about.google/products. Everyone on this page is a negro. Again, is every, single, person in america a negro?!??!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Yes. Ironically Indian probably share more common ancestry with Europeans through Aryan population migration, even though Dravidian (&other) Indian types are not Euro
It's not even ironic, its absolutely true that Indians are more closely related to Europeans than East Asians. This is confirmed through genetic analysis.
If you look at genetic population supergroups, Europeans, arabs, and Indians make up one supergroup the same way that east asians and pacific islanders make up another supergroup, as do the various native populations of the Americas. Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian aboriginals also make up their own groups too, but they lack to genetic diversity to have supergroups. In other words, they are monoethnic and geographically limited and not closely related to other human populations.
Put another way, a Swede and a Gujarati are not that closely related but are more closely related to each other than either of them and a Korean. And all other human populations are more closely related to each other than Sub-Saharan Africans. (A Welsh, Filipino, and Lakota are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to a Nigerian.)
This is not true. An Australian aboriginal and a Swede have a closer common ancestor than either and a Sub-Saharan African.
I should have been more clear. Bantu and Aboriginals are each their own groups not closely related to each other or any other group. But yes, Aboriginals are marginally more closely related to the rest of humanity than they are to Bantu.