The point is, you can measure different concentrations of various human traits that correspond with some of the same or similar clusters as the thing that would have uncontroversially been called "race" in 1985 (whatever we're calling that concept today). That is not the same proposition as "a trait cannot be more common in a race-cluster if it is also characteristic of or more common in another race-cluster", which is what seems to be your argument.

To give an analogy, your argument that "race" doesn't correspond with any biomarkers because biomarkers can be shared among multiple "racial" groups is the same as saying that multiple races of people couldn't each characteristically have, among other traits, black hair -- because multiple "races" tend to have black hair. You see how that's not coherent? If you're familiar with how cluster analysis works, same principle.

And besides, describing facts about the world can't be racist. "-ist" is the suffix English uses to describe "of or relating to beliefs." Facts and beliefs are separate categories of thing. Facts can't be racist, that's just a category error. People can be racist! Propositions can sometimes be characteristic of racism, or express racist thoughts. But facts can't be racist in the same way time can't be purple.