Prove it... let's see this scientific proof chuckie fish... I think you're full of shit.
Jackass Mr Bass told you not to take the bait:
Skin colour wise sub-Saharan Africans are the most diverse
http://www.backintyme.com/skincolor/Relethford1.pdf
Sub-saharan Africans have highest phenotypic diversity:
Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure | Human Biology | Find Articles at BNET
And about Europeans and debunking the notion of a pure white race:
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests
that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race".
The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, by S. O. Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles © 1997 American Anthropological Association.
"Short lengths for European and related
branches have been observed previously for trees
constructed from classical genetic data (1, 8, 30). Two
possible explanations for the short European branch are (a)
that after the fission, Europeans diverged at a much lower
evolutionary rate, or
(b) that Europeans are descendants of
a population that arose due to admixture between two
ancestral populations. The ad hoc hypothesis of a lower
evolutionary rate in Europe is not further testable. We can,
however, rule out one possible cause of such a reduction of
evolutionary rates: the increase in population density due to
agriculture. This was of such magnitude (31) that it may have
frozen genetic drift in Europe. However, because this increase
in density occurred fairly recently relative to the time
of settlement of moderm humans in Europe, it cannot have
caused a reduction of more than 20-25% in the evolutionary
rate of Europeans; trees such as that of Fig. 2 indicate a
reduction of the order of 80-90%o. In contrast to the lower evolutionary rate hypothesis, the hypothesis that the shorter
branch leading to Europeans is due to admixture is testable.
This hypothesis was suggested earlier for the analysis of three
populations (Africans, Europeans, and Northeast Asians;
ref. 7) but was not quantitatively analyzed. One can show that
a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be
shorter than other branches when methods are used that do
not require constant evolutionary rates, by a simple extension
of the theoretical treatment of admixture between
branches of a tree (22).......The data were found to be consistent
with admixture between the branch leading to Chinese after
their separation from Melanesians and the branch leading to
the two African populations (Fig. lb).
From maximum likelihood
estimates the European admixture consisted of 65%
Chinese ancestors and 35% African ancestors (with a standard
error of ±8%) and took place at a time =70% of the total
since the origin, or 30 ± 6 kiloyears (kyr) ago.
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/3/839.full.pdf?ck=nck
There you have it.