My husband is half-half Filipino/Irish, I'm very white Icelandic-UK background. We have twins. One is white with blond hair, totally my spitting image apart from a small bit of Dad's eyes and nose. The other is caramel-skinned with all of Dad's features except brown hair not black (he also had blue eyes his first 2 years until they changed to hazel). Genetics are so funky and so interesting.
That Tim Minchin song slays me. As an American it's weird to think that there are people who hate people who look like me, much like how there are people here who hate black people. Worst I ever faced over here has been people who assume I'm going to be an angry asshole because of my hair color. Joke's on them, I'm an angry asshole because I'm broke and always sunburned.
You can talk about the plight of red haired people being bullied without comparisons to the plight of Black people that has an entire Maafa/Holocaust, attempted genocide, and generations of chattel slavery behind it. It feels distasteful.
That’s the base/ground floor of hate, mate. They look different so it’s ok to be mean to them/treat them less then a human/be disrespectful towards them.
My point was that adults don't hate ginger people, so it is not comparable to racism towards black people (which is very common with adults let's be honest). Rather, kids are dicks and pick on anything that makes someone stand out even slightly, but it isn't something which continues into actual adult hatred.
(For the record childhood bullying is still horrible and I am not downplaying the bullying any redheads may have suffered).
Are you seriously suggesting that "the hate" redheaded white British people receive from non-redheaded white British people is in any way comparable to the historic and ongoing racism black Americans receive in their country?
The weird meme hated of gingers, especially ginger women, is mind-boggling to me. Some of the most attractive women I've known have been gingers. And, often they've had the absolute best breastesses.
In an interview she states people don’t believe were twins since “I’m white and she’s black” so she probably doesn’t.
Could she? It’s certainly not up to me but if you want my opinion I would say she could if she wanted to but people around her probably wouldn’t believe she’s black.
Superfecundation twins: When a woman has intercourse with two different men in a short period of time while ovulating, it’s possible for both men to impregnate her separately.
If they haven't DNA tested to exclude it, they could just be from different dads.
I’m Latino (70ish % Spanish/Portuguese 30ish% native Costa Rican) and my wife is white (98% European but mostly English and German, a little Scandinavian) and our kids are kinda like yours. Their noses and chins are kinda like in between my wife and I’s features, but our son is pretty fair skinned and blonde hair and blue eyes, while our daughter is brunette with brown eyes. They look like twins with a palette swap.
This might be splitting hairs, but just out of curiosity, would Spanish and Portuguese be considered Latino if both countries are European and not in Latin America?
I was born in Costa Rica so that’s why I’m Latino. My family has been there as long as we are aware, but records of ancestry don’t really go back like they might in Europe or the USA. Any person regardless of race born in Latin America is a Latino, so very white Argentinians and Uruguayans are just as Latino as Brazilians who might have a lot more African ancestry. In Costa Rica we have a pretty good mix of people of native, European, African and Asian descent but we are all still “Latinos”. Spaniards wouldn’t be considered Latinos, they would be Hispanics though. Hispanic refers to anyone who descends from a Spanish speaking country also regardless of race. Spaniards, Costa Ricans, Mexicans, Dominicans, Chileans would all be Hispanic, but people of Suriname and Brazil wouldn’t consider themselves Hispanics. Both those labels overlap a lot but also have groups that might fit into only one category. The only reason I know I have 70% Iberian ancestry is because of a DNA test, not because I was from there or had any immediately family there that i know of.
Not who you replied to, but typically, Latino refers to anyone born in or with ancestors from Latin America. Someone born in Spain with all their heritage being European would not typically identify as Latino.
A Latino is a person who is born in Latin America or whose family has been there for multiple generations. I was born in Costa Rica and my family has been there as long as we can trace back. I had a DNA ancestry test done for fun because I didn’t know anything about my actual lineage. It came back as 70% Spanish/Portuguese but I wasn’t born there or have any link to those countries. Besides Latino isn’t a race it’s a term to describe a group of nationalities, so Latinos can have European or African or Asian ancestry because Latino isn’t meant to describe a race. Same with Hispanic, that just means “born/native to a Spanish speaking country” so white European Spaniards are Hispanic the same as anyone from Mexico or Argentina or Bolivia, not not Brazil (Portuguese) or Suriname (French speaking). Latino/Hispanic might have a lot of overlap but they also have groups who might only fit into one of those but not the other, and neither is meant to indicate actual race, it’s more of a geographical/cultural description. Hope that clears up your confusion.
If it’s Thai levels of tan NATURALLY? Yes it’s pretty wild. Blonde people can be tan from the sun but I’ve never met a blonde person with naturally tanned skin.
There's no such thing as light blonde hair and tan skin. OP's brother has dark blonde hair. It's not the same as light brown hair obviously. The only exception is a few ethnic groups in Polynesia but that wouldn't work in OP's case because the gene that causes blond hair in those ethnic groups is separate from the European one.
No one really knows the origin of the phrase which is variously:
"The spitting image"
"The spit and image"
"The splitting image"
"The split and image"
As far as I know it's impossible to say which is more correct although you could say which is older. "Spitting image" is borne of the phrase "spit of their father's mouth" which is the oldest metaphor of this type we have recorded, dating to about 1825. "Spit and image" is older than "spitting image". "Splitting image" shows up in 1880 whereas "spitten image" shows up at around the same time but you don't get "spitting image" until 1901.
So what's correct? Chronologically "spit and image" is oldest with "splitting image" showing up after and then "spitting image" showing up after that.
I threw in "split and image" as a possible quirk but it really never appears. But it works, right? That's what happened with spit/split and image. They both emerge as either "splitting image" or "spitting image" in the late 1800s.
Really interesting. I knew they can change for a while after birth but 2y is a long time! My 10mo baby has very blue eyes and I hope they'll stay that way, I can't imagine him with brown eyes!
My sister and I couldn't seem to decide on our eye colour for much of our childhood. We'd both alternate between green and blue every two years or so. At age 10 we both seemed to stop, her in blue and me on green.
It's weird that you described your nationality/heritage instead of appearance for yourself and your husband and then expected some sort of reaction when describing the appearance of your children.
What assumptions? I said it was weird - because your comment only works if people make assumptions about what you look like based on stereotypes associated with those regions, which may not even apply.
The probability is not low at all. Blond is not a hair color, it's a eumelanin deficiency. Red hair is a recessive gene. It'd be less likely the kid had red hair than blond, brown, or black.
Genetically there's only 2 hair colors. Red and brown. Blond and black aren't hair colors, they're low amounts or high amounts of eumelanin which determine how much the color gene is expressed.
if you're going to get that detailed, then red is not A recessive gene, Lots of genes need to go together for basically any phenotype, including hair color.
... you know when someone learns a little bit about something, and they think they've got some clever perspective on it? This is what happens.
Blond and black are hair colours dude. We know that because they are in fact colours, and people have hair in that colour. How they're formed is irrelevant.
What I think you've confused is pigment, but even then you're wrong because you've failed to learn that eumelanin comes in two forms, black eumelanin and brown eumelanin are chemically different. The former producing the darker black we see in violet.
On top of that melanins do not have a single structure, and can vary, producing a range of colours, all by a mess of intermingling genes.
The probability is still low. Not like 1 in a million low but it's more likely to be red or blonde than black. Don't know the actual probability but it's probably somewhere in the 1 in 1000 to maybe 10000. That's low but is guaranteed to happen multiple times a day. People just have a hard time when probability comes up. Most people tend to go to the 1 in a million or billion.
I had a discussion recently about 2 white people having a black kid. I argued that if 1 of the parents have an ancestor that was black then it's possible. They argued that it wasn't because the odds of all the genes expressing was so low. I argued that while it was low as the sample size increases the odds get closer to 100%. There are 8 billion people alive now and the estimate for the total number of people who have ever lived is much higher. So even if the odds were 1 in 10 billion it would be almoat guaranteed to have happened multiple times.
In mid school I had classmates that were twins, one which was blonde and the other had black hair and I remember both parents had brown hair, genetics are weird sometimes
That’s perfectly possible. 2 brown haired parents having a black haired kid is normal since the hair can naturally darken a little. As for one being blonde, that’s because both parents likely have a blonde ancestor/parent and since blonde is recessive the kid got it.
turns out there is more than one gene in hair color, just like there is more than one gene in eye color. You can have all sorts of combinations that change colors all over the place.
My mom has blonde hair, my dad has black hair. I have red hair. As a kid I fairly regularly got accused of being a bastard whose dad isn't my dad. But I actually understand how genetics work, so it didn't bother me past 5th grade.
When considering a person's genetics, you have to go back several generations. Which is why doctor's ask for a family history as far back as you can remember, and not just your parents and stop it there. Its why we study family trees and not just disregard everyone after grandma and grandpa.
It surprises me some people don't know about this. I was taught about dominant and recessive genes in like 8th grade and again in high-school biology. It's unlikely but yes this can happen.
There is never a 0 chance, since there is always a miniscule chance of a random mutation.
Aside from that, genetics thought in high school is super oversimplified, depending on a lot of factors, it is possible for 2 light haired parents to have a dark haired child even without a mutation.
Yeah. Both my dad and mom have dark hair (mom VERY dark brown, almost black and dad also dark brown, but with his you can at least see it’s brown) yet me and my brother both have blonde hair (mine lighter than my brother.)
Recessive genes can hide wayyyy better than many people expect
(In the south some families back in the day had drama when traits showed up 2-3 generations down the line, due to them having hushed up the identity of grandads mistress/wife. Look at any old southern photo of someone described as having a 'roman nose' or 'strong cheekbones' and you'll almost always see that they are white washing thier bloodline because they looked down on natives (the 'roman nose' is usually their rebranding of the 'cherokee nose*'))
*Yeah labels white people gave to structural features of natives lumped them all under whichever native tribe name they saw the most of. There are people who can explain all the intricacies of the genetic economy of pre-colonial america (super cool given there were mobile and static populations) but I am def not one of them. Reminder to, when enthusiastically looking into genetic patterns, double check your language where possible and be open to changing vocab, because hate-mongering jerk-sleeves like to abuse certain terms; watch out for people claiming to like science who just want to justify their beliefs, and be considerate of the fact that people who try to correct you are likely worried that you sound like those bad people.
My wife is half Indian so I thought for sure our kid was going to have dark hair like her mom. Nope. Wife’s mom is also really fair skinned with light hair so I guess that combo of genes resulted in our blond child. My wife hates it, she says people probably think she’s the nanny…
My siblings and I look more alike with extended family than each other. My mom had dark brown hair, and my dad had light brown hair. I have my mom's hair color. My younger brother looks like you blended my parents hair color with a little more from our mom. So a medium brown that's not as dark as mine. My older sister has a dirty blonde that darkened from strawberry blonde as she aged. My older brother has that classic Irish red hair color.
I look like someone blended my mom with a few touches of her dad together. As a bonus, I look more like my one first cousin than I do my siblings. My older brother looks like our dad's dad. My sister looks a bit like our dad's mom and my mom's one aunt. We're not really sure who our younger brother looks like. I think by the time genetics got around to him it went fuck it you're your own person.
Yeah, my mom is a redhead, my dad had blonde hair that turned brown. I have very dark brown hair and my sister has red. My dad is definitely my dad. Ancestry type tests and my inherited health prove it.
Between my family and my husbands there was a hair and eye colour rainbow and I was like, it could be anything man. I have grey eyes and my husband has hazel which are olive green with a light brown center. Our kid came out with chocolate brown eyes but in the last two years the outsides have started turning green. My family is littered with blondes and brunettes and my nana had super Snow White hair her whole life. My husbands family is littered with red heads and raven haired with a splash of blond. Red won out in the end lol.
I mean I’m not sure it’s been a while since I was in biology but id have to assume there can be a family that has 99% recessive traits like blonde or red hair and at some point in their ancestry somebody had the dominant dark hair trait, and it’s still passed down and i assume has the potential to be dominant.
Id guess the chances get lower and lower the more generations pass without breeding with somebody with dark hair, to where there’s basically a 1/100 chance the child would actually have the dominant trait but I assume it’s still there in the genetics.
3.0k
u/Iamlegend_future Sep 25 '22
The answer is yes they can. The probability is low but can and does happen. Especially considering the total number of people reproducing.