those labels are derived from human genetics:
1- West Eurasians
2- East Eurasians
3- Sub-Saharan Africans
4- South Eurasians
5- Mixed Race
If a person isn't genetically 85+% of only one of the first 4 genetic groups above then said person belongs to the fifth group which is Mixed Race.
it's roughly:
West Eurasians
>15%
East Eurasians
>20%
Sub Saharan African
>30%
South Eurasians:
>almost 0% (negligible)
Mixed Race:
>35%
yeah, but where's North and South America?
cool
Indians are East Eurasians.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about the continents... they seem to be missing from the map...
the sixth group:
DIOS MIOS
He didnt incude them because they are unimportant in racial research.
doesn't make sense, arbitrary, completely fallacious... you're hired
It says "the world's current demographics using 5 label groups".
When i look at that picture of "the world", i see 2 continents missing.
I didn't see anything about "racial research", he uses "human genetics".
I don't see what the big deal is...
Are you really that surprised to find africans in africa and europeans in europa and asians in asia?
Kek'd
the OP pic is about basal genetic groups. pure native americans would be the "East Eurasians" in the OP pic. But north and south America are mostly mixed race. mestizos, mulattos, castizas, mixed with ngeros and so on. the other side of the map is pretty mixed race. just like central asia, south asia and other such places.
how's south eurasian population negligible?? did a nuke went off on india and i didn't know about or something?
Africa needs land clearing.
kek
the overwhelming majority of indians are less than 85% South Eurasians. only a few tribes in of negligible total population in parts of souther india & sri lanka are higher than 85% South Eurasian. That's why I classified mosr of south asia as mixed race. There isn't 1 single basal population that dominates their genes.
If you want to see South Eurasian genetics in action go to Pupa New Guinea or the Solomon Islands.
Bullshit graph.
There's r1a which are the oldest arians. They should be "north asians". Eventually they moved southward into iran and india, and westward to mutate into r1b.
Your graph makes it look like the other way around, but history, linguistics, biology... Don't support your claim. Why would you move away from Africa or Europe if you started there? That's the same fallacy as the "out of Africa" theory.
Uh…Finland…what’s going on big guy?
Don’t tell me the memes were true
you're confused. this is "reconstructed" archaic autosomal dna not haplogroups. the basal populations would have lived in the stone age not the copper or bronze ages.
& r1a pre-dates the aryans
yeah and that's the same shade half of the middle east is in haha
>"reconstructed" archaic autosomal
Wat. Why is Australia on there then if it was archaic?