After my online research on the subject, I learnt that, biologically speaking, many scientists believe that there is no such thing as a race. Homo sapiens as a species is only 200,000 years old, which has not allowed for any significant genetic diversification yet, and our DNA is 99.99% similar. I've read statements that there can be more genetic variation inside a racial group than between different racial groups, meaning that, for example, two individuals from the same "race" can have less in common with each other than with an individual from another "race".
Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits
Q1: If Homo sapiens has no races (according to biologists), why are we so different morphologically? (hair/eyes/skin colour and even athletic performance seem to differ between human populations)
Q2: Is it common for other species too, when genetically close populations have very different morphological traits? Are there any other mammal or animal species that exhibit biological diversity comparable to human diversity, and how do taxonomists treat these species? (excluding intentionally bred domestic species to keep the comparison fair)
The question has been paraphrased to emphasize that it is the biological debate that is in question, not the sociopolitical. I.e., why is there no consensus in evidence and opinions of scientists?