bk>  Right on all counts. However, mulatto is 50/50 or more white.
 bk>  There are other measures for other ratios

Granted my genetic ed is rusty  :) I'm sure much much more has been
found out in the last oh my dawg .. thirty years!? I certainly DO hope
so! I learned not too long ago there are more blood factors now being
screened for in cross matches. Lots of new data coming in all the
time.

WRT skin pigment production wherein I imagine there are multiple
effecting factors (more than one gene involved) it's a bur in the side
of anyone non-racist when someone lacking in sufficient info clings to
the equally lacking info of yore where if a trait is dominants it's
'superior'. Tsk tsk!!! O'course I submit also that there are those who
ill nit pick the definitions of superior/inferior to death and back
but I'm not gonna go there.

To me if a gene/gene group expresses more often than not, it's
because of adaptation and the effects other gene groups have upon that
trait. This seems to make sense. The only application I can see where
""superior""" might be justified is where the
trait in question is
what works for adaptation. It is interesting to remember tooo tho that
while a trait might be considered undesirable under one set of
conditions, it might be very useful in others. An example of this last
bit is sickle cell anemia. In Africa this condition actually benefits
those with it because they're less suspect to malaria. Interesting
isn't it?

Perhaps instead of social darwinism (note small caps)... one might say
''l whatever works !' is what is 'dominant'. Whatever doesn't, is
recessive. There's no snooty superior/inferior about it.

:) Cindy


... Habit is stronger than reason.

--- PPoint 3.01