actinoid said:
Forensic anthropologists use polymorphic phenotypes to determine race (ancestry).
"Ancestry" is one thing. US "race" is quite another.
Ponder this quote, from your link:
For that reason, racial identification these days is kept to the basics—white, black, Asian, or Native American, based on distinctive characteristics of the skeleton, regardless of what the person’s skin may have looked like.
The basic confusion implied by using the skin color classification names needs to be consciously resisted, by US people.
actinoid said:
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?
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.