i don't think you understand what evolution impliesNo....The were all originally an albinoid uniform phenotype;
"
ac. Ger. 4
- "For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of inter-marriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them."
Greeks and Romans were a mullatocized population, with the founding population being black African from the Neolithic, and other African waves. This was followed by one of the first infiltrations of Indo-European albinos from the Caucus. This resulted in the Greek Dark Ages. The later Romans describe the ancestors of contemporary Western Europeans migrating West from the Caucus, and shows how their phenotype was not yet tainted with melaninated blood. He also described their PHYSICAL DEFICENCIES resulting from their albinism. Now if you don't the subsequent history of Europe as it involves this branch that is being described by the Romans then you don't need to comment on the history of this situation.
its just changes in traits that are propagated by successful survival and reproduction
the white people on earth are proof of successful survival and reproduction after the mutation