‘Turkey will never rule Arab World’ – Egypt’s FM

[MertKaan]

These are the main sources available. Other sources were also available, but some links did not work.

Hodoğlugil, U., & Mahley, R. W. (2012). Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations. Annals Of Human Genetics, 76, 128-141. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x

Genetic affinities among Mongol ethnic groups and their relationship to Turks - Machulla - 2003 - Tissue Antigens - Wiley Online Library

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

Genetic affinities among Mongol ethnic groups and their relationship to Turks - Machulla - 2003 - Tissue Antigens - Wiley Online Library

it says nothing about anatolian turks and central asian turks; instead mentions about mongols and their relation with other nations.

is this your source to make a point?

Hodoğlugil, U., & Mahley, R. W. (2012). Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry Reveal Relatedness among Eurasian Populations. Annals Of Human Genetics, 76, 128-141. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x

as for this one; the researchers are not clear enough about the origin of their samples and they also admit that point :

PC analysis and FRAPPE/STRUCTURE results from three regions in Turkey (Aydin, Istanbul and Kayseri) were superimposed, without clear subpopulation structure, suggesting sample homogeneity.

which means the samples could have come from any origin; in Turkey over 25 ethnic population live, thanks to multi-nation ottoman era. Todays World there are many ethnic diversities in any country; for example in Iran ( over 15 ethnic groups)there are over 25 million ethnic Azerbaijani Turks; if some researcher takes a few samples from those Turks and say Iranian people are of Oghuz Turks; would that be credible result for you?

----o------

if you still insist, then i ask for other Turkish members to translate the info in the link below to satisfy this member about Turks in Anatolia and Turks in cental asia have the same gene. in the link there are some sources(links) to support the results in the info, so please add the links to shut this nonsense claim up once and for all.

Türklerin kökeni - Vikipedi

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

it says nothing about anatolian turks and central asian turks; instead mentions about mongols and their relation with other nations.

is this your source to make a point?

Mongols and Turks were very close in ancient times, lived near each other, mixed, and even worked together. Cengiz khan had a lot of turkic soldiers.

as for this one; the researchers are not clear enough about the origin of their samples and they also admit that point :



which means the samples could have come from any origin; in Turkey over 25 ethnic population live, thanks to multi-nation ottoman era. Todays World there are many ethnic diversities in any country; for example in Iran ( over 15 ethnic groups)there are over 25 million ethnic Azerbaijani Turks; if some researcher takes a few samples from those Turks and say Iranian people are of Oghuz Turks; would that be credible result for you?

I agree, you have some points here. However it's not 1 or 2 researchs. Different research tell us about the lack of genetic relation between Turkey Turks and eastern Turks. Ad to this that the past 100 years some eastern turkics people immigrated to Turkey.

if you still insist, then i ask for other Turkish members to translate the info in the link below to satisfy this member about Turks in Anatolia and Turks in cental asia have the same gene. in the link there are some sources(links) to support the results in the info, so please add the links to shut this nonsense claim up once and for all.

I believe there will be some shared genes. However looking to facial characters of todays turks and to that of eastern turkic peoples is like comparing a british or kurdish man to a Japanese. So much difference exists between them.

 

[Islamic faith&Secularism]

Mongols and Turks were very close in ancient times, lived near each other, mixed, and even worked together. Cengiz khan had a lot of turkic soldiers.

We are talking about Turks in Anatolia and central asia, right? Are you trying to change the topic to get away the current one?

I agree, you have some points here. However it's not 1 or 2 researchs. Different research tell us about the lack of genetic relation between Turkey Turks and eastern Turks. Ad to this that the past 100 years some eastern turkics people came immigrated to Turkey.

i asked you to post the links of those researchs so that i can read them; but you did not, so why are you still insisting on unknown claims with no links?

I believe there will be some shared genes. However looking to facial characters of todays turks and to that of eastern turkic peoples is like comparing a british or kurdish man to a Japanese. So much difference exists between them.

i answered that in my previous posts, so why still saying the same thing with different words? no argument left, and stick to the refuted ones again?


-----o-----

if you still insist, then i ask for other Turkish members to translate the info in the link below to satisfy this member about Turks in Anatolia and Turks in cental asia have the same gene. in the link there are some sources(links) to support the results in the info, so please add the links to shut this nonsense claim up once and for all.

Türklerin kökeni - Vikipedi

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Türkle..._Asya_T.C3.BCrkleri_ile_Genetik_Benzerlikleri

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

@islamic faith&Secularism

I'm juist quoting what the researchers have conluded.

The contribution of the Central Asian genetics to the modern Turkish people has been debated and become the subject of several studies. As a result, several studies have concluded that the historical (pre-Islamic) and indigenous Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population

For example, for this quote, there are 7 different sources.

Genetic history of the Turkish people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've read this part: Anadolu Türklerinin Orta Asya Türkleri ile Genetik Benzerlikleri

However, after this we read the following:

Nevertheless, today's Turkish people are more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations,[8][18] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the Mongols and the Turks, despite the historical relationship of their languages (The Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Mongolian populations).[19] In addition, another study looking into HLA genes allele distributions indicated that Anatolians did not significantly differ from other Mediterranean populations.[10] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[1][7]

Read from the link, many research have done. I think between 9 to 15% of turkic genes exist among turks, this is written by Turkish researchers themselves.

 

[MertKaan]

[MENTION=24785]



Read from the link, many research have done. I think between 9 to 15% of turkic genes exist among turks, this is written by Turkish researchers themselves.

Why dont you look your tajiks and iranians DNAS ? then you will see your genetic more closely with arabs and turks than tajiks.

Also that link show only compared mongolid dnas not at all and they affected by eu centrist historians.
it is still not an ultimate truth. Actually people who accept this theory dont even care to study it.
They simple believe it, without questioning it . And as far as I know every theory is ought to be questioned... Otherwise it becomes a dogma, an axiom without proof. Thus making this theory UNSCİENTİFİC and DUBİOUS. Main supporters of ''ALTAİC'' theory are eu centrist and some bunch of poor pissed racists . This is enough to understand why this theory was invented .Since it is nothing but a sheer racist theory. Thanks to it a rich history of relationships of Turkic peoples with Finns, I-E and Asians is being overlooked. Tragic consequences of this theory is that Turkic peoples are seen as ''İnvaders'' without any solid undeniable proof. In conclusion Iwill only say that '' ALTAİC theory is a big lie . A biased unscientific racist theory of XIX c.
WE,TURKİC PEOPLES, HAVE NOTHİNG TO DO WİTH EAST ASİAN PEOPLES OR MONGOLS

if you want to see turkic dnas look there >> Turkic Genetics - Turkicworld

THERE İS NO ALTAİC LANGUAGE FAMİLY THERE İS NO ALTAİC RACE

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Why dont you look your tajiks and iranians DNAS ? then you will see your genetic more closely with arabs and turks than tajiks.

Also that link show only compared mongolid dnas not at all and they affected by eu centrist historians.
it is still not an ultimate truth. Actually people who accept this theory dont even care to study it.
They simple believe it, without questioning it . And as far as I know every theory is ought to be questioned... Otherwise it becomes a dogma, an axiom without proof. Thus making this theory UNSCİENTİFİC and DUBİOUS. Main supporters of ''ALTAİC'' theory are eu centrist and some bunch of poor pissed racists . This is enough to understand why this theory was invented .Since it is nothing but a sheer racist theory. Thanks to it a rich history of relationships of Turkic peoples with Finns, I-E and Asians is being overlooked. Tragic consequences of this theory is that Turkic peoples are seen as ''İnvaders'' without any solid undeniable proof. In conclusion Iwill only say that '' ALTAİC theory is a big lie . A biased unscientific racist theory of XIX c.
WE,TURKİC PEOPLES, HAVE NOTHİNG TO DO WİTH EAST ASİAN PEOPLES OR MONGOLS

if you want to see turkic dnas look there >> Turkic Genetics - Turkicworld

THERE İS NO ALTAİC LANGUAGE FAMİLY THERE İS NO ALTAİC RACE

First of all, you should understand that I'm not a racist like your grey wolf puppies. Central Asia changed extremely after waves of turco-mongol people. Also before that soghdian iranics had always lived beside asian peoples, so probably they mixed also. Iran mainland was long time seperated from turkics and we have also mixed with elamites and kassites for example. It's natural that our looks differ from central asian Iranics to a certain degree. I've no problem with this facts.

However do you admit that majority of your genes are from armenian, greek, balkan and other indo-european peoples? Or you come with this eurocentrist bullshit argument?

Are you denying turkic relation with mongols? seriously I want to know this question.

For the link, I came up with 7 sources, you came with 1. Readers should follow this discussion and decide.., based on the different sources and links in this topic.

 

[MertKaan]

First of all, you should understand that I'm not a racist like your grey wolf puppies. Central Asia changed extremely after waves of turco-mongol people. Also before that soghdian iranics had always lived beside asian peoples, so probably they mixed also. Iran mainland was long time seperated from turkics and we have also mixed with elamites and kassites for example. It's natural that our looks differ from central asian Iranics to a certain degree. I've no problem with this facts.

However do you admit that majority of your genes are from armenian, greek, balkan and other indo-european peoples? Or you come with this eurocentrist bullshit argument?

Are you denying turkic relation with mongols? seriously I want to know this question.

For the link, I came up with 7 sources, you came with 1. Readers should follow this discussion and decide.., based on the different sources and links in this topic.

if you compare only mongolid dnas yes then 15 % turks are living in turkey however our central asian turkic brothers have lower mongolid y dna then uzbeks uygurs kirghiz and mostly other turkics were not Turk I dont say we are pure turks but we dont have only 15 % turkic genes. turkic peoples lived and mixed with mongols but Mongol and Turks have totally different race .

 

[eastwatch]

Why the posters from Turkey are getting annoyed with my talking the truth, it is beyond my imagination. What is wrong with them? Why cannot they accept the truth as it is?

Turkic people of central asia in the middle ages were very very energetic. They destroyed many kingdoms and established their own empire. One of these central Asian Turkic people from Afghanistan even invaded India/Delhi in 1190 and Bengal in 1198 and defeated the local Kings.

These Turks established the 1st Muslim Empire in Delhi. Bengal was another Sultanate entity built by these energetic people in 1198. Khaliji Turks remained dominant in Bengal for about 3 centuries.

Today, Bengal is an independent Muslim-majority country only because the Muslim Khaliji Turks from Garmshir of Afghanistan conquered this region many centuries ago. But, it is wrong to assume that all the Bengali Muslims are the descendants of those Turks.

Many new stocks of Muslim people from central asia migrated to our land and many locals accepted Islam. So, gradually the Turkic Muslims lost their identity here in Bengal. The Muslim faces are completely different from the Turkic faces because of many admixtures with new immigrants as well as conversions.

The Khaliji Turks even named the Bengal Capital City as "Ghor," the Muslim Capital under their mentors/benefactors in Afghanistan. But, it changed to "Gaur" or "Gaud," during the next few years because the locals could not pronounce GHOR properly.

What I want to say is my intention from the beginning was not to upset the Turks, but was to talk about their ancestors. Is it correct to accept only the Turkic ancesstry when the modern day Turks of Turkey have multiple ancesstry?

Only a few thousands central Asian Turkic people conquered the east Anatolia in 1066. So, where are the locals who had been there for many centuries?

 

[Wholegrain]

You are totally MORON. Have you ever been in turkey ? What do you know about turkish people and culture ? You are thinking only turkish people are caucosid turks inthe turkic world? haha Moron central asian turkic people mixed with mongols they are not pure turk. Old turkic people were caucasoid if you dont believe me go search old chinese sources.

Hunnu (xiongnu) people black hair and dark eyes were considered '' evil '', bringing bad luck and calamity. According to chinese sources Hunnu , as well their Wusun and Tiu-kui descendants were blond or redhead , tall '' high - nosed''.
Even today , many mongoloidifeid turkic peoples keep their uniquse caucosid traits not typical for east asians
Today 2/3 of turkic peoples are caucasoid with little mongolid mix or without any sign of mongoloidization at all. Europans and mongolists/asians taught us '' asian origins'' thing our fathers never heard about

Wrong, you are confusing Xiongnu wth the Yenisei Kirghiz. It was the Yenisei Kirghiz who were blond and red haired and considered black hair and black eyes bad luck.

my friends turkic wariors always was fighting consistently against european pagan chiristians and budists since huns dont forget old turks believed 1 god(gök tengri) thats why they adopt easily islam for God's sake they fought with europe crusader armies in anotolia in 1095
Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

our anchestries were not european they were turkic wariors then can you tell me why we are muslim

There are Buddhist Turkic peoples, like the Tuvans, Yugurs, and polythiest pagan Turkics like the Sakhas (Yakuts). There are also Christian Turkic peoples like the Chuvash in Russia. The Cumans were a Christian Turkic tribe and the Khazars were Turks who converted to Judaism.

Tengriism is also a pagan, polythiest religion with several gods and pagan shamanism. Tengri literally means "sky", the ancient Turks worshipped the sky as their god.

All nomadic peoples in east asia worshipped the sky, the Mongols worshipped it, so did sedentary people like Manchus and Han chinese, the sky is the supreme god in all of their religions.

Why the posters from Turkey are getting annoyed with my talking the truth, it is beyond my imagination. What is wrong with them? Why cannot they accept the truth as it is?

Turkic people of central asia in the middle ages were very very energetic. They destroyed many kingdoms and established their own empire. One of these central Asian Turkic people from Afghanistan even invaded India/Delhi in 1190 and Bengal in 1198 and defeated the local Kings.

These Turks established the 1st Muslim Empire in Delhi. Bengal was another Sultanate entity built by these energetic people in 1198. Khaliji Turks remained dominant in Bengal for about 3 centuries.

Today, Bengal is an independent Muslim-majority country only because the Muslim Khaliji Turks from Garmshir of Afghanistan conquered this region many centuries ago. But, it is wrong to assume that all the Bengali Muslims are the descendants of those Turks.

Many new stocks of Muslim people from central asia migrated to our land and many locals accepted Islam. So, gradually the Turkic Muslims lost their identity here in Bengal. The Muslim faces are completely different from the Turkic faces because of many admixtures with new immigrants as well as conversions.

The Khaliji Turks even named the Bengal Capital City as "Ghor," the Muslim Capital under their mentors/benefactors in Afghanistan. But, it changed to "Gaur" or "Gaud," during the next few years because the locals could not pronounce GHOR properly.

What I want to say is my intention from the beginning was not to upset the Turks, but was to talk about their ancestors. Is it correct to accept only the Turkic ancesstry when the modern day Turks of Turkey have multiple ancesstry?

Only a few thousands central Asian Turkic people conquered the east Anatolia in 1066. So, where are the locals who had been there for many centuries?

We've discussed this with MertKaan repeatedly in this thread and I posted all the relevant evidence there that ancient Turkics had mongoloid features.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ght-create-free-trade-zone-6.html#post4599900

Several Turkish posters like gr8vision and @Charon agree with the things you posted, see their posts here. MertKaan is just a closet racist against Mongoloids.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ht-create-free-trade-zone-10.html#post4630676

 

[eddieInUK]

Why these Muslim countries want to rule each other ? Its quite a joke since they call "brother" to each other.

 

[Wright]

Turks are central Asians like Armenians and Iranians. Its natural there will be mixing between different populations. Even Russians can have the Asian eyes. Turks are mostly mixed with some Greek, Levant Arabs, Armenians and Azerbaijani's.

Either way I find the Ottoman Turks more historically influential than the ones in Kazakhstan etc. These central Asian nations are among the least known. Seldom do you hear their names in the news ever. Turkey is in the news on a regular basis.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Turks are central Asians like Armenians and Iranians. Its natural there will be mixing between different populations. Even Russians can have the Asian eyes. Turks are mostly mixed with some Greek, Levant Arabs, Armenians and Azerbaijani's.

Either way I find the Ottoman Turks more historically influential than the ones in Kazakhstan etc. These central Asian nations are among the least known. Seldom do you hear their names in the news ever. Turkey is in the news on a regular basis.

No..the first turks are from these regions
Centre-west part of modern China.
Siberia
Mongolia

Later they moved to central asia

 

[T-123456]

Why these Muslim countries want to rule each other ? Its quite a joke since they call "brother" to each other.

For the last time,we dont want to rule anyone ,Arabs should rule Arabs.
This is a bs thread!

 

[eddieInUK]

For the last time,we dont want to rule anyone ,Arabs should rule Arabs.
This is a bs thread!

thanks, if in a case, an arab country is in trouble, will turkey send troops to set a new government because you are all muslims.