Rh gene

a reply to: theMediator

Its no use in trying to make them bait, I've tried on a lot of people but it's like explaining to a child how they were made. And you make a story about a bird and a chimney. I think you have to live with people and their imagination about humans being nothing more than a evolved hybrid monkey with different characteristics, I'll just tell them a alien race inseminated with DNA and it made humans.

a reply to: peter vlar

The baiting game is called common sense, ever heard of it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's like watching someone who says the answer yet can't see it

a reply to: Temudjin

Hey Confucius, how about addressing my points instead of reciting flowery one liners? I'm still waiting for you to tell me which genes all these different regions seem to worship and how a hybrid race between two distinct species could arise naturally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look to the animal kingdom for answers

a reply to: Temudjin

Well with that response, I'm done. I attempted to give you a civil conversation, but if you aren't going to even try to hold up your end of the conversation then I'm out. FYI, one line posts are against the T&C here on ATS. Especially non-informative and purposely cryptic ones like yours.

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: trifecta

Not native English, could you translate it?

My apologies, nor is mine. I was having some fun with some innuendo.

It tickles me to see the slew of RH negative misinterpretations projected here. Neanderthal patsy-ism is contentious. But what can you expect from historically, disengenuous anthro.

What people need to reconcile is the fact that the sanguine emergence of RH negative types are kaleidoscopic. The most common progeny hails from prenatal RHoGAM prep. This is when a negative mother is seeded by a positive father. To stack the odds for the mother to come to term, she undergoes a series of two shots (at 28 weeks and then 72 hrs postnatal), to disarm her overprotective immune system, from cannabalizing the gestating fetus in utero. Otherwise, giving birth to a negative child au natural, is a longshot and extremely dismal.

Another avenue is when, very rarely two positive parents defy nature, at conceive a negative child due to recessive negative genes, lingering among their ancestral lineage. In short, they hit the lotto.

Offspring to those two conceptions have similar genetic "markers" (for lack of better term), due to deliberate tailoring, or dumb luck. The third variant comes genetic vivication. Two pure bloods consummate, conceiving a true RH negative. There's a rhyme to the reason, why certain bloodlines were voraciously kept intact. The division between pure bloods and facsimile is palpable. This is where negative blood type myth meet the material. It reverence is mostly dismissed to fantasy and poo poo, but until you are graced with a pure blood, and vetted their confidante, you have little clue of their profound process of reality, in contrast to common dilettante.

The bottom line. True RH blood is divorce of primate genus.

a reply to: trifecta

I am confidante with a few pure bloods, and as a mutual respect they don't touch me nor mix with any food. I actually consider them more of interest and topic interest than the common man. However my kindred has always been their servants and confident since the first civilisation. You understand where I am getting at.

a reply to: Temudjin

Oh sure, I'm quite familiar with the concept. I simply see little of it in this thread. If you have a legitimate point to make, make it. If you want to play games get an X Box. Since you ignored it the first time around though,
What is the basis for your belief that Rh D is derived from Neanderthal populations? Is there an actual scientific basis for it or is the belief derived from another source? It's a legitimate question as none of the science supports your claim.

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The majority of the Rh negative have blue eyes which is a common trait of people living in cold climates in the north.

I'm glad you said the majority because my ex husband is RH negative and he is black.

Now, when you say 'pure blood', there is no such thing. Spend some time in a lab analyzing blood and you will see that there is no such thing as 'pure blood' (unless you are a big Harry Potter fan, of course).

a reply to: Agartha

Well it's cleaner

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: Agartha

Well it's cleaner

Could you elaborate? What you just said doesn't make sense...... unless you are just joking....

a reply to: Temudjin

Neanderthal DNA only makes up about 3-5% of the human genome. Yes, Neanderthals and homo sapiens bred. Yes, they were cousin species (more like sub species because they were originally the same species before one of the many splits in the population out of africa). So yes, humans bred with Neanderthals but it wasn't common place. Likely there was a war or some kind of conflict where humans and neanderthals ended up back together, and the homo sapiens raped the neanderthal women or vice versa similar to how the European settlers raped the Tinos when they first began taking over South America and created Latinos (the big difference of course is that Tinos and Caucasians were still the same species, not nearly as drifted apart as sapien and neanderthalensis). It's also possible they actually lived in peace, but the arrangement would have been temporary because the they died out around 30,000 years ago, so the genes have decreased over the years in our gene pool. If they didn't break up, who knows, maybe Neanderthal would still be alive today. The got back together and bred just as the genes had drifted far enough apart to cause issues but still worked in many cases.

Look to the animal kingdom for answers

Right, I'd recommend that you do the same thing. Perhaps a biology book or evolution 101 course would do you well. You seem to have some trouble grasping the mechanisms involved with genetic mutations and how genes and new traits emerge. It's not all hybrids. The longer you separate 2 groups of the same species, the more different they become over time. If they eventually come back together after tens of thousands of generations being isolated , they will share their genes and diversify the gene pool. If they stay apart too long, they lose capability to breed because the genome becomes too different to be compatible without sterile offspring and numerous other issues. Maybe homo sapien and neanderthal could barely breed, and most babies were sterile, which may partially also explain why we only have 3% of their genes.

I think we each have unique dna, there might be lots and lots of 'the same' patterns among humans also many many differences, could be our own unique dna gets 'updated ' each lifetime, then the ones with any 'monkey' dna observed by dna scientists, maybe those people have actually been a monkey in past life
we have only been studying dna patterns for a couple hundred years so could be a lot of missing observations

originally posted by: Temudjin
I always wondered about what you guys think about the Rh gene, could humans be two species?
Where and when did the Rh gene occur? And what is the traits?

There are about 100 genes on chromosome 6 that form what is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). The genetic coding for RH compatibility is only a few genes (RH negativity is an absence of those genes).

There are 50 different blood typings. RH factor is only one.

But perhaps a clearer indication that RH factor does not indicate a species difference and does indicate a simple genetic mutation (or an epigenetic one) is that there is RH disease where an in-utero baby can have different RH factor than its mother, causing all sorts of immune reactions.

Simply put, it is not a speciating mutation and therefore does not indicate a species difference, just part of human diversity.

Yeah I think it narrows down to a few possibilities..

•RH negative blood is Neanderthal? the timing fits there,and this seems to be where science leans.

•RH negative humans are the original human prototype? and the positives are the re worked dumbed down version?

•RH negatives are the offspring of the gods?

I think answers one and two can co exist and they are what I am thinking.

It seems the original blonde RH negatives migrated from Hyperborea into what is now Scandanavia.The red haired serpent line were the Basques and Celts and they originated from Atlantis.In Irish myth it tells of the Danann who were 'gods' who I bred with locals!! This may also tie in with Tsarions work,so before they arrived on Earth they inhabited Mars and before that Maldek,which is now the asteroid belt.

It seems there was harmony and then this global civilization fell and we have our current oppressors.

Many say about the Reptilians etc? Well our current royalty and elites are RH negative serpent line.Basically the author of the links I provided (in a thread of my own on RH negative) came to the conclusion that the serpent line was a hybrid cross of the original Aryan blonde haired RH negative and a reptilian? This does make some sense when you analyze the evidence.

RH negative and red hair seem synonymous..it is curious how red heads are more psychic..makes you wonder if this was the real reason for the purge In The witch hunts? To cleanse out the RH negative line..

The truth is being pursued hotly and the main stream science has not done enough to solve this..it is a smoking gun imo.

Cool Post!

a reply to: Barcs

Or maybe just food? Could the ice age be a huge factor?

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Temudjin
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The majority of the Rh negative have blue eyes which is a common trait of people living in cold climates in the north.

I'm glad you said the majority because my ex husband is RH negative and he is black.

Now, when you say 'pure blood', there is no such thing. Spend some time in a lab analyzing blood and you will see that there is no such thing as 'pure blood' (unless you are a big Harry Potter fan, of course).

I hear a lot of black folks In The Caribbean (as one example) have European ancestry, so it is quite easy to imagine that is how RH negative appeared In this example of black folks..it is also possible that there were original Rh negative blacks? Who inbred with the Atlanteans?

a reply to: chr0naut

And how long does that take ?

a reply to: EndOfDays77

Could Atlantis be in Harappa and maybe the Neanderthals was seen as Gods, since our first outlook on religion came from Indian philosophy and the story about hanuman the monkey king.