QUESTION: where did rh- blood type originate and what caused this adaptation.can it be located in dna where people make rh+ verses rh-?ive read something about rh- people being anscestors of Neanderthals and that being the source of the adaptation.is that liable?and is it possible ghanges kkhans sleeping into European population reintroduce rh+ to Europeans or was it an isolated adaptation?thanks the other exspert is full up so hopefully you can answer my questions thanks.
ANSWER: Hi Tracy
The rhesus gene is an essential part of the chromoatic composition of the blood cell. As such there are 50 variations of the gene in existence today.
The natural selection is rh+ as a contributing factor to blood typing. Any change is brought about by a deletion not insertion or alteration. So rh- exists as a direct result of some d gene destruction or deletion in the chromosome.
Could this be Neanderthal lead? Well which came first rh- or rh+? History is not that precise to distinguish the devolution or evolution of the rhesus presence in the blood stream. Immune response is usually brought about by the presence of antigens in the body but they need to be active to cause the creation of anitbodies. If the slow destruction of the rh+ element in the blood cause some review of the immune system then anitbodies would be present to react to the negative value. That there are reactions to rh- mothers with rh+ fathers suggest that the d gene is an antigen in some cases (according to the WHO 15% of the population).
So logic suggests that the rh- must have been paternal not maternal as the foetus of rh- have survivied and expanded throughout the world.
RH- paternal influence may have been spontaneous in many instances and this can be argued by the genetic case of incomplete dominance or incomplete recessive genes existing and coming together over time, or it may be the result of one deleted gene being spread throughout a wide population over a period of time. Logic then states that most foetuses with the rh- must be male because of the ni risks or sudden death syndrome before modern medicine could intervene to transfuse those most at risk.
Was it an isolated adaption, again not really known as ancestral records cannot state categorically the origins of many peoples and yes the human genone is still a mystery to many.
So where did it originate?
There is no answer to this as the rh- is a result of deletion to the d gene and not insertion. So many slight alterations through deletion could have happened pver many centuries before a solid deletion became apparent.
What caused the adaption?
There is no real answer to this either. It could have been caused by dietary alterations to blood production. It could have been spontaneous.
I hope this at least sets the mind a little better.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: thank you .what part of what chromesome was deleted from genes to cause this.what if anyother functions are associated with this part of the chromesome? and by further reading the rh- factor seems to have occurred by close breeding wof family lines inbreeding Neanderthals did this and eygtptians and not god based lines in Europe.all rh-.I say not god based just that Christians disdnt believe in inter marrages.latter on chritians.but the exsisting lines of today that are rh- have all bred at least in Europe within their families.causing protein or chromosome mutations.and random I agree resessive but it is totality in inbreed lines or intermarrying lines of Europe rh-.just something interesting found out it really appears to be bred out of those lines in Europe who intermarried.
ANSWER: Hi Tracy
The human genome is over 3 billion base pairs in length. Although it has been sequenced it has not been rationalised by breaking down the alleles into distinctive groups. It is not possible to arrive at any conclusion around any particular deletion or pairing of incomplete dominant genes.
You must not confuse some religious myths and beliefs with actual genetic diversity brought about by migration.
There is no clinical evidence to support any inter marriage or breeding between homo sapiens and homo erectus neanderthal. Also the actual history of the fertile crescent development is not complete at all.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: well thanks for all your wonderful answers.yes its speculation bout my theory about the so called fifteen percent that own planet economically.they all seem to be rh-.and regal of the claims of being from Neanderthals and in my reading Neanderthals are the only ones that have evidence of interbreeding intensely.peking man didn't and cromagam didn't.they also the rh- in European lines as with the Egyptians have recorded in breeding.and problems that occurred from this.like hemophilac.and that is researched and known to be caused in damage in the chromosome of the first arm of the chromesome.and I agree that rh
+ factor is a needed protein or important.like rh- cant be cloned.i think the prmoidal soup is in that protein but blocked from science finding it.the fifteen percent have made much propaganda on this rh+ protein claiming they are pure bloods and the rh+ people are monkey bloods.i see it quite differently.like their blood is sterile lacking this protein and chromosome block that caused it.but to the question I haven't been able to find out very much information about percentage of rh- ressecive in total population as even rh+ can have it in them resessive Europe became a very small gene pool with fornication of the kings like is there any documentation on percentage of rh- total in blood groups including rh+.thanks.what I must have meant by god lines is the kings interbreeding thinking they kept their blood lines pure which obviously wasn't the case they weekend them.thanks and have a nice day.
Unfortunately kings and emperors presented two faces to their peoples, one the distinct regal presence honest compassionate and true to the monogamous beliefs, the other the devil who played the field usurped their powers and their majesty by sewing their wild oats to all and sundry in their courts.
Without true genetic testing there is no real proof that every off spring produced by a queen was in fact progeny of the king; consider Rasputin and the Russian royals.
Our only one truism is that we are all from some form of common ancestry found in the lower portion of the fertile crescent and presumed to be linked to 150000 occupiers. My latest research shows that we all have some common background allele linked to 0.0015% of our 3 billion base pairings.