Chronos wrote:
Dark skin is beneficial in most of the easily habitable areas of the world. We are accustom to seeing white people in regions that have higher UV levels than most of Europe, where "white" complexions were selected for, and think nothing of it but the reality is, most white people who in parts of the world with higher UV levels than mid/norther Europe have sun damaged skin.
Despite my use of sunscreen, living in a sunny region where UV levels reach high levels, my skin is visibly sun damaged compared to say, the skin of the average white person in Scotland. People in my region, however, don't notice this because they are accustomed to seeing sun damaged skin.
Should the modern world disappear, I may be ok here. I tan a bit, though surely I would develop skin cancer in my later years. One of my siblings, however, has no ability to tan and would burn very badly which would reduce their genetic fitness in this environment.
Conversly, a vary dark person from Sudan would possibly develop rickets and thyroid problems if they lived in a low UV environment and did not have a way to obtain vitamin D.
The level of melanin is a biological adaptation but (on the flipside) the belief in "Toynbeeism" remains strong in conservative circles in both Europe and Asia. This is a Darwinian concept that colder climes induce greater levels of cognitive adaptation to survive the harsher environment leading to populations with greater mental capacity (thus leading to greater creativity and intellectual development). This Darwinian approach was used to explain why agriculture or the wheel did not develop in equatorial zones. Among it's adherents were Margaret Thatcher and Lee Kuan Yew...
Of course it's bunk...
You can still find plenty of internet sites preaching long outdated "scientific" ideas that had more to do with racist political notions that with real science. Not only are non-whites allegedly proven to be inferior, but so are certain white European groups, such as short, stocky , round headed Alpine types.