When compared Ethiopian groups to four samples ; Dinka, Mota and two other Egyptian groups, Somali come out to be more 50 % Mota
The link for the study
The link for the study
This study shows that more than 50% of Somalis autosomal is Mota
- Thread starter Aurelian
- Start date
Bundasliga
VIP
noble Macrobian Mota
The alchemist
VIP
It's a mistake. Check the distance:
Lower distance means better fit. So, the Sudanic sample approximates that part of our ancestry way better.
I don't understand why the eggheads spend a whole year writing to publish a paper while performing a damn rookie mistake like this. It's like they don't have any sense and can't read the literature. 70% of studies I read show massive neglect of rudimentary things that messes up the quality.
They did something massively wrong if their result is that we're a quarter non-African, half Mota, and quarter Sudanese.
They're either using a statistical tool that doesn't quite measure autosomal values quite how we want to interpret it, or one of those fucking samples is compromised. Perhaps they botch the statistics. But that would be crazy since they check those things before publishing.
Lower distance means better fit. So, the Sudanic sample approximates that part of our ancestry way better.
I don't understand why the eggheads spend a whole year writing to publish a paper while performing a damn rookie mistake like this. It's like they don't have any sense and can't read the literature. 70% of studies I read show massive neglect of rudimentary things that messes up the quality.
They did something massively wrong if their result is that we're a quarter non-African, half Mota, and quarter Sudanese.
They're either using a statistical tool that doesn't quite measure autosomal values quite how we want to interpret it, or one of those fucking samples is compromised. Perhaps they botch the statistics. But that would be crazy since they check those things before publishing.
What if they wanted to represent these groups based on the groups mentioned above
So what's our real mota component? Since I've started following genetics i was always under the impression that we had the least mota while Habeshas have more, Oromo a bit more and wolayta Ethiopians have the most among major groups.
The alchemist
VIP
I found a surprising sentence that reaffirms what I have pointed out many times through a reference to the paper you linked:
Recent work using WGS data inferred that NS and AA lineages may have diverged ≈11–16 kya (11), though it is unclear the extent to which (e.g.) differential recent West Eurasian admixture among AA relative to NS speakers may affect this inference.
I checked the citation:
I've been writing repetedly that the divergence between the Nilo-Saharans and the Cushitic East African ancestry goes deep into the Paleolithic and surpasses temporally beyond the Nilo-Saharan language family's genesis time-depth, and this justifies my assertions. I'm not playing around. I don't want that Sudanese goof to mention me ever again with his Nilo-Saharan ideology (not Nilotic). I'll kick you in your face, ya zool.
Stop saying "proto-Nilotic," for that is categorically wrong labeling.
@Aurelian Thank you for linking that study, sxb. It was worthwhile, despite its apparent flaws.
Excuse the petty point-making and one-up-man-ship (rare moments use), but this is a big deal, guys, and it goes in line with exactly what I said, even the Epipaleolithic time depth (exactly my speculated time range - above the 11kya line, up to 15kya-ish), so I should drop the mentions: @Shimbiris @Reformed J @Step a side
Recent work using WGS data inferred that NS and AA lineages may have diverged ≈11–16 kya (11), though it is unclear the extent to which (e.g.) differential recent West Eurasian admixture among AA relative to NS speakers may affect this inference.
I checked the citation:
I've been writing repetedly that the divergence between the Nilo-Saharans and the Cushitic East African ancestry goes deep into the Paleolithic and surpasses temporally beyond the Nilo-Saharan language family's genesis time-depth, and this justifies my assertions. I'm not playing around. I don't want that Sudanese goof to mention me ever again with his Nilo-Saharan ideology (not Nilotic). I'll kick you in your face, ya zool.
Stop saying "proto-Nilotic," for that is categorically wrong labeling.
@Aurelian Thank you for linking that study, sxb. It was worthwhile, despite its apparent flaws.
Excuse the petty point-making and one-up-man-ship (rare moments use), but this is a big deal, guys, and it goes in line with exactly what I said, even the Epipaleolithic time depth (exactly my speculated time range - above the 11kya line, up to 15kya-ish), so I should drop the mentions: @Shimbiris @Reformed J @Step a side
The alchemist
VIP
No problem. That is what a "proxy" is considered to be. Just a stand-in hypothetical that is supposed to represent a component. The issue here is that they use a bad sample, but even further their "Egyptian" levels are the same as Tutsis than Somalis. We have around double that. Furthermore, the Mota used with Nilotic should not be overwhelming like that even if Mota is oftentimes inflated.
The alchemist
VIP
Besides some Somalis that have Ethiopian influence on an individual basis, I'm not sure if we have Mota-proper DNA. Most of that shit is statistical artifact residue that compensates for interrelated genetics.
For example, the fit doesn't meaningfully change significantly when you remove Mota when it shows up in small forms. We see the same things with other components, nothing unique. Mota has strange properties also, so it can compensate for some ANA-like stuff without directly having anything to do with our ancestors other than a deeper cline that I have talked about before. I believe the diversity in the Nile Valley was different many thousand years ago and Mota-like DNA and East African vague correlations can be the reason for the association without any direct contact.
The Oromos and Habash clearly got the Ethiopian forager DNA.
Last edited:
How can Scientific paper make such a mistake. I thought the science on our DNA was pretty much settled T least when it comes to percentages of Eurasian, natufian, northafrican, Dinka , mota etc
What’s mota?
Step a side
VIP
Ethiopian hunter gatherer
Step a side
VIP
Yes. I thought the only Cushites with so much mota ancestry were konso and other southern Ethiopians who speak cushitic languages
Step a side
VIP
They are bored and making up new hypothesis. We just need to have more ancient samples from the Nile Valley and the Horn to learn more. Playing around with old samples like Mota, Dinka, Natufian etc won’t help. They are being amateurish to be honest.
Yes it’s believed the Mota group was concentrated in the southwestern part of Ethiopia. This is why us Somalis have hardly any of it. But then again Mota like ancestery was found to have been up north during the Mesolithic period in Egypt. Stuff is complicated but we need more ancient samples pre Neolithic to get real understanding
Step a side
VIP
True and we would be shorter. The extra Yemenite and Mota is what got the Habesha /IOromo shorter and more light skinned. Their original Dinka like ancestry got diluted which makes you dark, tall and slim/gracile
Step a side
VIP
True. This why we call it Dinka like.
Trending
-
-
-
Madow talks about why athletes prefer caadan women over madow women- Started by Dibleyy
- Replies: 95
Latest posts
-
-
I was on the train today and I deeped they don't even know i'm literally laandheere- Latest: datesfrompuntland