Stevie Wonder

Race is defined by ancestry. Is always has been. Shakespeare used the word race to refer to lines of descent. Darwin explicitly defined the word race by shared genealogy. Anybody using an ancestry concept is using a race concept. It's just another word for the same thing. You can say they don't use the word race and pretend they're using a different concept. But you'd be wrong. This is how scholars who use the word race define it. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Race#Definition_of_race By ancestry. You're just playing a silly semantic game. How do you define the word race? Some other way? Well then that's just you and you're not using words according to their common definition. Maybe you define race by "skin color" or something. Fine. Please bear in mind when I use the word race I mean shared ancestry. We're done here.

I already did. You ignored it.

If you go back far enough all living things have common ancestors. That doesn't mean they have the same ancestors. Ancestry based classifications aren't based on ancestors at point X "far back enough". They're based on the totality of ancestry. Please stay in bed and do not waste my time any further with your absurd posts.

QED

Do we have the same mother?

Yes I linked some. You ignored it. Really the quality of discussion here is abysmal and beneath me. Cheers.

LMAO

I don't understand what an "information outline" is. I gave you a simple definition, around 20 times. If you can't wrap your head around simple concepts like some things sharing more ancestors versus other things there is not much I can do about that.

Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid.

You could also predict they have epicanthic folds and EDAR 370A. I could go on. By ancestry. I wrote it in my last post. I've written it about 20 times. Do you have a defective memory? LOL. Organisms share more or less ancestry. Do amoebae have the same ancestors as snakes? No, they have some different ancestors among some common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". Do you have "the same ancestors" as your cousin? You just don't make any sense.

I think I'm really done talking to you. Race is defined by shared ancestry. That's how Darwin defined it. So it's exactly the same as the Darwinian race concept.

You're unaware of any research which uses terms like "European ancestry"? https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/short-telomere-length-is-associated-with-impaired-cognitive-perfo https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/825521

Lol what? I've repeatedly defined race by shared ancestry, just like other taxa. I'm just using standard biology. It allows one to make group associated predictions, and so it's a valid concept. You're the one spewing nonsense about "genetic variation within versus between groups" and gigantic copy pastes as if that somehow contradicts what I'm saying. Why shouldn't I ask you to explain how that's relevant? It was satisfying to see you couldn't. Just fake science. Would you have flipped out about "genetic variation between groups" if I'd mentioned a subspecies of blackbird (who have subspecies between group variation down to 1%)? Blatant political fake science. Well obviously there are million of studies that use the race concept to this day using terms like "European ancestry". Crack a genetics journal. Really? So you would describe Jared Taylor (who was born in Japan) as "looking Japanese"? Or are you playing games? Clearly I meant having a Chinese appearance. Are you too PC to describe people's appearance? Is saying "Chinese looking" a racist hate crime now? I'm never sure what's new. I lived in China for 2 years and Korea for 5, so I can tell them apart. How about you? You get all "OMG I can't even" when people point out anti-White racism? Why is that? But no, feel free to ignore me. I'll happily do the same.

I've already read it. It's Templeton. He's again applying "variation within groups" in the context of denying human races. I asked you to find some cases where this argument is made to test the validity of non-human subspecies, i.e. this being applied in biology outside the context of denying human race. Like show me a paper doing an Fst on some subspecies of worm and then claiming it's not a subspecies because it's under some arbitrary value, with no reference to human races. Templeton fabricates the 25% rule here. The rule referenced in Smith refers to the 75% rule which is for morphological identification reliability in hybridisation zones. It has nothing to do with Fst. Smith made up the "25% Fst" to deny race. It is used nowhere else in biology. Find it being used or referenced anywhere in paper that are not concerned with denying human race. So this is just more fake science. Here's what Smith actually said: Nothing to do with Fst. And how do you explain this:

Interesting how it applies to what you are doing isn't it? I guess defending the on-topic false claims your forum buddies repeat ad nauseam (Lewontin's fallacy, clines) is not possible for you, so you have to resort to false accusations that I am repeating claims while failing to defend them, in order to change the subject

So who do you think did this? And why? Or do you not know?

Given the circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely zero military advantage to Assad doing this. The only effect would be to make Western nations angry because of the dead children in rebel areas (only in rebel areas) we all see on our TVs 24/7. The circumstantial evidence points strongly towards rebels/Israel. We don't have conclusive evidence either way.

We don't have any evidence either way (yet, previous false flag chem attacks have been proven, such as the one proven by MIT). So why assume Assad did it?

How ironic.

According to who? The Islamists attacking the Syrian government (in line with Israel's destabilisation plan for the Middle East to increase Israeli security see e.g. the invasion of Iraq) who are backed into a corner and about to be captured? Why on Earth would Assad drop chlorine in this situation and attract Western strikes? The only people who benefit are Islamist rebels and Israel, either of which, or both, are more likely culprits. My tactic of asking for evidence? In my experience people who try to push stories with no evidence to back them up tend to resort to lame ad hominems to distract from their weak position on the issue at hand.

What evidence?

There's literally no evidence either of these attacks were not false flags. In both cases, ask yourself who benefits. Why would Assad use chemical weapons right as he's clearing up the last rebel areas? It's almost transparently obvious that this is a false flag. Why? Because of a false flag gas attack likely committed by people opposed to Assad? Where is your evidence he did this? Another country around Israel destroyed. How convenient for Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

This is pure hypocrisy. Disgraceful. It's evident right in the post above yours that this is exactly what my opponents are doing. They assert Lewontin's fallacy and the continuum fallacy, I ask them to contrast that with other species, and they simply repeat the same fallacies without doing that. "Trying to make things personal"? You mean like asking me why I'm getting so emotional (which I'm not) and falsely accusing me of calling posters racists? You mean like what you're doing? Getting personal and failing to address the subject? This is truly disturbing dishonesty and I hope a member of staff can sanction you for this.

Is that unique to human races? I didn't see any contrast with divisions in other species. Again does that invalidate divisions in other species? Also aren't you contradicting yourself by agreeing that race isn't a valid concept then using that concept to make statements about group differences in disease susceptibility? Right here in post 3. What's going on here? Did you miss this? Did you forget? It seems odd that somebody would have their point questioned and then go on repeating the same point again and again as if nothing had happened. Can you please explain what's going on? Is this the standard of discussion allowed on this board?