> I didn't ask for evidence from you. I asked more specifically "Are there any studies giving strong evidence as to the causation for evolving white skin? Corr

> I didn't ask for evidence from you. I asked more specifically "Are there any studies giving strong evidence as to the causation for evolving white skin? Correlation is evidence of causation, and the correlation between skin colour and latitude comes from studies. Therefore I provided that evidence. > We've gone from "It must be important if it was worth evolving white skin over" to "we can't prove that's why we have white skin". We did evolve white skin to produce vitamin D, the evidence is overwhelming. Just like evidence was overwhelming about smoking causing cancer, even before the 2018 article you linked came out. You seem to be misunderstanding the Wikipedia article. It's not contradicting itself. The correct interpretation is that the need for dark skin at the equators doesn't explain white skin nearer the poles, therefore there must be a different reason for it (vitamin D). That article wikipedia links to can be found on SciHub. Overall, your approach reminds me of creationists that claim that evolution is "just a theory" because noone has ever proven it in a lab, and correlation is not causation. And tobacco companies who have denied that smoking causes cancer because correlation does not equal causation.