|
Post by AWAR on May 13, 2004 12:35:31 GMT -5
Or do you mean that you are out of your depth? Anyway, that is probably the most irritating smiley in cyberspace (as I'm sure you know). I know it's irritating... I hope it's irritating enough to make you learn what some terms you use actually mean. You asked if there is a siginificant genetic difference between a sort of phenotype and a linguistic family. This is as if you asked me who sings better, a tree or a carpet.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 13, 2004 13:19:14 GMT -5
Oh for Odin's sake AWAR!! Do you think that there is any significant difference between "Eastern European" and Scandinavan DNA?
Don't pretend that the genetic and linguistic groups are independent of each other. The Hungarian and Romanian people in all likelihood show significant genetical variations from their Slavic surroundings. Originally, as you do know, they were entirely separate genetical populations.
|
|
|
Post by symmakhos on May 14, 2004 20:06:48 GMT -5
As of DNA, I would guess you can call hg2 here, the blue colour, with the highest incidence in Gotland [...] as the Scandinavian DNA in European context. I guess your closest relatives are then Sardinians and Southern Ukrainians. There is the hg1 - the Western European gene, which is green (the Celtic gene - with highest incidence in Ireland and Basque country), the Slavic or Eastern European hg3 and even the Finnish hg16 - the yellow color. OK, I have done my best to try to understand what you are talking about, and it appears to be eye colour (?). Do you actually think that that this factor is relevant for anthropologists who are trying to find significant markers for ethnicity?
|
|