Quote from: Divitiae miserae on November 18, 2015, 08:34:23 PM

Quote from: r0ach on November 18, 2015, 08:31:57 PM

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on November 18, 2015, 07:28:27 PM

Quote from: r0ach on November 18, 2015, 03:53:40 PM

What the fuck are 'supermodel genes'? So you think the white kid is pretty and the other isn't. That is totally subjective.

Contrary to what fat pride and other whacko groups try to claim, "beauty" is not even close to entirely subjective. Symmetry and attributes that define health are obvious objective standards of looks, probably plenty more exist. I hate to break it to you, but the world in general will unanimously agree which child received the supermodel genes and which didn't.

Since the Caucasian genes are recessive, this is how it turns out nearly every single time in these kinds of offspring, the child looks nothing like the white parent. From a strict biological and natural selection point of view, the purpose of reproduction is solely to spread your genes into the future. In the scenario above, what she has done is basically pass on her genes as non-influential junk DNA, while the African genes determined almost the entire outcome of the child where it doesn't resemble one of the parents at all.

Of course there will be tons of Marxists coming along to claim that mentioning African genes are dominant and Caucasian and Asian genes are recessive is "da raycism", because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever genes compromise the recessive groups would basically be made extinct by full integration between all groups. This infuriates the common Marxist because it blows the lid off their fake narrative where those groups of people tend to constantly push for things like conservation of variety in animal species, yet they would be pushing for the exact opposite in this case, the extinction of the recessive groups on purpose.

Bottom line: Klum is still totally bangable.

and her daughter may well wind up even hotter than her when she grows up