Why was the caption to these questions censored?

It is my understanding that thus far scientists believe the origin of humans was in Africa.





Were the first known people thought to be dark-skinned?





If so, with dark skin being a dominant trait, how did the other two categories occur?





In my heading I listed the three divisions of race as I was taught them in school. One of the three was censored.





This is historically correct in that that is what I was taught and doesn't reflect any value judgement on my part.





Isn't this carrying political correctness to the extreme?Why was the caption to these questions censored?
I assume that it is a word that stars with ';n';?





Yeah, a lot of words in that field get censoredWhy was the caption to these questions censored?
There are no specific genes which determine racial characteristics. But it is believed that all humans were originally between dark and light skinned, and the same middle-ground applied to other characteristics. As humans moved out of the tropics, Natural Selection favored lighter skin and eyes, as well as other characteristics. Those who remained in the tropics were selected for the more African characteristics.





The Han Chinese and American Indians were the last groups to emerge, about 20,000 years ago. They are the least like Africans racially.





The persistence of light-skinned Africans and dark-skinned Northerners is a normal variation in the populations, also completely in line with Natural Selection.





As to why the category was censored, I think it contained a word similar to, but not the same as, the ';N'; word.
When the dark-skinned people from ancient Africa traveled to northern regions, where there isn't enough sun, they suffered from vitamin D deficiency (the darker your skin, the more sunlight you need to faciliate vitamin D production). Therefore, selection for lighter skin occured, and skin color became lighter in these regions.
Yes, your word is correct. Unfortunately, because some people misused it, it is no longer acceptable in some circles. I had the same thing happen and was thoroughly surprised to find out that it wasn't an acceptable word.





I'll bet they censor the correct term for a female dog in the Pets category, too. It's done by a computer which cannot understand context.
Maurog, then why are there still dark skinned people in northern latitudes and why haven't lighter skinned people in southern latitudes gotten darker?
it is all politics
I assume that the word was neg roid. That word being censored is probably the result of a filter installed by yahoo just to block out the n-word. The fact that neg roid was blocked is probably a technological flaw, not a statement of political correctness. After all, nobody can go through every question to ensure proper censorship.





As for the dark skin being common of the first humans, I don't know if you could really tell because the skin no longer exists.





Now for the issue of how lighter skin could have evolved if dark skin was originally the color of all humans: There was a mutation in the DNA that reduced the production of melatonin (the pigment that gives skin its color). Even if light skin were recessive, it could have been passed on even though multiple generations would appear darker. When two people with the mutant gene mated, the result would be a child with lighter skin. Remember, due to the law of independent assortment, just because a gene is not expressed does not necessarily mean that it appears any less frequently than a dominant mutation. However, a think skin color is a case of incomplete dominance, in which case one neither allele is dominant.