Tuesday, 11 March 2014

NEW - COULD THIS BE THE EXPLANATION FOR THE MISSING LINK?

COULD THIS BE THE EXPLANATION FOR THE 'MISSING LINK'?


Why has no-one scientifically explained why 85% of Human beings have RH positive blood type and 15% have RH negative? If we are ALL descended from the same common ancestor this would be impossible, also - why is it that when an RH positive woman is impregnated by an RH negative man - the mother's body has an allergic reaction and creates anti-bodies - rejects the fetus and tries to abort it? (Infants Haemolytic disease) As though it is a virus to be repelled? In the study of Genetics we learn that we can 'only inherit what our ancestors had except in the case of mutation'. 

Rh positive humans and all other primates have the same blood factors (which is compatible with a common remote genetic ancestry), but primates and 85% of homo sapiens do NOT have the RH negative blood type and cannot accept transfusions of this type of blood either - our bodies reject it and try to destroy it. Why is this? All animals known to man can breed with others of their species - size and color is irrelevant (a Great Dane can technically breed with a Chihuahua). 

So why DOES Infant's Haemolytic disease occur if all humans are the same species? We learned last year that the mitochondrial DNA of Caucasoid (aka Europeans) and Mongoloid (aka Orientals) is different from Negroid (aka sub-Saharan Africans) - the former 2 have Neanderthal DNA and the latter does not, so in actual fact the old saying about 'if we cut each other our blood is the same' is not 100% accurate, it looks the same color yes, but on the genetic level we are actually different biologically speaking - but this has nothing to do with the blood type anomaly I am referring to, there are RH positive blood types and RH negative blood types of all races - but science cannot explain why our blood is violently incompatible, either the RH negatives have a different ancestor to RH positive people - or else they are a genetic mutation. 

The only place in nature this occurs is when a Horse and a Donkey create a Mule - a Mule is not the same species as a Horse or a Donkey - just a hybrid mutation of the two distinct species...this fact alone points to the prehistoric cross-breeding of two similar but genetically different species of hominids as having led to the RH negative people among us, if not and they are the result of a mutation - why does their mutation continue with such exact characteristics and not mutate any further? And before anyone misinterprets my comment and infers or assumes things that I did NOT specifically state - I am not interested in any superior/inferior race or 'seed of Satan' theory...I am just stating medical and biological facts for all to consider - since science has been preoccupied with finding a 'missing link' but yet has not adequately explained this bizarre phenomenon with any concrete facts up to the current time of writing. FYI - the Basques of Europe have the highest RH negative blood type occurrence within any human population on Earth - and the Basques are considered to be 'the oldest ethnic group in Europe'.

If you think about it, even Genesis infers that there are 2 types of Humans, for example 'Adam' was ''created' (not evolved) and a rib from the male (a rib is one of the few bones that can be safely removed and have no ill-effect on the patient leading a normal life afterwards - and you can obtain the DNA from the bone marrow in said rib which can be used to clone another human being) was used to 'create' the female....anyone involved in cloning sees this as a clear reference to the same process, only an unscientific layman fails to see the connection.

Then (we read), these two 'created' humans left Eden (Edom in the original Sumerian version) and went among 'other people'...so clearly there were other non-'created' (the evolved ones perhaps? Because we still have to account for the scientific fact that all RH positive humans and all Apes and monkeys CAN share the same blood) humans in the world outside of the garden of Eden where the 'creation' took place.

The Sumerians were actually very explicit that 'the Gods who came down to earth from the heavens created a man and a woman in Edom' (which according to the geographic location given is now under water off the Iraqi coast in the north Persian gulf - in an area that was FLOODED at the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago - so there WAS indeed a great flood as well, in fact every indigenous culture in the world describes a 'great flood' in their legends - which is natural because melting ice-caps would raise sea levels - and therefore cause flooding - worldwide)....and you will recall the National Geographic article in the 90's that found genetic evidence for a single ancestral 'Adam' and 'Eve' group of about 2 dozen people (but they did not say if this was for RH negatives or RH positive people - perhaps the RH negatives are the genetic descendants of the 'others' that the 'created' ones eventually lived among (and would have eventually interbred with - hence RH negatives in every race alive today - albeit in smaller (15%) numbers than the RH positives (85%) - the 'chosen people' of the Gods who 'created' them perhaps?).

Genesis is replete with references to the 'Gods' attempted extermination of the 'others' from the face of the Earth in favor of the 'created' ones. Hindu Vedic texts speak of wars between two types of humans as well. This is why one cannot dismiss any ancient text (aka Holy book) in it's entirety, sure they all have nonsense in them - but this is easily distinguishable by the parts where 'god' allegedly tells human beings to do ignorant things that defy common sense (like stone people to death for non-violent crimes).

The other parts that are proving to be quite accurate historical records (albeit with some copyright theft & exaggeration - like 'Noah' which is merely a Jewish version of the Babylonian legend of Gilgamesh (which they first heard when in captivity in Iraq and is 1,000 years OLDER than their re-telling of it with one of their own people as the new hero) - warrant closer scrutiny (science has discovered that there WAS a worldwide flood 10,000 years ago, the 'two of every kind of animal' part is not logical (so he had Kangaroos from Australia in the Ark too and Bison from North America? Lets be serious now!) - if you know how many species of animal there are on the Earth and the stated dimensions of the Ark - you would not believe this fairy-tale aspect of an otherwise factual event.

However, it is logical and quite possible that two of every kind of animal IN THE REGION of the inhabitants of the Ark (not a big geographic area at all and not that many animal species in the middle east either - could theoretically have been easily housed in the stated Ark dimensions)...this is what I tell my Atheist friends who have decided to reject everything...not realizing that science fact and ancient records are increasingly going hand in hand, one just has to be open minded and compare current scientific knowledge to ancient records.

For example - the walls of Jericho did fall all at once, archaeology proved it, but common sense would explain it easily due to an Earthquake - because the amount of men blowing on trumpets that it would take to collapse the 8 foot thick walls found in the ruins of Jericho would take more people than the entire population of the 12 tribes of Israel combined....but heck, no doubt they WERE there surrounding the city with their trumpets, and when an earthquake struck at the opportune time - what would YOU have believed if you were one of the Jews and had heard the lecture beforehand by your high priest & your leader that "God shall be with us this day"? You would naturally believe that it was your faith and trumpeting that did the trick and rejoice too!

The faithful can STILL believe that it was God who caused the earthquake at that precise time and so both believer and non-believer can accept this simple truth of a scientifically proven place & event - and view it from two different perspectives. Likewise, the ruins of both Sodom & Gomorrah have actually been found, and also evidence of a nearby Volcano as having erupted which destroyed them, this is scientific fact, and the faithful can STILL believe that God caused it to erupt to punish these cities...see what I mean? There is room for us ALL to accept the truth of these occurrences and merely interpret them any way we desire, whether via the lens of science or faith - but the fact still remains that these places DID exist (as the Bible described) and were destroyed as LITERALLY (maybe not as 'supernaturally') described...anyone who has seen a Volcanic eruption WOULD see 'fire & brimstone falling from the sky'.

ALL these ancient texts (Vedic, Sumerian, Judaic etc.) become quite revealing and far more credible when you read them with scientific knowledge in hand...leave 'blind faith' for 'blind' people; as for me - I have eyes to see and ears to hear - and so I shall remain.

No comments:

Post a Comment