Argyle King
Legend
Only if you only distinguish them by their ability score adjustments and nothing else.
As @Neonchameleon said above, sure, there are traits such as dark vision and whatnot.
And I would also agree with the premise that there can be other ways to differentiate physical differences than ability scores. GURPS has traits such as Born Biter, Claws, Extra Limbs, and so forth.
Though, again, those are things that I can see and perceive. They are tangible.
Likewise, strength in GURPS tends to be in some way visible: large size, bulging muscles, etc. (Though, that might be different in a Supers game or if a character selects an enhancement that makes their advantage less obvious.)
In contrast, what do I see in D&D when looking at an Orc or looking at a Halfling?
Does what I am able to see or perceive match up with the idea that both are (according to default assumptions) physical forms that are equally capable of the same physical tasks?
To be fair, some editions of D&D did a better job of that. The previous edition had racial powers and things other than physical attributes that might be used to show that the physical form of one species had inherent advantages over another. Edit: I think that was good, and those were things that someone living in that world would know.
I prefer WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) design. If what I see isn't what I get, I prefer some reason for that: i.e. Supers genre; Supernatural or Magical enhancements.
In D&D, often the explanation is self-referential. By that I mean that it makes sense within the context of D&D because that's how D&D says that it works inside of D&D.
Needing to learn to think in a context that may be at odds with what would be naturally intuitive to think when presented with a situation or a challenge is an added complexity that exists, even if it requires less dice rolls.
I've mostly encountered that when trying to teach games to new players.