Race is a social construct without biological meaning

Human variation lies on a continuum, it can't be partitioned into discrete groups because there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among "races" themselves. In other words, modern people are differing mixtures of multiple separate species of archaic humans.

A lot of older and uneducated people still clings to the false assumption concerning the nature of human variation--that is that we can be unambiguously assigned to a "race" on the basis of selected anatomical traits. In fact, when we look at specific individuals, we often run into difficulty trying to categorize them. For example, on the basis of skin color, we might put them into one "race" and on the basis of nose shape, body form, or blood type, they might go into others. The typological model (created 200 years ago) usually leads low IQ people to wrongly assume that the people within any "race" are genetically and anatomically more alike than they are like people from other "races." This all depends on the traits that are being compared. For instance, many Americans believe that people of African descent have broad noses. In fact, both the widest and the narrowest noses are found among the people of that continent.

Another major problem with the typological model is that the number of "races" you end up with depends on the number and kinds of traits employed in the classification. The more traits used, the fewer people in the world there are who share them. For example, light skin color is considered to be a defining characteristic of Europeans. However, when you add the criteria of narrow noses, straight hair, and tall stature, many Europeans would be excluded altogether or the European racial category would have to be further subdivided into several smaller "races." Since the number of "races" can be so easily changed by the way they are defined, it is clear that they do not really exist as distinct biological groupings of people. Instead, they are arbitrary creations that reflect our ethnocentric views of ourselves and other people. They are mainly cultural rather than biological groupings.

The classification of humans into groups based on incidence and prevalence of phenotypical traits (the statistical probability of the geographical origins of your ancestors) as evidence of "race" is pretty silly too and needs to be phased out. What science illiterates don't know is every phenotype exists in every "race". All humans have pretty much the same set of genes. But different populations have different proportions of each phenotype. For example, the genes related to dark hair are present in a very high rate in the Asian populations--which includes native americans--but in a much lower rate in European populations, but still there. The genes that account for racial differences (skin, hair, eye color, etc.) number only a few. That's less than a dozen out of the thousands of genes that can vary between one human and the next. That means that, while two people can both have the same color of skin, hair, and eyes, and look very similar, that similarity is only superficial. They may actually be more genetically different from each other than they are from a person of a different "race".

It's a common fallacy for people to think "race" is synonymous with human variation/diversity, when it isn't. The whole Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid schemes is rooted in typology. The typological framework of delineating races in humans has no scientific or anthropological validity whatsoever and involves folk taxonomies based on perceived traits. A dog is still a wolf. Taxonomically they both belong to the species Canis lupus. Gray wolf DNA is 99.8% the same as dog DNA. Two animals are different species when they cannot produce fertile offspring with each other.

What cause different behavior in domesticated dogs is hosting gene over or under activating different pathways in the brain depending on environment. The domesticated dog mild-manneredness is achieved through neotony--the preservation of certain juvenile characteristics into adulthood. Dogs are to a degree perpetual pups. Wolf pups are equally friendly. They just turn into wolves at a certain point. Dogs don't.