Why do half Asian- half Blacks look 100% black?

Why do half Asian- half Blacks look 100% black?
Why are African genetics so strong

Attached: images (50) (27).jpg (584x525, 20.08K)

They don't, THOUGH

Attached: 仲菲菲.jpg (2880x2160, 2.01M)

That's a niggers

But you can clearly tell she's part Asian. A 100% black woman would look like pic related.

Attached: d29c7efae0850716f46eb6643a50209e.jpg (480x640, 64.14K)

>citation needed
you don't see Native africans walking around with slanted eyes.

Attached: Naomi-Osaka-Rui-Hachimura.jpg (1396x785, 775.17K)

that's a black woman

blasians look kino

Attached: 007.jpg (800x532, 77.66K)

that's a black man

Lots of Southern African peoples look like her, you can't use one bantu to represent of Africa. Africa is huge and several distinct H. sapiens lineages populated it several times. Because there are almost no navigable rivers, good harbor locations, or fast overland trade routes in Africa many diverse populations remained separate for tens of thousands of years. Really it wasn't until the umbrella group of "bantus" spread from west africa that there was any contact between these peoples.

the only trait that's dominant is being melanated and that's easy to see, cuz it's a survival trait, pasty ass japan nigga

blacks dont have ching chong eyes. they usually end up looking like brown gooks - except tall.

Attached: f50a1814ce9e30bd211dc3926c07ccd3.jpg (719x1002, 77.62K)

Use doesn't determine trait dominance. Lots of detrimental traits are dominant

Rare intelligent post.

To add to that, even the Bantus had so much room to expand that most of them didn't have much contact with neighboring Bantu tribes 500 miles away. Africa's insane geography also causes people to be isolated from each other since traveling is difficult

>except tall.
only if they breed with niggas that got imported into western cunts at least a few generations back
>inb4 source on map
look up however many you want, african africans rly aren't very tall for obovious reasons
>Lots of detrimental traits are dominant
not really, maybe in the modern world (ie past several thousand years) where weaker and weaker individuals' chances to procreate get bigger and bigger
>detrimental
maybe you wanted to say recessive? which is not the same as detrimental, ie a detrimental trait would be bad eye seight, but you don't have to run away from predators in the night, AND (since relatively recently) even have specs to help you see, so that gene will get passed on, no problemo, even if detrimental

detrimental traits that survive in the wild, are either because species are in an environment where they don't affect them (can you really call them detrimental at that point?) or their other traits far outweigh the detriment (same question here)

Attached: World_male.png (1600x830, 357.65K)

also, since you didn't get that it was bait, I'll have you look at what happens with indians x whites, they get bleached really hard (and in all cases, pick whatever race combo you want, it's still a dice roll, duh)

meant this one and not the one where 80% of the continent is missing, of course, obviously that is

Attached: 160726022225-adult-height-1996-birth-cohort.jpg (2237x1324, 319.71K)

Dominance doesn't determine prevalence. For example blond hair is the most recessive hair color but most swedes are blond, this is simply due to a founder effect. A lot of gain of function mutations are extremely detrimental, lowering lifespans by decades, they are also almost always the dominant gene. What influences dominance is the ease of transcription at the DNA level, what determines prevalence is how many humans have that gene. In the tropics having pale skin would cause sun poisoning, in the northern latitudes having dark skin would cause vitamin D deficiency. I think this is what you were getting at in your last paragraph.

>For example blond hair is the most recessive hair color
gingers*
>most swedes are blond, this is simply due to a founder effect.
>have nothing else to fuck for thousands of years
>turn out the same way
>What influences dominance is the ease of transcription at the DNA level, what determines prevalence is how many humans have that gene.
real big brain moment there, but not addressing any point
>In the tropics having pale skin would cause sun poisoning
not really, Australians are doing fine
>inb4 not tropics
not the point

>not really, Australians are doing fine
nigga we have the highest skin cancer rates in the world

Attached: file.png (694x576, 49.11K)

black/brown is the default setting for humans

And no not all black people come from Africa most west Africans are descendent of people from the Americas and the surrounding islands who went to African

black peepo get skin cancer too, my point is you're not turning much swartier
>germany
>netherlands
>canada
looks like lack of sun isn't helping much, but I'm not trying to make a point, just an observation
>In the tropics having pale skin would cause sun poisoning, in the northern latitudes having dark skin would cause vitamin D deficiency. I think this is what you were getting at in your last paragraph.
>in the northern latitudes having dark skin would cause vitamin D deficiency
um, don't dark colors attract more sun? not to mention several thousand years ago even more of Africa was a jungle, so you're not exactly in danger of sunburn, like I said the "niggas being black is just a survival trait and therefore dominant" was bait ...

Australia is literally the skin cancer capitol of the world THOUGH

not my argument THOUGH

Shut the fuck up retard.

Attached: crop-822912.jpg (836x556, 149.65K)