>>17925637
>Hernandez et al. (2020) identified 11.17±1.87% North African ancestry in southern Portuguese samples (from a population similar to modern northern Moroccans and Algerians), 9.28±1.79% of such ancestry in western Andalusians, and an average of 1.41±0.72% sub-Saharan ancestry in southern Iberians (using Yoruba as a proxy source). Substantially lower levels of North African admixture were further detected in Northern Italians (0.77%) and Tuscans (1%)
this is the study in question
>>17925457 6% north african ancestry on average
>Bycroft et al. (2019) identified regionally varying fractions of Northwest African ancestry in modern Iberians, ranging from 0–12%.
and what's the average of 0 to 12%, it's 6%
>you have nigger admixture. end of history. yes, you can make a meme G25 model where taforalt swallows it all, but it's because taforalt was nigger admixed in the first place. iberians are double niggers.
>17925664
>it's actually around 12.6%,
outdated from 2014
>most studies put the north african admixture around there
this is a lie, see here
>>17925610, here
>>17925457 or pic rel, why is the costa rican always lying? all studies put the nafri ancestry at 3 to 6% on average
>that's a study focusing on basques, aka the only iberians that weren't buckbroken by moors
irrelevant, lazaridis et al 2014 doesn't focus on iberians at all, all iberians are modeled, the study is updated and perfectly valid
>white is what you're not juan
okay? white is irrelevant
