Hi hi, you primitive nationalist you. I forget sometimes that some groups of eukaryotes are so stupid that they believe in lines on maps.. We live on the same fucking planet, and have evolved from the same cells. Talking about who's "best" is stupid.
In the same amount of time it took to change wolves to dogs, some groups of humans have been isolated from each other that long. There are obvious differences in groups and it would be illogical if there wasn't.
Dogs are exceptionally diverse. Partly because they've been bred by humans, partly because of their unique genetic characteristics. Cats have pretty much looked the same for 40 million years. But even there we find more diversity than between humans. Although they look similar, a normal house cat is 4kg, a siberian tiger is 423kg. The global average of 72.7kg for humans is a figure everyone on the planet can relate to, regardless of geographic location or ethnicity. The reason for this is in large part due to the amount of energy the human brain consumes.
This big brain has made it possible for us humans to adapt our environment to us rather than we adapting to our environment. So humans are pretty much the same as they were when part of the human species moved out of Africa. One of the things we struggled to adapt to us was the sun. Dark skin requires a lot of sunlight to produce vitamin D. Humans in colder environments would have an evolutionary bias towards lighter skin. At the same time the large asian deserts made it difficult for people with large round eyes, so an evolutionary bias towards more narrow eye shapes developed in parts of Asia.
So yes, there are differences. But none that are significant in relation to your social darwinistic delusion.
I don't get it. You just provided more evidence for your opponent's position. It doesn't matter if there are more differences with dogs than humans. What matters is that there are differences, and these differences aren't just in appearances, but also in behavioral traits and intelligence, because differing traits are advantageous in differing environments.
What is more interesting to me is that humans everywhere have evolved instincts and behaviors that were useful in their original environments but very maladaptive now in modern times. The most obvious being that we stay hungry far after we have consumed sufficient calories. Some of these maladptive behaviors are sex-specific, such as men's preferences for women with visual fertility cues or women's preference for high status men to the exclusion of far more logically relevant qualities.
We have changed our environment in many ways, some of which are better and some of which are incompatible with our natural behaviors. Cubical farms and assembly lines are miserable places to work. Mating practices and rituals are elaborate, inefficient, and often produce worse results than random pairings or arranged marriages. What remains to be seen is whether we can continue to improve our environment or whether we will develop traits more compatible to it.
