WHY IS JON JONES SO WHITE?

Lots of US slaves had sex with mostly white slaveholders.
Lots of mixed babies.

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2814%2900476-5
The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American

They look whiter because some of their grand grand parents were white.

>>7969379*
So Jon Jones likely has a lot more "white genes" in him than Arthur Jones.
Or they have equal amount of European genes but they're more dominant in Jon Jones.

File: twins - yes really.jpg (235KB, 1328x882px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1328x882px

>>7969375
Because genetics is more complicated than what high school shows you.

http://nypost.com/2015/03/02/meet-the-bi-racial-twins-no-one-believes-are-sisters/

>>7970190
I wish they were twin sisters with different skin colors. That would be so interesting to see.
Also that redhead is ridiculously cute

>>7970203
That's what they are....

>>7970190
Yup, whenever someone says "I'm 1/8 [race]" you know they're using completely outdated, unscientific astrology to understand who they are. It's literally that bad.

File: image[1].jpg (2MB, 4272x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4272x2848px

>>7970209
Then why don't they look nothing alike ?

>>7970214
What's wrong with saying that?

>>7970217
Cuz they're not identical, jeez man.

>>7970217
It's because they are not monovular

monovular = 100% same genes (and thus extremely similar, often undistinguishable for outsiders)

>>7969375
>Why is UFC champion Jon Jones so much whiter than his superbowl champion brother Arthur Jones?


>WHITE
>WHITE
>WHITE


Does this nigger look white to you?
?

File: twins yet again.jpg (103KB, 468x619px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 468x619px

Want more? Apparently the phenomenon is rising.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046821/Kaydon-Layton-Wood-The-science-black-white-twins.html

>>7970232
> dailymail
> has science in the url
kek

File: twins - now with gayness.jpg (37KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 460x276px

>>7970236
Just sourcing my pics, I wouldn't trust anything "sciency" from any of these articles. Or do you think the story is completely fabricated?

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/24/twins-black-white

>>7970247
Stories are correct but their deduction isn't, or yours. I haven't seen any evidence they provided to claim that this phenomenon is rising.

>>7970257
>I haven't seen any evidence they provided to claim that this phenomenon is rising.

True enough. I'll retract the statement. However, would you agree bi-racial couplings are increasing? If not across the world, then at least in England. If more couples who are both bi-racial are having kids, then the occurrence of having twins like this will increase, simply because there are more chances for them to happen.

>>7970276
I don't live in UK i dunno. But definitely not around me.

>>7970289
It's increasing in most places. You must live in a place with almost no minorities.

>>7970296
Again, you should provide some proof rather than posting biracial twin pictures.

>>7970300
Not that guy, but it's pretty common knowledge. Hell, in some places it was illegal only 50 years ago in USA.

>>7970315
Common knowledge is usually pretty easy to prove with tons of evidence lying around. Can't you even show one ?

>>7970328
Yea, Google.com.
1st result
https://www.google.com/search?q=interracial+marriage+rates&oq=inerracial+marriage+rates&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.8113j0j4&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

>In 2013, a record-high 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race,

File: You Have To Go Back.gif (349KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 350x233px

>>7970276
>True enough. I'll retract the statement. However, would you agree bi-racial couplings are increasing? If not across the world, then at least in England. If more couples who are both bi-racial are having kids, then the occurrence of having twins like this will increase, simply because there are more chances for them to happen.
>>7970296
>>7970315
>>7970328

Holy shit all this shrilling.

"Bi-racial" couples are usually Hispanic and White
Remember "Hispanic" does not really mean anything but you where born in South America it does not necessarily mean anything directly to race
Yet it is still a different race according to the USA
All these "Bi-racial" couples you see in statistics are most likely Hispanic/white/Asian mixing

Blacks are still seen as inferior in today's society at least still in looks, most white/Hispanic/Asian women know to stay away from Blacks and are not attracted to them same with white/Hispanic/Asian men and black women (unless they have grade a ZZZ boobs or something)
I know shocking right? It's almost like if the Internet is not representative of real life at all as can be seen by Donald Trumps rise in poll numbers besides the amazing number of negative hate from the internet.

Sorry mates but same race marriage if still high and the only mixing is usually with Hispanics or Asians who I might add may already be part or mostly white besides the constant pushing of Black marriages from the media.

>>7970217
most twins are not identical

>>7970367
How about after 2013 ? And now that I noticed, ı do see a lot more asiany looking people around. You might be right.

File: only shrill thing is your post.png (112KB, 1150x474px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1150x474px

>>7970418
>everyone who disagrees with me is the same person

How bout you apply this lovely quote, likely from you.

>>7970300
>you should provide some proof

>>7970464
You don't like evidence ?

File: MultiracialBabies_1.png (25KB, 310x780px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 310x780px

Actually here, I found some proof for you. Please do note the "regardless of Hispanic origin" bit at the bottom there.

File: biracial identity by age.png (137KB, 960x667px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 960x667px

>>7970474
I like it a lot. Do you have any besides "I looked out my basement window?"

>>7970475
Great. You found a drawing written by an unscientific article thats stating that multiracial babies exist. Aside from the fact that I asked for proof and not article doodles, you were supposed to be proving that it's an increasing phenomenon.

File: Get TheFuck Out Nigger.jpg (82KB, 1280x826px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1280x826px

>>7970464
>
When did I say this was the same person?
I just said it was shrilling

And yes you are wrong and what I said was correct desu senpai

Stop shrilling away from the points.

>>7970475
>>7970488
> his definition of evidence is literally community surveys
> then he tries to make "witty" ad-hominems
Aside from you flooding a science board with race propaganda, why are all the SJWtards like you fail so much at everything you do ? Why do you waste your lives like this ?

>>7970225
/thread

>lots of shitpost
>no data whatsoever

So far I'm putting more accuracy on the Pew Research Center and the US Census than some anon(s) going "nuh uh" on /sci/.

>>7970568
> putting more accuracy
Nice way to say I believe this with no evidence. Too bad it doesn't constitute as science

>>7970219
First off, you don't pass on 1/2 of your genes when you have a child. It varies, alot. Second, the genotype of humans is vastly larger than the phenotype. You could have like half of your genes replaced as a child and you wouldn't notice much difference through your life.

Going as far back as great grandparents you could legitimately have almost none of their genes