I agree with the above statement, I just was to lazy to do so. I would also like to clarify the different skin color aspect of the debate. A prominent exception to the common distribution of physical characteristics within and among groups is skin color. Approximately 10% of the variance in skin color occurs within groups, and ~90% occurs between groups (Relethford 2002). This distribution of skin color and its geographic patterning—with people whose ancestors lived predominantly near the equator having darker skin than those with ancestors who lived predominantly in higher latitudes—indicate that this attribute has been under strong selective pressure. Darker skin appears to be strongly selected for in equatorial regions to prevent sunburn, skin cancer, the photolysis of folate, and damage to sweat glands (Sturm et al. 2001; Rees 2003). A leading hypothesis for the selection of lighter skin in higher latitudes is that it enables the body to form greater amounts of vitamin D, which helps prevent rickets (Jablonski 2004). Evidence for this includes the finding that a substantial portion of the differences of skin color between Europeans and Africans resides in a single SLC24A5, the threonine-111
allele of which was found in 98.7 to 100% among several European samples, while the alanine-111 form was found in 93 to 100% of samples of Africans, East Asians and Indigenous Americans (Lamason et al. 2005). However, the vitamin D hypothesis is not universally accepted (Aoki 2002), and lighter skin in high latitudes may correspond simply to an absence of selection for dark skin (Harding et al. 2000). Anyways, I find this last bit almost commical. "Once again, please stop being overly sensitive and hostile towards others on the subject. It only makes you out to be equal or worse of a biggot." I don't see exactly to what extent I went to, to be called a bigot (correct spelling). I simply stated you where wrong and you still have yet to bring forth any substantial evidence that says otherwise. You said there was evidence yet you gave none, mainly because there isn't any to be found. I, taking the 'lazy' way out decided to save myself the typing grief and send you to a biology professor who could answer all your questions on the spot and go into further detail about the subject then I would like to. I don't see, even remotely, where the term bigot could be justified.
O, and I "The Thrifty Gene."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html
summary: In this review, we focus on the biogeographical distribution of genetic variation and address whether or not populations cluster according to the popular concept of 'race'. We show that racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species. Although populations do cluster by broad geographic regions, which generally correspond to socially recognized races, the distribution of genetic variation is quasicontinuous in clinal patterns related to geography. The broad global pattern reflects the accumulation of genetic drift associated with a recent African origin of modern humans, followed by expansion out of Africa and across the rest of the globe. Because disease genes may be geographically restricted due to mutation, genetic drift, migration and natural selection, knowledge of individual ancestry will be important for biomedical studies. Identifiers based on race will often be insufficient.