Nope. It's what I used in my post about your claims.
It's necessary to know why the sky is blue to understand the claim. Then they can move on to other knowledge that uses that as a basis. Fundamentals, see? Knowledge is based on knowledge, with more advanced knowledge based on more fundamental knowledge.
If someone says that the sky is blue because it looks blue, they don't understand it why it is blue. You could ask them what colour it is at night, and that might get them to understand the dangers of perception.
Is a horse faster than a human? Over short distances, certainly - horses can clip along at 40mph and humans are lucky to get to 25mph - but humans are pursuit predators and over very long distances can outpace most things other than dogs (who, it seems evolved in conjunction with us; dogs may well be man's best friend in a very literal sense). What about if it's a very fast human and a very slow horse - I'd love to see Usain Bolt against a Falabella?
Dangers of perception, see?
Well... now you've given two answers - which is a step up from none.
"I don't know" is fine as an answer - one of the best in fact. It's the (dare I say it) fundamental principle of all knowledge. But it means you've been banging on about skin colour and descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage without any clear idea of what descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage is. It means that when you say this:
There is literally no upper or lower bound. That absolutely destroys that as a relevant concept. It means that someone born in the USA to two non-US parents is of American descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. It also means that they are of African descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage, because everyone is (probably). This metric becomes useless, and without that you're talking about people only in terms of skin colour to categorise them.
This is your chance then to consider exactly what you mean when you say (and you certainly did say) descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. Exactly how recent is relevant, and exactly how far back would you go before it ceases to be relevant? Hominids in Africa? The exploration era? The slave trade? When you've picked a time, why that one?
But... you gave another answer:
Why the Bronze Age?
I mean, certainly at that point in time white Europeans were in Northern Europe, olive-skinned Europeans were in Southern Europe, arabic people were in the middle east, Asians were in Asia and black people were in Africa. Oh, and native Americans were in North America and aborigines were in Australia. But 5,000 years is quite a time, and if you're going to suggest "society, culture, language, homeland, history, religion, cuisine" is part of ancestry, the Bronze Age isn't a good time to go for - very few of these things had even emerged by the end of the Bronze Age. Most nations and religions are significantly younger than that, and the Bronze Age featured the emergence of writing and language, so there's not much history there either (well, at least in recorded terms). I'm no expert on the diversification of cuisines as I'm British.
Angles and Saxons were both Germanic peoples, just FYI.
By your Bronze Age argument, I'm of Bavarian descent, as I'm English, of Welsh/English parents who were of Welsh/Welsh/Welsh/English parents. Moving back through the ages that leads to the Celts of Wales, who essentially were remnants of the British Celts following European Romanisation of the Celts. The British Celts were simply a remnant of the Iron Age expansion of the Celts across Europe, from their Swiss/Austrian roots - succeeding the earlier Hallstatt Iron Age and Urnfield Late Bronze Age cultures of the region, which succeeded the Tumulus Bronze Age culture, centred on Bavaria - although the Tumulus peoples followed the Unetice culture, largely based in the current Czech Republic/Slovakia region, but with some activity in Bavaria and Poland.
So there you go, I'm apparently Bavarian, not British. No wonder I like beer and leather.
