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: