Are Basques the only true Natives of Europe ?

File: europe.jpg (195KB, 2048x1487px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2048x1487px

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.

>>2070136
According to your own map they mostly descend from Anatolians

>>2070121

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.

>>2070136
So who were the Natives ?

>>2070121
>>2070145
Basques aren't white, and this can be seen today in how they are generally commie terrorists prone to chimping out.

>>2070145
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.

>>2070182

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.

>>2070136
are Germans, Poles, Austrians, Swiss, Danish, Dutch, Belgian and Slovenian the same people?

>>2070136
so germans, the dutch, the irish and the porties have no genes? are we actually robots?

>>2070281
Genetically yes, more or less.

>>2070160
The neaderthals most likely

>>2070355
But they aren't even '''humans'''

>>2070451
They are technically humans, just a different species

>>2070571
So we can consider black people a different species ?

>>2071323
yes

>>2070451
>homo neanderthalensis
>not homo

inb4 painfully obvious gay joke

>>2071323
Subspecies would be a better classification.

>>2070182
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.

>>2070182
The eastern jewish groups seem to have ruthenian genes with turkic admixture due to slavery.

>>2070200
Basques are all paternally descended from a single man 4-5000 years ago, it didn't need to be a big invasion.

>>2070121
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.

File: sami-woman-reindeer-racing[1].jpg (66KB, 480x366px)

66KB, 480x366px

Sami

>>2071500
Samis are from Mongolia, try again spurdo

>>2071500
The Sami emigrated to Sweden after the Swedes,

>>2071520
Sami have been Laapland since prehistoric times.

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

>>2071538

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

>>2070121

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

>>2071520
Which was then not Sweden.

>>2070200
>Half Euro-Siberian Caucasoids(with genetic ties to Native Americans)

which Native Americans?

>>2071589

>>>/kys/

>>2071591

Every single one from Patagonia to Alaska.

http://www.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.

>>2071622
>Every single one from Patagonia to Alaska.

they're not all the same you know.

>>2071637

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.

>>2071646
>this genetic component

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

>>2071646
>is familiar with the paper
>chooses to link the big black cock instead of just linking the fucking paper

File: genogeography.jpg (50KB, 451x368px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 451x368px

>>2071323
>>2071429
>>2071349

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

>>2071538
>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.

>>2071686
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.

>>2071655


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.

>>2071663

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25230663

>>2071705

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.

>>2071709
>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

>>2071694
Swedes are Danish migrants.

>>2071733

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

>>2071740

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

>>2071713
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.

>>2071748
>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.

>>2071741

>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?

>>2071752
The 95% rule isn't to do with DNA
http://www.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?

File: 1420861728165.jpg (361KB, 854x518px)

361KB, 854x518px

>>2071752

>>2071779
>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.

>>2071801
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.

>>2071429
Except all humans are part of the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, as well as the same species.

>>2071862
>>2071748

File: 1444405900005.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>>2071783
>>2071836
>les /pol/ pics

>>2071899
The information doesn't become wrong because it came from a board you don't like.

>>2071783
African and Asiatic lion aren't different species but subspecies

>>2071686
>>2071705
>>2071709
>>2071713
>>2071733
>>2071748
>>2071752
>>2071778
>>2071779
>>2071801
>>2071832
>>2071862

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.

>>2071918
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.

>>2071926
>THE rule
>Implying

>>2071936
Nice non argument.
>get btfo by a stormfag™
>plz stop discussing this issue

>>2071908
We should not return to arguments for racism because of differences in makeup. Other people are not literal animals.

>>2071943
Like it or not pham, all people are literally animals. I personally don't think we should exclude humans from classification because of feelings.

>>2071942
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.

>>2071961
So because there's no single universal method of classification, there should be no discussion on the topic?

>>2071974

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.

>>2071974
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 /his/ contest.

>>2071995
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.

>>2072011
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 anon mentioned) and it should apply to all types of living beings, be them virii or humans and we should stick with it.

>>2072107
so you would agree that excluding humans from proper classification is shitty idea?

>>2072129
Ye

>>2071908
I didn't say that, tho

>>2072240
Yes, you just made a shitpost with no actual point.

>>2072252
Still that I didn't say that X is wrong because it's come from Y.

File: screenshot-biorxiv.org-2016-12-08-20-47-32.png (38KB, 932x664px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 932x664px

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).

>>2072343
No, you just heavily implied it by posting an "uurg, stormfags amirite?" shitpost

>>2070136
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.

>>2072357
Assumptions aren't facts, Anon

>>2072403
Well, why don't explain your highly nuanced shitposting for me?

>>2071918
In biology we use the word populations when talking about the human species

>>2072543
Making my point

>>2072570
Whats your point :)

>>2071918
>DUDE just don't talk about it!! OKAY?!?!?

File: 1421219874249.jpg (194KB, 650x813px)

194KB, 650x813px

>>2071899

ebin

>>2072895
It's /pol/ tier talk anyway, nothing is lost