U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2019, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
21,954 posts, read 14,435,970 times
Reputation: 30944

Advertisements

Some of you have zeroed in on body parts, and I would agree that that is where I see correspondences between my kids and DH an I. One of my kids looks strikingly like DH. Another looks like a mixture of him and me. And one kid looks like neither of us. But the kids have identifiable hand shapes, hairlines, and feet. But all three have different hair and complexions, and are different heights. (We are a totally blue eyed family.).

Sometimes when I am a bit bored in church, I look at people and try to identify their relationships. You can tell a lot by ear shape and placement, eye sockets and noses, and necks and shoulders. You can see the correspondences.

But, to the OP, what you post about is none of your business. If your friend accepts his son, leave it. There may be something you don’t know, but that you do not need to know. Leave it alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2019, 01:58 PM
 
10,532 posts, read 8,455,844 times
Reputation: 19287
Friends of mine have a large family. Both (white) parents have dark eyes and dark hair - the father's surname is one associated with Melungeons, but they do not identify as Melungeon, nor did their families of origin.

Their first child was a blue-eyed blonde. Next child had slightly darker hair and blue eyes. Third child was brunette.

Fourth child - looked half-white, half black, or mulatto, to use an outdated term, with dark tightly curled hair, darker skin than either parent or any sibling, dark eyes, full lips and a wide nose. There is no question of any infidelity with these parents.

Fifth child was blonde and blue-eyed, and looked very different from the fourth child.

My guess is that the fourth child, now a young adult, looks like some ancestor three or four generations back - and that there may be a Melungeon heritage, as the surname indicates.

Another friend of mine recently took the "23 and Me" test. My friend's family has always known of their Welsh heritage, along with English and Scots-Irish background, and it was thought they were also part-Cherokee. No Indian background showed up. All the British Isles ancestry was there, just as suspected - but the surprise was the 7% African heritage.

The family has identified as white as far back as my friend can trace - but with rumored part-Cherokee ancestry, not unusual in what used to be Cherokee lands, as many Cherokee intermarried with early white settlers, and their descendants often hid that background once the Trail of Tears began. So the story of Cherokee background was both feasible and believable. But it wasn't true for my friend, whose sister also took the test with the same results.

My friend is extremely fair-skinned, has blue eyes and very curly medium brown hair, with a rounded forehead, often a Black trait notably in children. That, with the very curly hair, are the only visible potentially Black traits. My guess here is that the story of Cherokee background was to disguise Black ancestry in a less tolerant time, about four generations ago.

I, myself have a unique eye coloring and shape found elsewhere in my family only in a second cousin, who knew its source: our shared g-grandmother, of French Huguenot background, had such eyes. Two generations were skipped before we got them. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other cousins - nope. We got 'em from g-grandmother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 02:12 PM
 
6,226 posts, read 2,886,730 times
Reputation: 15805
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
That isn't entirely true. Its complicated. Springer shows all to often involve unmarried couples anyway. And do you think that your son may have decided that it wasn't worth upending the child's life, the same child that he'd raised and loved as his own? Do adoptive parents love their kid any less? And, if at the time of the divorce he found that out he may well have not been required to pay child support.
Fair enough to ask.
It was not til the child was 12 that we were all blindsided. Up til then He and the entire paternal side thought this child was biologically related. .The child's life was upended long before this discovery. His mother lied for 12 years. Who does that? Not a loving parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
21,954 posts, read 14,435,970 times
Reputation: 30944
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
Friends of mine have a large family. Both (white) parents have dark eyes and dark hair - the father's surname is one associated with Melungeons, but they do not identify as Melungeon, nor did their families of origin.

Their first child was a blue-eyed blonde. Next child had slightly darker hair and blue eyes. Third child was brunette.

Fourth child - looked half-white, half black, or mulatto, to use an outdated term, with dark tightly curled hair, darker skin than either parent or any sibling, dark eyes, full lips and a wide nose. There is no question of any infidelity with these parents.

Fifth child was blonde and blue-eyed, and looked very different from the fourth child.

My guess is that the fourth child, now a young adult, looks like some ancestor three or four generations back - and that there may be a Melungeon heritage, as the surname indicates.

Another friend of mine recently took the "23 and Me" test. My friend's family has always known of their Welsh heritage, along with English and Scots-Irish background, and it was thought they were also part-Cherokee. No Indian background showed up. All the British Isles ancestry was there, just as suspected - but the surprise was the 7% African heritage.

The family has identified as white as far back as my friend can trace - but with rumored part-Cherokee ancestry, not unusual in what used to be Cherokee lands, as many Cherokee intermarried with early white settlers, and their descendants often hid that background once the Trail of Tears began. So the story of Cherokee background was both feasible and believable. But it wasn't true for my friend, whose sister also took the test with the same results.

My friend is extremely fair-skinned, has blue eyes and very curly medium brown hair, with a rounded forehead, often a Black trait notably in children. That, with the very curly hair, are the only visible potentially Black traits. My guess here is that the story of Cherokee background was to disguise Black ancestry in a less tolerant time, about four generations ago.

I, myself have a unique eye coloring and shape found elsewhere in my family only in a second cousin, who knew its source: our shared g-grandmother, of French Huguenot background, had such eyes. Two generations were skipped before we got them. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other cousins - nope. We got 'em from g-grandmother.
I have read that families with some African American ancestors, might have claimed Indian ancestry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 03:49 PM
 
10,323 posts, read 4,120,592 times
Reputation: 26068
OP, have you actually asked your friend what he thinks? I hope not!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
9,182 posts, read 3,023,814 times
Reputation: 13887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
Monogamy is a construct of civilization and the imposition of religious strictures on us, that was not natural to our ancient ancestors. Frequently, the primordial behavior comes out and it's the reason that at least 25% of all children born, have a biological father other than the male in attendance. We should not be surprised, when children show characteristics that are different from both the legal parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
I'm not sure about that 25% number.

I'm not sure about the 25% number, either. Because that figure came from about 50 years ago and was based on blood-type analysis, before DNA testing was available. I'd bet that the percentage is higher today, considering the drastic changes in society's norms, after the Sexual Revolution.

There is a natural reason for this behavior and it's something that is common among many species, giving them an advantage in survival. When a female has offspring with a variety of mates, this mixes the gene-pool and increases the possibility that more individuals with better characteristics will be born. These offspring may become dominant in a population and increase its vitality. It also reduces the possibility of inbreeding and the passing of defective genes and characteristics on to future generations.

Many times, the other males with whom a female will mate, come from other populations. The attraction that females have to outsider males is well-known and fits into the overall pattern of gene-pool mixing. Men also are drawn to women from outside their own population. This might be just from the next town over, not necessarily from distant places. Considering all this, a person who tries to conform to modern society's demands to be monogamous, is often due for some difficult times. Society has tried to go against human nature and it is a losing battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 06:28 PM
 
1,444 posts, read 1,124,375 times
Reputation: 4864
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
I have a male friend who is married, and they both have a son, and the son looks nothing him or the wife, race wise. They are white, where as the son looks very African, at least to me.

However, my friend seems to buy that the kid is completely his and I wonder if he is so in love with the kid, that he it never occurred to him how black the kid looks compared to him or his wife?

I wonder if this is normal among parents though, like a syndrome if you will, where as they are in love with their child, and do not realize it's probably not theirs, no matter how unlike you they look?
Mind your own business!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
10,789 posts, read 10,214,032 times
Reputation: 14322
LOL. There are many "White" people who have traditionally African features and many "Africans" who don't. For all you know the parents may not be White but mixed race. My uncles on my mother's side had straight hair and swarthy skin like Greeks and Italians but they were not White. I come from a multiracial family, for many generations and on both sides. you'll see people with all types of features. It's really none of your concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2019, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Tucson Arizona
3,919 posts, read 1,666,902 times
Reputation: 10296
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV View Post
A close friend of mine, African American, had at least one grandparent that could "Pass" for white.

Another classmate from school has a father that by appearances (I've never met him) is African American; not mixed or anything. He appears Hispanic or Indian; he has fine straight hair.

My parents both have Hazel Eyes. Two of their three kids have brown eyes, one blue eyes. Two of us are olive toned, the other is fair. My Dad is sort of fair skinned and my mother gets sunburnt checking the mail. But we all look enough like both parents that its not in question (and my uncles have darker skin than my Dad.)

Another close friend of mine: His dad is Italian and Polish. His Dad looks Italian; skin tone, hair, etc. He has somewhat springy hair. His Mom is Assyrian, which is to say her family emigrated from modern day Iraq, Turkey or Syria. She's lighter than his Dad.

Then you talk about hair. I went to High School with a girl that was off the boat from Ireland. She had tightly curly black hair (and was very Irish lookin in skin, eyes and face.) I similarly had an English teacher that had somewhat kinky hair who was very "Irish looking" and came from South Boston from an Irish family.

Take a look at something that's well understood, like eye color. If you look at the possible outcomes, and then think of something less understood, you begin to understand that phenotypes that are expressed can be hard to predict with certainty.
I used to work for a geneticist. He said that brown eyes are dominant, so at least one parent must have brown eyes for their child to have brown eyes.

However, hazel can sometimes express as light brown and confuse things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2019, 06:05 AM
 
20,654 posts, read 16,687,786 times
Reputation: 38826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
I'm not sure about the 25% number, either. Because that figure came from about 50 years ago and was based on blood-type analysis, before DNA testing was available. I'd bet that the percentage is higher today, considering the drastic changes in society's norms, after the Sexual Revolution.

There is a natural reason for this behavior and it's something that is common among many species, giving them an advantage in survival. When a female has offspring with a variety of mates, this mixes the gene-pool and increases the possibility that more individuals with better characteristics will be born. These offspring may become dominant in a population and increase its vitality. It also reduces the possibility of inbreeding and the passing of defective genes and characteristics on to future generations.

Many times, the other males with whom a female will mate, come from other populations. The attraction that females have to outsider males is well-known and fits into the overall pattern of gene-pool mixing. Men also are drawn to women from outside their own population. This might be just from the next town over, not necessarily from distant places. Considering all this, a person who tries to conform to modern society's demands to be monogamous, is often due for some difficult times. Society has tried to go against human nature and it is a losing battle.
I donít believe in the 25% number either, but I think itís much lower. 25% means one out of every four babies is not actually the child of the father listed. Itís probably more like 5% at the most. I donít even think itís that high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top