So, on *some* of these there's no difference in skin color between the more and less evolved hominids—the "modern" ones have pinkish white-person skin, but the "primitive" ones also have pinkish white-person skin, just covered with dark hair.

On others, such as the one at the top of the post, the skin color changes in the way you describe.

And in a couple of them, although the skin color doesn't change, for the very last "modern" man in the sequence, the hair color suddenly changes from "primitive" brown to red, which is a somewhat more subtle way of racializing evolution.

Or... it's fur? While you may have a case with the end result always seeming kind of caucasian, I think the colour trend is just because of the reducing hairiness. If you look, in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th picture the face (the part not covered by hair) is pretty much consistent. 

http://goo.gl/aCnqp

Given the fact that intercourse/intermarriage among the different members of homo sapiens sapiens does not result in infertile individuals (cf. horses and donkeys) it seems clear that the so-called races are not subspecies, but simply of different colors. And BTW, White is a color. Even an albino has a color.

I remember watching Walking With Cavemen and noting that they went the other way — Homo Ergaster was fairly light-skinned (played by naked British actors), and the first Homo Sapiens were dark (played by sub-Saharan African actors who appeared to be San people). The explanation was that because chimps have pale skin under their fur, early hairless chimps (humanoids) started out light, and gradually adapted to the sun exposure with darker skin. Then, when some of them went north, they adapted to lighter skin again. (Which neanderthals, presumably, had already.)

Accurate or less so, this does underline the basic idea that the majority of human variation is local adaptation to local environments and pathogens; there is no "progression" of skin colour except towards (for example) better protection from the sun vs. better vitamin D absorption in a local climate. But the Victorian myth of progress continues to colour ('scuse the pun) Western perceptions.

This is an interesting observation... while I think there is still insipid racism in many things, I question this assessment/view because most primates (at least chimpanzees and gorillas) ARE of black to dark fur and perhaps the assumption is made that past primates were of the same color. It does beg the question, however, as to why evolution images don't start from past primates to African dark-skinned homo sapiens, the accepted beginning of modern humans. 

I think some of the previous posters may be focusing too much on the past (primate) images and not enough on the later (humanoid) images.  That is, why must the image become lighter especially when the majority of the world's peoples are dark?  To lighten the human image is to associate modern humanity with a very small (just demographically speaking here) part of the world's human population.  If one were being neutral about issues of race in these depictions (a few that pop up on google are, but that's the exception to the rule), the images' color would change little over their evolution, rather than become nearly white by the time the modern human is shown.

Psst...look at these pics with a gender lens too. Ever notice that the pinnacle of evolutionary progress is always a man?

I agree.

However, I do want to play devils advocate here, and point out that, if I'm not mistaken, chimps have light skin under their dark hair.

So in effect, perhaps the chimps are white too in these images, and we're simply becoming less hairy.

Maybe the artists were just trying to make the starkest possible contrast between parts covered with fur/hair and exposed skin?

Check it--haircuts and hair color seem to "evolve" too! Strange.

Women are clearly unevolved

Equating black people with monkeys is a racial stereotype. In the above examples the white man is the most highly evolved. I'm an artist and I'm trying to think of how I would avoid this problem if I was asked to illustrate the evolution of humans.

One thing that you could try to do is have the final fully human figure be a black person. The problem is that this wouldn't really get away from the problem and it fact it might be reasonably seen as doing the opposite, as an attempt to intensify the link between black people and monkeys.

This might be one of those areas where racism ruins all the options. Or maybe we just need a very inspired way to depict it that I'm not thinking of.

1. Consider that the perople making those drawings probably were white and that their purpose was to demonstrate gradual change. Odds are, early homonids had fur which would likely have been dark in color just like most other modern apes. The color change isn't about skin color, but about going from a dark-furred homnid to a figure that represents the the probalby light-skinned person who created the image. The first humans were not white, but had dark skin, so there is no reason for the pre-homesapient ancestors to have progressively whiter skin except as use artistic licence. The color change is a shorthand way to emphesize gradual change, not a commentary on race.

2. The first humans were not white. Lighter skin color is a result of mutations that occured in human beings after we left Africa, and certain populatins of humans grew to have lighter skin colors than others. So, yes, take a white person's ancestory and go far enough back and you will see their ancestors skin color get darker. Ligher skin color is something that some races evolved to have. This does NOT mean that white people are more evolved, however.

The images are not racist.

Are there any samples of this graphic from other cultures? The ones all shown seem to be from the west--suggesting that this is similar to the phenomenon of Jesus being presented as whatever the locals look like.

I also can't help but agree that the skin color should get lighter (no matter what the final color is) as we've evolved to spend less and less time outdoors.

More cutting edge social science studies work! Yeah!!!!

"This is important stuff"

No, it really isn't. At least not as you frame it here.

If the 'out of Africa' thesis is correct, then white humans did evolve from black humans, with possible admixture of Neanderthal genes. They are, so to speak, a later model than the first (black) humans.

Seemed like we should include a link to the original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Progress

These images are copying/referencing/parodying a specific illustration. I expect that may influence some of their choice of coloring.

Note that in the original, the difference in shading is largely to show a difference in body hair, although the final version of homo sapiens is still visibly European.

These images are not representations of evolution.   They are poor illustrations of pop evolution that are not based on scientific evidence. 

Try being white and born in Africa.  In attempts to be correct the term "African" suddenly means dark skinned.  "White African" is seen as an oxymoron.  Everybody is trying to say the right thing but instead just ends up making white people feel like they are not allowed to feel that they belong here.  Someone even remarked to me once that white people in SA go to Europe on their gap year to "go to their roots".  I have to admit I laughed in his face. I refer to myself as African, but some people think that is completely incorrect. People are less alarmed at my being "South African".  It's just weird.

It's especially messed up because light skin is a mutation that only came around some thousands of years ago. Long after we became Homo Sapiens.

It takes some serious hubris to show how monkeys appear to only evolve into white men...

It should be noted also that a few of these are only meant to be jokes. There is no commentary intentional or unintentional about race and color is incidental. The commentary in the jokes is on something else such as increasingly sedentary lifestyles, or as a satire of the image itself ("I'm being followed by monkeys.") 

There is such a thing as looking too much into something and seeing what isn't there, and there is such a thing as ignoring the real message being made.

Isn't the point of these illustrations to depict evolution up until the present day? In that case it would not tell the whole story to end the progression on a dark-skinned person. Even though dark-skinned people most certainly exist in today's world, our exterior has evolved beyond this point. Althought this doesn't explain why the image doesn't depict an Asian or Latino person. Perhaps this reflects the ethnocentricism of the original artist?

It's better than the alternative: a dark-skinned hominid would be doubly racist because it would look like it's saying "POC are monkeys." Plus, white creationists are SO OFFENDED by the idea they're related to apes. Double whammy!

There is no way to remove all racist undertones from this picture.

The actual point about evolution has to do with racial stereotypes,it has created a sort of division between the african and the american growth,although africans may live in a society where we have so much america,there is always a common name given to us. it is either we are Black or African-American. This is not only present among the black,it also present within the white where you have the caucasians,hispanic and so on. Racial stereotypes has become more of a way of identification and knoeing the level of maturity that we fall into

Most of the comments seem to assume that we are the result of evolution.  Maybe if we dispose of that assumption we can see clearly?  

The fact that people are so caught up on whats "racist" and what isn't is the problem. Black people look more like monkeys and thats just the way it is, just like white people look more like snow men. That's just the truth of the matter, people choosing to see it in a negative context are the problem.

I think it would still be viewed as racist if you had a chimp turn into a black man. That picture would look like something the KKK would use. The only way to be color blind is to actually practice being color blind. Stop trying to racialize things that aren't racial.

How odd that no-one ever worries that it never ens up anything other than black or white.
Gok Kwan I suggest.

One can see what one wishes in these images, especially the second image from the top. For instance, one inference is that the white man is a descendent of the apes, while the black man was created in the image of God in the Garden of Eden. " So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" Genesis 1:27
I played around with this idea of God as a black man in my photograph titled "Eli's coming" http://www.flickr.com/photos/bill_angel/8243605379/

I can't believe that no one has even mentioned the fact that only one gender is represented. That's insulting in itself!

Every single one of those figures is male, too.

that's foolish because apes skin is white!

In any scenario, whether the human at the end is white, black, or somewhere in between, someone could find a reason to presume it is a statement on race; though it was clearly not the illustrations original intended message. Hence the alternative versions consisting of only silhouettes- as they are featureless, and were made precisely to avoid offending less evolved human beings that think this way :)