Black parents...white baby

[MarkMuses]

THE white baby girl born to black parents is to undergo full genetic tests, it was revealed yesterday.

And Ben and Angela Ihegboro are also trying to discover whether they have any white ancestry.
The devout Christian couple believe there are no whites on either side of their Nigerian families that could have led to four-day-old Nmachi's skin colour.

But Ben's mother Amebo, 70, is unusual in having blue eyes. Ben and Angela agreed to let experts study Nmachi as geneticist Dr Mark Thomas, of University College, London, said the odds of the baby's white colouring were "between many millions to one and a million to one".
He said: "I suspect there's been a mixture of a mutation, like albinism, combined with a dormant white gene."
Ben, 44, a customer services adviser, said: "It doesn't matter to us quite how she came about but we will do what we can to find answers. She's a beautiful, miracle baby and we love her. She could be green and yellow - we would love her the same."
The Sun told yesterday how Ben and Angela, of Woolwich, South London, were amazed by their blonde daughter's birth at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup.

I have not made enough posts to be allowed to link. Could somebody please add the link? Google: "the sun docs to study black couple's white baby"

Interesting genetic event if the story bears out. Thoughts?

[Aristander]

If the baby is not an albino then I would think it is pretty uncommon. Although I have seen several cases recently where a mixed race couple has given birth to a child that looks to be "white."
Several years back there was a mixed couple in Britain that had a set of fraternal twins where one was white and the other appeared to be the same color as the parents.
I don't know if I can post a link, but Snopes has pictures of the twins in Britain.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/mixedtwins.asp

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Very rare and very interesting.

[Shasta]

Even Nigerians are scammed!

[MarkMuses]

How rare this is seems to make it even more special. My understanding is that European genotype is recessive normally. Is this because Europeans are some kind of off-shoot?

Perhaps until an off-shoot fully matures it remains genetically submissive to the parent African tree? That seems intuitive to me depending on how much time/changing environment factors and how pronounced the multi-regional theory may be if Neanderthal/other admixture is significant.

If East Asians are genetically more distant to Africans perhaps a black child amongst that group would be even more unusual? Links anyone?

it seems to me in nature almost anything can happen, at least potentially. Perhaps this rarity in cross-race birth actually re-enforces the argument for races in some taxonomic sense?

Sub-species or lower tier? I've seen some challenging arguments on this recently. Taxonomic rules and debates appear interesting, indeed contentious regarding extinction rates of plants/animals set against the arguments surrounding climate change. Too many moving targets?

Certainly I find it very odd that so called 'racism' persists amongst population groups in the West where so much money has, and is continually invested in eradicating any promotion of such perceived thinking. So much so, a google on "mixed-race supremacy" appears to be mainstream media acceptable in direct contrast if you examine the later links.

Should we consider animal sub-species breeding choices as 'racist' or bigoted? Such crossing is possible (again re: Neanderthal DNA in humans for example). Some will naturally opt to out-group-breed where practicable. I just think those that in-group-breed just might, just might, not be banjo playing Nazi freaks but, simply being themselves following a similarly natural genetic imperative.

Either way, it is highly topical given the current and not least, projected rates of genetic replacement rates within Europe (why not the far East? Only Whitey - begs an answer doesn't it?). Perhaps even this Web site will look very different in just a few decades?

European genetic diversity appears to be rich within itself and fascinating if paradoxically so closely defined relative to the other continents that it is peculiarly homogenous. In fact, all the more of a concern if conservation is to be an emerging issue albeit political heresy.

Multiple lines of inquiry there, and I don't want to get into any flaming please. It is difficult to separate the two given current changes. Yes I am 'White', and yes, I am becoming increasingly concerned... I don't particularly wish to deny it. I am a libertarian. A concept I am very happy to discuss in detail elsewhere.

Ultimately if such a globally major genetic pool is intent on assisting its own demise barring oddities such as the examples in this thread then, in a way, I suppose, it is bizarrely "natural".

Although, I must say it appears to set a precedent in the entire history of nature as far as I know. What other group has ever actively facilitated its own demise? if we are to deem it natural, almost a slap in the face at Darwin. Dysfunctional would seem to be more apt to me.

[LeBrok]

Hi Mark, welcome to the club. :)
Firstly, try to find the answer why people living closer to equator have darker skin, and people farther from it lighter. This has nothing to do with recessive genes.
Secondly, nothing really exists in human nature that doesn't have long evolutionary roots. Racism obviously popped up in past as useful trait too, as self protection for small hunter-gatherer communities against other competing groups. In today’s world it's more a drag in our quest for building one big happy global village.

Surely our world is shrinking and mixing between races will only speed up. What will be the final product in a 1 000 years, who knows?
I gave it some thought and will say that well mixed human being will never exist.
In about 100 years most of people will be made in clinics, from DNA of parents, with removed bad genes, added genes of geniuses, to make a super human being. After all, parents want the best for their kids, don’t they. Who's going to risk making kids at home? How would you like to have a normal, or even smart (per our standards) kid in classroom full with geniuses?
Colour of skin, hair and eyes will be more a fashion statement. We might have generations of blonds, or dark skinned. It's like with first names, every generation 50% of kids have 10 most popular names.

Will it go against Darwin natural selection? Paradoxically no, people will still evolve, just the forces of evolutionary changes will change. No longer will hunger and disease lead the prim, but logic and fashion. But still by all means the forces of nature, because they come from people, that are part of nature, therefore whatever choices we make are part on nature.
So who knows what the final product of 10 000 years of peeps choosing the look of their babes will lead to? At the end maybe all races are seeing the blond and blue eye people more attractive? Black guys are proffering blond girls, Asian women want to look more European, etc. Who knows, we might end up with whole planet full of white, blue eye geniuses, even though the genes for that might be recessive.

[Nasturtium]

The prevailing theory I've read is that early hominids had light skin, covered with hair. Darker pigments evolved due to hairlessness, perhaps for folate retention or skin cancer protection. Based on that, it seems to me evolution went from light to dark...to light for some. I don't think the trait is being "submissive", just adaptive.

[Aristander]

From what I've read lighter skin tones and especially the palest tones probably occurred at higher latitudes, with colder climates. The women with lighter skin were able to produce enough Vitamin D from the lesser amount of sunlight that was available in those regions. Women with darker skin tones did not produce get enough Vitamin D and suffered from deficiency diseases like rickets. Women with Vitamin D deficiencies were less likely to survive pregnancy or produce viable offspring.
It would only take a few thousand years before the lighter skinned people would greatly outnumber the darker skinned people.

[MarkMuses]

Thank you for the welcome and replies. I have found a list of dominant recessive genes here:
http://www.blinn.edu/socialscience/L...s/0203hand.htm
(unfortunately the format does not lend itself to copy/pasting nicely).

Am a bit pushed for time, so hope to return later.

[Minty]

It seems that according to what I have read here in this forum, if an East Asian was to produce a child with a white, the baby would look more like Asian. It is just that the majority of the white East Asian mixed children that I know only two look more like East Asians, two they are neither, and most look more like white people.

Now I know a lot of people like this because I am in such relationship and mixed couple or people seem to love to try to befriend with me, so unless it is some kind of coincidences... for me a Eurasian baby usually looks more like white, except for the very dark Asian people, I think their babies look darker when they are mixed with white but the yellow skin people the Far Easterners, I think they look more whitish looking!

There is another thing. A lot of the East Asian friends I have thought by marrying a white guy your baby would have blonde hair and blue eyes until I corrected them! Except for Mongolians (because of their invasion of East Europe) or Asian families who had a blonde some generations ago, I have never seen a Eurasian with that result. I noticed some were blonde when they were children but they didn’t have blue eyes at the same time, but by the time they have grown up they have darken.

[MarkMuses]

Thanks, it seems that mixed-race outcomes are a bit uneven phenotypically speaking. I find that odd in itself. Well I guess the story in the opening post (if true) just adds to the mystery.

[Ana72]

Yes, very interesting! Thanks for sharing.