hann , do you have a pic of your godson cause i have never heard of that ?
Printable View
hann , do you have a pic of your godson cause i have never heard of that ?
Its to do with the inheritance genes like recessive and dominant I think. Its like someone can have blonde hair even if someone way way back in the family did.
Something like this...I think.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=22
I read about that in the case of a south african woman who had white parents and was raised in a white neighbourhood. When she got to around 8/9 her skin got darker but her parents put it down to her being out in sun a lot, by the time she got to secondary school her skin colour had darkened and she was not accepted as being white anymore and had a tough time. It was later discovered that somewhere back in her gene pool there were black people and the features had just started to come out at her generation. Anything is truly possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsOfCCTV
They can come up with as many theories as they want. I stand by my beliefs that Michael did not biologically father those kids.
We may never know what happened with those children and who was their biological dad but in those kids minds Michael was their dad and he loved them whether he fathered them or not.
Blue eye is a recessive characteristic. The genetics for eye colour are really simple. You have two genes for eye colour, both need to be blue for you to have blue eyes. For brown eyes you can have either two brown genes or one blue and one brown. The physical colour of the eyes is the same in both cases.
Both my husband and I have blue eyes, so it is not possible under any circumstances for our children to have brown eyes.
My brother has brown eyes, as does his wife, and both their children have blue eyes. This is because both their granny's had blue eyes and my brother and his wife both have one gene blue and one gene brown. There is a 25% chance that any of their children have blue eyes, and as it happens they both do.
With regards to Michael, I don't think that those children are biologically his, either. But he is still their father.
Details of the autopsy on Michael Jackson have reportedly been revealed.
According to BBC News, the late singer had a strong heart and was "fairly healthy". He was also in a suitable scale for a man of his height.
However, the released document further states that Jackson had tattooed lips and punctured arms, while he suffered from lung damage and arthritis.
The University of California's Dr Zeev Kain, who reviewed the report, said: "His overall health was fine. The results are in normal limits."
Kain noted that several scars on the popstar's body were probably a result of cosmetic surgery and medical procedures.
Moreover, the official paper disclosed that Jackson was bald at the front of his head.
The full post mortem report has yet to be released to the public.
Last month, the Los Angeles Coroner's office ruled Jackson's death as homicide due to intoxication by anaesthetic. His doctor Conrad Murray is the focus of a manslaughter probe.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/...-released.html
I thought he was looking a bit skinny
Yes, he was a bit thin, but then as an adult he almost always was. I guess he was just at the low side of normal for his height.
Why do they let us know every little detail. Should he not be afforded a little dignity in death.
Sadly Michael will be like Princess Diana and Marlyn Monroe there will be no peace for them even in death.
True people will always be fascinated about them and conspiracy theories will continue to circulate