Debunking the Dalit Duo propaganda regarding genetic distances between Dravidians and Punjabis

[Gengar]

The title is a joke, don’t get offended. But the underlying message is true: I am debunking their claims. They were falsely claiming that Punjabis and Dravidians have a genetic distance of 0.08, implying shared modern ancestry. They misinterpreted the data from Vahaduo, even after I corrected them. It’s actually a genetic distance of 8, and therefore there is no recent shared ancestry between us.

Using my personal genetic data, I checked the distance between myself and another northwestern Indic individual, considering I’m also a northwestern Indic (Punjabi).

As you can see, Vahaduo says there’s a distance of 0.02152955. According to them, this would mean a genetic distance of 0.02. Wrong. The real genetic distance is 2.15.

To demonstrate this, I added our G25 coordinates into Genoplot’s PCA plot. You can clearly observe the genetic is actually 2.15, and not 0.02, which lines up with what I said earlier.

Once there's a genetic distance of 5 or more, there is NO shared ancestry. To put my post into perspective, two individuals from the same province in the same country were slightly more distant than an Irish person is to a Belgian (a genetic distance of 2.11)! In terms of Punjabis and Dravidians, it's a genetic distance that's 4x as the distance between an Irish person and a Belgian. Let that sink in.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-DRAVIDIAN POST! PERSONALLY I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOT OF DRAVIDIANS BUT IT IS ANCIENT. MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY.

 

[Gengar]

This post by @CFW432 took a different route but came down to the same conclusion as what I was saying:

Tagging users involved in the original discussion: @JohnDoe @Jason Voorhees @GigaStacySexual @Panzram @CFW432

 

[chadhamed]

Arabs and south asians is like comparing buggatis to bikes

 

[rehabcel]

Arabs and south asians is like comparing buggatis to bikes

Fr saudis are literally Indians with oil money

 

[160cmcurry]

good one

bleep bloop

 

[FastBananaCEO]

It took bro nearly 7 years of rotting here to make a mathematical post

 

[Gengar]

View attachment 3983783
good one

View attachment 3983784
bleep bloop

You are an outlier bhai, you’ve got roots from Pakistan since you’re a Sindhi Hindu and therefore you will be genetically closer to us.

Other Hindus who are western-shifted are all originally from southeastern Pakistan (Jats, Rors in Sindh) or eastern Pakistan (Khatris in Punjab). They can do sem2sem. Altogether they account for 1% of the population, or <5%.

There’s Kamboj too, but I’m not entirely certain of their origins. They were ancient Iranian, but I’m not sure if they lived in eastern Iran or eastern Afghanistan. Probably eastern Afghanistan but who knows.

 

[Gengar]

It took bro nearly 7 years of rotting here to make a mathematical post

View attachment 3983800

This is actually an important post when it comes to genetics, I too was under the impression that 0.02 would mean 0.02, but nope. I figured this out myself but people still peddle the wrong information regarding this, it’s kind of surprising.

Well, not too surprising. People still say “such and such population is closest to the IVC” when in reality we don’t have any IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) remains, we only have IVCp (Periphery) outside of the core IVC region. They’re in Iran and Turkmenistan respectively, so we can’t really say who’s truly close to the IVC until we get our hands on their remains. Probably nothing more than a pipe dream.

 

[160cmcurry]

’

 

[160cmcurry]

You are an outlier bhai, you’ve got roots from Pakistan since you’re a Sindhi Hindu and therefore you will be genetically closer to us.

Other Hindus who are western-shifted are all originally from southeastern Pakistan (Jats, Rors in Sindh) or eastern Pakistan (Khatris in Punjab). They can do sem2sem. Altogether they account for 1% of the population, or <5%.

There’s Kamboj too, but I’m not entirely certain of their origins. They were ancient Iranian, but I’m not sure if they lived in eastern Iran or eastern Afghanistan. Probably eastern Afghanistan but who knows.

nah, family’s bengali. all of them cope with islam, they grew up around dhaka i think

 

[160cmcurry]

nah, family’s bengali, all of them cope with islam. they grew up around dhaka i think

wow double!!!

 

[registerfasterusing]

So if i score a distance of 0.05, then am i related to that population or not? I assume no

 

[Gengar]

nah, family’s bengali. all of them cope with islam, they grew up around dhaka i think

I thought you were that Sindhi Hindu, nvm. What kind of Bengali are you?

 

[imontheloose]

Ok Chad.

 

[Gengar]

So if i score a distance of 0.05, then am i related to that population or not? I assume no
View attachment 3983848

A distance of 0.05181781 on Vahaduo is actually a genetic of 5.18.

A genetic of 5 is a lot. That means you’re not related to those populations. However, it is possible you share certain ancestors.

What is your known ethnic background?

 

[Gengar]

Ok Chad.

I’m a sub3 truecel.

 

[imontheloose]

I’m a sub3 truecel.

Ok Volchad.

 

[registerfasterusing]

A distance of 0.05181781 on Vahaduo is actually a genetic of 5.18.

A genetic of 5 is a lot. That means you’re not related to those populations. However, it is possible you share certain ancestors.

What is your known ethnic background?

Parskahye, northern irish, English, swiss German, iranian Azeri.

I made a thread about why these results confused me earlier if u would like to read:

The Pecheneg origins of the Gagauz, Deliorman Turks, and Kangarlu Azeris

After analyzing my Illustrative DNA results and doing research of mine own, I’ve come to discover the potentiality of the pre-Ottoman origins of several Turkic groups in the Balkans and West Asia. As far as I am aware, my Azeri ancestry can be traced back to the Kangarlu tribe, itself a branch...

looksmax.org

 

[Gengar]

Parskahye, northern irish, English, swiss German, iranian Azeri.

I made a thread about why these results confused me earlier if u would like to read:

The Pecheneg origins of the Gagauz, Deliorman Turks, and Kangarlu Azeris

After analyzing my Illustrative DNA results and doing research of mine own, I’ve come to discover the potentiality of the pre-Ottoman origins of several Turkic groups in the Balkans and West Asia. As far as I am aware, my Azeri ancestry can be traced back to the Kangarlu tribe, itself a branch...

looksmax.org

My phone is at 1%, but I’m gonna read it. Since you’re mixed, you’re going to be further away from other populations so these genetic distances make sense in your case.

That said, even though you’re mixed race, the non-European side is still genetically closer to Europeans due to the ancestral components they have. Iranians for example are high in ANF (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer) which is why they’re closer to Europeans than, let’s say, Punjabis who have a decent amount of Steppe ancestry, more than the other MENA groups. That is why even Arabs are closer to Europeans than South Asians are even though South Asians and Europeans both have Steppe whereas Arabs pretty much don’t.

 

[Greypiller]

The title is a joke, don’t get offended. But the underlying message is true: I am debunking their claims. They were falsely claiming that Punjabis and Dravidians have a genetic distance of 0.08, implying shared modern ancestry. They misinterpreted the data from Vahaduo, even after I corrected them. It’s actually a genetic distance of 8, and therefore there is no recent shared ancestry between us.

Using my personal genetic data, I checked the distance between myself and another northwestern Indic individual, considering I’m also a northwestern Indic (Punjabi).

As you can see, Vahaduo says there’s a distance of 0.02152955. According to them, this would mean a genetic distance of 0.02. Wrong. The real genetic distance is 2.15.

To demonstrate this, I added our G25 coordinates into Genoplot’s PCA plot. You can clearly observe the genetic is actually 2.15, and not 0.02, which lines up with what I said earlier.

Once there's a genetic distance of 5 or more, there is NO shared ancestry. To put my post into perspective, two individuals from the same province in the same country were slightly more distant than an Irish person is to a Belgian (a genetic distance of 2.11)! In terms of Punjabis and Dravidians, it's a genetic distance that's 4x as the distance between an Irish person and a Belgian. Let that sink in.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-DRAVIDIAN POST! PERSONALLY I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOT OF DRAVIDIANS BUT IT IS ANCIENT. MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY.

Im too white to get this

 

[Panzram]

The title is a joke, don’t get offended. But the underlying message is true: I am debunking their claims. They were falsely claiming that Punjabis and Dravidians have a genetic distance of 0.08, implying shared modern ancestry. They misinterpreted the data from Vahaduo, even after I corrected them. It’s actually a genetic distance of 8, and therefore there is no recent shared ancestry between us.

Using my personal genetic data, I checked the distance between myself and another northwestern Indic individual, considering I’m also a northwestern Indic (Punjabi).

As you can see, Vahaduo says there’s a distance of 0.02152955. According to them, this would mean a genetic distance of 0.02. Wrong. The real genetic distance is 2.15.

To demonstrate this, I added our G25 coordinates into Genoplot’s PCA plot. You can clearly observe the genetic is actually 2.15, and not 0.02, which lines up with what I said earlier.

Once there's a genetic distance of 5 or more, there is NO shared ancestry. To put my post into perspective, two individuals from the same province in the same country were slightly more distant than an Irish person is to a Belgian (a genetic distance of 2.11)! In terms of Punjabis and Dravidians, it's a genetic distance that's 4x as the distance between an Irish person and a Belgian. Let that sink in.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-DRAVIDIAN POST! PERSONALLY I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOT OF DRAVIDIANS BUT IT IS ANCIENT. MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY.

Mirin'

 

[JohnDoe]

Look at preston and then look at Salludon, SEM2SEM? sem2sem my fucking ass, you dravidian niggas are abo tier next to punjabi BVLLS

 

[GenerationalAutism]

"Hello saaaar, for the price of only 200 rupees, saaar, you can helping me prove my saaar brahminhood saar yes saarr, please, my brahminhood, thanking you say, deliveroo saar i am pyoor dravidian saar no brahmin

fuck you shitskin retard

 

[tondro]

nah, family’s bengali. all of them cope with islam, they grew up around dhaka i think

Wtf how are you this short? The only Bengalis I see on these forums are giga-manlets like you.

 

[160cmcurry]

I thought you were that Sindhi Hindu, nvm. What kind of Bengali are you?

don’t know, just know my ancestors have big ties to islam considering how everyone has arabic names. the entirety of my dad’s side have gook eyes, many of them pass off as SEA. probably originated somewhere around east of dhaka considering his admixture. my mom however grew up very comfortable compared to my dad, very low traces of gook admixture

 

[160cmcurry]

Wtf how are you this short? The only Bengalis I see on these forums are giga-manlets like you.

SEA admixture is responsible for the short stature of bengalis. one of the reasons why some of us look more SEA than curry. if there’s a bengali you see that’s of extreme short stature, there’s a good chance it’s because of his SEA side

 

[Jason Voorhees]

I'll reply once Im free

 

[Robloxfan25]

You can take my first born child

 

[tondro]

SEA admixture is responsible for the short stature of bengalis. one of the reasons why some of us look more SEA than curry. if there’s a bengali you see that’s of extreme short stature, there’s a good chance it’s because of his SEA side

Not exactly accurate. While manlets like you exist, the newer generation is actually quite tall, tbh. The avg is around 5'8- 5'9. It’s famine genetics that caused the older generation to be shorter. Since the diet is improving, we’re seeing really good growth among the newer generation

 

[LTNUser]

Arabs and south asians is like comparing buggatis to bikes

Nigga not all South Asians look bad

 

[GigaStacySexual]

The title is a joke, don’t get offended. But the underlying message is true: I am debunking their claims. They were falsely claiming that Punjabis and Dravidians have a genetic distance of 0.08, implying shared modern ancestry. They misinterpreted the data from Vahaduo, even after I corrected them. It’s actually a genetic distance of 8, and therefore there is no recent shared ancestry between us.

Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before

Once there's a genetic distance of 5 or more, there is NO shared ancestry.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY

You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-DRAVIDIAN POST! PERSONALLY I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOT OF DRAVIDIANS BUT IT IS ANCIENT. MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.

you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.

I'll reply once Im free

No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

 

[Lightskin Ethnic]

All that for me being a Tajik bvll as a Bengali

 

[Jason Voorhees]

View attachment 3985018
Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before
View attachment 3985215
View attachment 3985237

I already tried telling OP this. Genetic genetic distance more than 1 make sens.e Vahaduo raw output might show 0.0325 but it is represneted or is refeered as 3.25 rescaled for ease of use. 8.0 as distance is a rescaled value not raw G25 output. A raw distance of 8.0 would be absurd like comparing humans and Neanderthals or something. Also genetic distances are always a gradient, never cutoffs. Being above a certain number doesnt mean they are not related.

You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

View attachment 3985364
LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.
View attachment 3985369
you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.


No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

Interesting. I have personally never used Vahaduo because they all seemed to have a steep learning curve and I have never been good in biology. Also I agree curries should first see themselves as south asians. People outside will look at the divisions and always try to take advantage of it. Even though I might shir or mock people on forums like this, I never reveal any real vulnerability in real life. There's a layer of self-protection there, online is one thing, but in person, I keep my guard up. It's a mix of skepticism, pride, and the reality of how the world judges us. Its best to keep these ideas to yourself even if you believe in them. @Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic

 

[GigaStacySexual]

View attachment 3985018
Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before
View attachment 3985215
View attachment 3985237


You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

View attachment 3985364
LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.
View attachment 3985369
you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.


No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

@160cmcurry @aladdinmaxxer @LTNUser

 

[SMVmaxxed #1 JIT]

Look at preston and then look at Salludon, SEM2SEM? sem2sem my fucking ass, you dravidian niggas are abo tier next to punjabi BVLLS

Dravidians: Deep set eyes, beautiful dark skin, strong jaws, wide palates, wide frames, great muscle building genetics

Northern Indians and their Paki brothers: yellow piss undertones, bug eyes, weak jaws, skinny fat genetics, small frames, synonymous with pedophiles

 

[Jatt]

View attachment 3985018
Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before
View attachment 3985215
View attachment 3985237


You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

View attachment 3985364
LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.
View attachment 3985369
you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.


No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

I dunno what this is

TLDR?

 

[GigaStacySexual]

I dunno what this is

TLDR?

TLDR: Dalit duo is right. Gengar is wrong

 

[Lightskin Ethnic]

I already tried telling OP this. Genetic genetic distance more than 1 make sens.e Vahaduo raw output might show 0.0325 but it is represneted or is refeered as 3.25 rescaled for ease of use. 8.0 as distance is a rescaled value not raw G25 output. A raw distance of 8.0 would be absurd like comparing humans and Neanderthals or something. Also genetic distances are always a gradient, never cutoffs. Being above a certain number doesnt mean they are not related.

Interesting. I have personally never used Vahaduo because they all seemed to have a steep learning curve and I have never been good in biology. Also I agree curries should first see themselves as south asians. People outside will look at the divisions and always try to take advantage of it. Even though I might shir or mock people on forums like this, I never reveal any real vulnerability in real life. There's a layer of self-protection there, online is one thing, but in person, I keep my guard up. It's a mix of skepticism, pride, and the reality of how the world judges us. Its best to keep these ideas to yourself even if you believe in them. @Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic

~ somali

 

[Bars]

TLDR: Dalit duo is right. Gengar is wrong

View attachment 3985018
Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before
View attachment 3985215
View attachment 3985237


You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

View attachment 3985364
LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.
View attachment 3985369
you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.


No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

I already tried telling OP this. Genetic genetic distance more than 1 make sens.e Vahaduo raw output might show 0.0325 but it is represneted or is refeered as 3.25 rescaled for ease of use. 8.0 as distance is a rescaled value not raw G25 output. A raw distance of 8.0 would be absurd like comparing humans and Neanderthals or something. Also genetic distances are always a gradient, never cutoffs. Being above a certain number doesnt mean they are not related.

Interesting. I have personally never used Vahaduo because they all seemed to have a steep learning curve and I have never been good in biology. Also I agree curries should first see themselves as south asians. People outside will look at the divisions and always try to take advantage of it. Even though I might shir or mock people on forums like this, I never reveal any real vulnerability in real life. There's a layer of self-protection there, online is one thing, but in person, I keep my guard up. It's a mix of skepticism, pride, and the reality of how the world judges us. Its best to keep these ideas to yourself even if you believe in them. @Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic

First time seeing Gengar getting obliterated ngl

 

[JohnDoe]

Dravidians: Deep set eyes, beautiful dark skin, strong jaws, wide palates, wide frames, great muscle building genetics
View attachment 3985545


Northern Indians and their Paki brothers: yellow piss undertones, bug eyes, weak jaws, skinny fat genetics, small frames, synonymous with pedophiles
View attachment 3985543

You look like a nigger, that is why you and your folk try and mock Pakistanis when deep down you know we are superior and have the most aryan DNA in the entire continent, keep crying black boy. You'll always be beneath us.
Now i see why "brahmin/Northern indians" are disgusted by you retarded low caste dalits, you really are like animals and that's why they treat you like animals. 85 IQ mongrels

 

[JohnDoe]

View attachment 3985018
Your claim that the correct genetic distance is 8.0 , not 0.08, is false.
Vahaduo, and the G25/Global 25 coordinates it uses, calculates genetic distance using a system of Euclidean distance. The results are expressed as decimals, where lower values indicate a closer genetic relationship. These are basic stuff that we learned in class 11th and 12th. Those double digit units that you see in IllustrativeDNA are rescaled metrics used for making it user friendly for Hobbyist like you.

Vahaduo Distance (Approx.)	Interpretation	Fst Equivalent (Qualitative)	Example Population Pairs
< 0.020	Excellent Fit	Very Low	An individual vs. their own population
0.020 - 0.050	Close	Low Differentiation	Spanish vs. French, Czech vs. Slovak
0.050 - 0.100	Distant	Moderate Differentiation	North Indians vs. South Indians, Irish vs. Greek
> 0.100	Very Distant	Great Differentiation	European vs. East Asian, African vs. European

Distant genetical distance equates to moderate genetic differentiation. Meaning distant moderate shared ancestry not "no shared ancestry" that you are claiming. Even @Jason Voorhees told you this before
View attachment 3985215
View attachment 3985237


You yourself contradict your own statement.
Dravidians and indo aryans having no shared ancestry could only be true if Dravidians were fully AASI and Indo aryans were fully west eurasian.

"MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO"
Not their female ancestors more like their female ancestors sister.

View attachment 3985364
LMAO.
You are looking at a 2D screenshot of a 3D plot. The apparent length of the lines is heavily distorted by perspective. A line that looks short might be pointing away from the viewer, while a line that looks long might be parallel to the screen. You cannot measure the true 3D distance by looking at its 2D shadow. This problem becomes even worse because the actual data is not 3-dimensional but 25-dimensional (in the case of G25). The PCA plot only shows you the first two or three most significant dimensions.
View attachment 3985369
you can see it in your own PCA plot. The distance between gujjar and gengar appears much closer than 2. Because the 2d plot cannot properly visualize a 25d data.

I don't have anything against either indic or dravidians (heck I am half indic (pahadi) and Dravidian (deccani muslim from Maharashtra)) but I hate the divisions that some people try to create among curries. Division among curries is the reason as to why curries got brutally raped by anglos and others.

Conclusion : Dalit duo is right. You are wrong

source for all the things:
My class 12th NCERT bio textbook

You can verify this with your buddies over reddit.


No need to Bhai. He showed that he is incapable of having a civil discussion by calling us Dalits. Then tried to pass it off as a joke.

@Chadeep @Lightskin Ethnic @Jatt

Dravidian and pakistani sem2sem saaaar, you wish lil nigga you fucking wish.

 

[Uehdbwidbfngj]

View attachment 3986926 View attachment 3986930 Dravidian and pakistani sem2sem saaaar, you wish lil nigga you fucking wish.

Dravidian’s never stop coping
They tryna bring us down with them

 

[JohnDoe]

Dravidian’s never stop coping
They tryna bring us down with them

saaar we are sem can't you see? genetic difference 0.00001% only saaar this meaning punjabi pakistani BVLLS and dravidian negro same people saaar this shit is so cringe, dravidians need to stop sem2seming and be proud of what and who they are, being self-hating trying to sem2sem with people who aren't like you will get you laughed at.
These guys know they're the lowest caste now trying to bring us Pakistanis to their level when we are ABOVE their highest caste aka brahmin

 

[Judgement]

 

[Justakid]

The title is a joke, don’t get offended. But the underlying message is true: I am debunking their claims. They were falsely claiming that Punjabis and Dravidians have a genetic distance of 0.08, implying shared modern ancestry. They misinterpreted the data from Vahaduo, even after I corrected them. It’s actually a genetic distance of 8, and therefore there is no recent shared ancestry between us.

Using my personal genetic data, I checked the distance between myself and another northwestern Indic individual, considering I’m also a northwestern Indic (Punjabi).

As you can see, Vahaduo says there’s a distance of 0.02152955. According to them, this would mean a genetic distance of 0.02. Wrong. The real genetic distance is 2.15.

To demonstrate this, I added our G25 coordinates into Genoplot’s PCA plot. You can clearly observe the genetic is actually 2.15, and not 0.02, which lines up with what I said earlier.

Once there's a genetic distance of 5 or more, there is NO shared ancestry. To put my post into perspective, two individuals from the same province in the same country were slightly more distant than an Irish person is to a Belgian (a genetic distance of 2.11)! In terms of Punjabis and Dravidians, it's a genetic distance that's 4x as the distance between an Irish person and a Belgian. Let that sink in.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-DRAVIDIAN POST! PERSONALLY I DO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOT OF DRAVIDIANS BUT IT IS ANCIENT. MY MALE ANCESTORS MIXED WITH THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THERE IS SIMPLY NO RECENT SHARED ANCESTRY.

Where did you get your own g25 cords, or where did you get your genetic data

 

[160cmcurry]

Not exactly accurate. While manlets like you exist, the newer generation is actually quite tall, tbh. The avg is around 5'8- 5'9. It’s famine genetics that caused the older generation to be shorter. Since the diet is improving, we’re seeing really good growth among the newer generation

nope, you just don’t notice it. there’s one thing everyone from my dad’s side has in common, their small gook eyes. i have a 6’5 grandfather on my maternal’s side but wasn’t fortunate enough to inherit the height. SEA people in general are genetically subhuman, responsible for the subhumanity of bengalis. british famine isn’t even what ruined curries, it’s them practicing arranged marriages. inbreeding generations deep, recycling the same subhuman features over and over. famine just killed people, arranged marriages ruined the gene pool