So, if I understand you correctly, one drop overrides the multitude of other drops? Then by that measure, one drop of vodka in a 12 oz. glass of water makes it a vodka drink?
Yes, provided that the glass of water with a drop of vodka in it is to be contrasted with a glass of water with a drop of tar in it.
My humble opinion it depends on how we calculate things. I mean one body of one human may dilute one drop of some poison without any truly bad consequences, but it may be nor right about others. We are not the same to each other. And sometimes one person can intuitively guess some smell, or some re-arragements in his room, or somewhere. I mean it truly depends on. We cannot guess of it in a way of alchemistry or something.
On the other hand I see at least four possible situations with mixing:
a) A and B mixed into the one new substance C b) by mixing A was diluted in B c) by mixing A dilutes B or A adsorbs B d) there are not mixing of A and B
Also it's not impossible to have some rational mixing like 5/9 of A and 4/9 of B. And by the way without necessary proportions there would be no powder, tnt, dynamite, and some other stuff like that and many others, including lots of lots of pharmaceuticals.
Somebody on this page asked how far back one’s black ancestor must be to make the hypodescent rule apply. “As far as the stars” will do, in theory. In practice, state marriage license bureaus in the South usually went back no farther than three generations, to the great-grandparents. Many applicants didn’t even know who these were; things were hampered by lack of vital statistics records before 1912.
I suppose if we went far enough, we’d find we’re all from Africa, where the ancestors of modern Asians and Europeans first stumbled up the Gaza coastline into the Levant about 100kya. (See es-Skuhl Cave, Mount Carmel, near Haifa, Israel.) While I don’t think I have too many, if any, American black forebears, a Native American—one of my paternal grandmother’s great-grandmothers—is documented from circa 1850, although other branches of my family tree are lost in the mists of time.
Indeed, much of what my sidebar profile lists as ethnic ancestry is inferred from ethnic settlement patterns of counties in Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming, and not known directly. The whites in my line seem to have belonged to the working or lower middle classes, therefore unlikely to have kept “Negro” mistresses back in the day, as Thomas Jefferson did with Sally Hemings.
The out of Africa crap drives me up the wall, science should never even attempt to answer the question where did man first begin because that question would require someone to observe it and obviously no one alive today has seen this ,
In fact no one has seen the beginning of any living creatures not a single one and so the question should be do things even have a beginning? Or do they just have a continuing .
Is all science has done is find a few bone fragments in Africa that's it , then they built this elaborate story using these as they do with lots of other things
Science discovered bone fragments from a human in Africa that are the oldest human bone fragments to date, that's it, it doesn't in any way tell us that mankind originate from 1 continent specifically in sub-Saharan Africa no it just tells us that so far those are the oldest bones we have found yet