That Philippine girl has African blood in her, even if it is mixed with Asian blood. And I know this simply by looking at her. Because of colonialism and travel we have people of different races live in different places. Just because a person of European descent was born in South America, it does not make him latin.
See, that is where you go wrong. She is in fact from the Ati people. They are not Africans we put there, they were already there when we (I mean the western world) discovered the Philippines. In fact, genetically, they are the most distantly removed from Africa peoples we have. (if that made sense, what I meant to say was that their DNA has the most differences of any ethnic group when compared to African DNA, with the Exception of one gene, that codes for dark skin, but that could easily have arisen a second time in a population, more different than ours, in fact). So no, she does not have "African blood" in her, in fact, she has even less than we all do (since you know, ultimately, everyone came from Africa).
That Philippine girl has African blood in her, even if it is mixed with Asian blood And I know this simply by looking at her.
Actually, she is Ati.
In the Philippines the Aetas or Ati ancestors were the 'aboriginals' or the 'first' inhabitants of this Archipelago. They most probably arrived from Borneo 20-30,000 years ago ...
Dark skin does not mean "African".
Again. From wiki:
There are several groups of dark-skinned people who live in various parts of Asia, Australia and Oceania who sometimes are referred to as black people. They include the Indigenous Australians, the Melanesians (now divided into Austronesian-speaking populations and Papuans, and including the great genetic diversity of New Guinea), the Semang people of the Malay peninsula, the Aeta people of Luzon, the Ati of Panay. indigenous first nation Fijians and various indigenous peoples sometimes collectively known as Negritos.
That Philippine girl has African blood in her, even if it is mixed with Asian blood. And I know this simply by looking at her.
Which is the worst way of looking at racial heritage. About 2 years ago I posted a photo of my youngest daughter and asked what her heritage was. I received comments that she was Native American, Pacific Islander and Light skinned Hispanic, just from looking at the picture. The Native American is partially right but only a very small part. She is a mix of Western European ( French, Irish & Scotch) Native American & Asian (Japanese & Korean). But her looks don't show this.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
Others have pointed out the idea I was trying to get across with these pictures. Both the Brazillian singer and the Filipino girl look quite typically black - dark skin, frizzy hair, broad nose etc. However, the Brazillian, despite his appearance, only received a minority of his genes from recent African ancestry - he's genetically more similar to pasty-white Europeans; while the Filipina has no recent African ancestry at all, to the best of our knowledge. The physical traits were arrived at independently due to climate and the odd quirks of history, and genetically she's likely to be about as different from African populations as you can get.
Many of our genes have little to do with the easy outward identifiers of race, so looking similar on the outside doesn't necessarily mean a close genetic relationship. There's always been gene flow between populations to complicate the picture, and in the last 500 years this has accelerated dramatically. To make things even more complex, similar looking traits have been arrived at wholly independently by populations in different parts of the world, as the various dark-skinned people of Asia and the Pacific show.