Simple answer to your question.Depending on the exposure to the sun AKA tanning. I am an Indian and since it is a country that contain many different skin colours . The patter is easy to grasp. The people in the south (maximum exposure to the sun) have a dark colour, while the ones near the Himalayas have a light tone. This is just an example, but it applies to all people.

There are 3 main ways that species can change, or evolve:

*Natural Selection, where a species develops a trait that is beneficial to its survival.

*Sexual selection, where a species develops a trait which gives it a higher chance of successfully scoring a mate. This is most prominantly seen in birds e.g peacocks

*Parental Selection, where offspring are born with trait which encourages its parents to look after more than other offspring. This is now the leading theory of how humans became hairless.

It is believed when humans migrated to the northern hemishere the last 2 were the main causal factors for humans becoming lighter skinned. Vitamin D may play a minor role but keep in mind by the time humans reached Europe they were covered in skins and furs to keep warm, so this sort of discounts this theory. Not at all trying to be racsist, but most leading evolutionary anthropologist now believe that early Europeans for whatever reason favoured lighter skin. Obviously this wasn't the case in Africa or Asia as there's nothing attractive about a sunburnt whitey.

White skin has nothing to do with blending in to the snow, as no humans would survive too long running naked around in a European winter. Also if this were the case then you'd expect the majority of caucasians to have white hair as well.

Originally posted by jbell1011
When humans arrived on this planet, there must have been multiple races and not just one.

That's what I believe. Interesting to note that Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and Japanese all look different too.

Also, why is the white man the only species that has no native background? Most of us couldn't even survive here without someone looking after us like children.

Originally posted by zbeliever
Imagine we were all one color...If you can.

Think about it...People would have to find another way to feel like they are superior.

That's easy, the superior ones will have stars on their bellies...

In the future we will all be blue.

Originally posted by James1982
I am skill a believer in evolution, the degree to which I believe evolution is responsible for modern day man is what I still question a little bit. It's hard to understand the mechanism that would make a modern man out of our ancestors. The main thing I don't get, is why does something go away. Our appendix, for example, we needed it for something in the past. We evidently don't need it anymore, but how did having it as a fully intact and functional organ HURT someone? Meaning, to stop passing on the genes for a fully intact/functioning appendix, possessing an appendix would have to hurt your chance for survival, how does this work?

Once something becomes useless, it's no longer conserved by selection, and thus falls prey to mutations.

---

---

We are all made of the same stuff, right down to our internal and external structure and even how our minds work. We are one of the same, skin colour and racial features are just an appearance perception, nothing more, caused by inbreeding going all the way back through history. If you haven't already maybe you should have a good read through the information in the link I posted not long ago. Even though its a religious based paper it has some good logic and science behind it.

environment suits made from differnt dirt
why are there pyramids everywhere? (WHO LANDED) And was it the same type of technology just different ummmm continential LABS? Good question

Now where did the SOULS COME FROM INJECTED INTO THE SUITS

Originally posted by SG-17
Also, why did we get rid of vestigial organs? Well simply put having an organ that isn't used is a waste of energy during development and a waste of blood and nutrients as a mature organism. The same applies to things like the pinkie toe. If we don't need it, why should be continue to waste resources on it?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions

It does make sense that changes are more gradual than immediate, but the issue I have with that is the development of organs and other things. For instance, an organ that isn't of any use until it's fully formed, what benefit would there be to a half-formed organ, as to be passed on to your offspring enough times to become fully formed?

As far as the pinkie toe thing, I understand that it may be that we don't need it. But, as I understand it, the mechanism of evolution isn't that our DNA is self-aware, and decides "we don't need a pinkie toe anymore, so I'm going to stop growing pinkie toes" But instead, something that hinders your ability to reproduce is phased out, because you can't pass a trait on if you don't reproduce.

So why would people loose their pinkie toes? I don't think there is any reason that having a longer pinkie toe would stop you from reproducing, or that having a shorter pinkie toe would give you an edge in survival or reproduction.

It just seems there is some additional mechanism to the basic idea that helpful traits get passed on, and damaging traits don't. Because, as I said, the size of a pinkie toe is of no consequence to survival or reproduction of modern man, so why would it change? Even if we don't need pinkie toes, what is the mechanism telling our DNA that we don't need them? It can't be natural selection, because pinkie toe size, for the 3rd time, is of no consequence for survival or reproduction.

I'm not a religious person, so don't think I'm trying to push the idea of there being an invisible hand of god getting involved or anything. But I do feel there is something that we are missing. Maybe our DNA or our bodies are kind of self-aware, I don't know. I just don't see how something that doesn't affect survival or reproduction is going to change, based on nothing but natural selection.