Interesting

Interesting....

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904778/
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

that there are some alien greek jews out there ? I know

Friendly reminder that charts like this are the exact reason why people call racial categories social constructs. All the borders that were drawn in the chart were based around how the samples identified themselves. Take that away, and it becomes impossible to draw any objective large scale boundary between a good number of these samples.

On top of this, this, these sample sizes are all over the damn place. There were literally only 7 Yemenites sampled while so many British, German, Irish, and Orcadians were sampled than you can't even fucking distinguish between them. Picture this chart if every self described ethnicity here had had the same number of samples taken as the British/German/Irish/Orcadian group. It'd be an absolute clusterfuck and it'd be impossible to start drawing any meaningful lines in the sand to try and categorize these people into races. Any line you drew would be ridiculously subjective.

>most ethnicities have genera genetic clusters
>race doesn't exist
what?

You didn't actually read a single thing I wrote there did you? I never said that populations don't cluster. I said that the boundaries you draw around and between said clusters are subjective. Race isn't just the idea that people are genetically similar to some more than others. It involves making distinct categories, and there'd be no way to make any objective categories in a cluster map with appropriate sample sizes. As I said, the whole thing would look like a literal cluster fuck. So if you can't objectively categorize them, than means that your categories would be subjective i.e. socially constructed.

>French
>Hungarian

i'm glag to see that we are still close from our Pannonian brothers

u know what a cline is?

my ancestors :)

>Friendly reminder that charts like this are the exact reason why people call racial categories social constructs

no, its how people try to deny race and make it look rational to the ignorant. Because they do not understand the context of what this chart says, like haplogroups. What you said is the "continuum fallacy"

Self-identified race correlates with genetic clusters. Genetic clusters with high samples predict race. Genetic clusters with extremely low samples do not predict race. Hence, race becomes a useful taxonomic classification, and becomes informative. Thats enough to justify race as a valid category.

Calling it a social construct is pointless,since every biological term is based on "subjective" boundaries, but race deneirs do not care about applying their strange demands of race to every other area of biology. Just race. Solely so they can create a society were they can use race as a concept to attack whites.

i get what youre trying to say but if you took every single person's genetic make up from say the year 1900. there would be multiple identifiable genetic clusters, even if not every country had one they would still exist.

You missed his point

Yes, but I have to wonder if you do, because clines tend to cross traditional racial boundaries.

>What you said is the "continuum fallacy"
No, you're just misconstruing my statements as such. I have stated multiple times now that it is true that people do cluster and that because of that they are more related to some than others. A continuum fallacy would be if I stated: "Since there is a genetic continuum between a Khoisan and a Swede, then that means that they two are essentially the same." However, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that whichever way you choose to divide this continuum into sections is subjective.

>Self-identified race correlates with genetic clusters. Genetic clusters with high samples predict race.

Depends on the person in question. Like with a grey scale, it's real easy to pick out the people on the most extreme ends, but it gets harder and harder the closer to the middle you get. That doesn't change the fact that the people on the ends are still distinct, but it does call into question whatever methodology you use to divvy up the grey.

>Thats enough to justify race as a valid category.
Only if we proceed with the assumption that the people who cluster in the manner we wish are more statistically significant than the people who don't.

>Calling it a social construct is pointless,since every biological term is based on "subjective" boundaries

Not all subjectivity is the same unless you're engaged in some extreme Cartesian thought experiment.

>but race deneirs do not care about applying their strange demands of race to every other area of biology

I actually do, and it's because the level justification used by "race realists" doesn't stack up with the degree of rigor used in actual biological research that I find them dubious.

>Solely so they can create a society were they can use race as a concept to attack whites.
Gotta get those conspiracy theories in there.

Never said they don't exist.

>Yes, but I have to wonder if you do, because clines tend to cross traditional racial boundaries.
Race, cline, population it's somewhat semantics and people are terrible at defining themselves on the internet. But yeah there is a lot of baggage especially because most of the people that want to talk about this stuff are /pol/ types trying to reinforce biases and making crazy jumps.

Have you read any of the old anthropology that is discarded now as racist? How much of the narrative about it is true.

That map actually shows off a lot of the flaws found in these old racial theories. Turks, Magyars, and Finns are lumped together because "muh central asian steppe hordes," even though today we know that these populations are not all that closely related. In fact today we know that Turks are far more related to the native population of Anatolia than they are any central asian people.

Armenians are in with the "Balto-Slavs" even though they're incredibly separated genetically, geographically, and linguistically.

This and plenty of the old racial theories like it suffer from a lot of confirmation bias, which is the reason why so many of them aren't used anymore. I mean, it seems like the guy who drew that just took linguistic groups and tried to equate them to race. I can see how one might think that was a decent idea back then, but in today's world of genetic sequencing, we'd be foolish to try and hold on to a lot of this stuff.

fixed
silence amerimutt. do not talk about TÜRKs unless you know a shit about us.

>native population of Anatolia than they are any central asian people
depends on what you call "native anatolian" and "central asian". but obviously what does an amerimutt know about those pops anyway.

>For example, supervised STRUCTURE (K = 3) illustrates a genetic ancestry for the Turks of 45% Middle Eastern (95% CI, 42–49), 40% European (95% CI, 36–44), and 15% Central Asian (95% CI, 13–16)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904778/

How about you actually research your own damn people before you start mouthing off about shit you're clearly uninformed on.

>triggered roach has entered the thread

By central asian this study means Kyrgyzes and Uyghurs lmao dumb amerimutt.

If you compared Aydın Turks in that study they'd be closer to Turkmens than to any Native Anatolian LMAO

Pic related, Aydın Turks from the study.

sup subhuman /pol manlet.
do you /poltard subhumans miss my anti white threads? don't worry they'll be back soon. i loved kicking your shit in. Don't forget to bump my threads till they reach bump limit.

>By central asian this study means Kyrgyzes and Uyghurs lmao dumb amerimutt.
How convenient of you to ignore the rest of the study. Like the part about 40% European ancestry based off of relation to French, Italians, Tuscans, and Sardinians. Or also the part about being 45% Middle Eastern which is based off of relation to Druze and Palestinians. Care to explain those parts my friend? Or do you believe that people from Turkmenistan would also have similar results?

...

>Like the part about 40% European ancestry based off of relation to French, Italians, Tuscans, and Sardinians
Literally the reason why the study is retarded as fuck.
Genetic relation to Tuscans, Sardinians (lmao), Italians could be due to shared West Asian/Levantine ancestry.

Here for example a Turk's Eurogenes K36 results, EK36 uses a similar method that the study uses, you see genetic closeness to Italians (48%) but the Turk is closest to Iranians and Turkmens. If i carried out a study i'd say "based on those results Turks are 48% Italian x% Druze/levantine and x% mongolian" would that actually say anything about our ancestry?. Not at all.

>Genetic relation to Tuscans, Sardinians (lmao), Italians could be due to shared West Asian/Levantine ancestry.
Except it isn't because the study specifically distinguished the European samples from the Palestinian and Druze samples which are more Levantine than any other population from the study.

>Our ADMIXTURE analysis revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors.

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068

This black turk shtick was never funny, just give it up.

>Hungarians actually are white
oh shi-

>Our ADMIXTURE analysis revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors.
and?
are amerimutts this retarded? this has been long known. Did you expect Turkics to be close to Yakuts (original ones)? Of course an Uzbek will be close to a Tajik than to a Yakut for example or will be exactly between Iranians who inhabited Uzbekistan before Turkics and Mongols/Turkics.

>This black turk shtick was never funny, just give it up.
Moop de dood. I'm an amerimutt subhuman and i'm triggered by blacked posting.

Subhuman amerimutt.

>are amerimutts this retarded? this has been long known. Did you expect Turkics to be close to Yakuts (original ones)? Of course an Uzbek will be close to a Tajik than to a Yakut for example or will be exactly between Iranians who inhabited Uzbekistan before Turkics and Mongols/Turkics.
>dancing around the point this hard
The point is that people in Turkey are barely fucking Turkic and Seljuk rape babbies are a meme. Live in denial all you want, I don't care.

>moop de dood screeching
*yawns*
read the studies before you try to discuss with me, i know a lot more than any haploredditor will ever know about genetics
>The point is that people in Turkey are barely fucking Turkic
as i mentioned before depends on what you call Central Asian/Turkic. But even when Kyrgyzes (80% mongoloid) people concerned, there's still 15% closeness though this rate dramatically increases when you include Turkmens etc.
>Seljuk rape babbies are a meme
First of all, whites are the only rapebabies lmao.
Second, see .
Seljuk>Anatolian meme
deal with it mutt.

>leftypol

Why do Armenians and Georgians think they're European?

I presume Lazio would be between Tuscany and southern Italy? That would make the Italian peninsula continuous.

>All the borders that were drawn in the chart were based around how the samples identified themselves.
Hmm it's almost as if people self identify with an identity with overwhelming accuracy or something. What black magic is this? /s

>Sardinians (lmao)

Kys roach

.

Except they don't .If that were the case then you wouldn't see shit like the Uzbek, Gurjarati, or Bedouin groups. You also wouldn't see the insane degree of overlap in many areas that you do. As I said before, pictures like OP's do more to disprove the idea, than support it. Try using some critical thinking to interpret the data before you instead of just glancing at the pretty colors like a retard.

>certain clusters are all over the place, especially from non existent ethnic groups like "Uzbek" or "Yemeni" so I can ignore all of neat tightly clustered well defined ones!
Sigh. Give it a rest already. People are generally overwhelmingly good at correctly self identifying what ethnic group they belong to. If they asked tribals from Uzbekistan or yemen to self identify by tribe I guarantee you the clusters would be much tighter.

tfw portuguese are whiter than north italians

Whats the deal with the Chuvash?

>the ethnic groups that don't act the way I want them to don't actually exist
God you clowns are desperate. Uzbek is a language and the Uzbeks have been a discernible ethnic group for hundreds of years well before the establishment of their modern nation state. The fact that this ethnic group (like hundreds of others) can be broken up into even smaller ethnic groups does not disprove that reality, or anything I've said here. If anything it only reinforces it because it shows that ethnic groups are not consistent, highly precise entities.

Let me make this clear once again since you and several others in this thread seem to have such poor reading comprehension skills. I am not stating, nor have I ever stated, that populations don't cluster. The idea that certain people would cluster with some more than others should be a no brainer to anyone who understands how human reproduction works. I am also not stating that ethnic groups don't exist. What I am saying, and have been saying since the very beginning, is that the lines drawn are socially constructed. The reason I brought up the point of taking about the borders wasn't to say "hurr durr they don't exist." The point was that without them and just purely looking at the distances between samples, it would be much much harder to redraw many of them with any objective methodology. One would think this would be apparent even with the borders present, but you've done a good job of proving my expectations too high in that regard.

Self identified ethnic groups aren't hard cut off points. Are they decent statistical predictors of who one might cluster with? Yes, at least depending on the ethnic group in question. However they're just that. Predictors. Ethnic groups weren't born out of rigorous hours of genetic investigation. They're approximations we've created for ourselves. Doesn't make them arbitrary, but it does still mean that they're social constructs.

>muhhhhh sawshul construct
Yeah. Whatever.

Fuck is this

...