Phill, whatever you think is irrelevant is, in reality, irrelevant. People's ancestry and "genomic similarity" does not really exist as you think it does. Two people of European origins, who live in the same country or even community may not be similar genetically. For example: Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations. On average, nearby populations tend to resemble each other more than distant ones, but individual members of the same population, Watson and Venter in this case, can be very different. In short, if races are defined as subspecies, there is no such thing in humans. The best way to know what is in a person’s DNA is to study that person’s DNA. How would you classify Watson and Venter? As Korean? Or is Seong-Jin Kim a European? Since they are closer to Seong-Jin Kim genetically than they are to each other, despite both of them being of European descent and both from the US. If we were to apply your classification of "shared ancestry", it would be clear that neither Watson and Venter shared an ancestry with each other. But being European, they also do not share an ancestry with Seong-Jin Kim. Humans are not that genetically diverse. Your application of "shared ancestry" is simply a reflection of invading forces in the UK, for example. But there is no evidence of shared ancestry within the UK itself. To wit, people from different counties in the UK, do not share an ancestry with each other and are very much genetically not the same at all under your application of "race". What we now know, with the advance of the knowledge of DNA and the study of genes and biology, that we are not that diverse and any differences literally only exist externally by way of looks, which are affected by diet, health and fitness and location as early human populations had to adapt to the climates they migrated to, which resulted in only minor changes to their appearance and diet, but it did not create or result in different "races". I think you need to go back and read through our exchange about this and you might see where you went wrong. Nordid is a major race of what? What is a "major race"? How are Nordic people biologically different to others, exactly? What do they have, that no other groups around the world have that would set them apart from every other human on this planet to the point where they are a different species of hominid to classify as a different "race" in the last 12,000 or so years? For example, Norway's genetic history shows and tracks human migration from parts of Asia and Europe, not to mention Africa as well. So how are they a "major race" by your definition? What is a "sub-race"? One that is less pure than the other? If that is the case, then "Nordic" race is not a "major race". To claim that each of these groups share an ancestry is to spit on their history and ignore it altogether. The people of the UK do not even share an ancestry. It is laughable that you could think or believe they do. Why do you think they do when they are so genetically distinct from each other and show migration from different parts of Europe and Asia, not to mention the Middle East and Africa? How do you determine they share an ancestry? What ancestry are they sharing? From when? Do you have a time line or some sort? Anthropological evidence that the people of Scotland shared an ancestry with the people who inhabited the South of England? And if you continue to use the language of white supremacist and Nazi's, I will call you out on it. You have contradicted yourself in this thread and your IQ thread. You are basing your "shared ancestry" and "race" based on colour. So which "race" is more advanced if we take your "shared ancestry" into consideration, considering how numerous races would exist if you were taken seriously.. In short, there would be no "race" because each individual would pretty much be classified as a different race. You have yet to support any of your arguments with science and you have instead relied on terminology and white supremacist writings. Your reliance on Darwin, is hysterical, when we consider what we have learned since Darwin traveled the world and made his observation based on a belief that stems from colonisation of different Continents and worlds and classifying people based on colour alone. I am not lying about what you said.