It has also been proven that the descendants of the ancient Turks are a mix of Asians and Europeans, the European part being the indigenous IE people. That there isn't any scientific study that tells us 100% surely that the ancient Turks were Asians with no light features doesn't mean that it's not correct.
You're not quoting me correctly, again. I said that the descendants of the ancient Turks were proven to have substantial European and Asian mix, not that the ancient Turks were. However, the fact that we do know that there was an IE people or several ones in the area before the Turks came in tells us that it's more likely that the Turks were the ones responsible for the Asian that later came into the area were these IE peoples had been.
We do also know that the ancient Turks were a people closely connected to other Asiatic people such as the Mongols such as them both being in the same language group, this means that they both came from the same ancestor most likely and we do know that the Turks lived somewhere around Mongolia before they came into Central-Asia.
You're using a logical fallacy. A German person isn't of the same ethnicity as a English person even though their languages are in the same language group, the German person is of German ethnicity and the English person is of English ethnicity. However, even though an English person and a German person aren't of the same ethnicity we do know that the English language is a descendent of the Anglo-Saxon one. The Angles came from what is today the Netherlands and the Saxons were from Northern-Germany, even the name English is derived from Angle.
Similarly, the Scandinavians (Norwegians, Swedes and Danish) all came from Germany a long time ago and settled in what's now Scandinavia, we do know that these people are linguistically related to all of the Germanic people, we could take the Icelanders aswell, while they do now speak Norwegian their language is related to it and we do know that the Icelanders are mainly descendants of Norwegians from the western parts that settled in Iceland a long time ago.
I don't know why you're thinking that Swedes are in the Altaic language group, however that's not important in the discussion, it does show show your ignorance however. And yes, we do know that the Hungarians are descendants of invading Uralic people, the Magyars, which makes them linguistically related to Finns and Estonians for example. It doesn't however necessarily make them related to the Turks and Mongolians as they're in the Uralic language group and not in the Altaic one, Uralic-Altaic relationship has been proposed but it isn't accepted. The Altaic people are still related to each other though.
First of, language is one of the if not the biggest parts of an ethnicity, it surely is what makes one ethnicity different from another and even if Americans in California are different from Americans from New York when it comes to traditions and some cultural matters, they're still of the same ethnicity mainly because of the language. Therefore, your arguement that ethnic roots and language aren't important to each other is invalid.
Secondly, all IE people have the same roots. A language group/family starts of as one language, as the speakers spread a little bit, the language starts having dialects and such, after a while of spreading more there becomes new languages, and it just continues like that, the languages "branch" off. The people will therefore be of the same origin as their ancestors once spoke the same language, they then branched into other languages and there you have it.
Yeah, I haven't said there wasn't either. This blondism is very rare though and the frequency is much higher in Europe. The blondism in Aboriginals is something I've told you of and I also admitted that according to theory it's not of European admixture. The Berbers are Caucasian and therefore it's just natural that some few of them are going to be blonde, they're btw related to Europeans genetically.
Your arguement here is of course that if there is blondism in other parts of the world other than Europe then this must be the case in Central-Asia too. However, as I have repeated time after time, there was an IE people in Central-Asia before the Turks, they were light featured and we do know that they then mixed and were assimilated by the invading Turks which is shown in genetic studies.
Also, while blondism also occurs outside Europe even though there's no European admix as in the Aborigines and also in other people around the Pacific ocean, other light features aren't such as red hair, blue eyes and green eyes. Blue eyes have been proven to be of the same source and therefore if it's found anywhere outside Europe, you can bet it's of European extraction.
mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/Do I have to show you the same sources again and again?
It doesn't tell you anything about the ancient Turks, but it does tell you of the admixture in the Kyrgyz. Anyways, there's no need for any studies on the ancient Turks, the IE people were there first, the current people (the descendants of the ancient Turks) are a mix of Europeans and Asians mstly. You arguing against this is just you being a bitch
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419996/?tool=pubmedOh, great, Genghis Khan is a Kyrgyz now! LOL. I've read enough on Genghis Khan and I've never heard anything of his Kyrgyz ancestry, besides we have genetic evidence of Genghis Khan, no historian or scientist have come up with the conclusion that he had anything European in him or anything Kyrgyz.
But that's what the guy you quoted says, deep blue eyes.
You haven't countered my referenced sources, nor the historians, anthropologists or the journalists I have used.
Here is a hint to you, bring me a scientific fact published, a study perhaps on the ancient Turks, or a selective study of the ancient Kyrgiz population. Then we can continue, until then,,, your opinion won't mean anything to me.
LOL Coons studies aren't outdated!! lmao... I am not going to discuss this with you.
Here is the lack of comprehension:
Did I ever say that Europeans or people of the Balkans haven't influenced the ethnic make up of Turkey? including their colouring?
I just said, that they are perhaps not the only influence and that it could also be down to ancient Turk roots too.
comprende?
Firstly I don't think you should get into a conversation in regards to different areas of Turkey as you will lack the knowledge required to debate. Secondly, if you do go against my advise and try to get into this debate I advise you that your information about Northwestern Turkey having lighter features as a whole isn't only to do with the Balkans. Thirdly there are parts of Eastern Turkey where the people are very blonde and light eyed...yet do not have ANY Balkan influence.
Coris is not an expert in this field, he made some other claims too which were iffy. There are statistics in regards to the different ethnic groups in Turkey. Some say only 66 000 whereas others say 3000000. I don't think it much matters, because there are other groups that number larger than the Albanians and are of a much greater influence.
The biggest influences in Turkey don't include Albanians, its mainly the Bulgarians, Bosnians, Laz, Georgians, Circassians, Kurds in fact,,, after 500 years of the Ottoman empire... Turkey is just a huge mix. In regards to modern Turkey, maybe an influx did come, but they seem to call themselves Turks, during the last few studies of ethnic roots in Turkey, Arnavuts didn't play a big role.
Hellboy knows why he is ignored. As for bringing good arguments? errmm I just showed some references and expressed my view on them, you are the one arguing against them, yet without anything factual. I find the above statement you made ironic.
[/quote]
Anyways, in the middle of my arguement with you I just decided to stop as it's no use to argue with you. You bring nothing of worth and then expect someone to make a counterarguement and when they do it, you ignore it.