Bu salak fikirlerinle boy gostermeden once, kendine bir Turkmen bulup kendisini hangi etnik kokden gordugunu sorsana...

Belki de Ingilizim der....

We don´t know how many Turks came to Anatolia at 11th and 13th century..

How can you say that ´Turks´ came to ´Turkey´ long before the name Turkey existed? They were Mongols spreading into the West, so Mongolians are Turks? or Turks are Mongolians?

As I read it the Mongolian race spread westward into modern day Turkey, previously Mesopatamia, and conquered most of the country, except a few villages in the far west.

Sorry which century are you talking about B.C or A.D?

Well, what I mean to say is Turkic people have nothing to do with yellow race but caucasoid. The east Turks of central asia mixed with Chinese and Mongols because of Chinese and Mongol occupation and ruling, they became slant-eyed which is the dominant gene. For instance in Chinese records, Kirghiz people depicted as red-haired with green eyes similar to Arabic records or in Oghuz legends, it is stated that wife of Oghuz khan was "gökgözlü" or in Şehname Persian records Turkic tribes were depicted similarly to Arab and Chinese ones. So your comparison of Anatolian Turks with today´s central asian people is just ridiculous. Now what you say also funny, you claim that there was a place called Anatolia with a thousand year of Roman civilization and with a rooted culture and arts before muslim Turks arrived, but suddenly nomad, sepherd Turks with nearly 5% of local people occupied Anatolia, assimilated 95% of local people and Anatolia became a Turkish speaking land within 1-2 centuries, how weak was that Roman culture and how strong was that nomad Turkish culture!! Even crows laugh at this sorry. Before 1071 there were lots of Turkic tribes in Anatolia such as Kumans, Peceneks, Oghuzs, Kipchaks especially in black sea region, eastern anatolia and aegean region. In fact Turkish existence in Anatolia stand far from that like Sakas and Iskits later continued with Sabar/Sibir Turks, then Peceneks and Oghuzs. For your information there are more striking and interesting researches exist about the existence of Turks in Anatolia, need to look over those...

Quoting thehandsom

Well. The answer is very simple: Those people carry more genes with Greek/Armenian origins than slant-eyed central Asians.. Gene researchers are telling the same thing: we have more Greek and Armenian genes than central Asian Turkish genes.. Again, in history, there was not a serious immigration from central Asia.. (there was once but hundreds of years ago and we do not know who those people were..They were from Caucasus but not a source saying that they were from central Asia) But, with all being close community etc, somehow, the numbers dont add up, I am afraid (simple number of people came from central Asia is not big enough- half million to 5-to 15 million) .. But as you also mentioned, since being Turkish is nothing to do with ethnicity, it should not bother us being more Armenian and Greek genetically than central Asian.

Exactly. Who cares about genes? I don´t care about my genetic codes. I am happy being (or calling myself)  a Turk. "NE MUTLU TÜRKÜM DİYENE".

Sözün bittiği yer! Bence bundan sonra herkes sadece SUSSUN, özellikle de şu entel-dantel tayfası! NE MUTLU TÜRKÜM DİYENE!

Celts of Britain was made british by very little amount of anglo-saxons in less than 2 centuries in 5-6 century.. It is a quite a common thing in history that a warrior clan comes into a place and forces their  religion/language etc.. or not necessarly forcing, simply they create the political situation that everybody converts into their religion and language.. The other example is Egypt, Mesopotamia becoming Arabs with the Arab invasion.

But we do have an anomoly in the thesis ´Turks in modern Turkey came from Central Asia´. Why do we have that? we simply dont look like Uyghurs, Kirgiz, Kazaks. Turkmens , Ozbeks. (as I said yesterday in one of my posts, make that test with pictures of our Turkish brothers from central Asia.. The results is we look like more Greeks and Armenians than our central Asian brothers. Also all DNA tests are proving that too..)

This is not a bad thing of course.. why the hell not?..

But because of this anomaly and not accepting the idea that we might be  more Greeks and Armenians than Turks, in 1930 Turkish historians developed this fantasie of  ´actually, Turks spread the world way before than we know.. Greeks and Armenians  actually might be Turks´. It was again during 1930s, the theories of Turks brought civilisation to every corner on earth were flying.. But all those theories were abandoned with the death of Ataturk though..

You sound very much concerned with your Kurdish/Greek/Armenian genes in your genome. So be it. You indeed sound like one of them usually here rather than a Turk.

We don´t care about our genes. We call ourselves a Turk and that´s all.

"NE MUTLU TÜRKÜM DİYENE"

I  care very little about the race of people to be honest. 

But I wonder if Hitler knew he was genetically more Jewish than a German, if he would do the same..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

You don´t care the race of people, eh? That´s why you are always #1 at ethnicity and race discussions?

Very funny!

Duy da inanma!

As i said there were Turkic people far more before than 1071, it was clear, even some were working as paid soldiers in Byzantine army, in Malazgirt these paid soldiers sided with Seljuk Turks which was one of the key factor of Seljuks winning this battle. And according to funny comparison of theh, these people as well should have looked like as today´s central asian people .

As for the examples about celts and mezopotamia, if one accepts Turkish/Islamic culture was far more developed than Roman/Christian culture in Anatolia as pre-condition, yes it was possible .

Well 

Accept it.. "We Turks in Anatolia are the real Turks but all other Turks in central Asia are mixed with Mongolians-that is the reason why we dont look like them-, we are more Turks than them" is not a winning argument. 

Apart from the looks, DNA researches are saying what I am saying basically..