Human Blood Types and Human Evolution
(The positive or     negative refer to the so-called Rhesus factor).
 
Persons with blood type O are so-called     universal donors, since they can give blood to anyone having any of     the blood types A, B, O or AB. Persons with blood type AB on the     other hand, can give blood only to persons with AB blood type. A     person with blood type A can not give blood to a person with blood     type B and vice versa.
 
This means that a Kenyan with blood type     A can give blood to a Norwegian with blood type A, but a Norwegian     close relative with blood type B can not.
 
ABO Origins
 
Given the above facts, blood types AB     and O seem to be some form of combination of A+A, A+B or B+B (AB as     exclusive and O as inclusive) - whereas A and B themselves appear to     be separate original groups.
 
Only if the father and mother are A and     B or B and A blood type can the child have any of the human blood     groups A, B, AB or O.
 
This negates current theory that O is     the original blood type, especially since the man-apes have little     or no O blood type and no AB blood type. A and B are very likely the     originals.
 
 
The Man-Apes
28 separate studies showed that       Chimpanzees have the blood types A and minimal O, but never       B.
8 separate studies showed that       Gorillas have the blood types B and minimal O, but never A.
There is NO blood type AB in       either of the man-apes!
(Jakob Schmitt,       Immunbiologische Untersuchungen bei Primaten; S. Karger, New       York and Basel, 1968).
But man has both A and B AND blood type     AB as well as very much O.
 
The same holds true for the MN blood     type, which is a different blood antigen. Man is both M and N or the     combined MN blood type whereas the Chimpanzees and Gorillas react     exclusively to these types. (According to Schmitt, the reactions of     Chimpanzees are 00.16 to Anti-M human mucous and 10.00 to Anti-N,     whereas the figures for Gorillas are exactly the reverse, with 10.00     to Anti-M and 00.64 to Anti-N).
Hence, M and N must have combined.
Charles Darwin (see The Origin of Species) wrote that it,
"was probable that Africa was      inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and the      chimpanzee; and as these two species are man's nearest allies,      it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on      the African continent."
Moreover, as noted by Philip Van     Doren Stern, Prehistoric Europe (W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y.,     1969, p. 28):
"it is interesting to note that the      australophithecines (precursors of man) lived east and south of      the area now inhabited by gorillas and chimpanzees."
A + B = You and Me?
 
Accordingly, I suspect here that we     might guess as to who Adam and Eve were, i.e. perhaps     man developed on two separate lines from the man-apes or evolved     from a combination of these two separate lines somewhere down the     road.
 
Did you make the same connection?
 
A + B = You and Me
There is good evidence in world blood distribution for two separate     groups in human evolution, represented perhaps by Cro-Magnon Man on     the one side and Neanderthal Man on the other side.
As noted by Lars Beckman (A Contribution to the Physical     Anthropology and Population Genetics of Sweden: Lund, 1959, p.     21):
"The Early European race is      characterized by a high per cent of Rh-negatives, a very low      B-frequency and a relatively high A2 frequency... probably some      connection with postglacial Cro-Magnon Man....
 
The Asiatic race      is characterized by a high frequency of A1 and B and a low      frequency of Rh-negatives..." (i.e. perhaps some connection to      Neanderthal man).
 
Note: As noted by     Herberdt Wendt, (In Search of Adam, Houghton-Mifflin:     Boston, 1956) in spite of the historically unfounded and falsely bad     reputation of Neanderthal Man, his cranial capacity "was amazingly     large, 1300-1650 cc. in comparison with a range of 1100-1700 for     modern European males."
 
The right-handers and the left-handers
 
Handedness is another point of evidence     for two separate groups of Man.
 
Suffice it here to say that Homo     erectus, a precursor to man - never found in Europe - was     right-handed, as were the Neanderthals. The ancient Cro-Magnon cave     painters of Europe were almost certainly left-handed. (See Philip     Van Doren Stern, Prehistoric Europe.)
 
Given this, our view of left-handers,     especially in continental Europe, is superstition.
 
Giants and Dwarfs
 
In terms of the size of our     predecessors, there is also evidence of two groups of human beings     in ancient times.
 
As J. Bronowski wrote in his wonderful     book, The Ascent of Man (Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, 1973,     p. 38),
"A cousin of man" allegedly "not in      the direct line to us, is a heavily-built Australopithecus      robustus who is a vegetarian.... His cousin on the line to man      is lighter - visibly so in the jaw - and is probably a      meat-eater...a small creature standing only four feet high." (Australopithecus africanus)
Herberdt Wendt in his book In     Search of Adam (1956. notes 17, p.     362, p. 487) writes in this regard:
"It appeared that in the latest      glacial period at least two culturally creative races had lived      in Europe... Giants and dwarfs.... They seem to have lived at      the same time and in the same places. Which one of them was the      real Adam?"
In terms of culture, Philip Van Doren     Stern in Prehistoric Europe (1969) writes that,
"There is also an excellent      possibility that early Europe was populated at times not only by      hand-axe makers but also by a different and more primitive      people, the chopper-chopping-tool makers who used chipped      pebbles and accidentally produced flakes rather than carefully      shaped flint."
Another researcher writes that the     cultural record of the Pleistocene is said in fact to show "two     cultural traditions", Jacquette Hawkes in Prehistoric     Europe (Volume I of UNESCO's History of Mankind: London, 1963).
 
She states further,
"while later on contacts between the      flake-tool and hand-axe makers in Eurasia undoubtedly led to the      mingling and transference of cultural traits, there is good      reason to believe that at this stage (prior to Neanderthal man)      the two people were distinct...."
All of these findings support the     speculation of H.V. Vallois that there may indeed have been a "second line" of the evolution of humanity (cited by Wendt, In     Search of Adam, p. 362, n. 17).
 
Wendt himself writes that,
"It seemed as though there had been      very strange happenings in the general evolution of humanity      before the rise, some 150,000 years ago, of the two clearly      distinguishable forms of the typical Neanderthal specimen and      the Homo sapiens of the Ice Age.
 
In Palestine... near      Nazareth... 18 primitive human remains were unearthed...
 
They resembled Neanderthal man, but      on the one hand their skulls were much more primitive and on the      other their limbs were far more modern. A female... was only      four feet nine inches long, while a male... was a foot taller.
 
In addition to skulls of Neanderthal type others were found with      high foreheads, well rounded occiputs, and pronounced chins."
Spectacular finds of giant-like human     skulls were found in Java, leading Franz Weidenreich to     publish a theory that a prehistoric race of giants once existed...     and that these giants seemed to represent a transitional stage     from gorilla to man (Report of May 9, 1944 to the American     Ethnological Society: Apes, Giants and Man - Chicago: 1946).
Wendt concludes in In Search of Adam:
"Did early humanity, under the      influence of the weather of this fateful epoch, divide into two      groups ...?"
 
The study of the antiquity of mankind - that is, YOUR history and     mine, is increasingly an interdisciplinary science.
 
The results of     one branch of research must bear up to the burden of proof required     by the results derived from another branch of study.
For example, whatever the results of linguistic and archaeological     research may be, they will be increasingly scrutinized by other     branches of science which do not deal in (what is often only)     academic opinions, but in irrefutable facts.
 
One such group of facts     which relates to the origins and dispersal of mankind and its     languages throughout this planet - is blood data.
 
Theories about ancient cultures and     discussion about the migrations of ancient peoples will increasingly     have to conform to blood data provided by the physical sciences. We,     who live in this world of DNA know that our TRUE history is etched     indelibly in our genes - and in this technological age, we are     increasingly in a position to read our past simply in our bodily     chemistry. Or to put it in other words, we carry the answers to     age-old questions about the origins of man WITHIN us.
 
The so-called "gene pool" is     reconstructable far back into the past.
Hence, I provide here a graphic which presents unavoidable FACTS.     They are not the opinions of well-meaning scholars nor are they     subject to challenge or change. They simply exist.
 
Hence, theories about ancient cultures     and languages which do not conform to these facts CAN NOT be true,     and only those which DO conform to these facts CAN be true, although     agreement does not guarantee that they ARE true.
 
 
 
Did you try your hand at getting the     right solution? How do your numbers read from top to bottom? The     odds against you getting them all right are astronomical - unless     you are a specialist in the field of blood groups.
The correct solution is, running from top to bottom in the box     above: 10-1-11-3-9-6-8-2-5-4-7
There were some surprises, weren't there?
The worst scores were probably obtained by linguists and     archaeologists - whose pervading theories simply DO NOT match up     with the evidence of the physical sciences. The reason for this is     clear. Archaeology forms its theories based on what they dig up and     this is a fairly serendipity undertaking, which relies much on     chance.
 
Linguistics, up to now, is still in its baby shoes, and many     of the so-called "rules" which have developed will one day be put to     test in computers - using the hypotheses derived - and I for one,     doubt whether many of them will work - at least not in the     historical sense.
 
New directions in e.g. Nostratic support     this view.
The dendrite used here is a mathematical method of bringing ALL     interrelationships on one contiguous branched line. It shows how far     each group of people is from other (i.e. the length of the lines is     also mathematically calculated and significant). Dotted lines mean     the relationship is clear, but that the exact distance is, as yet,     mathematically uncertain.
Here is how the dendrite graph looks like complete:
 
 
 
The completed dendrite tells us clearly     how man developed and how he scattered throughout the Earth,     starting in Africa, moving northward and then branching to the East     and West.
 
Indeed this conforms with topographical data since the     Alps and the mountains of Asia presented insurmountable obstacles in     ancient times. I.e. the direction of dispersal ran basically across     the old Amber Trail, across the flatlands from the Black Sea to the     Baltic and from thence in all directions.
 
This also conforms to the fact that the     Baltic languages are the oldest Indo-European tongues - and, since     BALT in Latvian means "white" (the old BALT inscriptions in     Phoenician are incorrectly transcribed BA'AL), we see here the basic     line between the whiter-skinned paled-out races of the north and     their darker-skinned neighbors to the south.
The axis lies on the trail from Africa to the BLACK sea and from     there to the BALTIC ("sea of the whites"). The Arabs, as shown by     the blood data, must then be a mixture of white and African tribes -     (as perhaps recounted in the Bible - i.e. Abraham and his 2nd wife.)
Oriental scholars and Egyptologists will eventually have to take     these distributions of blood groups into account, especially since     the blood groupings of Egyptians and Hebrews simply defy all current     academic theories about the origins of the Pharaohs and the Hebrews,     so also in linguistics, archaeology, religion and ethnology.
 
Nothing could be more clear from this     data, than that the Hebrews and Egyptians have a nearly common     blood origin and that their geographic origin lies in the     broad expanses of northern Euroasia, among a people     linguistically close and related by blood to the Latvians and the     neighboring peoples and dialects.
 
Or, as stated so often, the key might be     found in the Kurgan connection , including     Sanskrit, Tocharian, etc.