You are just describing visible phenotype variation, not genetic homogeneity.
Dogs are a poor/unfortunate example when it comes to phenotypes and visible traits. They have a uniquely plastic quality as a species, due to factors that are largely unknown. Cats would be a better example if you really had to go down that route.
Lets go back to the room of Swedes and Zulus again. Lets dramatically oversimplify and imagine they have a list of 1000 traits and genetic variables that can either be a or b. Of those variables, only, say, 25 affect the visible features of skin tone, hair type, face shape and eye colour, etc.
We would expect *some* homogeneity on those 25 traits, but even there we may still get cross over between the groups. Especially as the sample of Zulus and Swedes grows. We may also get some homogeneity on another 25-50 traits, and have another dozen traits here or there where there are novel patterns within subgroups of those groups.
But on the other 900 traits, we probably see no correlation at all, and couldn't predict who was in either group from those differences.
We are human, and from our evolutionary heritage are programmed to see visible difference, to identify "others", and to create mental and cultural groupings. This instinct is just an instinct. A pattern of social and cultural behaviour. It isn't borne out by anything scientific.
Bookmarks