Search results

They don't look much different from the Turks and look to be about the same pigmentation.

I think that's a reasonable outlook on the matter. Honestly, if NA were significantly darker than West Asians, I would imagine them to be Arabian or Pakistani colored which is probably not the case.

I didn't say that you were. You are one individual after all. I was under the impression that North Africans in general were a bit darker on average compared to North West Asians but you do have an interesting take on this.

Does that hold true in terms of the average though?

Turks are both darkwashed by non-Turks and lightwashed by Turks themselves.

I also want to add that North Caucasians are fairly misrepresented. Many of them hardly look distinguishable from their southern counterparts, especially Dags.

Coastal Berbers can sometimes look like a cross between Iberians and Levantines. Sometimes even straight up either/or. Overall, they still maintain their unique look.

Southern Italians are right up there as the most darkwashed. Levantines being the most lightwashed

Because they are atypical. Look at those woeful distances :)

Simple explanation: More steppe and EEF admix in Armenians makes then closer to the European cluster. Same reason why Turks are closer to Europeans, same reasons why some Levantines are as well. You continue to make the mistake of equating phenotype with genotype, yet I'm the foolish one...

Only if you consider the cherry-picked ones :D

Guti would have to give out his sources and show me runs using qpAdm for me to take those as academic material. In lieu of any pro tools, I stick to G25 for the time being as it's the best available tool for the layman. I challenge you to try and capture on G25 what you do for K12b and then...

You're in denial that Gedmatch is outdated stuff. Don't know why you cling on to that nonsense. Move on to newer and more reliable tools and you'll see that your data is not correct.

Man, you really cherry-picked the fuck out of them lol

I'm not kidding you. Did you see my modeling for Abkhazians using Adygeis and NW Georgians as source populations. They're literally anywhere from 25-42% Adygeian-like compared to the Georgians lol. I just told you that if they score excess North European then they have to be Abkhazians or NE...

Take a breather before you blow a gasket. Here you go: I used all 3 NW Georgian Subgroups who are the closest to Abkhazians as source populations along with Adygei. As you can clearly see, Abkhazians are clearly NW Caucasian shifted which means more steppe and some East Asian related...

I don't subscribe to anyone person's or group's thoughts and ideas. I am basing what I have said from my own personal research. I'm well aware of the propaganda machine anthroforums can be. I've ran the samples on G25 my friend and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that no Imeretian...

I did also say they have less BA Anatolian ancestry as well like Arslanteppe for instance. Also, what you just said is a red herring. Iran_N does in fact give a woggier appearance relative to any group that scores little to none of this admixture. This doesn't mean Kurds are less "muuuuuuh...

I don't "like" to take Kartlians and Laz nor Imeretians and Megrels. What would honestly give you this impression? I simply argued that you can't model Armenians as a 50/50 split between "Georgians" and Lebs without specifying which SUBGROUP of Georgians and Armenians you're sourcing/targeting...

Generic references don't highlight the diversity of Armenians. It can include anything from Urfa to Syunik to Hamshen and anything in between. Just like "Georgian" can mean anything from Meskhetin to Khevsur. You didn't disprove anything. You regurgitated what I said when I said that you can...