Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Sept 21, 2004 8:06:46 GMT -5
 Acc. to this scheme by Debetz the Pontic race is derived from the NORTHERN race. Due to influence (admixture) from the Southern race the Pontic race has differentiated into the Pontic type (some Southern influence) and the Northern Pontic type (insignificant Southern influence). Thus it's the decisive "quote" confirming Northern European classification of Russians DP demanded so much. I'd like to remind that it was prev. shown to the Greek troll that Russians (who are pred. Northern Pontic) are not classified as Mediterranians - of course it was an ambigious quote as the Greek flamer refused to acknowledge that a population with 95% of light eyes could not be Mediterranian. Ok, I gather I have to find the quote confirming Battle-Axe/CordedWare/IranoNordic classification of Russians, as the dishonest Greek refused to acknowledge that the BA classification of SE Russians covers all Russians, as Russians are (rather) anthropologically homogenous and thus classification of any Central Eastern European group as BA means that the entire group is BA.  Keep trolling, Dienekes, the end is not far away... |
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 21, 2004 9:10:00 GMT -5
nordics? please watch this haplogroup map  your kind did influence the nordic race a bit, and there are sharing of some haplogroups, but you allmoust lack some other haplogroups that we would find in the west. So you are related to the western nordics, but there are mediterranean who are even closer to those western nordics than you are!  So what nordic means? the same as mediterranean a geographic position... lol |
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Sept 21, 2004 9:12:32 GMT -5
Map is outdated.
|
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 21, 2004 9:16:55 GMT -5
ukranians are almost identical to the swedes. the only really nordic (blue) meds are the sardinians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 21, 2004 9:21:10 GMT -5
your map obviously! I guess gbloco is right on the spot!  |
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 21, 2004 9:29:38 GMT -5
what % of the green is neolithic and what % is celtic?
its certainly a toss up between british isles and spain who has the most original neolithic blood in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 21, 2004 9:33:06 GMT -5
east-anglia is almost identical to denmark, which would imply fairly massive genetic flow of some sort between the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 21, 2004 9:36:19 GMT -5
agree
|
|
|
|
Post by gbloco on Sept 21, 2004 9:38:55 GMT -5
this map os fffing cool vitor, will keep a copy and use it for anti-trolling purposes whenever appropriate
|
|
|
|
Post by IranianLion on Sept 21, 2004 14:12:52 GMT -5
The map is very outdated. Y-DNA testing has moved on quite significantly since the articles on which that map is based were published.
Nor can we say, as gbloco appears to be, that blue (i.e. haplogroup 2) is Nordic. If that were true Saami and even the Chamars of Utar Pradesh would be more Nordic than Finns!
By the way, here's an interesting fact. The most common haplogroup in Russians is 3. The population with the highest frequency of haplogroup 3 is the Krygyz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 21, 2004 23:57:23 GMT -5
If this represent wrong information then ok it's outdated.. I am afraid that it's not the case! Although there are more genes than this ones... like blood type distribution... Is a blood type distribution map outdated? of course not! Even the blood type distribution (like RH negative)mimics EXACTLY at least the Rb1 genes in western europe... see here: B type  hum...russians don't look nordic anymore... or this one RH negative blood  btw if this map i.1asphost.com/berschneider/Haplogroups.jpg is outdated then post something better. there must be something out there... it's outdated right? |
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Sept 22, 2004 0:11:13 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention that if you follow blood types or most other easily followed genetic schemes the human race is purely clinal and there are no races at all. Russians aren't nord's there not even distinctly european. Race if you accept it as usefull concept is based on morphometric differences based adaptions to enviorment, sexual selection or drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 22, 2004 0:16:00 GMT -5
blondness and blue eyes (associated with it), are only another 2 genes...(don't know if it's only 1 gene though) should we give more importance on those genes than the rest of the other's ? I guess not! maybe different genes are producing the same thing (blue eyes and blondness), or even lack of producing melanine genes... I don't know! BUT.... It's to the phenotype we give importance! yet again there are millions of other genes, hidden. Phenotype is not good to make assumptions on population closeness. I even would make Rh negative gene more important! it's a very interesting gene... there is something strange with this gene (btwI am RH negative...like most basques). There is an obvious disadvantage of people with RH negative in making "mixed" babies with RH positive. 100 years ago (and before), most of this "mixed" babies would turn up DEAD if the mother was RH negative...maybe even killing the mother in the process! Dead or invalid! So why this gene is still here? must be some hidden advantage...of course! |
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Sept 22, 2004 0:16:40 GMT -5
Just wanted to mention that if you follow blood types or most other easily followed genetic schemes the human race is purely clinal and there are no races at all. Russians aren't nord's there not even distinctly european. Race if you accept it as usefull concept is based on morphometric differences based adaptions to enviorment, sexual selection or drift. I Agree with most of those genetic schemes! not with Coon or other bullshit based on pseudo science. |
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Sept 22, 2004 1:38:40 GMT -5
|
|
