Your argument in a nutshell:  "I've cherry picked all the data I could find that supports what I already believe, therefore I am right and you are wrong."  

Seriously, you really didn't read up on this topic at all.  You just claim the science backs you up and try throwing in words that make it seem like you know what you're talking about.  I'm going to get real blunt here and say that you just don't know anything about the topic at all.  Seriously, you keep insisting on your points without actually linking anything meaningful.  You've linked the same two articles at least twice now, and the one that you linked just now actually says the opposite of what you're arguing, which proves to me that you can't read. 

Don't believe me?  Here it is:

“There are many, many who claim these use of (racial) categories may not have any biological meaning, only social meaning, and basing medical decisions on them may be problematic,” said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Medical Center for Biomedical Ethics.

“But the more we know genetically, the more we know these social categories don’t correspond to genetic groups,” Magnus said.

So stop pretending like you know this subject better than the people who actually study it.

(Yeah, I am aware that I run the risk of getting a warning or banned for this response)

The point of linking that article was, in fact, to prove that humans do not have a "biological race."  

You are also making arguments without any sources here.  Also your generalizations are not at all universal.  A lot of what you described can be explained by a lot of different things.  Asians having a "problem with dairy products" (otherwise known as being lactose intolerant) has a lot more to do with the Asian population not drinking milk historically.  It's an adaptive trait that has nothing to do with being Asian itself, and makes no sense to call it "race" when it isn't even universal.  Humans as a whole were generally lactose intolerant until a bunch of them started drinking milk.   Your argument is weak at best.

edit:  I'd like to point out that with certain studies, it is useful to use "race" as a label since it is a well-recognized one and IS useful for studies in psychology and sociology.  Which are "soft sciences" and not "hard."  

Also "geological races" doesn't make sense since there are no hard boundaries in geology.

Alot of what saying is verifiable. I'm not gonna source easy to find things especially when you're opposing my points in a knee jerk reaction without looking up anything to see if I'm right or wrong. You're being intellectually lazy and wasting my time. 

Hey can you state you case in one small paragraph.  A lot of times these sources send us down tangents that muddy our point and create more confusion.  Can you state your definition of race?  I have heard like 5 definitions... which to me is just proof that people need the right to define themselves ....but I digress.

You can't get banned.You didn't actaully post anything.  After accusing him for doing what you then do yourself, you give two statements.  One says that some people think that race is a social construct  (It is of course) followed by a common sense assessment that says that we still have to be aware that people have genetic differences.  No shit.

Then you completely destroy that argument by saying that indeed race is a social construct,  and we know this by studying genetics.

You Sum Posted Nothing.  Why Would You get Banned?

If we can have so called "races" for different animals then I don't see why it can't exist for humans ... 

The best biological definition of "human races" is defined with respect to the allele frequencies between different populations ... 

The paper hits the home run with my point about how we can classify human different "populations" with as little as 100 genetic markers ...

Geographical race.

There is virtually nothing in the way of criteria to naturally delineate the borders between geographical races. Definitions are vague and lacking a true taxonomic backbone allowing classification. As such, it seems like depending on who you ask, there may be three geographical races or nine geographical races or any amount in between.

This lends it the appearance of an artificial distinction, or in other words, a social construct.