It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is RH negative the next step in evolution?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by HypnoAsp
Wow, I have not thought about this in years. Around 85% of the human population can trace an element in their blood to the Rhesus monkey. Yup, that is what the RH stands for.100% of the worlds primates fall into this category of RH+ blood. If we all evolved from the same ancestor all our blood should be compatible. The rare RH- females of our species will violently attack the offspring of an RH+ male with antibodies in the womb. This type of fetus death by blood type does not occur in any other known species on earth.

There are really only two ways science can explain RH- blood. If I recall correctly either a gene mutation (less likely as it should not have survived evolution) or cross breeding between two different species which science doesn't really like to talk about. Again, if I recall correctly there is a higher concentration of persons carrying rr RH- and even more carrying r RH- somewhere in Northern Europe. Recently science has started to uncover evidence that Neanderthals did not go extinct as we had been previously taught. The newest evidence is leaning towards crossbreeding with our very own common ancestor. Though I have not researched it, I am guessing that Fred & Barney may have been RH-. Then there is that Alien factor & Bible stuff. Hmmmmm....

P.S. Seemingly an even more recent blood type as a result of evolving a fix for Malaria, The Duffy blood type.....


[edit on 2-11-2008 by HypnoAsp]

This is the answer. RH negatives have Neanderthal genes.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:38 AM

This is the answer. RH negatives have Neanderthal genes. can't know for sure.I don't think this is backed up by truly relevant scientific discoveries.

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by HypnoAsp

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

OK, Hypno, you're a bit in error here as regards the -naming- of this factor.

The rhesus factor was defined by Karl Landsteiner by cross-reacting rabbit antisera with rhesus or macaque Monkey red cells and this produced an 'anti-Rhesus factor' or antisera. It's actually called 'anti-LW' after him.

This antisera reacted against D positive humans. It was initially used to type blood. Now they use a purified murine polyclonal blend of immunoglobin (AHG) for detection of weak D typing.

So I don't believe there's evidence or assertion that this factor came from New World monkeys based on this blood typing research by Landsteiner. The name Rhesus was given for the name for the antibody because of the type of test animal that Landsteiner used.

That doesn't mean the factor may not have had some inheritance since well all evolved from simpler forms, but it's a jump to suggest this typing research shows that.

Hope this helps clarify.

Here's a good link
Rhesus factor

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by Badge01

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by HypnoAsp

OK, Hypno, you're a bit in error here as regards the -naming- of this factor.

Uh, no. I am sorry & I really do not want to go head to head with a moderator, BUT. Rh factor is a protein called an antigen, named after the rhesus monkey as discovered by Karl Landsteiner and Alexander Wiener in 1940. Yes, my post mentioned this is found in other primates as well. As far as I know that is all I claimed in my post.

Originally posted by Badge01 The rhesus factor was defined by Karl Landsteiner by cross-reacting rabbit antisera with rhesus or macaque Monkey red cells and this produced an 'anti-Rhesus factor' or antisera. It's actually called 'anti-LW' after him.

Yup, & you know what else? When blood from humans was tested with the rabbit serum, the red blood cells of 85% of the humans tested agglutinated. The red blood cells of the 85% contained the same factor present in rhesus monkey blood.This blood was typed Rh positive. The remaining 15% lacked the factor and was typed Rh negative. 15% of the human population do not have the exact same 45 different antigens on the surface of red cells that are controlled by 2 closely linked genes on chromosome 1 as rhesus monkey's or other apes for that matter.....

Originally posted by Badge01So I don't believe there's evidence or assertion that this factor came from New World monkeys based on this blood typing research by Landsteiner.

Hmmm, I never stated that it came from new world monkeys???? In fact my post states that the rhesus monkey, other apes & 85% of humans have this factor??

I was trying to keep it simple so all readers could understand. I did not find it appropriate to go into specialized jargon that the common reader may not understand (half the time I do not). I find posters that use such specialized jargon usually do so as to confuse the reader & make it appear as if they know what they are talking about, when in reality they had just Googled the subject for the first time.

Hope this helps clarify.

Here are a few good links


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by HypnoAsp

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

OK, point taken. First I should have put up the 'mod' tags, and second, I should have changed my log-off macro from 'forum moderator'. I put the tag on.

As far as your first message, I had a little trouble following your assertion. My understanding is that the name given, 'Rhesus factor' only got that appellation because of the type of research monkey used. Had he used a great Ape, he might have called it 'Gorilla Factor'.

As you probably know there are two predominant theories regarding the D antigen group.

One is the Fisher-Race terminology, which is based on the idea that the inheritance is due to three pairs of allelic genes, CDE and cde.

The other is Weiner, who proposed it was a number of allelic genes at one locus, and he called that gene R. (actually there's a third, which just numbers the antigens (Rosenfield))

Thus the terms for the D antigen under Weiner is Ro (R sub o) and in Fisher-Race it's D. Since the D antigen is dominant, a D person can be DCe, Dce, or DcE, or more specifically, DCE/DCE Rz/Rz, DCE/DCe RzR1, DCe/DCe R1R1, and so on.

As to the exact locus of Chromosome, the Rh system is on Chromosome 1. Whether or not the same chromosome is involved in RH inheritance in monkeys and great apes I don't know, but it seems likely.

Here's a reference which implies that it does.

Here's a reference for the location in Humans.

So if I misunderstood your post as to the inheritance and the naming, then I hope I've clarified. I also apologize for not having the Mod tags on.

In conclusion, it seems we are on the same page. Good to know there's another immunohematologist on the site.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:59 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Incidentally, as it turns out, the original antigen LW is what Lansteiner and Weiner found and it is on Chromosome 19. Although there is a close relationship between their gene products , they are not produced by the same gene.

Injection of Rh(null) cells into a guinea pig failed to produce anti-LW.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by Badge01

Wow, Thank you. I must admit I was worried what your response would be as well as the delivery method. I am constantly reading posts of which members complain of nightmarish battle scenarios between ego fanatic moderators. I owe you an apology. I am embarrassed to say that my post was well "snippy". It is my opinion that you are a gracious host of this site and well deserving of your position as moderator.

We cool? lol


posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 11:25 PM
Ok, first off thank you so much to all these replies on the thread I started. I was looking forward to starting a thread that I believe hasn't been created on this exact topic.
Now as for all the people who stated that they or family members have given birth to many healthy babies while they themselves are negative(obviously females), I would love if you could do more research on the females side of the family i.e. Father and mother. Myself, being a negative come from a background whose mother is a negative and father is o negative. Obviously coming from a dominant negative background I can no longer have children, to my belief, now losing two children to miscarriage with a positive mate. I received the rh shots with plenty of time with no avail. I will no longer try for anymore due to heartache.
As for why would your body rid of something your soul longs for and loves has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So please if you have a story similar to mine(both parents being dominant negative), please do share. I find this fascinating and possibly helpful in figuring this unique mutation.
Again thank you so much for your thoughts and research. Anything and everything helps! *snip* Can't wait for any stories pertaining to my exact situation.

Mod Edit: No personal details or email addresses please.

[edit on 11/23/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 07:15 PM
thank you for this thread, it has certainly aroused my curiosity on the subject, I too have O- blood, so this is all very interesting to me!


^.^ -JR

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Amniodarone

A minor quibble, in the interest of precise medical terminology.

It's not RH, but Rh.

The 'D' antigen is annotated Rh(sub)o(zero, not O)(D) or Rh0(D) (Weiner notation/Rh-Hr system). For typography purposes you'll see it as Rho(D) because the little 'O' looks more like a subscript zero.

(Amni has that right, just clarifying). Oddly, laboratorians will pronounce it 'R-aitch-oh-dee', knowing it's a zero.

Also, it's erythroblastosis foetalis or fetalis not fatalis as some websites will spell it. It's a fetal blast cell problem, where Mom's IgG antibodies will attach to and cause sequestering and destruction of the baby's RBCs.

It is most severe in cases of ABO incompatibility and less severe in most Rh incompatibilities. It does occur with other blood groups, Kell, Duffy which produce IgG antibodies. As Amni says it's usually only in moms who had a baby already, though if the mom was transfused earlier in life it could be a problem. Modern therapy will identify those moms at risk and they'll be given serial treatment with Rh Immune Globulin (RhIG), greatly limiting the possibilities they'll form antibodies to Rh. Usually cases are mld and 'bili lights are used to cause bilirubin to convert by the reaction of the skin with sunlight. In severe cases intrauterine transfusions can be given.

Don't mean to be too technical, so you can just skip this post if you like.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by queengenyfur
I am AB- as was my mom; dad was eitherA or B-; but I am the only child she carried and I was a preemie; 2 miscarriges followed.

This thread here has a lot of info about negative blood'

hope you find your answers.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Lenna
Good subject,I discovered it while reading about the Basque people.
Found an interesting article about the Rh protein's biological role.
"Rh proteins act as gas channels that help speed the transfer of carbon dioxide (CO2) in and out of red blood cells. CO2 can also pass through the cell membrane unaided (above right), but not quickly enough, said UC Berkeley researchers."

What are the implications for the organisms that lack this protein,supposing the theory is valid?

I'd also read that scientists believed that Rh neg had originated in the Basque region but I read that years ago...also that it was space aliens who brought it in.
I'd love to know, especially having now read the article you linked (though it was a bit above my head) if there will be any new nutritional or medical treatments specifically designed for people with Rh -

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by queengenyfur
From research ,I did several years ago O- is the oldest human blood group. AB is believed to be the newest human blood group. As a side note, the blood on the shroud of Turin is believed to be AB-.

Then wouldn't AB+ be the newest blood group/the next step in evolution?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:16 PM
I too am O negative, have children. My entire family that I know of all have negative blood. Crazy as it seems I think somehow they were attracted to other Negatives by coincidence. Anyway my Gram had 6 Neg babies as my Grampa was Neg also. My parents too.
My aunts ended up married to Negatives just by chance. Even I have a negative children fathered by an A Neg. I didn't ask him what his blood type was before he and I made babys . So go figure.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:39 PM
Not sure if RH- means anything, but..

My whole family is RH- (father, mother, me and my bro).
We all had several experiences in our life which, imo, clearly fall into the categories of paranormal and alien / UFO encounters.
Me especialy, always (since childhood) felt VERY different than anyone else around me, regarding my interests, my way of thinking, daily habbits etc.
Health issues:
As a child I suffered haevy asthma, so heavy, that the doctors saw me dead in 10 years or so (they were honest and told it my parents). But then, during teenage my asthma illness decreased more and more untill it miraculously vanished completely and never returned.
I'm in my mid 30ies now and have never had a need to see a doctor again since my childhood.

Maybe it has something to do with RH- and evolution, maybe not - I didn't research it too much by myself yet.


posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:00 PM
I can add that a high percentage of Native Americans are Rh-, and that mosquitoes don't seem to care much for the flavor, for which dispensation I am eternally grateful.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:20 AM
Interesting stores and input, but remember, Rh negative is not one phenotype.

It's actually four haplotypes, which exist in pairs.


This leads to 11 Genotypes (some of which are very rare)

All those types will be classified as Rh negative and get A, B, O or AB negatie blood. (depending on ABO group).

So since we don't know which specific one of those 11 is 'advanced' or special (only some may be, who knows), it's an over simplification to say 'Rh negative blood is special'.


posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 09:54 AM
I'm the only RH- in my family (when I told my parents they legitimately freaked out and went online to see how it was possible) I'm also what they like to call me to my face "free spirit" "gypsy" "artistic" but when I'm not around it's "rebellious" "out of control". I pretty do the exact opposite of how I was raised hahaha.

To apache, maybe it's the mix of race and blood type? If that the case you're all lucky bastards I was allergic to ANY kind of insect but when I was younger, the doctors even told my parents that if I was ever stung by a bee I would need to be hospitalized.


posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by bandaidctrl
Allergic reaction to bug bites seems to run in my mom's family (Gaelic and Basque bloodlines) until around the age of puberty; on my dad's side (Cherokee and Choctaw) does not seem to be any problems with it.

BAC, negative is recessive and can skip several generations before it pops back up.
What amazes me is that I am Ab-, all my kids are, my grandkids are; my ex is A+; my son in law and daughter in law are both Positive.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by the seeker_713g

Yeah I don't seem to get bites all too often anymore, especially since I hit puberty. We're of hispanic descent.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in