Research can fine tune people's ancestries even further than just a general region. Like I said before, in some instances they can even trace which particular neighborhood of London your ancestors may may have been from. The science is that good. But that doesn't make people from that neighborhood a different race or subspecies.
LOL. It's funny to read how confident you sound on this. The research is not at all clear on this. The fact that you are so eager to believe this just betrays your will to believe.
So yes, there is no question "race" exists. But only because we create it.
Sorry, you're projecting - I was never eager reject the liberal "appropriate thinking" orthodoxy taught to me as a young student, but I was eager to observe society and desired to logically understand biological, as well as cultural, reality. Thankfully my affection for the scientific method and reasoning overwhelmed the fearful taboos and shibboleths hammered into our young minds.
Alas, some of us never break free from their childhood imprinting, and even as adults they are driven to pretend what ought to true actually is true.
All of which, by the way, explains why your objections are so insubstantial. In sum:
First, the concept "race" is a social construction for a class of real objects, but it is not an arbitrary one. Be it a chair, a race, or an airplane each of these terms are symbols for something which is a material object(s), but "grouped" by their common attributes (as are, by the way, concepts for abstract social objects, like money or marriage).
Second, "sub-species" and "race" are terms for a grouping of a subset of a species. In biological classification, "the term subspecies refers to a unity of populations of a species living in a subdivision of the species global range and varies from other populations of the same species by morphological characteristics.[2]" and "In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies. ... Various definitions exist. Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[3] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[4]"
Accordingly, the taxonomic grouping of biological human objects by racial classification are defined by those populations with common historical genetic relationships and origins with similar morphology. So roughly speaking "Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002)."
And if all of a person's ancient ancestors suggest they were from London or Denmark, I assure you they would not be identically the same as Orientals or Negroids - genetically or morphologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Doubtful_cases
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf