This question already has an answer here:
It has always seemed odd to me to say that there are no human races when there are clear features that set one group of people apart from another, like skin colour and average height. It is said that the genes don't vary enough to talk about different races, but the genetic code only needs to vary a little in order to produce significant differences in the body. The classification of animals into races resulted from the observation that species with different features can still breed fertile offspring. So it has its roots in things that can be seen with the naked eye, and not in variation of the genetic code. The latter is merely a way of explaining the former. But the variations I've mentioned (skin colour and average height) can be seen with the naked eye. Therefore, it seems to me like that points to different races.
Furthermore, don't mutations like lactose tolerance and varying ACTN3 levels point to different races?
Finally, there's evidence that Homo sapiens has, over the course of its history, interbred with other Homo species, and that this affects the genes of different people in different ways. For example, 1-4% of the Eurasian genome is derived from the Neanderthal DNA, while this variation is absent in people from Sub-Sahara Africa.
Could anyone explain how these facts are compatible with an absence of races among humans?
EDIT: This thread has been marked as a duplicate. I disagree, as there are questions in here that are not addressed in the related questions. Specifically, I bring up the point that the categorization of species into races predates any knowledge about DNA, and that it is therefore unjustified to define race based on DNA. But also when it comes to variation in DNA (so with the definition used by scientists), I have raised doubts and pointed to the phenomenon of archaic human admixture with modern humans. I still do not know the answer to these questions. Therefore, I feel like this thread has value.