|
Post by diurpaneus on Dec 2, 2007 3:31:40 GMT -5
Are we related?" The Haplogroup J is only found in South-East Europe, mostly in southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in Turkey and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians." Maybe most of the modern turks are actually descended from the native anatolians.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 2, 2007 13:52:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by superman on Dec 2, 2007 15:14:39 GMT -5
all are romanians, we know this!
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 2, 2007 15:50:28 GMT -5
Are we related?" The Haplogroup J is only found in South-East Europe, mostly in southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in Turkey and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians." Maybe most of the modern turks are actually descended from the native anatolians. Surely you have Turkish blood just like the Russians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, and Bulgarians.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 2, 2007 16:54:08 GMT -5
Bugger off, Jani. Even if there is such, it is Turkic, not Turkish. You are such an example of pitiful history thief.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Dec 2, 2007 16:56:25 GMT -5
You are such an example of pitiful history thief. Are we related?" The Haplogroup J is only found in South-East Europe, mostly in southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in Turkey and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians." Maybe most of the modern turks are actually descended from the native anatolians. Surely you have Turkish blood just like the Russians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, and Bulgarians. Then how do you explain the fact that Italians have it too? No turkic tribes migrated in those regions. The only logical explenation is that the majority of modern turks are actually turkicised native anatolians (greeks, roman colonists, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 3, 2007 2:19:01 GMT -5
Bugger off, Jani. Even if there is such, it is Turkic, not Turkish. You are such an example of pitiful history thief. An Identity Burglar spoke. Turkish: Of or relating to or characteristic of Turkey or its people or language
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 3, 2007 2:22:00 GMT -5
You are such an example of pitiful history thief. Surely you have Turkish blood just like the Russians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, and Bulgarians. Then how do you explain the fact that Italians have it too? No turkic tribes migrated in those regions. The only logical explenation is that the majority of modern turks are actually turkicised native anatolians (greeks, roman colonists, etc.) Human DNA even embodies the DNA traces of the viruses that do not kill the humans anymore. Etruscan findings from Italy: We chose the Basques as representative of western Europe, the Turks as representative of the eastern Mediterranean region, Karelians and Volga Finns as representative of northeastern Europe, and Egyptians and Algerians as representative of North Africa.
In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations. These admixture estimates are not to be taken at their face value, for numerous assumptions underlie their estimation. Here they only serve to show that, with respect to modern Italian gene pools, the Etruscan one contains an excess of haplotypes suggesting evolutionary ties with the populations of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores.
On the contrary, the similarity between the Etruscan and Turkish gene pools may indeed reflect some degree of gene flow. Commercial exchanges are documented between the Etruscan harbours and Asia Minor (Tykot 1994) and trading is often accompanied by interbreeding, ultimately leading to detectable levels of genetic affinity (see Relethford and Crawford 1995). Thus, the present study suggests that gene flow from the eastern (and possibly southern) Mediterranean shores, not necessarily from Lydia as proposed by Herodotus, left a mark in the Etruscan gene pool, above and beyond what is observed in contemporary Italy. www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181945One from Mongolia: Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period. www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtmlOne from Hungary:The Cumanians were originally Asian pastoral nomads who in the 13th century migrated to Hungary. We have examined mitochondrial DNA from members of the earliest Cumanian population in Hungary from two archeologically well-documented excavations and from 74 modern Hungarians from different rural locations in Hungary.
Haplogroups were defined based on HVS I sequences and examinations of haplogroup-associated polymorphic sites of the protein coding region and of HVS II. To exclude contamination, some ancient DNA samples were cloned. A database was created from previously published mtDNA HVS I sequences (representing 2,615 individuals from different Asian and European populations) and 74 modem Hungarian sequences from the present study. This database was used to determine the relationships between the ancient Cumanians, modern Hungarians, and Eurasian populations and to estimate the genetic distances between these populations.
We attempted to deduce the genetic trace of the migration of Cumanians. This study is the first ancient DNA characterization of an eastern pastoral nomad population that migrated into Europe. The results indicate that, while still possessing a Central Asian steppe culture, the Cumanians received a large admixture of maternal genes from more westerly populations before arriving in Hungary. A similar dilution of genetic, but not cultural, factors may have accompanied the settlement of other Asian nomads in Europe.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16596944&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum One from Chuvashia: The Chuvash are believed to have originated from Turkic-Altaic Bulgar tribes who migrated in the 4th century A.D. from Central Asia together with the Huns to the western region of the Volga River. The ancestors of the Chuvash were also found as seminomadic tribes of ancient Bulgars who lived in the North Caucasus steppes in the 5th to 8th centuries. In the 7th to 8th centuries a portion of the Bulgars left for the Balkans, while another subdivision moved to the mid-Volga region and made up the ethnic base of the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars.
HLA alleles have been determined for the first time in individuals from the Chuvashian population by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, and -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have also been determined, and the results compared to those for Central Europeans, Siberians and other Asians, Caucasians, Middle Easterners, and Mediterranean peoples. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms, and correspondence analysis have been performed. Present-day Chuvash speak an Altaic-Turkic language and are genetically related to Caucasians (Georgians), Mediterraneans, and Middle Easterners, and not only to Central or Northern Europeans; Chuvash contain little indications of Central Asian-Altaic gene flow. Thus, present-day Chuvash who speak an Altaic-Turkic language are probably more closely related to ancient Mesopotamian-Hittites and northern European populations than to central Asia-Altaic people.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200306/ai_n9288054Perhaps, you would not like it, but the ancestors of the Turks were most probably some people who emigrated from Western parts of Eurasia to Central Asia. In fact, according to the Chinese annals, the Turks emigrated from West Sea region to Altai (West Sea could be Black Sea, Khazar Sea or Mediterranean Sea). ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 3, 2007 12:34:51 GMT -5
This shows that the CHuvash are descended from indigneous people of where they live and not Turkics.
The Etruscan.they existed way before the Turks came to Anatolia,and they even migrated to Italy way before Turks came to Anatolia.
This proves that Turks of Turkey are indigenous Anatolians!!
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 3, 2007 12:38:16 GMT -5
Thats the problem with this Jan
he thinks that the Turks were the most influential,powerful,populating bunch in the world.The most ah everything group in the world.
ANything that has something resembling Turkic,is defenetly a Turkic in his head.
How parasitic
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 3, 2007 12:39:25 GMT -5
This only shows that you are a person who could even refuse to acknowledge scientific findings. ;D
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 3, 2007 12:42:19 GMT -5
Thats the problem with this Jan he thinks that the Turks were the most influential,powerful,populating bunch in the world.The most ah everything group in the world. ANything that has something resembling Turkic,is defenetly a Turkic in his head. How parasitic Please try to attack ideas rather the people defending them, and avoid personalizing the issues. Thank you for your cooperation in advance.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Dec 3, 2007 12:57:43 GMT -5
you refuse to acknowledge scientific findings:Turks of Turkey are generally not of Turkic stock.
and yah,the Mongolian sh*t found in Turkey......at my claim says most are not
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Dec 3, 2007 13:17:37 GMT -5
Read the findings again, you need it. ;D
|
|
tyson
Amicus
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by tyson on Dec 4, 2007 17:43:21 GMT -5
well i always belived that todays modern turks are a big mixture of different peoples. firstly the turkic tribes that invaded and conquered anatolia secondly the local indigeonous inhabitants of anatolia, ie. the thracians, greeks, armenians, assyrians, persian peoples. thirdly, muslim converts from ottoman occupied balkans, caucasus, and arab peoples from the middle east.
|
|