|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 5, 2018 10:17:57 GMT
Sorry. I really wanted to do a thread about Jimmy Kimmel making a complete blubbering jackass of himself on national TV, but he hasn't done that lately, so this is it. Enjoy. Disclaimer: The usual. You should all know it by now. My thoughts: I'm still collating, but Red Ruth's explanation was unsatisfactory when I last brought up the topic. There seems to have been an intervention of some kind in humanity's development on earth, and it's most mysterious, don't you think? I think it is. If man is, as we are taught, descended from a common ancestor to the apes, then the Rh- blood must have been introduced later, yes? Or does it throw a monkey wrench (no pun intended) into the notion that man is the product of millions of years of slow and godless evolution? About seventeen people out of twenty in the world today have Rh+ blood, and about three people out of twenty have Rh- blood.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 5, 2018 17:58:51 GMT
Who wants to consider the words of a biologist on the topic of biology when we have Youtube at our disposal? Anyway, I'm sure Ruth's explanation was quite to the point but Erjen doesn't have the mental faculties to comprehend what she said so he dismissed it in favor of...ALIENS!
However, here are four scientifically consistent explanations for the rh- factor being found in humans but not in our closest relatives:
1) This is the most likely explanation: The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that didn't appear until after our genetic lineage had split from the lineages of all other modern primates.
The other three explanations are unlikely but are possible without any need for supernatural or alien nonsense. In other words they are still scientifically possible and beyond Erjen's understanding.
2) The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that appeared in an ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, humans evolved from a population of a common ancestor in which the rh- factor was present while chimpanzees evolved from a population of that same common ancestor in which the rh- factor was not present.
3) Both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lineages in which the rh- factor was present. However, due to either the rh- factor providing no evolutionary benefit to the chimpanzee lineage (being a neutral mutation with no advantages or disadvantages) or to pure chance it slowly disappeared from the chimpanzee lineage.
4) Same scenario as above only in this case the rh- factor was somehow disadvantageous to the chimpanzee lineage and was eliminated relatively quickly.
I haven't researched this specific topic to find out if geneticists have been able to date to rh- mutation to a time period that would make (1) the definite answer rather than the most likely answer.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 5, 2018 19:04:50 GMT
Who wants to consider the words of a biologist on the topic of biology when we have Youtube at our disposal? Anyway, I'm sure Ruth's explanation was quite to the point but Erjen doesn't have the mental faculties to comprehend what she said so he dismissed it in favor of...ALIENS! However, here are four scientifically consistent explanations for the rh- factor being found in humans but not in our closest relatives: 1) This is the most likely explanation: The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that didn't appear until after our genetic lineage had split from the lineages of all other modern primates. The other three explanations are unlikely but are possible without any need for supernatural or alien nonsense. In other words they are still scientifically possible and beyond Erjen's understanding. 2) The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that appeared in an ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, humans evolved from a population of a common ancestor in which the rh- factor was present while chimpanzees evolved from a population of that same common ancestor in which the rh- factor was not present. 3) Both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lineages in which the rh- factor was present. However, due to either the rh- factor providing no evolutionary benefit to the chimpanzee lineage (being a neutral mutation with no advantages or disadvantages) it slowly disappeared from the chimpanzee lineage. This could also occur due to pure chance. 4) Same scenario as above only in this case the rh- factor was somehow disadvantageous to the chimpanzee lineage and was eliminated relatively quickly. I haven't researched this specific topic to find out if geneticists have been able to date to rh- mutation to a time period that would make (1) the definite answer rather than the most likely answer. Meanwhile the primary blood type differentiator ( ABO blood group system) is found in other mammals. But that couldn't possibly be supportive evidence of common descent.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 5, 2018 19:27:02 GMT
Who wants to consider the words of a biologist on the topic of biology when we have Youtube at our disposal? Anyway, I'm sure Ruth's explanation was quite to the point but Erjen doesn't have the mental faculties to comprehend what she said so he dismissed it in favor of...ALIENS! However, here are four scientifically consistent explanations for the rh- factor being found in humans but not in our closest relatives: 1) This is the most likely explanation: The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that didn't appear until after our genetic lineage had split from the lineages of all other modern primates. The other three explanations are unlikely but are possible without any need for supernatural or alien nonsense. In other words they are still scientifically possible and beyond Erjen's understanding. 2) The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that appeared in an ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, humans evolved from a population of a common ancestor in which the rh- factor was present while chimpanzees evolved from a population of that same common ancestor in which the rh- factor was not present. 3) Both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lineages in which the rh- factor was present. However, due to either the rh- factor providing no evolutionary benefit to the chimpanzee lineage (being a neutral mutation with no advantages or disadvantages) it slowly disappeared from the chimpanzee lineage. This could also occur due to pure chance. 4) Same scenario as above only in this case the rh- factor was somehow disadvantageous to the chimpanzee lineage and was eliminated relatively quickly. I haven't researched this specific topic to find out if geneticists have been able to date to rh- mutation to a time period that would make (1) the definite answer rather than the most likely answer. Meanwhile the primary blood type differentiator ( ABO blood group system) is found in other mammals. But that couldn't possibly be supportive evidence of common descent. Goddamn aliens.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 5, 2018 19:46:58 GMT
Either that or Satan. Maybe both.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 5, 2018 19:53:57 GMT
They are different and therefore an anomaly to be culled.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 5, 2018 19:58:13 GMT
Is this why feline-human hybrids are so rare?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2018 21:56:03 GMT
Or put simply...
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 6, 2018 7:46:38 GMT
Another theory for which there is no evidence but which I sort of like: Neanderthals were Rh-negative. Since they only lived in Europe and mingled with modern Homo Sapiens there, it would explain why Rh-negative people are mostly found in Europe more than in other parts of the world.
Also, there's this theory that Basks are direct descendants of Neanderthals. The rate of Rh-negative people there is 25%. Coincidence? Not if the theories are true.
As I said: There's no evidence. But unlike Annunaki, Neanderthals were known to exist.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2018 17:22:26 GMT
Another theory for which there is no evidence but which I sort of like: Neanderthals were Rh-negative. Since they only lived in Europe and mingled with modern Homo Sapiens there, it would explain why Rh-negative people are mostly found in Europe more than in other parts of the world. Also, there's this theory that Basks are direct descendants of Neanderthals. The rate of Rh-negative people there is 25%. Coincidence? Not if the theories are true. As I said: There's no evidence. But unlike Annunaki, Neanderthals were known to exist. Someone on the old board brought that up as if it were established fact, about how the Neanderthals mated with Homo Sapiens and lost their hair, leaving white skin underneath. Some think Jacob stealing Esau's birthright is an allegorical reference to the displacement of the Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens. Yes, the Basques have the highest percentage of Rh- of any people in the world. The Aryans and the Irish have a high concentration of it too. As for the Anunnaki.....we'll just have to wait until they show up again.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 6, 2018 17:22:58 GMT
猫ちゃn
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2018 17:26:38 GMT
They are different and therefore an anomaly to be culled. I hate to burst your bubble, but if the globalists want the population at half a billion people by the year 2030, the B+ contingent is the one that's going to get culled.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 6, 2018 17:52:40 GMT
You may find this interesting--
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2018 17:57:25 GMT
You may find this interesting--
Very interesting. I guess I couldn't be a Native American. No B type there.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 6, 2018 18:03:20 GMT
Theoncommingstorm
You stated that not ErJen. Link to your mutation data (by the rules of fair posting).
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2018 18:37:39 GMT
Oh, it was to the point, all right.
The Rh Factor: Some people have it. And some people don't.
Wow. Can't get more to the point than that, can you?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 6, 2018 20:01:15 GMT
They are different and therefore an anomaly to be culled. I hate to burst your bubble, but if the globalists want the population at half a billion people by the year 2030, the B+ contingent is the one that's going to get culled. Experiment on the minority to ensure perfection.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 6, 2018 20:15:07 GMT
Either that or Satan. Maybe both. This is for you. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 4:05:09 GMT
Who wants to consider the words of a biologist on the topic of biology when we have Youtube at our disposal? Anyway, I'm sure Ruth's explanation was quite to the point but Erjen doesn't have the mental faculties to comprehend what she said so he dismissed it in favor of...ALIENS! However, here are four scientifically consistent explanations for the rh- factor being found in humans but not in our closest relatives: 1) This is the most likely explanation: The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that didn't appear until after our genetic lineage had split from the lineages of all other modern primates. The other three explanations are unlikely but are possible without any need for supernatural or alien nonsense. In other words they are still scientifically possible and beyond Erjen's understanding. 2) The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that appeared in an ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, humans evolved from a population of a common ancestor in which the rh- factor was present while chimpanzees evolved from a population of that same common ancestor in which the rh- factor was not present. 3) Both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lineages in which the rh- factor was present. However, due to either the rh- factor providing no evolutionary benefit to the chimpanzee lineage (being a neutral mutation with no advantages or disadvantages) or to pure chance it slowly disappeared from the chimpanzee lineage. 4) Same scenario as above only in this case the rh- factor was somehow disadvantageous to the chimpanzee lineage and was eliminated relatively quickly. I haven't researched this specific topic to find out if geneticists have been able to date to rh- mutation to a time period that would make (1) the definite answer rather than the most likely answer. Are you forgetting? #5 Stuff happens. Sometimes there isn't much reason for stuff happening. It seems you're not quite as insulting to Erjen lately. Perhaps it's the holiday mood.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 7, 2018 5:03:53 GMT
Who wants to consider the words of a biologist on the topic of biology when we have Youtube at our disposal? Anyway, I'm sure Ruth's explanation was quite to the point but Erjen doesn't have the mental faculties to comprehend what she said so he dismissed it in favor of...ALIENS! However, here are four scientifically consistent explanations for the rh- factor being found in humans but not in our closest relatives: 1) This is the most likely explanation: The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that didn't appear until after our genetic lineage had split from the lineages of all other modern primates. The other three explanations are unlikely but are possible without any need for supernatural or alien nonsense. In other words they are still scientifically possible and beyond Erjen's understanding. 2) The rh- factor resulted from a mutation that appeared in an ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, humans evolved from a population of a common ancestor in which the rh- factor was present while chimpanzees evolved from a population of that same common ancestor in which the rh- factor was not present. 3) Both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lineages in which the rh- factor was present. However, due to either the rh- factor providing no evolutionary benefit to the chimpanzee lineage (being a neutral mutation with no advantages or disadvantages) or to pure chance it slowly disappeared from the chimpanzee lineage. 4) Same scenario as above only in this case the rh- factor was somehow disadvantageous to the chimpanzee lineage and was eliminated relatively quickly. I haven't researched this specific topic to find out if geneticists have been able to date to rh- mutation to a time period that would make (1) the definite answer rather than the most likely answer. Are you forgetting? #5 Stuff happens. Sometimes there isn't much reason for stuff happening. It seems you're not quite as insulting to Erjen lately. Perhaps it's the holiday mood. I hung out with goth freaks who thought drinking blood was cool. Drinking mine would be a cheap way to get hammered.
|
|