Strange

So why did you say that when I asked how you defined race? I didn't ask what the cause was. "Tang 2005" is not very precise at all. I tried googling but just came up with lots of seemingly irrelevant results. I did ask you to clarify but apparently you couldn't be bothered to be precise. A precise reference would be, for example: Tang, N. and Cousins, C. (2005), Working Time, Gender and Family: An East-West European Comparison. Gender, Work & Organization, 12: 527–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00287.x

Your definition (below) just seems a little arbitrary and subjective (things like "You can split off the Japanese or whatever"). What is disparaging about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham

Very droll. Who said it was?

How do you define "better"? The universe may well be in decline. In fact it obviously is. It is expanding and cooling. Eventually we will not be able to see any other galaxies. On what basis do you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years? Can you show the calculations that lead you to that conclusion? Again, what does "better" mean? Also, stars form and die but eventually the conditions for creating new stars will be gone and no new stars will form. Then the last star will die and the universe will be cold and dark. IS that "better"? What is there, on Earth, that recognises beneficial change? What is there, in stars and galaxies, that can be described as reproduction?

But you weren't describing genomic similarity (or it didn't sound like you were). No. Enligheten me.

Sounds a little ... unspecific. How would you quantify these things for the purpose of a scientific analysis?

So I don't really know what your point is. There are no "rescue systems" built into the planet. In what way are these three things relevant to your point?

Please show us exactly what the nature of this problem is.

No it doesn't. As evidenced by the fact that many in the scientific community are religious.

That is where you seem to leave logic and take off into science fiction (or Creationism). There is NO logical reason why there should be any such systems in place. The Earth came about by chance, we happened to have evolved while conditions were favourable. If conditions change (perhaps because we change them) we may not find it easy to survive. The nearest thing to what you are describing is perhaps that fact that if we were to be driven to extinction then other species would thrive in our place.

This sounds like a version of Lamarckian inheritance, which has been shown not to work. Also, if such a system did work, don't you think that it would be in use after millennia of breeding of plants and animals? Also: burden of proof. Your hypothesis, you need to provide evidence.

And there are no items of infinite mass. The rest makes equally little sense.

It may dissolve the rest of the rock as well! (I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the OP wanted to remove the quartz inclusions from the volcanic rock....)

I am not aware of any models where dark matter can decay into normal matter (but that doesn't mean there aren't any). There are some models where dark matter can annihilate to produce photons. What do you mean by producing time? Time is a dimension.

This is discussion forum. You raised the topic, I assumed you were happy to discuss it. I don't know anything about it so I apologise if my questions seem trivial to you.

If you feel there is some such bias, there probably isn't much you can do about it. Other than find another forum more to your liking. There is no rule that says an Internet forum has to be fair.

So what are these 5? (And do you have some sort of reference tot he definition?) Does that mean "what people declare themselves to be"?

As I think some have said, at some level (if we go back far enough) there is only 1. Where does the 5 come from? How does ancestry define 5 groups of humans? (Ditto for 30.) What is "SIRE"? (I did try googling quickly, but didn't see anything immediately relevant.)

OK. So I gather you are interested in using this concept is scientific studies. How would you evaluate and quantify this, for that purpose? For example, would you need to look at the family history of each participant in the study? And if so, how many generations back? And if not, do you use something else as a proxy for ancestry?

How many races are there in your system? What race would you assign to someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Berber, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican? Is that the same race as someone with ancestors, in the last few generations, who were Chinese, Polynesian, San, Thai, Indian, Arabian, Norway, Inuit, Sicilian, Mexican?

That appears to be an example of the etymological fallacy. A hypothesis or theory can be shown to be wrong, but that does not make it pseudoscience. Newtonian gravity is "wrong" (at some level) that doesn't make it pseudoscience. Phlogiston theory is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience. The steady state universe model is wrong, but it wasn't pseudoscience.

Do you have any evidence that supports this idea?

It might be like a large complex machine that is running down very slowly. (In fact, it almost certainly is. See also: entropy.)

Are you talking about throwing it up in the air? Or providing it with rocket engines? Or something else? (The answers may be different in each case.) And why an umbrella? It will require just as much energy to keep an umbrella in the air as any other object if the same weight. Unless the shape of the umbrella happens to be a good aerofoil, which is possible I suppose...