Blood of the Gods


A recent article in Nature News says that a new DNA study from the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that ancient man  had sex with a still unknown species.  That interbreeding apparently helped produce some of the variety that is found in humans today.

However despite all the advanced research in genetics, no one has been able to adequately explain why some people have Rh negative blood. Since life presumably originated in Africa (with Rh positive blood), it’s a mystery as to why Rh negative blood even exists today.  So a little background is perhaps in order.

Rh positive refers to an antigen found in our bodies and means, in effect, that there is a DNA link to the Rhesus monkey.  Rh negative, then, means that the blood does not share a common DNA with the Rhesus monkey.  The really shocking conclusion is that people with Rh negative blood do not share an evolutionary background with the primate family.  Therefore, the commonly held theory of evolution is totally lacking for an explanation of this phenomenon.

Of course, some people would like you to believe that this was all the result of some random mutation of unknown origin.  However, blood is highly resistant to mutation in any form. For example, the body of a pregnant woman who has Rh negative blood may reject her Rh positive baby while it is in the womb. That’s because our bodies have an immune system which can identify and attack anything which is foreign to the body, like an invading virus or bacteria.  In this case, the immune system of a Rh negative body can attack a Rh positive  fetus.

However, the body of a Rh positive mother does not fight the Rh negative baby she is carrying. The reason is that Rh blood (type O) can be given to any person with Rh positive blood. Everyone on the face of the earth can receive Rh negative type ‘O’ blood, but these very same ‘O’ negative people cannot receive blood from any other type except their own.  It’s, therefore, the universal blood type; in effect, the blood of the gods.

Certainly if we were to believe the Bible, the sons of God (some would say Fallen Angels) interbred with the daughters of Man.  That had to have had some long-term genetic repercussions on the species.  It might also explain the report that ancient man had sex with some unknown species.  Could it be related to why the Vatican is so obsessed with searching the heavens through a billion-dollar telescope named Lucifer?

4 Responses to “Blood of the Gods”

  1. tildeb said

    No. You misunderstand: we are talking about antigens and not ‘different’ DNA. Rh negative is an absence of the Rh D antigen (there are about 50 different antigens in the Rh group). Most of us are Rh positive (about 85%), meaning we have the Rh D antigen. The idea of blood of the gods or aliens or what have you should be shown by something more and not simply an absence. This kind of absence exists all over the animal kingdom including humans when it comes to antigens. Remember, our immune system will attack antigens it perceives as a foreign body, including Type A versus Type B, but the fatalities from this is rare and doesn’t compare with the Rh incompatibility, which often is fatal. Having neither A nor B means Type O… again an absence of specific antigens.

    Because the predominance of Rh negative populations center in Europe, we do have reasons to think it was of evolutionary advantage… specifically against certain kinds of parasites like Toxoplasma. Your claim the blood types are difficult to mutate fails to appreciate the overwhelming evidence from reality that different blood compositions based on which antigens they possess is in fact common across the species boundary and affects all kinds of other critters. Unless your gods were busy crossbreeding with anything that walked, your hypothesis makes no sense.

    • chicagoja said

      At least, I got you thinking. Yes, Rh negative is the absence of a particular antigen. However, evolutionary theory has no evidence of mutation in blood antigens and worse there is no explanation for how 15% of the population (much higher in some areas and almost non-extinct in others) got the same mutation.

      • tildeb said

        Don’t ever be afraid to learn something rather than assume your assumptions are correct. Evolutionary theory IS human knowledge of the highest order (which is why it the preeminent scientific theory in human inquiry and is used constantly to inform therapies, technologies and applications that work for everyone everywhere all the time.

        This is not a small achievement or something that can rejected by the likes of you or me without compelling contrary evidence. Neither of us has any such evidence.

        By assuming ‘evolution’ has no explanation, you forgo using this knowledge and replace it with an ‘explanation’ of your own that is nowhere near compatible with this knowledge or equivalent in offering us a model that works as well. Furthermore, you have no right to make up your own facts even if you do so out of a staggering ignorance.

        The only solution to this ignorance is to learn and you have access through the internet for unlimited learning. There is simply no excuse to continue to maintain this ignorance.

      • chicagoja said

        I try to learn from everyone, even the evolutionists who have struggled mightily with their own theory. For example:

        Harvard professor George Wald, pondering the vast array of factors that would have to arise spontaneously all at once in order for inanimate matter to evolve into even the most primitive one–celled form of life, wrote: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”

        Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote:
        “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology… in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.” Gould, by the way, did not concur with Darwin’s gradualistic evolutionary theory.

        Even Darwin struggled with the question of how a division of the organic world into discrete entities could be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as a fundamental fact of nature.

        As for Rh negative blood, there is no evidence that it occurred as a mutation. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, they have been forced into a corner and can only speculate (at best) that a mutation took place; otherwise, they would have to publicly admit that evolutionary theory has a huge hole in it. It’s especially damning that this kind of mutation does not occur in nature. How could Rh positive blood give rise genetically to a blood type that rejects and attacks it, anyway?
        All scientific eventually gets overturned by new theory. Science is forever unsettled, that’s the very nature of science. Otherwise we would all still believe what science was once absolutely certain of – that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Today, even parts of Einstein’s theories are being overturned.

        So, no I don’t assume anything. Only people like you believe that you already know everything and that there is nothing new to learn. You assume that everyone else is not as smart as you, that is they are totally ignorant. I guess that makes you smarter than Socrates as well since he believed that he knew only one thing – that he nothing at all. You should have such humility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: