I don't. Like I said in post #17, "Homo genius" was my attempt at a bad joke (hence the parentheses in post #15). But, if you take the past as our guide, what we know today will not necessarily be known in the far future.
Hmm, I clearly misunderstood. So what did you mean by what you said (quoted below)? From that I gathered that you claimed that the merging of these 'races' may mean that we will not be the final species of hominid (and thus speciation will have occurred).
This mixing will be the norm according to future populations and when they look at our remains (sometime in the future) will they classify us as being different species? Right now any forensic anthropologist can determine individual race simply by looking at skeletal remains. What will they think when they see those same differences (assuming some of our current knowledge is lost over time)? Did you read the link I provided in post #14?
Not with certainty, I suspect. How much overlap is there? Natural variation, probably. Depends how many skeletons are found, how complete are the remains, whether DNA can be sequenced, the variation between the individual specimens, and how accurately they can be dated (to distinguish longitudinal variation from coexisting variation).
Ah, I see what you meant now. And thank you for answering my questions Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Would that be Brazilian race, in which Barack Obama is white, so is Halle Barry and Tiger Woods and OJ Simpson, possibly even Michael Jordan, along with Jon Stewart and William Macy? Or are you thinking about United States race, in which Micronesians and Australians and Andaman Islanders and San and a lot of people from southern India are in the same race as Shaquille O'Neal or Miles Davis? Consider: there have been several skeletons dug up that have generated controversy and argument concerning their "race" - the one from the US Northern steppe recently reburied as "Indian" or "red" race, for example, that some claimed to be "white". What evidence do you have that the forensic anthropologists of the future will be bothering with our current racial classification schemes? Wouldn't it be more likely that they would prefer to classify according to genetic and skeletal evidence, rather than the current and probably ephemeral reliance on skin color?
According to the link I provided in post #14, forensic anthropologists can determine individual race with almost 100% certainty simply by looking at skeletal remains. This does come from wikipedia so I recommend looking it up yourself. . I thought this was High School level knowledge. Here is a High School worksheet I came across describing the forensic differences between different races (ancestry) using skeletal analysis. http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/forensics/11-forensic_anthropology/skeletal_analysis_worksheet.htm Mind you, this is a U.S. 12th grade worksheet so it limits the categorization of ancestry to African, Asian and European.
What? :scratchead: How can there be any evidence for what future scientists will be thinking? No matter what you think, my question is a reasonable one. Here is an interview with Bruce Wheatley Ph.D., professor in the Department of Anthropology at UAB, also works for Jefferson County Coroner's Office and the Alabama State Medical Examiner's Office. http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=45647 I find what he says about determining race very relevant to my question. Did you even read this thread? Who said anything about skin color? Forensic anthropologists use polymorphic phenotypes to determine race (ancestry). To answer your question; yes, they would be more interested in the morphological differences of a common ancestor than they would be skin color. My question was asking; as the planet's population moves towards a multiracial citizenry, will these polymorphic differences be recognized as such or will they be interpreted as speciation according to the peoples of the far future?
Haven't they discarded the subspecies classification from H. sapiens? The Neanderthals are now classified as a separate species. Even "Flores Man" or "hobbits" is either a separate species, H. floresiensis, or an unclassified dead-end population. There's not enough genetic variation in our species for speciation to occur through natural selection (or unnatural for that matter). We've gone through too many bottlenecks, too recently. The only way a new species could arise is through mutation, and that will take place over a much longer timespan.
Could be. Did you read that somewhere? If so, could you post me a link? I wouldn't know, but it doesn't really have any relevance whether or not the Neanderthals are a different species or not. Well if they are H. sapiens floresiensis they would still be the same species as we are (Homo sapiens), but they would be a different subspecies. Not sure if that's what you were saying. Just in case Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not really. It's just that I haven't seen any creature called Homo sapiens subspecies in print for years. Sorry, a typo; I fixed it. I meant to write Homo floresiensis. If you Go ogle "Homo sapiens floresiensis" you are directed to references for simply "Homo floresiensis."
"Ancestry" is one thing. US "race" is quite another. Ponder this quote, from your link: The basic confusion implied by using the skin color classification names needs to be consciously resisted, by US people. That would depend on whether speciation had occurred, in the intervening time, no? The current mixing of ancestral lines and genetic heritages - we have Kenyan blacks crossing with Congolese blacks, both of those crossing with Siberian yellows and South American reds, throw in both Mediterranean and Scandinavian whites, and so forth - would probably prevent speciation altogether, if it continues. Any genetic differences whatsoever are potential steps along the pathway to speciation. Whether or not the ones to be deemed significant by the future researchers now correlate in any way whatsoever with current US "racial" classifications is pretty much unknowable - and probably simple chance, in the event, anyway.
Typical liberal relativist nonsense and white intellectual hypocrisy. Let's here it from the man himself - whom you will no doubt disparage and whose words you'll distort as you've done in the past - even though you should have been permanently banned for it. "Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, p4.
I'm not too sure what you mean by "US race", but I see no difference between the adjectives "race" and "ancestry". Race is more than a description of skin color. It's a classification of phenotypes, just like ancestry. Obviously you disagree so, how is one "one thing" and the other "quite another"? That quote is the bases of my question which has nothing to do with skin color. Listen, I live in the most self-segregated region in all US (Metro Detroit). I know the difference between racism and race. One has to do with skin color, the other does not. I certainly hope you're not confusing the two. No, well, not necessarily. As Fraggle said: Mutations aside, the peoples of the far future are going to look more alike (fewer phenotypes) then we do today. What thoses difference will be is up for speculation, but all they need to do is excavate one graveyard, like Arlington, and they'll see a multiracial citizenry unlike anything they know. Could those extinct characteristics be interpreted as a subspecies of Homo sapiens to peoples that had never seen anything like it
For a person with only one post you seem to have quite an opinion about iceaura's post history. Speaking of history, racial subspecies are considered an archaic idea according to modern biology. As far as the extinction of any one race is concerned, they will all become extinct eventually. Darwin is right to ask what the future will think of extinct traits, but did you notice that he added the clause, "whichever term my be applied," after refurring to them as "races or species of men"? Today the term "species of men" is considered archaic. All of humanity falls under one species and that is Homo sapiens.
If we colonize other planets ( you did say the far future) we'll likely see large increases in phenotype variation as humans adapt to differing environments. We may even genetically engineer colonists to allow them to more easily tolerate different environments.
"Ancestry" is not "classification of phenotypes." It's the question of who your ancestors were. You are presumably aware that one's ancestors can be of a different race than one, no? Ancestry is about genetics. Race is about appearance. You seem to be unduly differentiating the two. "Racism" is the belief that one or more races are inherently inferior to one or more other races. It isn't possible for "racism" to deal in different terms than "race," which would be to say "skin color." ? How do you figure? This supposition seems extremely suspect, to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype I don't see the difference. Like I said in the very next sentence.
I mean the standard US system of classification of people into races - which has very little to do with ancestry, and everything to do with skin color. The "black" race in the US, for example, is a catchall category of people from ancestries as far flung as India, Australia, Micronesia, Madascar, Kenya, and the Congo. Plus all the hybrids, with all the other races. Without a major selection event, that seems unlikely. The current genetic heritages are expanding universally - almost all human alleles are now established on more than one continent, even, and will be available for recombination indefinitely.
