Answer:
Maikang One difference is that breeds aren’t naturally occurring. They are inventions of selective breeding, with specific goals in mind. It is therefor reasonable to expect that, when a breed has been selectively bred for a trait, it has that trait. Races are, on the other hand, are naturally occurring. Why they are different is for the most part unexplained.

I’d also like to toss out that I think it might be dangerous to even ask these questions. Consider: Why do you want to know? Sure you can say just cause, but really, why is it important to know? If you have an answer, what will you do with that answer? Do you swear nothing bad? Really? Can you guarantee everyone else will be as egalitarian as you? What if your race turns out to be the stupidest, and most aggressive. Do you want to live in the world where that is established as fact?

Everyone who seriously asks this question always seems to think their race will come out on top, and they are very likely to bias the measure in some regard. If a !Kung people of the Kalahari designed the study, they might measure who is able to identify the most species of plant and animal. They might well come out on top. Why are the word games and tricks of an IQ test a better measure?skin analyzer

Maikang Breeds of animals represent distinct genetic groups, and thus it makes sense to talk about how their genetics affects them. Each beagle, for instance, is more closely related to all other beagles than to any other non-beagle dog.

This is not true of human races. The races we talk about do NOT represent distinct genetic groups. It’s very common, for instance, for a random African person to be more closely related to a random Caucasian or Asian person than he is to another randomly chosen African person. Since genetic variation is not confined within racial lines, it is complete nonsense to talk about genetic variation of traits between races, other than the genes responsible for the very superficial phenotypes we use to do the classification in the first place. In smaller words, you can talk about skin color genes differing between races, but if you try to claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence, you’re on completely unsupported ground, scientifically.

From a slightly less scientific perspective, throughout history, claims of this sort have always been immediately followed with a massive wad of racist bullshit aimed at oppression, violence, or some other repulsive garbage, making it exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone MAKING such a claim is anything other than a horrible waste of skin and oxygen.

Edit: Sigh. Well, thank you for clarifying where on the “waste of skin and oxygen” spectrum you are. For the record, I’ll respond:

In response to update 2: congratulations. You have successfully identified the fact that there are superficial physical phenotypic groupings between races, as I pointed out in my second paragraph. Of COURSE there are these differences, because these differences are what we use to define the races. It’s like dividing your balls into white and black groups, then saying, “look! All the black ones are in the black group! That means the groups are real!” It’s a circular argument. The point is that dividing people by these superficial traits is no more meaningful than if you divided people into “tall” and “short” races.

Vast amounts of human population genetic data have been gathered and analyzed, and every single study points to the same conclusion, which is what I stated above. Go look at the HapMap Project, or the 1000 Human Genomes Project, or any of thousands of other papers on the subject. You lost this argument decades ago, whether you know it or not.

Regarding update 3, first off, there’s no such word in biology as “specie”, unless you’re wanting to talk about metallic money for some reason. The singular of “species” is “species”. There is one human species and one dog species, for a total of two species. If you’re going to argue that you know better than literally every scientific expert on the subject, you might be a bit more believable if you actually were familiar with some of the vocabulary.

you seem to think it to be highly meaningful (for some reason) that dogs have diversified more quickly than humans. This is true, but it’s quite easily explained: artificial selection. We BRED dogs for specific traits. Artificial selection applies much stronger selective pressure than does natural selection, which is what humans underwent during the same time period. I’m not sure why you think this supports your case, but rest assured: it does not.

Your last link merely illustrates that another superficial physical trait exits. Sort of. Well done you.

Edit again: what, is that it? Is that all you’ve got? Giving up so easily? No more half-baked rantings? No more links to racist websites that kind of but not really address the subject? That was easy.skin analyzer