One of the issues here is that “race” ≠ “ethnicity”, despite the two being used interchangeably in common language.
“Race” is a social construct that is subject to social interpretation and alteration over time, and is very situational, often based on misleading phenotype cues.
“Ethnicity”, in contrast, is a “what regional population(s) are your ancestors from?”, which does have biological considerations for bone structure, disease resistance/susceptibility, genetic disorders, and other issues.
So, yes, if you asked a biologist what they think of “race”, and they’ll say that it’s bunk, but if you asked them about ethnicity, you’ll get interesting (and occasionally horrifying) data points about diseases, mutations, and population divergence over time.
Like, for example, did you know that about 10% of Northern Europeans are essentially immune to HIV, due to a mutation (CCR5-Ä32) that was selected for during the Black Death? Or that the reason that Sickle Cell Anemia in Sub-Saharan Africa is still around–despite killing its carriers in horrific ways–is because while having two copies of the gene will kill the carrier, one copy gives resistance to malaria? Or that all of the various Jewish sub-ethnicities, despite varying widely in “racial” appearance, all carry genetic markers that show that they’re related?
/teacher-hat 
