the following 2 quotes exhibit "superficial" surface differences that are ENTIRELY the products of culture and environment. the big, common mistake is to confuse such noticeable surface differences with something much deeper. and the racist agenda uses these frivolous differences to construct their idea of race as something fundamental, which it isn't.
Yes, exactly: they're products of the environment, as all evolutionary adaptation is.
When you talk about "something much deeper", I'm not too clear on what you mean by that. If you think I'm trying to say that you and I are 'different species' or something because (for example) I might be better able to digest milk proteins than you...well, that would ridiculous, and of course I don't think that. As I explained a few posts ago, humans (despite certain overall racial distinctions, which as you say, are superficial) are much
more genetically homogenous than any of the other primates. (Edit: in fact there is so little genetic variation, relatively speaking, that some evolutionary geneticists think that some time after H. sapiens sapiens emerged as a distinct subspecies, we were nearly wiped out and the whole human population of the world (i.e. of some corner of central Africa, probably) was reduced to a tiny group, perhaps just a couple of thousand individuals, and that all humans alive today are descendents of these 'Noah's ark' survivors.)
I'd like to ask two questions of the no-such-thing-as-race contingent: one, what do you actually
mean by race? (since I think we could be talking about different things here, and there may well be a bit of straw-man-construction going on, namely the word 'race' being loaded with a lot of outdated connotations) and two: what scientific evidence is there for there being 'no such thing as race'?