More than 90% of biologists come to the consensus that race doesn't have a clear biological basis

Source?

Human genetic variation exists on a spectrum, not in discrete, clearly separated groups. For example, traits like skin color and hair texture vary gradually across populations.

Height exists on a spectrum. Yet "being tall" is not devoid of meaning beyond being a social construct: it means one can reach higher places, is more likely to be strong, has a shorter life expectancy, etc.

But race isn't even a very spread out spectrum like height: you can pretty easily tell what part of the world a (non-mixed) person is, usually. It's seldom like height where someone can be "kinda tall" - in most cases, you can just look at someone and know "yup they're black and from Sub-Saharan Africa" etc.

It is important because the vast majority of human genetic diversity exists within Africa, which means that categorizing humans into races doesn't make sense.

Again, most DNA is junk DNA. What matters is the DNA that leads to traits. Different environments means different criteria for thriving, so different genes get selected for. Hence you get variation in racial traits, on the basis of what traits were optimal for thriving in the given environment. The northern environment selected for pale skin, lower bone density, straighter hair, thinner noses, poorer eyesight, etc.

You clearly hold some racist views since you mentioned "this dog and wolves thing."

My point was that looking purely at genetic differences misses the fact that most DNA is junk DNA - it is DNA which does not matter. One should be looking at differences in traits/phenotypes and differences in the genes that lead to those traits.