Are you RH-negative or RH-positive?

[Graeme]

Your point in the value of Rh- blood is good. Even in those areas where it is higher in percentage than in other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, Rh- is not restricted to Europe or caucasoid, it is not 100% even including hetergenous individuals.

The fact that Rh- is highest in the areas where the most recent neanderthal remains have been found is purely coincidental. Genetics, natural selection, genetic drift, founder effect and other influences do not operate with any logic. Mutations happen and take off or die out of their own accord.

[MDIEIR]

Rh Negative Here

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Your point in the value of Rh- blood is good. Even in those areas where it is higher in percentage than in other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, Rh- is not restricted to Europe or caucasoid, it is not 100% even including hetergenous individuals.

The fact that Rh- is highest in the areas where the most recent neanderthal remains have been found is purely coincidental. Genetics, natural selection, genetic drift, founder effect and other influences do not operate with any logic. Mutations happen and take off or die out of their own accord.

An admission! "The fact that Rh- is highest in the areas where the most recent neanderthal remains have been found is purely coincidental." Ok, then so this is an artifiact of genetic drift? This cannot be since there is plenty of negative selective pressure involving the second child, agreed? So what is it then and why is it so highly maintained? According to the pole, we have a phenotype of over .25 for Rh-. Assuming Rh- only manifests itself in the homozygous recessive form, this gives the Stirpes breeding population a 0.5 frequency of Rh- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Polak, explain this to me.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

Ok Vitor, you are having alot of fun with this but there is something here. The Rh-, Rh+ thing is a reproductive barrier. Reproductive barriers are only set up between species. What is the selective advantage of a woman who is only able to have one child? None, unless you know something I do not know. So if the Rh factor functions as a reproductive barrier and a mechanism of speciation, then what species are involved? It seems to me that the area where Rh- occurs in the highest frequency is also the area in which Neanderthal man survived the longest. Now, I am not saying you people with Rh- blood are any less human or in any way inferior to me or anybody else. In fact, I think we are all the result of sapiens-neandethal hybridization. What I am asking is: Isn't the Rh-, Rh+ dicotomy proof of Neanderthal survival?

The way I always looked at it was that O- was the original blood-type of modern humans. The Rhesus factor and the different blood types A, B, AB were later mutations (in fact caused by additional molecules attached to the surface of blood cells) and they survived possibly because they confered some advantage to the populations in which they originally manifested themselves, ie. more resistance to certain diseases, etc.

The incompatibility between these blood types is merely a by-product of the way the immune system works. Just as the immune system recognises foreign pathogens by their strange surface configuration so the immune system of somene who lacks these molecules picks up on them as foreignand targets them for destruction causing an immuno-response.

In other words a Rh- mother's immune systems recognises Rh+ blood cells as foreign, as a blood group O subject recognises A or B blood as foreign, and it treats them like any other foreign cells and attacks them.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The way I always looked at it was that O- was the original blood-type of modern humans. The Rhesus factor and the different blood types A, B, AB were later mutations (in fact caused by additional molecules attached to the surface of blood cells) and they survived possibly because they confered some advantage to the populations in which they originally manifested themselves, ie. more resistance to certain diseases, etc.

The incompatibility between these blood types is merely a by-product of the way the immune system works. Just as the immune system recognises foreign pathogens by their strange surface configuration so the immune system of somene who lacks these molecules picks up on them as foreignand targets them for destruction causing an immuno-response.

In other words a Rh- mother's immune systems recognises Rh+ blood cells as foreign, as a blood group O subject recognises A or B blood as foreign, and it treats them like any other foreign cells and attacks them.

[trinacria]

I believe I'm A+ (almost 90% sure) but I could be mistaken and be A-.

A few months back I was bitten by a tick and so they did a blood test then. However, I don't recall clearly if I was Rh+ or Rh- though I'm strongly leaning towards +.

[trinacria]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The way I always looked at it was that O- was the original blood-type of modern humans. The Rhesus factor and the different blood types A, B, AB were later mutations (in fact caused by additional molecules attached to the surface of blood cells) and they survived possibly because they confered some advantage to the populations in which they originally manifested themselves, ie. more resistance to certain diseases, etc.

The incompatibility between these blood types is merely a by-product of the way the immune system works. Just as the immune system recognises foreign pathogens by their strange surface configuration so the immune system of somene who lacks these molecules picks up on them as foreignand targets them for destruction causing an immuno-response.

In other words a Rh- mother's immune systems recognises Rh+ blood cells as foreign, as a blood group O subject recognises A or B blood as foreign, and it treats them like any other foreign cells and attacks them.

Interesting. Everywhere I've read it says A was the oldest blood type but I won't doubt you.

[Vitor]

Originally Posted by Milesian

The way I always looked at it was that O- was the original blood-type of modern humans. The Rhesus factor and the different blood types A, B, AB were later mutations (in fact caused by additional molecules attached to the surface of blood cells) and they survived possibly because they confered some advantage to the populations in which they originally manifested themselves, ie. more resistance to certain diseases, etc.

The incompatibility between these blood types is merely a by-product of the way the immune system works. Just as the immune system recognises foreign pathogens by their strange surface configuration so the immune system of somene who lacks these molecules picks up on them as foreignand targets them for destruction causing an immuno-response.

In other words a Rh- mother's immune systems recognises Rh+ blood cells as foreign, as a blood group O subject recognises A or B blood as foreign, and it treats them like any other foreign cells and attacks them.

hum... If Rh negative is older then the RH positive mutation then Rh+ would not have any connection with the monkey RHESUS sp. (only the name) positive blood.

I really don't know if this proteins are similar...or, it's only the name...

But here is the problem...
Why the mongolians and africans do not have the same ratio of Rh negative as the europeans?
hum....

[Galaico]

I'm O- , pure blood !
Does this make a pure Hyperborean, a Neanderthal, or an extraterrestrial?

[vascongado]

I'm A +

[Carnyx]

Hmm, no idea what my rh status is...

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Awar

btw. I've read somewhere that AB originated in the Middle East, only about a thousand years ago,
while O originated in Africa ( with the first humans, and is the oldest ).
B is called 'Nomadic' bloodtype,
while A is agriculturalist.

And this is what I've read :

O is indeed the oldest and most spread bloodgroup, it existed already in Africa among the first humans and was the first bloodgroup to have ever been diffused outside Africa (the out of Africa theory again).

A was "born" in Asia or the Middle-East around 10.000/15.000 years ago and brought in Europe by IE (anyway, caused by whatever human migration) peoples, up to Northern Africa and Sahara amongst subsaharian tribes (don't ask when and exactly which human migration).

B the so called "nomadic" group, comes from Asia (born around Himalaya), first diffused from Mongolia to South Eastern Asia and then by Mongoloid hordes elsewhere (some racial mixing is implied here).

AB, the rarest and the most recent bloodgroup which originated in Europe around the 11th century, was the product of a mutation due to a mixing of Europeans, bearers of group A, and Mongols, bearers of B (Were there any Mongol invasions in Europe in the XIth century?).

Hoh and the blood of Holy Shroud of Turin, was AB (the problem being that, according to the theory I read, this bloodgroup wasn't supposed to exist yet).

What do you think?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

B the so called "nomadic" group, comes from Asia (born around Himalaya), first diffused from Mongolia to South Eastern Asia and then by Mongoloid hordes elsewhere (some racial mixing is implied here).

But how did the B group spread to Africa ?

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

And this is what I've read :

O is indeed the oldest and most spread bloodgroup, it existed already in Africa among the first humans and was the first bloodgroup to have ever been diffused outside Africa (the out of Africa theory again).

A was "born" in Asia or the Middle-East around 10.000/15.000 years ago and brought in Europe by IE (anyway, caused by whatever human migration) peoples, up to Northern Africa and Sahara amongst subsaharian tribes (don't ask when and exactly which human migration).

B the so called "nomadic" group, comes from Asia (born around Himalaya), first diffused from Mongolia to South Eastern Asia and then by Mongoloid hordes elsewhere (some racial mixing is implied here).

AB, the rarest and the most recent bloodgroup which originated in Europe around the 11th century, was the product of a mutation due to a mixing of Europeans, bearers of group A, and Mongols, bearers of B (Were there any Mongol invasions in Europe in the XIth century?).

Hoh and the blood of Holy Shroud of Turin, was AB (the problem being that, according to the theory I read, this bloodgroup wasn't supposed to exist yet).

What do you think?

Did you quote that from a book called "Eat Right for Your Type"?
My mother is reading it, it has some interesting parts.

I think the group A was probably brought to Europe earlier, during the Neolithic Revolution.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Salaün

But how did the B group spread to Africa ?

Madagascar has a population of mixed ancestry, both African and Asian, so it seems right. As for Africa, well, I think that the different mutations that gave birth to A, B and AB occured in different places of the world more or less at the same time without any need of racial mixing... It's a question of adaptation to new ways of life (agriculture, etc.)

Originally Posted by Galaico

Did you quote that from a book called "Eat Right for Your Type"?

It's a quick sum up by myself from a website that itself quotes such a book, yeah. Still, strangely interesting.

I think the group A was probably brought to Europe earlier, during the Neolithic Revolution.

Middle Eastern migration, so...

[Cirrus]

Some interesting maps about the distribution of Blood Types :

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm

[Galaico]

Curiously, out of the nine people who are RH- in the poll, seven are from the Iberian peninsula (three Spaniards, three Portuguese, and one Basque-American). Being the Rh- recessive against the Rh+, this would indicate that either the Rh- mutation appeared in Iberia, or that Iberia remained very isolated for thousands of years receiving very few foreign admixture.