Oracle wrote:
This would suggest the population of Turkey is a newer arrival since it does not fit in with the demographics of the nearest neighbours.
LOL, thats not what it suggests at all, quite the opposite in fact. It actually suggests that Turkey has seen less influence from Central Asia and subsequently fewer numbers of newcomers than her eastern neighbors.
besides which when one looks at all the different haplogroups present in Turkey and her neighbors its seems as though Georgians are genetically the most similar to Anatolian Turks, although they (Turks) are similar to all their neighbors genetically.
Oracle" What are you trying to say here?[/quote]
I am saying that the Central Asian influence found in Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan etc is not solely down to Turkic settlement from Central Asia but is also down to Prehistoric population movements between Central Asia and the Caucasus and Asia Minor. the prehistoric settlers who came from the Central Asia werent Turkic as Turkic peoples didnt inhabit the region during that period.
[quote="Oracle wrote:
How do you explain the Syrian percentage?
Quite simple really. Anatolia historically has been heavily populated subsequently any Central Asian population movements into the region would have had limited influence, whereas Syria on the other hand was less/more sparsely populated so any CA migration there would have had a larger impact on the population.
Oracle wrote:Nothing is obvious and I am only hostile to racists who try to use genetics to prove revisionist politics ... and once again you yield to the desire to interpret without evidence.
Not only did you fail to provide evidence last time of Turkish "evolution" from Hittites but you failed again.
What is more, as I showed you last time with the world-wide haplotype distributions, lack of similarity to your neighbours (who have been there thousands of years), such as you present above (although it's meaningless without knowing the numbers tested) merely confirms Turkey is populated by relatively recent arrivals ... Quite the opposite of what you rushly propose.
I didnt fail at all to prove that the Hittites have signicant links to present day Anatolian Turks.
As for lack of similarity to their neighbors, Turks dont differ greatly at all to their neighbors as this haplogroup map shows:
so again you fail.
all the haplotypes present amongst Turks are also present amongst their neighbors and in relatively similar percentages. No population in the entire world is identical to its neighbors as you can see above the French arent identical to Spaniards, the Germans arent identical to Poles however they all have similarities to one another as is also the case with Turks and their neighbors.
If you really want to see two neighboring populations who are genetically very different to each other despite their geographic proximity look at the pie charts showing the Iberian populations and North Africans. This indicates the two populations have very different origins to each other.
In no way do Turks differ from their neighbors in the same way as North Africans and Iberians do from each other.
Oracle wrote:Once again, you have picked an isolated study (without providing the actual science) which shows nothing more than disparate percentages. Your attempts to draw meaningful population demographics and migrations from such a simple study are absurd.
You can easily draw conclusions from these studies, that you dont like what the results show doesnt matter.
I love you O 
All this time you've just been searching for parents ... and now you've narrowed it down to
