Could the 4% West African I score on 23AndMe be due to the 'Bantu migration'? (Not Somali, sorry!)

Oh okay, so it turns out I was mistaken, lol. And I'm Acholi.

This is a great reminder to appreciate just how frequently populations have moved around. And expectedly so, over the course of thousands of years. This was extremely informative, thank you so much 🙂
He is wrong if he claims you specifically don't have Bantu-related ancestry. You do have a minor Bantu DNA showing on the models consistently. The deep West African-like ancestry is already nested within all Nilo-Saharans and is not the main reason you are showing extra Bantu. The proof of this is the clear Central African hunter-gatherer-derived signature you're showing. Again, it coincides with your people being from Uganda, consistent with the genetic evidence. I know this because you see it in the actual G25, modeling your DNA with a good fit.

The Sudanic groups that intermingled with Kordofanians, such as the Nuba, whom we have samples of, even the groups with West African-specific DNA on the Saharan Nilo-Saharan side in the Central Sahara don't show these Mbuti-like levels you have. So, the only way for you to explain this is through a south-north admixture with a population that mediated it, plus the Bantu affinity is already evidence through signature and fit, making this all reconcilable through that pathway. If we replace the Bantu with Yoruba (which the Saharan groups pick up since West African groups mixed with Nilo-Saharans in Western Sahara), the fit turns worse noticeably for you. This means you don't have additional West African-mediated gene flow.

This is pretty robust.

We have an actual Ugandan Nilo-Saharan, albeit low resolution, that shows how this is consistent. Higher Bantu with other central African-originated DNA with no West African influence:
1708797093636.png


We have studies on Acholi showing Bantu signature and not West African as the source, as you can see in the admixture color scheme:
1708797139251.png


You see, if you had West African DNA, you would have a bulk that was blue color and not purple, which is Bantu.

The West African nested deep in the Nilo-Saharan lineage is a very different scenario. 23andMe might (because of the issue I told you about the dearth of sampling and relational parsing regarding your people on the database) inconsistently, without distinguishing between deep and more recent structure, pick up underlying things without acknowledging how it is basically, for the most part, an internal component and is not to be broken down and considered admixture, while at the same time, including Sudanic as separate when the whole thing is mostly Nilo-Saharan. You should not take a direct interpretive reading from them and internalize it. My model is way more accurate.
 
Last edited:
He is wrong if he claims you specifically don't have Bantu-related ancestry. You do have a minor Bantu DNA showing on the models consistently. The deep West African-like ancestry is already nested within all Nilo-Saharans and is not the main reason you are showing extra Bantu. The proof of this is the clear Central African hunter-gatherer-derived signature you're showing. Again, it coincides with your people being from Uganda, consistent with the genetic evidence. I know this because you see it in the actual G25, modeling your DNA with a good fit.

The Sudanic groups that intermingled with Kordofanians, such as the Nuba, whom we have samples of, even the groups with West African-specific DNA on the Saharan Nilo-Saharan side in the Central Sahara don't show these Mbuti-like levels you have. So, the only way for you to explain this is through a south-north admixture with a population that mediated it, plus the Bantu affinity is already evidence through signature and fit, making this all reconcilable through that pathway. If we replace the Bantu with Yoruba (which the Saharan groups pick up since West African groups mixed with Nilo-Saharans in Western Sahara), the fit turns worse markedly for you. This means you don't have additional West African-mediated gene flow.

This is pretty robust.

We have an actual Ugandan Nilo-Saharan, albeit low resolution, that shows how this is consistent. Higher Bantu with other central African-originated DNA with no West African influence:
View attachment 317596

We have studies on Acholi showing Bantu signature and not West African as the source, as you can see in the admixture color scheme:View attachment 317599

You see, if you had West African DNA, you would have a bulk that was blue color and not purple, which is Bantu.
Oh yeah for sure, I was moreso just acknowledging what they shared. But yeah I definitely understand and believe what you've shared - predominantly Nilotic, with minor Bantu (or related) ancestry and no recent WA ancestry. And thanks for taking the time to run my coordinates through those calculators, cause I've never had any clue how to do that myself lmao.
 
He is wrong if he claims you specifically don't have Bantu-related ancestry. You do have a minor Bantu DNA showing on the models consistently. The deep West African-like ancestry is already nested within all Nilo-Saharans and is not the main reason you are showing extra Bantu. The proof of this is the clear Central African hunter-gatherer-derived signature you're showing. Again, it coincides with your people being from Uganda, consistent with the genetic evidence. I know this because you see it in the actual G25, modeling your DNA with a good fit.

The Sudanic groups that intermingled with Kordofanians, such as the Nuba, whom we have samples of, even the groups with West African-specific DNA on the Saharan Nilo-Saharan side in the Central Sahara don't show these Mbuti-like levels you have. So, the only way for you to explain this is through a south-north admixture with a population that mediated it, plus the Bantu affinity is already evidence through signature and fit, making this all reconcilable through that pathway. If we replace the Bantu with Yoruba (which the Saharan groups pick up since West African groups mixed with Nilo-Saharans in Western Sahara), the fit turns worse markedly for you. This means you don't have additional West African-mediated gene flow.

This is pretty robust.

We have an actual Ugandan Nilo-Saharan, albeit low resolution, that shows how this is consistent. Higher Bantu with other central African-originated DNA with no West African influence:
View attachment 317596

We have studies on Acholi showing Bantu signature and not West African as the source, as you can see in the admixture color scheme:View attachment 317599

You see, if you had West African DNA, you would have a bulk that was blue color and not purple, which is Bantu.

The West African nested deep in the Nilo-Saharan lineage is a very different scenario. 23andMe might (because of the issue I told you about the dearth of sampling and relational parsing regarding your people on the database) inconsistently, without distinguishing between deep and more recent structure, pick up underlying things without acknowledging how it is basically, for the most part, an internal component and is not to be broken down and considered admixture, while at the same time, including Sudanic as separate when the whole thing is mostly Nilo-Saharan. You should not take a direct interpretive reading from them and internalize it. My model is way more accurate.
Bruh how the hell u know all of this ?
 
it's conservative classification, many see the Kadu languages as an independent family, 1981 it got classified as nilo saharen, many groups like sene-gambians do have nilo saharens, it's the other way around
I'm clearly talking about the kordofanian languages classified as Niger-Congo, I'm not talking about those that aren't. It's certainly not because of the 5-6% Nilo-Saharan admix in Senegambians that the Nuba and Nilotes score Senegambian in deeper models, they do have some ancient West African admix. Both aren't opposite, by looking at the uniparentals, you can tell that there were several back and forth between West and east Africa
 
He is wrong if he claims you specifically don't have Bantu-related ancestry. You do have a minor Bantu DNA showing on the models consistently. The deep West African-like ancestry is already nested within all Nilo-Saharans and is not the main reason you are showing extra Bantu. The proof of this is the clear Central African hunter-gatherer-derived signature you're showing. Again, it coincides with your people being from Uganda, consistent with the genetic evidence. I know this because you see it in the actual G25, modeling your DNA with a good fit.

The Sudanic groups that intermingled with Kordofanians, such as the Nuba, whom we have samples of, even the groups with West African-specific DNA on the Saharan Nilo-Saharan side in the Central Sahara don't show these Mbuti-like levels you have. So, the only way for you to explain this is through a south-north admixture with a population that mediated it, plus the Bantu affinity is already evidence through signature and fit, making this all reconcilable through that pathway. If we replace the Bantu with Yoruba (which the Saharan groups pick up since West African groups mixed with Nilo-Saharans in Western Sahara), the fit turns worse noticeably for you. This means you don't have additional West African-mediated gene flow.

This is pretty robust.

We have an actual Ugandan Nilo-Saharan, albeit low resolution, that shows how this is consistent. Higher Bantu with other central African-originated DNA with no West African influence:
View attachment 317596

We have studies on Acholi showing Bantu signature and not West African as the source, as you can see in the admixture color scheme:View attachment 317599

You see, if you had West African DNA, you would have a bulk that was blue color and not purple, which is Bantu.

The West African nested deep in the Nilo-Saharan lineage is a very different scenario. 23andMe might (because of the issue I told you about the dearth of sampling and relational parsing regarding your people on the database) inconsistently, without distinguishing between deep and more recent structure, pick up underlying things without acknowledging how it is basically, for the most part, an internal component and is not to be broken down and considered admixture, while at the same time, including Sudanic as separate when the whole thing is mostly Nilo-Saharan. You should not take a direct interpretive reading from them and internalize it. My model is way more accurate.
I appreciate your knowledge but there are holes in your take:

-The study is focused on Ugandan Acholi while she's South Sudanese so her remaining West african admixture being similar is an assumption not a fact. You can see from the bantu purple component than the admixture is still recent and ongoing since its not homogeneous within the Ugandan Acholis so those in South Sudan must have way less.

- In my second comment I clearly mentioned that the most recent West African admixture is more likely to be ubangian than bantu since the former literally live in South Sudan meanwhile no bantu ever set a foot in SSudan as far as I know

IMG_20240224_203840.jpg

IMG_20240224_211250.jpg


They even lived enough in contact with Central Sudanic people(preceded Nilotes in South Sudan) to have their language influenced by them so both Ubangians and Central Sudanic are likely to have mediated WA admixture to Nilotes like Acholis before they even went to Uganda

IMG_20240224_211228.jpg

IMG_20240224_221646.jpg


-The study made the mistake of not including an ubangian group(Azande,Mundu, Banda...) so obviously bantu ancestry it will appears as bantu but it doesn't mean that most of it is actually bantu.
It's the same problem with your model, we don't have ubangian samples so it appears as Bantu but it's actually not bantu for the most part, I know that since I have ubangian ancestry and can model myself with a good fit only using bantu yet it's misleading. Same issue with 23andMe.

-There is another genetic study named "Genetic structure correlates with ethnolinguistic diversity in eastern and southern Africa" where Ugandan Acholis and Lugbara(Central Sudanic) were analyzed and besides their Nilo ancestry (pink), they do have Pygmy admixture(sky blue) like you've shown, Bantu-like admix(again probably Ubangian) and West African admixture solely shown as Igbo-like(blue) and Senegambian-like(green). Many of them have the Igbo-like , Senegambian-like but lack any bantu-like dna so interpreting this West African dna as Bantu is wrong.Noice how the red bantu-like admixture isn't homogenous compared to the remaining West African which shows that this non bantu-like WA admixture has been stabilized so is not recent.
IMG_20240224_211821.jpg



In conclusion, we now know that @Ayen224 like her fellow South Sudanese have ancient West African ancestry dating back to the Green Sahara, some of them probably retaining more or it(Central Sudanic, Acholis...). Besides this ancient admixture, the most recent West African admixture they received is Ubangian-like and was either meditated directly or indirectly by Ubangian admixed Central Sudanic. Bantu speakers aren't found in northern Uganda let alone South Sudan therefore only Ugandan Nilo-Saharans or South Sudanese with recent ancestors from Uganda can have proper Bantu admixture, others simply have Sahelian and Ubangian admixture which can appear as Bantu-like due to a lack of samples(or consideration) towards Ubangian speakers.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2024-02-24-20-22-46-696_com.opera.browser.jpg
    Screenshot_2024-02-24-20-22-46-696_com.opera.browser.jpg
    417.8 KB · Views: 17
I appreciate your knowledge but there are holes in your take:

-The study is focused on Ugandan Acholi while she's South Sudanese so her remaining West african admixture being similar is an assumption not a fact. You can see from the bantu purple component than the admixture is still recent and ongoing since its not homogeneous within the Ugandan Acholis so those in South Sudan must have way less.

- In my second comment I clearly mentioned that the most recent West African admixture is more likely to be ubangian than bantu since the former literally live in South Sudan meanwhile no bantu ever set a foot in SSudan as far as I know

View attachment 317629
View attachment 317630

They even lived enough in contact with Central Sudanic people(preceded Nilotes in South Sudan) to have their language influenced by them so both Ubangians and Central Sudanic are likely to have mediated WA admixture to Nilotes like Acholis before they even went to Uganda

View attachment 317632
View attachment 317637

-The study made the mistake of not including an ubangian group(Azande,Mundu, Banda...) so obviously bantu ancestry it will appears as bantu but it doesn't mean that most of it is actually bantu.
It's the same problem with your model, we don't have ubangian samples so it appears as Bantu but it's actually not bantu for the most part, I know that since I have ubangian ancestry and can model myself with a good fit only using bantu yet it's misleading. Same issue with 23andMe.

-There is another genetic study named "Genetic structure correlates with ethnolinguistic diversity in eastern and southern Africa" where Ugandan Acholis and Lugbara(Central Sudanic) were analyzed and besides their Nilo ancestry (pink), they do have Pygmy admixture(sky blue) like you've shown, Bantu-like admix(again probably Ubangian) and West African admixture solely shown as Igbo-like(blue) and Senegambian-like(green). Many of them have the Igbo-like , Senegambian-like but lack any bantu-like dna so interpreting this West African dna as Bantu is wrong.Noice how the red bantu-like admixture isn't homogenous compared to the remaining West African which shows that this non bantu-like WA admixture has been stabilized so is not recent.
View attachment 317635


In conclusion, we now know that @Ayen224 like her fellow South Sudanese have ancient West African ancestry dating back to the Green Sahara, some of them probably retaining more or it(Central Sudanic, Acholis...). Besides this ancient admixture, the most recent West African admixture they received is Ubangian-like and was either meditated directly or indirectly by Ubangian admixed Central Sudanic. Bantu speakers aren't found in northern Uganda let alone South Sudan therefore only Ugandan Nilo-Saharans or South Sudanese with recent ancestors from Uganda have proper Bantu admixture, others simply have Sahelian and Ubangian admixture.
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed the Green Saharan element -- that is not what is popping up on the G25 calculation. And no.. the Acholi do have Bantu-related ancestry, and so does OP, which I processed myself using Vahaduo against averages of some 30,000 samples and systematically screened it to a meticulous measure, showing conclusively that the best fit is not from West African sources but Bantu-related ones. I don't want to brag, but I have experience here, and anyone who uses G25 can confirm that my results and interpretation, even bringing in other evidence tied in with the whole regional context, is sound and robust.

We're not having a long-winded intellectual exercise because you don't want to accept the facts, brodie. Have a nice weekend.
 
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed the Green Saharan element -- that is not what is popping up on the G25 calculation. And no.. the Acholi do have Bantu-related ancestry, and so does OP, which I processed myself using Vahaduo against averages of some 30,000 samples and systematically screened it to a meticulous measure, showing conclusively that the best fit is not from West African sources but Bantu-related ones. I don't want to brag, but I have experience here, and anyone who uses G25 can confirm that my results and interpretation, even bringing in other evidence tied in with the whole regional context, is sound and robust.

We're not having a long-winded intellectual exercise because you don't want to accept the facts, brodie. Have a nice weekend.
You clearly didn't read my comment. This genetic study and 23andme didn't assign them some Senegambian admixture out of nowhere, you can't confuse Baganda and Wolof dna. On this study you can see that some only have Senegambian and Igbo-like dna while others have Bantu-like dna on top of that. If everything is Bantu then why did it solely appeared as West African amongst some of them while others also had Baganda-like Bantu admixture (in red)?
Secondly the bantu-like dna isn't solely Bantu especially in South Sudan where no Bantu are found natively meanwhile Azande are the 3d or 4th ethnic group in South Sudan and there are plenty of other Ubangian speaking groups (Mundu, Balanda, Banda...). It appears as Bantu on G25 simply because we don't have any Ubangian samples, if you do then kindly tell their name or share them. I have Ubangian ancestry and also use G25 to model myself, I'm telling you that I can model my West African ancestry with a good fit only using Bantu samples yet i'm not 100% Bantu.
Bantu-like ≠ actual Bantu!!!

Thirdly the Acholi you're talking about are ugandans not South Sudanese so them apart from their Sahelian and Ubangian admix, them having proper Bantu admixture doesn't prove anything regarding their northern SSudan relatives as Bantus didn't even reach northern Uganda. If they did then I'd gladly receive any source regarding their presence there.
 
You clearly didn't read my comment. This genetic study and 23andme didn't assign them some Senegambian admixture out of nowhere, you can't confuse Baganda and Wolof dna. On this study you can see that some only have Senegambian and Igbo-like dna while others have Bantu-like dna on top of that. If everything is Bantu then why did it solely appeared as West African amongst some of them while others also had Baganda-like Bantu admixture (in red)?
Thirdly the bantu-like dna isn't solely Bantu especially in South Sudan where no Bantu are found natively meanwhile Azande are the 3d or 4th ethnic group in South Sudan and there are plenty of other Ubangian speaking groups (Mundu, Balanda, Banda...). It appears as Bantu on G25 simply because we don't have any Ubangian samples, if you do then kindly tell their name or share them. I have Ubangian ancestry and also use G25 to model myself, I'm telling you that I can model my West African ancestry with a good fit only using Bantu samples yet i'm not 100% Bantu.
Bantu-like ≠ actual Bantu!!!

Secondly the Acholi you're talking about are ugandans not South Sudanese so them apart from their Sahelian and Ubangian admix, them having proper Bantu admixture doesn't prove anything regarding their northern SSudan relatives as Bantus didn't even reach northern Uganda. If they did then I'd gladly receive any source regarding their presence there.
Did you read what I wrote about the 23andMe issue? Go and read that, and please take it in. Because I don't think you understand how those systems work. Go off of my score, not 23andMe. You come off as a rookie; it's not even a joke.

If you use only Bantus and you're not 100% Bantu, that is called "overfitting" -- there is no overfitting on my model, lol. You need to apply reason to modeling, not throw in samples without vetting them. Again, you're talking to a guy experienced in this, so of course, that argument does not work against me since I can see how the comparison is faulty, your methodology, that is, which does not apply to mine.
 
Did you read what I wrote about the 23andMe issue? Go and read that, and please take it in. Because I don't think you understand how those systems work. Go off of my score, not 23andMe. You come off as a rookie; it's not even a joke.

If you use only Bantus and you're not 100% Bantu, that is called "overfitting" -- there is no overfitting on my model, lol. You need to apply reason to modeling, not throw in samples without vetting them. Again, you're talking to a guy experienced in this, so of course, that argument does not work against me since I can see how the comparison is faulty, your methodology, that is, which does not apply to mine.
You didn't answer any of my question. How can you explain that some Acholis/Lugbara don't have any recent Bantu-like admixture according to this study while others do? Do you have any Ubangian samples you use on G25? Do you know the genetics of ubangian speakers ? I'm not talking about choosing Bantu samples on purpose(overfiting), I have no Ubangian sample so this part of my ancestry mainly appear as Bantu even if I use non bantu samples. Why? Because it's the closest to it therefore you can't conclude that this bantu-like dna is really Bantu. It's the same for those Acholis. If you didn't know about Ubangian speakers and how Central Sudanic/Nilotes interacted with them in South Sudan it's fine, we learn everyday
 
You didn't answer any of my question. How can you explain that some Acholis/Lugbara don't have any recent Bantu-like admixture according to this study while others do? Do you have any Ubangian samples you use on G25? Do you know the genetics of ubangian speakers ? I'm not talking about choosing Bantu samples on purpose, I have no Ubangian sample so this part of my ancestry appear as Bantu even if I use non bantu samples. Why? Because it's the closest to it therefore you can't conclude that this bantu-like dna is really Bantu. It's the same for those Acholis. If you didn't know about Ubangian speakers and how Central Sudanic/Nilotes interacted with them in South Sudan it's fine, we learn everyday
I have heard enough "Ubangian" for a lifetime now. You've oversaturated and done those guys a disservice with this.:damn: Have a nice weekend, again.
 
I have heard enough "Ubangian" for a lifetime now. You've oversaturated and done those guys a disservice with this.:damn: Have a nice weekend, again.
I had too, you kept ignoring them as if Nilotes recent Bantu-like ancestry couldn't be from them😂Good that you finally acknowledge their existence, have a nice weekend too.
 
I had too, you kept ignoring them as if Nilotes recent Bantu-like ancestry couldn't be from them😂Good that you finally acknowledge their existence, have a nice weekend too.
I suggest you re-evaluate the whole thing. My writing was a solid body of work that gave rise to a conclusive G25 result that ties credibly with everything reaffirmed/reinforced by previous research and the broader context in a rational compilation. You had incoherent errors, a weak basis, and with lack of strong argument, plus no real understanding of how to bring together these things to a functional platform to present your case because then you would never come defending that low case that does not fit. You have a right to disagree with this to your loss for growth within this field, but I cannot force you or anything, so I think we should end it here.
 
I suggest you re-evaluate the whole thing. My writing was a solid body of work that gave rise to a conclusive G25 result that ties credibly with everything reaffirmed/reinforced by previous research and the broader context in a rational compilation. You had incoherent errors, a weak basis, and with lack of strong argument, plus no real understanding of how to bring together these things to a functional platform to present your case because then you would never come defending that low case that does not fit. You have a right to disagree with this to your loss for growth within this field, but I cannot force you or anything, so I think we should end it here.
The research your talking about includes the study I talked about or you're ignoring it? Having a fitting model on G25 or even on a study is something but the conclusion can differs depending on how you Intepret the results and I disagree with your interpretation. You can't throw away a whole group of millions people living in South Sudan just because a model only using Bantus fit. At least wait to have Ubangian samples before rushing to any conclusion .
I guess the 2024 peer reviewed study "The genetic legacy of expansion of Bantu-speaking people in Africa" showing many Ubangian speakers clustering with Bantu speakers is also full of incoherent errors, right? A model fitting isn't enough, you need to be historically accurate. You can model Amhara with Somali but it's not historically correct so shouldn't be taken literally yet that's what you're doing. Bantu-like ≠ Bantu speaker

IMG_20240225_005128.jpg
 
The research your talking about includes the study I talked about or you're ignoring it? Having a fitting model on G25 or even on a study is something but the conclusion can differs depending on how you Intepret the results and I disagree with your interpretation. You can't throw away a whole group of millions people living in South Sudan just because a model only using Bantus fit. At least wait to have Ubangian samples before rushing to any conclusion .
I guess the 2024 peer reviewed study "The genetic legacy of expansion of Bantu-speaking people in Africa" showing many Ubangian speakers clustering with Bantu speakers is also full of incoherent errors, right? A model fitting isn't enough, you need to be historically accurate. You can model Amhara with Somali but it's not historically correct so shouldn't be taken literally yet that's what you're doing. Bantu-like ≠ Bantu speaker

View attachment 317666
Dude, just give up. It's relentless and mindless. My first posts solved the whole thing. You doubled down on the incoherent irrational route just because you could not concede on basic stuff that was proven. Now you're saying you can model Amhara with Somali... You can but you have to add accurate addition otherwise it will not make sense. I have the narrative on my side. I wrote it down in my paragraph showing the regional cline - learn what that means. I even further showed another Nilo-Saharan Ugandan that fit further into the gradient. Imagine being this illogal that you deny basic facts. Stop writing on the keyboard, please. Find another topic to spend time on if you want to be stubborn with your position. This conversation is finished now, for the millionth time.:dead:
 
Dude, just give up. It's relentless and mindless. My first posts solved the whole thing. You doubled down on the incoherent irrational route just because you could not concede on basic stuff that was proven. Now you're saying you can model Amhara with Somali... You can but you have to add accurate addition otherwise it will not make sense. I have the narrative on my side. I wrote it down in my paragraph showing the regional cline - learn what that means. I even further showed another Nilo-Saharan Ugandan that fit further into the gradient. Imagine being this illogal that you deny basic facts. Stop writing on the keyboard, please. Find another topic to spend time on if you want to be stubborn with your position. This conversation is finished now, for the millionth time.:dead:

Obviously by adding other components, I was referring to their proto-cushite component which can be modeled by Somalis but they don't have any real Somali admixture. My point is that you have to correctly Intepret the results, you works is great but not your conclusion. What you don't want to understand despite evidences from peer reviewed studies its that Ubangian admixture will appear as Bantu admixture because they cluster closer to Bantus compared to West Africans. You need to have those samples, model Acholi with them and Bantu then see which ones Acholis pick, then you'll draw a proper conclusion. Just admit that the Bantu-like dna shown isn't necessarily Bantu and wait for actual Ubangian samples. Nothing more illogical that believing they have Bantu admixture and not Ubangian despite the former not found in South Sudan and Uganda while the latter has been for hundred years as shown by the Central Sudanic linguistic influence they have.
 
Obviously by adding other components, I was referring to their proto-cushite component which can be modeled by Somalis but they don't have any real Somali admixture. My point is that you have to correctly Intepret the results, you works is great but not your conclusion. What you don't want to understand despite evidences from peer reviewed studies its that Ubangian admixture will appear as Bantu admixture because they cluster closer to Bantus compared to West Africans. You need to have those samples, model Acholi with them and Bantu then see which ones Acholis pick, then you'll draw a proper conclusion. Just admit that the Bantu-like dna shown isn't necessarily Bantu and wait for actual Ubangian samples. Nothing more illogical that believing they have Bantu admixture and not Ubangian despite the former not found in South Sudan and Uganda while the latter has been for hundred years as shown by the Central Sudanic linguistic influence they have.
My guy, I told you that point with G25 that you have to use it responsibly, the reason I presented to you the concept of overfitting when you brought up the incongruous and flawed example of comparison of just using random Bantu when you were not 100% Bantu as a rebuttal to my great G25 model. I'm very good at modeling and explaining a reasonable breakdown with historical synthesis for a rational explanation. If you pay me I might teach you because your understanding is shambolic, to say the least.

Let's stop it here. You've made too many errors and can't seem to see reason. I don't know why you stuck with that angle against a case that was solved since the beginning.
 
My guy, I told you that point with G25 that you have to use it responsibly, the reason I presented to you the concept of overfitting when you brought up the incongruous and flawed example of comparison of just using random Bantu when you were not 100% Bantu as a rebuttal to my great G25 model. I'm very good at modeling and explaining a reasonable breakdown with historical synthesis for a rational explanation. If you pay me I might teach you because your understanding is shambolic, to say the least.

Let's stop it here. You've made too many errors and can't seem to see reason. I don't know why you stuck with that angle against a case that was solved since the beginning.
I already said that I wasn't using random Bantu but all availables but no Ubangian sample exists yet. When you don't have the samples you're looking for then what happens? G25 choose the populations that can give you the best fit but it's not to be taken literally as you're lacking samples!! It's very easy to understand, you're probably doing it on purpose because you're too proud to admit another possibility. If you're so good then answer these questions and I might think of paying you or don't answer at all:

Did the scientists releasing the latest paper on Bantu expansion where Ubangians cluster with West-Central Bantus made a mistake?
If they did then where should ubangian speakers cluster according to your knowledge?
If they didn't then do you agree that Ubangian admixture will appear as Bantu in cases of lack of samples(like you currently)?
 

Trending

Top