← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16738112

10 posts 4 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16738112 >>16738655 >>16739672 >>16739674 >>16740137 >>16743254 >>16744549 >>16744573
Why do Australasians could be modeled as part sub saharan if they don't have any sub saharan ancestry?
Anonymous No.16738655 >>16739666
>>16738112 (OP)
Australia was colonized by Dutch and Brits in the 17th and 18th.
Anonymous No.16739666
>>16738655
No slaves from africa in Australia
Anonymous No.16739672
>>16738112 (OP)
bcuz they black, bitch
Anonymous No.16739674
>>16738112 (OP)
Because the leftmost column, for instance, is entirely projected onto sub-saharan and eurasian. Since the australian abbos are not much related to either, the outcome is fairly arbitrary (meaningless). Their "africanness" disappears in the third column when a relevant category arrives.
Anonymous No.16740137 >>16741229
>>16738112 (OP)
Retard. Stay the fuck away from genomics. Too many lifeless braindead NPCs shitting this field already.
Anonymous No.16741229
>>16740137
You are retard
Anonymous No.16743254
>>16738112 (OP)
Maybe they swam there
Anonymous No.16744549
>>16738112 (OP)
>Native South Indian admixture in Australian aboriginals
Intredasting...
Anonymous No.16744573
>>16738112 (OP)
>Pais Vasco (Basque Country)
>Basque (French)
What's the difference?