I’m confused. What does OJ Simpson have to do with the first humans?
You think scientists would be concerned with determining whether first man’s skin was very very dark, very dark, dark, or cafe au lait with a shot of vodka?
But seriously, skin color variations occur even within the populations you were talking about; these things don’t fall along hard and fast lines, so talking about them as if they do strikes me as bizarre, John. So-called black groups, are actually made up of literally brown and literally black people. The “brown” people you were talking about, likewise can also be very dark complected and literally black. We’re not talking about genes, we’re talking about color.
If it was determined that First Man came out of South Africa, then yeah, chances are First Man had milk chocolate (brown) skin as opposed to dark chocolate (black). Would it be incorrect to say First Man was black? If you are using “black” in a literal sense that few people (even scientists) employ when talking about people, then yeah, it would be incorrect. But black is not often used in that way, so although it would incorrect technically, it’s a bit disingenuous to say “No, First Man wasn’t black, he was dark brown”.
If what you are really saying is, “First Man may not have belonged to the group of sub-Saharan Africans often refered to as ‘Blacks’ by socioanthropolgists, but rather there’s evidence he belonged to the Khoi or pygmie races,” then I have no problems with that argument at all, because it doesn’t hinge on picking apart the word “black” in literal terms. For some strange reason, like I said before, that strikes me as bizarre. I admit I haven’t done a good job of explaining why, though.
Maybe they were the ones who really did it! :eek:
ywtf: I’m going to stop flogging this dead horse at this point, since the OP seems to have abandoned his thread. I think all the points you bring up are good ones, and I’ve mentioned most of them myself in earlier posts. We’re really not in disagreement on the fundamental issue-- the question is ill defined, although understandably so since most people are pretty ignorant about the scientific facts about “race”, human evolution, and how ancient populations relate to modern ones.
“It’s almost certain that the first Homo sapiens were “hairless”, much like ourselves.”
Shave my back for me?
Okay, I’ll stop flogging it, too. And I won’t talk about OJ any more, either.
Well, if you want to talk about “cafe au lait,” why not let other people discuss their favorite drinks too? 
Fascinating. I’m wondering how the date range jibes with, for instance, Cheddar Man, who died approximately nine thousand years ago and has indirect descendants in that area verified through mDNA typing - two children and one grown man, the local school’s Science teacher.
Considering how improbable it would be that the common matrilineal ancestor of Cheddar Man and three current descendants is also the ancestor of all other people today, I’m curious as to how that might affect the date range. Off hand, I’d say those neolithic populations didn’t evaporate with the coming of agriculture. But that’s another discussion.
Prior to the age of discovery (let’s say 1600 - 1700, roughly), that date was probably much older. It is possible that this analysis excludes some tiny tribe in New Guinea or someplace, but if you read the actual scientific paper, they were quite rigorous with the assumptions.
As for Cheddar man, don’t confuse him with the Identical Ancestor Point. I’m directly related to my grandmother, but that doesn’t make her a universal ancestor. So, if John Smith in England is found to be descended from Cheddar Man, it doesn’t mean much, since Cheddar Man may lie well within the IAP.
Ah, yes. Much of what we wonder at makes much more sense when realize some of our features were designed for the good of our parasites. (I’m not kidding, either.)
As to the OP. I think it’s reasonable (if not necessarily true) to say that the higher melanin we see in some tropical races is a later development, & thus any particularly dark-skinned race (including Bantu, modern East Africans, Khoikhoi, South Indians, & Melanesians) is more highly evolved than the pale-skinned & sunburn-prone “white man.” We aren’t all really black.
Later than what? It’s unlikely that the pale skin we see in northern Europeans and Asians appeared prior to 40K years ago, which is about when those lands were occupied by our species, and probably more recently than that.
And no group of humans is “more highly evolved” than any other group.