User talk:Guled2016

DNA tests

You want to know what I think, huh? These DNA tests are intriguing, but they're ultimately inaccurate. Somalis generally do not share any significant uniparental lineages with Bantus. They do, though, with Egyptians, Berbers and Maghrebis [1]. These Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations are also skeletally different from Bantus. Further, there is no Bantu substrate in any of these languages. The question is, then, what is the cause of these strange DNA results? Assuming that these individuals are ethnically Somali on both sides of their family, it likely comes down to, as AcidSnow indicated, the populations that the gene clustering software used as the proxy samples for the "African" component. These populations almost invariably carry genes that their Bantu or Nilotic ancestors obtained via assimilation of ancient Cushitic, Egyptian or Berber peoples. Unfortunately, the clustering software often mistakes these old, absorbed genes as being of Bantu or Nilotic origin. How do we know this? Through uniparental markers, among other ways. Sometimes this Cushitic admixture is a known element (like among the Maasai, Samburu, Turkana, Kikuyu, etc., who, through Cushitic influence, now carry between 20%-50% E1b1b paternal lineages), but other times it is more obscure (like among the Nuer, who, through Cushitic/Egyptian/Berber influence, now carry anywhere between 0%-40% Eurasian maternal lineages). Actually, Cavalli-Sforza made this same mistake in his large HGHG analysis from 1994, when he treated Cushitic-admixed groups like the Maasai and Nuer as "pure" Nilotes and Nilotic-admixed groups like the Rendille as "pure" Somalis (though they aren't even Somali) [2]. To his credit, he acknowledged that he had messed up, but he didn't know enough about these particular ethnographic areas to be able to pinpoint the actual cause of that error [3]. Thanks to ancient DNA analysis, though, the scientists are gradually ameliorating their biohistorical understanding. We see this especially with the new Lazaridis analysis on Neolithic/Eneolithic populations [4]. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Guled2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not participate sock puppet activities. I have never been a sock puppet. I always respected Wikipedia rules.

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence on top of the technical evidence is far too strong for me to believe that explanation. Huon (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.