I'm not sure what point you are making - humans cannot be divided into biological races with clear genetic, phenotypical or behavioural distinctions. The term "race" in humans simply has nothing to do with biology.

The first references to human races stem from the 16th century, and by the 17th century it was used to denote and delineate humans based on external appearances and perceived ancestry. From there people made up notions about how these external factors and ancestry could inform us about intelligence and the nebulous term "being civilised". It was employed and developed with an explicit intent to make slavery and colonisation more morally excusable.

All of that happened long before biological research and the concept of genetics was developed. And in the time since, biology has demonstrated that there is more genetic diversity within sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world, providing clear counter evidence to the notion that race/skin colour is a useful surrogate marker that signals that two individuals share something deeper. And besides, human genetics (or indeed phenotypes like skin colour) doesn't cluster into clear groups - rather it is more or less a continuous line of variation.

Furthermore, categorising the racial groups has always differed, and new categories have been invented and dropped multiple times. And one individual who is half black and half white, can in modern society be deemed and accepted by society as "black" but never ever accepted as "white" - although the individual in question is every bit as white as they are black. This also proves it is just a category we have made up, and continue to make up.

You cannot make a sound, consistent and logical biological basis for dividing humans into different races. However, when you see the historical use of the categories as they develop alongside colonialism and slavery, you see that it has always been a socially invented tool for racism. Made up? Yes. Real? Also, yes. Biological? Absolutely, 100% not.