When I talk about “morphology”, I mean physical form and appearance. I distinguish it from genetics because similar morphologies can have distinct genetic origins. Light skin evolved at least twice, once in Europe and once in Asia. There, morphology is similar but the genetic origins are different, and that is almost certainly reflected in the modern genetics of skin color. There was convergent evolution, not common genetic origin. That’s why I suggest that two socially white people may be genetically weakly related: Western and Mediterranean Europeans may well be quite far removed genetically from far eastern Europeans (see also below my discussion of US blacks).
I do think you are eliding a distinct between the social concept of race and the genetic concept. Let me use a few examples.
Compare Europeans, Indigenous Australians, and Africans. Indigenous Australians arrived in Australia before Europeans arrived in Europe, >10,000 years. It’s likely, then, that modern Europeans and modern Africans are more closely than modern Indigenous Australians and modern Africans, even though morphologically modern Africans and modern Indegenous Australians may be described as more similar. Genetic divergence happens at roughly constant pace once populations are isolated from each other.
Next, compare modern Africans with what in the US we call African Americans or blacks. As evidence by the terminology, socially we treat US blacks as though they are genetically African. But many people who are identified (and self identify) as black in the US are genetically as much or more European as they are African. Discussion of race in the US, measurement of outcomes, tests of ability, etc. etc., aren’t referring to the genetic category of race, but to the social category. Most blacks in the US are mixed race as far as the genetic are concerned (i.e. in their recent family history, there were ancestors who belonged to distinct genetic clusters).
I don’t think the concept of “less evolved” has any meaning biologically. Sexual reproduction mixes traits from both parents, and those traits are not more or less evolved, they are equally evolved. It’s not as though the average of all modern humans is equivalent to whatever we evolved from, there was noise in the copying process, mixing and selection that preserved the beneficial noise.
And traits in offspring are also not neatly derived from one parent or the other. Eye color is a good example here: the genetics are complex, and different genes residing on different chromosomes affect different aspects of eye color and patterning. This applies many many times over to anything dealing with human mental ability, which affected by many many genes affecting the structure of our brains, the cells that compose them, the way we process nutrients, etc.
And on similar lines, it should be noted that none of use evolved to thrive in the modern world. The world in which the vast majority of our traits evolved is nothing like the world we live in. The selective pressures that led to our ability to have this conversation were not millions of years of people having typed philosophy conversations on computers, they were millions of years of people living in the woods and struggling to survive. We’ve been able to re-purpose our evolutionary niche in flexible and adaptive ways, but that we can apply it to new situations does not at all mean that it was evolved for that purpose. So even if it were the case that mixing across genetic clusters would lead to an offspring more similar to an earlier relative, there’s little reason to think that that earlier relative would be less at home in the modern world (after all, it was clearly adaptive enough to produce two distinct genetic clusters of descendants who thrived in different enough contexts to produce gross morphological differences).
Is that why unquestioning allegiance to churches, races, nations, parties is greater in the country?