How are there various vocalizations of humanity? What do you mean by facial type? Almond eyes are caused by more fat under the eyelid than European eyes (which also have fat, simply less of it). Asians tend to have wider cheekbones than Europeans, and Africans tend to have wider nasal cavities than either Asian or Europeans.
Body sizes are primarily determined (not totally, but primarily) by a combination of genetics and diet. Height is largely based on diet. Ecto-/Endo-/Meso- morph is often genetic. However, this is not race-based, just as right/left handism, and even blood type is not race-based. Even in cases leaning toward a distinction by people group (race) such as European have around half a chance of being type A bloodtype while the rest of the world is largely type O (along with around half of Europeans).
Prevalence is not the same as one group has this trait, and that trait is absent in the other groups.
People within people groups simply tend to be more related to one another than people in another people group, just as would be more related to those in your immediate family more than you would to your first cousins. Similar genetic markers simply show a mutual ancestor (with a mutation) for a particular group. Using the close family analogy again, your family could have inherited a mutation from your father, while your cousins could be devoid of such a mutation. Your cousins and you are still very closely related, hence the need for incest laws. The genetic variance of the human race (singular) is not large enough for there to be races of humanity, subspecies or your subgroups (which are one and the same: a subgroup of a species is a subspecies).
P.S. Appreciate your respectful tone in your response. Looking at the ping section, and there are a lot of replies. Guessing that many of them won't be as respectful as yours.
You are wrong. Different breeds of dog are not subspecies of dog, but clearly a Chihuahua is not a Great Dane. Trouble is when trying to determine race that there are no truly pure breeds- to put it bluntly. Put certain stronger characteristics remain and within them are a range of heights and skin colors and eyeshapes as well as a range of diseases and maladies that are somewhat more common.
Birds are distinguished into races within species by differences in standard feather colors. Some mammals are distinguished into races by differences in standard fur color and length. Humans are not different in this regard.
What do you mean by facial type?
The old round vs. long heads is a good starting point.
However, this is not race-based, just as right/left handism, and even blood type is not race-based. Even in cases leaning toward a distinction by people group (race) such as European have around half a chance of being type A bloodtype while the rest of the world is largely type O (along with around half of Europeans).
It could be argued with reason that much of the trend towards more shared characteristics like this comes from prior racial intermixture. It seems likely, for example, that Europeans started off as A- blood type, while non-Europeans started off as O+ blood type. Thousands of years of intermixture have blurred this distinction on the individual level, but not in the aggregate.
The genetic variance of the human race (singular) is not large enough for there to be races of humanity, subspecies or your subgroups (which are one and the same: a subgroup of a species is a subspecies).
I don't see how the outward differences between Africans and Asians, for example, are not enough to classify them as seperate races, while the outward differences between Black Ducks and Mallard Ducks are enough to make them seperate races within one species.