>Implying

Nice non argument.
>get btfo by a stormfag™
>plz stop discussing this issue

We should not return to arguments for racism because of differences in makeup. Other people are not literal animals.

Like it or not pham, all people are literally animals. I personally don't think we should exclude humans from classification because of feelings.

Well, for instance, this other guy (you?) says genes, morphology, behavior, all are valid criteria to differentiate "breeds". There's no clear, unique method to separate into different groups because of a certain bias, that's all I'm saying.

So because there's no single universal method of classification, there should be no discussion on the topic?

There are some species where the issue is fuzzy, such as ring species. But there are also species were the matter is completely clear-cut, for example, among humans.

At least it should be limited to the minimum until a clear, unified criteria is set, otherwise it is bound to degenarate into the usual ideological racist vs cuck shit tossing Veeky Forums contest.

this has nothing to do with racism. I'm just stating that proper classification methods applied to human populations would result in subspecies classification for different human population groups.

Well I don't really care if you like or hate niggers, what I'm trying to say here is that there should be a clear-cut same-species relationship between two populations (which doesn't even need to be transitive, so it would solve the ring species problem that other user mentioned) and it should apply to all types of living beings, be them virii or humans and we should stick with it.

so you would agree that excluding humans from proper classification is shitty idea?

Ye

I didn't say that, tho

Yes, you just made a shitpost with no actual point.

Still that I didn't say that X is wrong because it's come from Y.

They do have some Yamnaya DNA, which would explain their huge R1b. They culture being strongly matriarcal is probably how they still managed to keep their language.

On the other hand, according to a study which came out just these days, some Sardinians from the inner mountainous areas seem to actually have pretty much 0% Yamnaya, and increased WHG affinity(both autosomal and with increased percentages of Y-DNA I2a, already high in the island as a whole).

No, you just heavily implied it by posting an "uurg, stormfags amirite?" shitpost

this pic is pretty old, someone should make one with Eurogenes new K7 calculator, now that we have more samples, especially from the ancient near east

it's important since even before those samples, it was clear that EEF shows WHG-like affinity and isn't just a completely separated population, but rather a blend of something WHG-like(probably related to the WHG who took refuge in the Balkans/Greece and maybe Anatolia instead of the Franco Cantabrian refuge) and something seemingly archaic related to the near east.

Assumptions aren't facts, user

Well, why don't explain your highly nuanced shitposting for me?

In biology we use the word populations when talking about the human species

Making my point

Whats your point :)

>DUDE just don't talk about it!! OKAY?!?!?

ebin

It's /pol/ tier talk anyway, nothing is lost