This sounds like it was made up by some racists to try to explain why some races are better than others.
Race is a bad idea to begin with. There is no major difference, we are all human.
Race is a bad idea to begin with. There is no major difference, we are all human.
The actual definition of species is essentially arbitrary and, when applied to humans and the possibility of different human subspecies or species, the question is essentially political.
It becomes even more obvious when you look into previous proto-human groups like neanderthals, denisovans, etc, as far back as you want; one can ask what counts as a subspecies, what counts as a species, and struggle to apply that in a self-consistent way today between Chinese, neanderthals, Australian aborigines, African pygmies, denisovans, native Americans, etc.
Don't let anyone trick you into thinking there is some clean science answer here - biology is far too messy.
Human "races" are in not different enough to be called races from a scientific point of view.
I’m saying dogs have “races” - yes, just as humans do. Whatever you call that grouping it is based on the comparison I made on my original post which is logically correct.
"'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time)."
Genetics. In case of humans the differences are tiny.
> There’s clearly physical differences of magnitude and measurement.
By that logic two brothers would be different races if one is tall and one is short.
Its not a good thing though and hardly something to claim pride from or for. Nobody wants to be on team wheel chair.