Perhaps we can knock the on the head the attempt to distinguish GCs from TCs (indeed from any 'group' of human beings) on the basis of DNA. The comments on DNA and bloodline are, I'm afraid, just bad science. Pasted below is the best shortest explanation that I could find on the web as to why tryig to distinguish people on the basis of DNA simply doesn't work. I have highlighted those sections (in bold text) which are particularly important in the context of this discussion :
Patterns of genetic diversity inform us about population history because each major demographic event leaves an imprint on a population's collective genomic diversity. A reduction in population size reduces genetic diversity, and an increase in population size eventually increases diversity. The exchange of migrants between populations inevitably results in greater genetic similarity, while isolation preserves genetic uniqueness. These demographic signatures are passed from generation to generation, such that the genomes of modern individuals reflect their demographic history. Thus, it is reasonable to say that our history is written in our DNA. As we accumulate more and more data on DNA variation, and as we develop better tools to analyze these data, our history will become increasingly clear.
How diverse are we?
Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Genetic diversity is a function of a population's "age" (i.e., the amount of time during which mutations accumulate to generate diversity) and its size. Our genetic homogeneity implies that anatomically modern humans arose relatively recently (perhaps 200,000 years ago) and that our population size was quite small at one time (perhaps 10,000 breeding individuals).
To put the 0.1% genetic diversity estimate into perspective, it is useful to remember that humans have approximately 3 billion base pairs in a haploid cell. Thus, any pair of humans differs by approximately 3 million base pairs. These differences contain much useful information about the evolutionary history of our species. In addition, the small proportion of differences that occur within genes can lead to critical inferences about the effects of natural selection.
How is genetic diversity distributed within and between populations?
Human populations can be defined along geographic, political, linguistic, religious, or ethnic boundaries. Using a common definition that groups populations into major continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North and South America), many studies have shown that approximately 90% of genetic variation can be found within these populations, and only about 10% of genetic variation separates the populations. Thus, the great majority of genetic differences can be found between individuals from any one of the major continents, and, on average, only a small proportion of additional differences will be found between individuals from two different continents. Furthermore, because human history is a history of population movement, and because humans are extraordinarily adept at sharing their DNA, the genetic boundaries between populations are typically indistinct. For any given DNA sequence or gene, two individuals from different populations are sometimes more similar to one another than are two individuals from the same population.
The fact that humans are relatively homogeneous at the DNA level, combined with the fact that between-population variation is modest, has significant social implications. Importantly, these patterns imply that the DNA differences between individuals, and between populations, are relatively scant and do not provide a biological basis for any form of discrimination.
This is extracted from a slightly longer article at
http://www.genednet.org/pages/k12_evolution-jorde.shtml# which is part of the US-based Genetic Education Network
My impression is that all or most people are agreed that the history of Cyprus - at the cross-roads of the Mediterranean and the Middle East - is one of almost constant inward and outward migration, of invasions and commerce, that is to say of continuing population movement and cross-reproduction. That being the case it makes DNA differentiation impossible.
And apart from this, DNA is a reference to a particular kind of scientific description whereas Turkish Cypriot, Greek Cypriot, Greek, Turk, Russian, Tamil etc are particular kinds of political-social descriptions. DNA can't settle a political-social dispute. One should always worry when people try to rope in DNA or blood science for political purposes - remember the pseudo-science of the Nazis.
Well the hair is thin and the eyes are fading but you know what I mean. My fathers side seem to have come from the Russian Steps and my mother has very Asian and VERY Cypriot looking at the same time. There are many GC and TC ladies that are dressed in black that look like her. I once saw a documentary about Turkmenistan and the whole village looked just like my dad...It was quite strange to see. I have been mistaken for almost all the nations of the world except for Arab ones. That includes Jewish, Greek, Turkish, Spanish, French and Italian so if you can come to any conclusions from that then you are a better man than I am. Now if you ask me what I see myself as then I will always tell you that I am Turkish and a Cypriot and very proud to be what I am.........
You have a way of somehow changing everything into your own nationalistic - extreemist perception. And people think VP is bad?
I'm happy you had a great holiday and soon it will be my turn. 
