Well I guess so? I mean if your most recent black ancestor is 6 generations back, then you've only got a 1/32 chance of having that gene. But the odds are probably pretty bad that whoever you reproduce with will have their most recent black ancestor so far removed as you (if a person's grandparents are black then no one will wonder very much about how a black kid happened, after all, even if the other person is 6 generations removed from having a black ancestor). I wouldn't even begin to guess the odds of two people with distant black ancestors coming together and forming a mating pair.

But I don't know about whether that it could be a lie based on its origins. We've basically known about recessive and dominant genes since Gregor Mendel's work in the mid-1800's. So while we might not have known the genotype aspects, we did know the phenotype aspects.

This post was edited by bentherdonethat on Jul 29 2011 08:15pm

pigmentation isnt held on a single gene iirc ( people aint either " black " or " white " ) , so we would be talking either a " darker skinned " child , or both parents having multiple recessive genes ( which is possible ofc , but pretty unlikely , as pigmentation is generally a dominant trait )

This post was edited by Matao on Jul 31 2011 11:31pm

This

missing one GIGANTIC piece of proof...the dna test that confirms the father.

i like how they report on this shit without knowing anything but guesses.