That is more a sign of the times and would not necessarily be a biological fact assuming we are from an apelike common ancestor. Also if the process is step by step then the stage development could be unequal.
I think that you are still misunderstanding how evolution works. Evolution does not have long-term goals; it is not a matter of living things evolving towards some universal objective. Evolution by natural selection has the effect of making living things better adapted to the environment in which they live. If a parent species splits into two daughter species, one of which is very different from the parent species whereas the other is only slightly different from the parent (as you say, 'the stage development could be unequal'), that does not mean that the first daughter species is 'more evolved' or 'more advanced' than the second. Both have the same length of evolutionary history, and each may be equally well adapted to the environment where it lives.
None of it accounts for the obvious differences between the races. Why Africans still live in primitive standards while the Euros are more advanced culturally as a whole. They can do intelligence testing by race and have and noted differences. There are positive and negative differences. Blacks better suited for athletics overall.
You are looking at this through European eyes, and using only only one standard of measurement. If you were to ask some Africans, they might say that they are more advanced culturally and that it is Euros who are primitive. Even if there are racial differences in intelligence (a debatable point), that does not mean that Africans are automatically inferior to Europeans or that they are less well adapted to African environments than Europeans are to European environments. Your argument is no better than that of scientists like Cuvier, who said that Europeans are more beautiful than Africans, without bothering to ask some Africans for their opinion or considering that African people might have different standards of beauty from Europeans.
It is presented as step by step from a common ancestor. If it is a race then not everyone is in the same spot or not everyone would cross the finish line at the same time. I am simply asking who is at the head of the pack?
It is not a race, and there is no finishing line; that is the whole point. Species of living things diverge from a common ancestor to produce new species, but one cannot say that any of the descendant species are 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' than any of the others. To modify your analogy of a race, the descendants of the common ancestor are running along different tracks and heading for different finishing lines; there is no pack with one species at the head.
You should look at Darwin's diagram of speciation (the 'tree of life') in Chapter 4 of
The Origin of Species. The species
a10, f10 and
m10 have diverged from a common ancestor and no longer interbreed, but they have the same length of evolutionary history and they are merely different; none of them is more 'advanced' than the other.
I have never met a bible believer who argued for such things since it would not be tolerated in most churches. I don't think they would have much of a case based on the source documents. Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything.
Unfortunately, you appear to be wrong even on this point, as I found out by googling 'Christian Identity'. According to
https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity,
A seminal influence on the Christian Identity movement's views on pre-Adamism was a book published in 1900 by
Charles Carroll titled The Negro a Beast or In the Image of God?. In the book Carroll concluded that Adam only gave birth to the White race and the White race was made in the image and likeness of God, while Negros are pre-Adamite beasts who could not possibly have been made in God's image and likeness because they are beast-like, immoral and ugly.[48] Carroll claimed that the pre-Adamite races such as blacks did not have souls. Carroll believed that race mixing was an insult to God because it spoiled His racial plan of creation.
Of course, I accept that most Christian churches would reject the opinions of Christian Identity and Charles Carroll, but that does not change the fact that Carroll's book is still influential among a minority of Christians nearly 120 years after it was first published. Also, Carroll's book, from beginning to end, is dedicated to showing that Negroes are soul-less beasts, not made in the image and likeness of God, and created only to serve the White Man.
The Descent of Man says comparatively little about human races, and in Chapter VII ('On the Races of Man') Darwin is at pains to show that all humans belong to the same species and are descended from the same common ancestor; the sub-headings of the chapter include, 'Numerous points of resemblance in body and mind between the most distinct races of man', and 'Each race not descended from a single pair'.
By the way, if, as you say, 'Everyone knows they can take the Bible and misuse it to say or justify anything', the Bible cannot be much use as a guide to morality. To say that people who use the Bible to justify something that you or I disapprove of (such as racism) are misusing it is to beg the question; these people would say (and in fact Charles Carroll did say, in chapter 10) that we are misusing the Bible to justify our opposition to racism.
My argument being racism is a coherent if not pernicious application of Darwinism. It is in fact properly applied Darwinism. While your apologetic assuming equality is anti biological Darwinist. Flat Earth. We would rationally expect certain groups to be closer to their ape-like ancestor and others more removed. It is your group who depict humans as big-brained apes, not us.
Again, you are wrong here. If human races actually exist at the present time, they divided less than 100,000 years ago, less than half the time since the first appearance of the species
Homo sapiens and <2% of the time since our ancestors diverged from the ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos. Genetically, all human races must be the same distance from our simian cousins.
You seem to be still thinking of evolution as a ladder, with the different races arranged on higher or lower rungs, rather than as a tree, with the races occupying the tips of the twigs on one branch of the tree. If one starts from any 'racial twig', one has to go back exactly the same distance to the fork that marks the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This analogy may help you to understand why all human races are the same distance from the apes.