I thought we were talking about what they appear like, not whether there's one drop of black DNA in them.
-
Features
Black woman White babies (I'm drunk sorry in advance)
- Thread starter Gospel
- Start date
I thought we were talking about what they appear like, not whether there's one drop of black DNA in them.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,082
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
There's no such thing as 'black DNA'.
If you concentrate DNA enough to see it with the naked eye, it is a kind of off-white to pale yellow colour, and usually sticky and viscous due to tangling of the long strands.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
It was barbos who brought up genetics and "100%".
Anyway, talking about appearance, not only is it clearly possible for a kid to appear a different race than one of their parents, it's even possible for one and the same person to appear a different race today than yesterday. All that's required is getting on a plane and getting off somewhere else. For example, the degree of African ancestry required to be "black" in Brazil is much higher than in the US, and in Sudan, you actually have to speak a non-Arab native language to be considered "black".
An old encyclopedia I had as a kid stated the population of Sudan (then including what's now South Sudan) as so-and-so many percent "Arabs and arabized negroes", so-and-so many Nubians, so-and-so many of various other African ethnicities. I'm pretty sure the "Arabs and arabized negroes"-category was referred to simply as "Arabs" in the underlying census data, but the Western editor found it relevant to hint at the fact that many Sudanese Arabs don't have what his readers would consider a typical Arab physiognomy.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
No, the OP mentions black women with 100% white babies. Barbos just accepted that as a thing without quibble.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
I stand corrected, barbos just mentioned a very narrow max at 75%, which implies to me that, rather than just being to lazy to correct it, as I was, he accepted that broken Premier as valid and tried to Science about unicorns. I believe he can do better than that, which might be why I corrected him and not the OP
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, I do not, but maybe he could actually 'define' white vs. black for the discussion of this purpose.
He, or the OP, or anyone who accepts the premise.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
White generally means Anglo-Saxon over here. Among Latinas Anglo is generally derogatory. Those of Hispanic descent as opposed to Latinos consider themselves white.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid)[2] is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[3]
First introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History,[4] the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).[5] In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone.[6] Ancient and modern "Caucasoid" populations were thus held to have ranged in complexion from white to dark brown.[7] Since the second half of the 20th century, physical anthropologists have moved away from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective, and have tended to understand race as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is also understood in the social sciences.[8] Although Caucasian / Caucasoid and their counterparts Negroid and Mongoloid have been used less frequently as a biological classification in forensic anthropology (where it is sometimes used as a way to identify the ancestry of human remains based on interpretations of osteological measurements), the terms remain in use by some anthropologists.[9]
In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used in a different, societal context as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry.[10][11] Its usage in American English has been criticized.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons
The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century, and the direct ancestors of the majority of the modern British people. They comprise people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language; the cultural foundations laid by the Anglo-Saxons are the foundation of the modern English legal system and of many aspects of English society; the modern English language owes over half its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to the language of the Anglo-Saxons. Historically, the Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period in Britain between about 450 and 1066, after their initial settlement and up until the Norman conquest.[1] The early Anglo-Saxon period includes the creation of an English nation, with many of the aspects that survive today, including regional government of shires and hundreds. During this period, Christianity was established and there was a flowering of literature and language. Charters and law were also established.[2] The term Anglo-Saxon is popularly used for the language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England and eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century. In scholarly use, it is more commonly called Old English.[3]
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or Europid)[2] is a grouping of human beings historically regarded as a biological taxon, which, depending on which of the historical race classifications used, have usually included some or all of the ancient and modern populations of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[3]
First introduced in the 1780s by members of the Göttingen School of History,[4] the term denoted one of three purported major races of humankind (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).[5] In biological anthropology, Caucasoid has been used as an umbrella term for phenotypically similar groups from these different regions, with a focus on skeletal anatomy, and especially cranial morphology, over skin tone.[6] Ancient and modern "Caucasoid" populations were thus held to have ranged in complexion from white to dark brown.[7] Since the second half of the 20th century, physical anthropologists have moved away from a typological understanding of human biological diversity towards a genomic and population-based perspective, and have tended to understand race as a social classification of humans based on phenotype and ancestry as well as cultural factors, as the concept is also understood in the social sciences.[8] Although Caucasian / Caucasoid and their counterparts Negroid and Mongoloid have been used less frequently as a biological classification in forensic anthropology (where it is sometimes used as a way to identify the ancestry of human remains based on interpretations of osteological measurements), the terms remain in use by some anthropologists.[9]
In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used in a different, societal context as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry.[10][11] Its usage in American English has been criticized.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons
The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century, and the direct ancestors of the majority of the modern British people. They comprise people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language; the cultural foundations laid by the Anglo-Saxons are the foundation of the modern English legal system and of many aspects of English society; the modern English language owes over half its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to the language of the Anglo-Saxons. Historically, the Anglo-Saxon period denotes the period in Britain between about 450 and 1066, after their initial settlement and up until the Norman conquest.[1] The early Anglo-Saxon period includes the creation of an English nation, with many of the aspects that survive today, including regional government of shires and hundreds. During this period, Christianity was established and there was a flowering of literature and language. Charters and law were also established.[2] The term Anglo-Saxon is popularly used for the language that was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons in England and eastern Scotland between at least the mid-5th century and the mid-12th century. In scholarly use, it is more commonly called Old English.[3]
"Black DNA" would be DNA that codes for black features (hair, skin color etc.)
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Does it?steve_bank said:
Wouldn't most people of Italian or French descent (for example) qualify as "White" also? Italian-Americans?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
DNA has been used to trace the human migration and divergence out of Africa to today. Back in the 90s there was a poorly written article that led many to pronounce race did not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
The relationship between race and genetics is relevant to the controversy concerning race classification. In everyday life, many societies classify populations into groups based on phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry and cultural identity—these are the groups usually called "races" in countries like the United States, Brazil, and South Africa. Patterns of variation of human genetic traits are generally clinal, with more abrupt shifts at places where steady gene flow is interrupted. The pattern of genetic variants tend to form larger regional clusters. Such a pattern can be explained by the expansion of the human population from Africa and serial genetic bottlenecks.[1] This causes genetic clusters to correlate statistically with population groups when a number of alleles are evaluated.[2][3][4]
Genetic analysis enables scientists to estimate the geographic ancestry of a person by using ancestry-informative markers, and by inference the probable racial category into which they will be classified in a given society. In that way there is a distinct statistical correlation between gene frequencies and racial categories. However, because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race.[citation needed]
Some genetic variants that contribute to the risk of complex diseases are differently distributed among human populations. It is debated whether self-identified race ought to be used by medical practitioners as a proxy for the probability that an individual possesses risk-related variants.[5][6] Such practice may result in false attribution of causality, stigmatisation of high-risk populations, or underestimation of risk for other populations.[7][8] There is also a large body of evidence that environmental risk factors for complex diseases track racial categories in the United States.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
The relationship between race and genetics is relevant to the controversy concerning race classification. In everyday life, many societies classify populations into groups based on phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry and cultural identity—these are the groups usually called "races" in countries like the United States, Brazil, and South Africa. Patterns of variation of human genetic traits are generally clinal, with more abrupt shifts at places where steady gene flow is interrupted. The pattern of genetic variants tend to form larger regional clusters. Such a pattern can be explained by the expansion of the human population from Africa and serial genetic bottlenecks.[1] This causes genetic clusters to correlate statistically with population groups when a number of alleles are evaluated.[2][3][4]
Genetic analysis enables scientists to estimate the geographic ancestry of a person by using ancestry-informative markers, and by inference the probable racial category into which they will be classified in a given society. In that way there is a distinct statistical correlation between gene frequencies and racial categories. However, because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race.[citation needed]
Some genetic variants that contribute to the risk of complex diseases are differently distributed among human populations. It is debated whether self-identified race ought to be used by medical practitioners as a proxy for the probability that an individual possesses risk-related variants.[5][6] Such practice may result in false attribution of causality, stigmatisation of high-risk populations, or underestimation of risk for other populations.[7][8] There is also a large body of evidence that environmental risk factors for complex diseases track racial categories in the United States.[9]
barbos
Contributor
I was talking about genotype not phenotype. Greek looking blacks can still be 100% reliably distinguished from Greeks, using genes that is.
barbos
Contributor
I think looking at this from the perspective of genetics is useful.
barbos
Contributor
My comment was not really dependent on definition of white or black.
From the perspective of genetics, there's no such thing as 100% white.
repoman
Contributor
What about "black" subsaharan African facial features and hair?
Humans have very sensitive and dedicated facial recognition processors in our brains. If we figure out how that works, I bet it would assist in making better AI. When that portion of the brain does not work, there is not much that can be done to compensate. We can tell if a northwest European or Subsaharan African or even make good guesses as to ratios of admixture despite excellent photoshopping of skin color.
Humans have very sensitive and dedicated facial recognition processors in our brains. If we figure out how that works, I bet it would assist in making better AI. When that portion of the brain does not work, there is not much that can be done to compensate. We can tell if a northwest European or Subsaharan African or even make good guesses as to ratios of admixture despite excellent photoshopping of skin color.