O N E D R O P

O N E D R O P

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Moortugal

Meds not looking forward to checking trips of truth

Admixture is not the same thing as ancestry though. For example not even Iceland has 100% European admixture - not a single country has.

R I P

What did you try to say and what the fuck is this? It literally makes it look like Iraqi Jews are genetically similar to Europeans.

reminder that the reason for that overestimation in the OP is literally because central Euros have increased east Asian affinity when compared to south Euros, but the author, by wrongly assuming they don't(wrongly because of other statistics), concludes that any shift in the african direction must be due to african admixture

this is why Sardinians in the same study get a 0.2% with ADMIXTURE but much more using the authors dumb idea

using my own ideological interpretation of scientific data, I show you most non south Euros have part amerindian DNA, thus they are non white mongrels who should go back to the steppe
welcome to Sup Forums man

Find one testing for the same metrics as the data I posted, please.

>because central Euros have increased east Asian affinity when compared to south Euros
>east Asian
>concludes that any shift in the african direction must be due to african admixture
>african
>african admixture=/=african admixture
If you can prove your claim, sure. Source your conclusion, or else we take the current information if no refutation is offered.

post your sources first and argue your data, you are the one making the claim in the OP

>wikipedia
>moorjani et al
>ameateur college funded research

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373
Your turn.
Genetic fallacy. The truth is not dependent on the source, but the contents.
The source is above. Now the wikipedia point is gone. What has Moorjani said that is untrue?
In what way is his claim and data incorrect because of his amateur college expertise?

explain the methods used yourself, we are all able to quote shit we don't understand

in any case
dienekes -> sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian
can't link it due to this stupid spam system

>The truth is not dependent on the source
oh you naive child

Italoleaf here, 23andme told me I had 10% mideast heritage, can I still say Deus Vult

What? The evidence is posted right there, the conclusion is clear. You attack the source's methods, you need to explain what it is about the methodology that renders the conclusion inept.
>oh you naive child
It isn't a good reason to dismiss a source. There is a difference between cynicism and fallacious reasoning.

1% nigger is fine
out of africa theory

I told you were to look at for the explanation, now read it or fuck off, it's quite obvious you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

That's great, but ad-homs aren't arguments. Just repeating for sources or information that has already been provided won't substantiate your assertions. Keep making the same claims, though. The evidence clearly shows Sub-Saharan admixture in southern Europeans. Refute it or leave, this is getting old.

I refuted it myself, you refused to comment on it(because you are illiterate). Then I told you where to look for the explanation and once again you won't argue against it. I clearly won the argument. Peace.

>I refuted it myself
Source?
>because you are illiterate
Ad-homs won't source your claims.
>Then I told you where to look for the explanation
Source? Which specific part of the conclusion did you refute? What portion of the methodology is inaccurate and why?

>dienekes.com -> sub-saharan-admixture-in-west-eurasian
>can't link it due to this stupid spam system

that isn't a source. You asked me for a source, but you are exempt from your own rules? Link to a specific claim, burden of proof is on you, not me. I can just tell you "go check out the moorjani study", that isn't technically a source.

>that isn't a source
not an argument, once again you refuse to read the refutation because it hurts your feelings
peace, I'm out victorious

Failure to substantiate your claims is fallacious.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. Denied!
Now source it or leave, mixed breed.

We Italians accept the rejection of the world's white people. From now on, you will be white, and we will just be Italian.

Oh, just one more thing - please remove the following from the "White People's Inventions" column and move them over to "Italian Inventions:"

newspaper, nitroglycerin, radio, ballet, opera, the piano, the parachute, medical school, the induction motor, film festivals, perfume, epidemiology, military aircraft, the violin, the university, liposuction, the hydrofoil, electroplating, dentures, DESKTOP COMPUTERS, the book, the carburetor, the barometer, ballistics...

And you know what, never mind about the rest of the inventions but make sure you move The Renaissance and the Roman Empire over to our list, and you may as well move Modern Science on over too.

Also, there are a few formerly white people who you'll need to cross off your list:

Galileo, DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Marconi, Vespucci, LaGuardia, Scorcese, DeNiro, de' Medici, Botticelli, Modigliani, Columbus, Napoleon...

You know what guys, I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to get back to you before we can finish this legal separation process, this list of inventions, accomplishments, and great people over the last 2500 years is way, way, way too long for a Sup Forums thread - much longer than any of yours, possibly even all of yours combined.

Maybe we should all get together in person with our attorneys?

Ciao for now, white people.

>From now on, you will be white, and we will just be Italian.

And Sub-Saharan African, from the data.

>trips of truth twice