RE: WHAT COULD WE LEARN FROM THESE SIBLINGS?
It always amazes me how often Darwin's theories and racist thinking gets mixed up and misinterpreted. I agree, there are no "races" as such. However, there are variations in skin / fur color, and many many other things. Actually, just the number of factors (from hair density to the shapes of our ears) should already smash any logical basis of grouping people into races.
As far as evolution is concerned, it makes sense that the white bunny could hide more easily in the snow, but be seen more easily (thus caught and eaten) without any snow around. Same thing goes for us: in case of higher UV radiation (due to a depleted ozone layer, for example) having lighter skin would be detrimental, while dark skin offers more protection. On the other hand, should the sky grow chronically dark (due to, let's say, a nuclear winter) people with light skin could absorb more of the little sunlight there is. So it all depends on the conditions, which biological trait is favored, meaning which members of a species have a better chance to reproduce. So does that mean that people with one trait or the other are better at solving problems, or more prone to violence? Of course not, since the question at hand is only related to skin, which has only to do with the functions of the skin, no more, no less.
In "The Descent of Man" Darwin wrote, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. " Any time someone is making comments about the "races of man," I find that, by very definition to be racist. Moreover to view some people groups as "civilised races" and others as "savage races" provides some food for thought into what a person who would say such things actually believes. Perhaps his comment about civilized races exterminating savage races was simply social commentary, but the underlying belief system that even categorizes people as such is, in my own opinion (and I reserve the freedom to be incorrect) is racist... kind of like the real title of his "Orgins of the Species" book.
I fully agree that there are no different races of human, but even the genetic diversity within a biblical kind of animal can be misconstrued as proof of evolution. Let's say that the original canine kind had genetic information for both long fur and short fur. With both genes present the fur length would be medium, but their offspring could have long, short, or mediu,m length fur. As some canines moved into colder locations, those who had the longer fur length would be better suited for survival and eventually the short-furred gene may be completely bred out of the isolated population. You'd never know that they originally had such a gene, since a loss of genetic information led to the change in characteristics. Likewise, the canines that migrated towards a hotter location would be better suited for survival if they had short fur, so the long-furred gene could eventually be lost in the isolated group of canines. Since they are all still canines, you could still breed the short furred ones with the long furred ones, but the point is that a loss of genetic information would lead to the change, which I believe is all that we ever witness. Brown bunnies don't get cold and suddenly recieve new genetic information that turns them white so that they can survive by blending into their snowy environment. Just my thoughts on the subject, and I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to comment and share your thoughts. Thanks @stortebeker.
Yes - I don't think Darwin ever said that we came from monkeys, but that we had a common ancestor. But having said that, his theories did "evolve" into eugenics.
And even more of an example than these imossibly cute bunnies, mountain hares, ptarmigans and Arctic foxes demonstrate that the same creature can be brown in summer and white in winter, without changing its character traits :D
I believe that Darwin only said that we shared a common ancestor with monkeys.