Regarding this mini-gene debate.
There is phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is how the genes actually manifest themselves. Genotype is the make-up of cells. Genotypes lead to phenotypes but there are combinations of "dominant" and "recessive" genes. This doesn't mean JACK shyt in regards to any inferiority or superiority of any race and people that believe it does are placing some sort of qualitative aspect on top of something that is completely quantitative.
Blue/green/grey eyes, and I believe blonde and red hair are certainly recessive traits, and blacks don't tend to have them. If a white person mates with a black person, barring a statistical anomaly, the eyes and hair are going to favor the black parents. Other traits I have no clue. Certain phenotypes are a combination of several genetic combinations, I believe that skin tone is one of them.
Keep in mind that most if not all black Americans carry recessive genes in our genotype...due to crackers raping during slavery. Our phenotype is typically stereotypically black but we carry those white genes.
Even if every "black trait" was dominant doesn't mean we still wouldn't have examples like greatestcracker posted......assuming that the black parents also carried the recessive genes in their genotype, than it's simply a matter of chance that some biracial children are going to come out with colored eyes, light hair, etc.
fukking Jennifer Beals isn't an example of certain traits NOT being dominant. Assuming that one of her parents is a "full" black, it's only an example of that parents carrying recessive genes. His recessive genes just happened to hook up with her CAC parent's recessive genes, and she came out with a certain phenotype. But like I said, for all I know, he dad could look like fukking Blake Griffin or some shyt. In which case the chance of recessive linking is higher.