24

• • • • • • •

The Genetics of the ABO Blood Groups

Type O negative blood (red cells) can be transfused to patients of all blood types. It is always in great demand and often in short supply.

    Type AB positive plasma can be transfused to patients of all other blood types. AB plasma is also usually in short supply.

    Type O negative blood is needed in emergencies before the patient’s blood type is known and with newborns who need blood.

    About forty-five percent of people in the U.S. have Type O (positive or negative) blood. This percentage is higher among Hispanics—57 percent, and among African Americans—51 percent.

AMERICAN RED CROSS, “BLOOD FACTS AND STATISTICS”

ABO GENETICS

We are all subject to the laws of nature, and chief among these are the laws of genetics, which are definitely superior to the laws made by humans. Each of us is controlled, to a large extent, by the unique genetic blueprint that is stamped into our cells. That biological plan has many instructions that must be obeyed; the penalty for not doing so can be sickness or death.

The most basic laws of genetics involve those contained in our blood groups.

There are four main ABO blood type groupings: A, B, AB, and O. These blood groups are determined by the antigen on the blood cell surface and the antibodies present in the blood plasma. If you are human, then you have one of these four blood types.

Our blood groups, especially the ABO and Rh blood types, fall into the above categories. In modern times, we have come to know our own particular ABO blood group (A, B, O, or AB); many of us also know whether we are Rh positive or Rh negative.

We have learned these things because this knowledge can be essential for healthy childbearing, a vibrant and disease-free life, and even survival.

While we are going to briefly examine the genetics of the ABO and Rh system for the sake of general knowledge, I have a greater purpose, of course, and that is to investigate it as it pertains to human origins.

Though the ABO blood group story can get complicated, in fact, the fundamentals are well within the layperson’s grasp. You do not need to be a geneticist to comprehend the basics. In my view, without an understanding of this information, we simply do not know some of the most important biological data there are to know about ourselves, other humans, and our history.

Although most DNA is packaged in chromosomes within the cell nucleus, mitochondria, which are rod-shaped structures within cells that convert oxygen and nutrients into power for the cells, also have a small amount of their own DNA. This genetic material is known as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). (For more details on mtDNA, see chapter 25.)

Long before the human genome was unraveled and mtDNA became the rage, the ABO blood group system was discovered by Austrian scientist Karl Landsteiner in 1900. This marked a very important step in human development and survival because it allowed medical science to save lives through blood transfusions and, later, when medical technology improved, organ transplants.

Prior ignorance of the distinct differences between individuals in different blood groups resulted in severe illness, miscarriages, and infant mortality. Before this discovery, people simply assumed that all human beings shared the same blood.

However, the discovery of the ABO system showed that was an erroneous view; after the blood groups were studied it became clear that there were small but very significant genetic differences in human blood types.

For example, the type O, Rh negative mother who, in the past, tried to carry and give birth to a baby with type O, Rh positive blood often suffered a miscarriage, still birth, or infant mortality. This was a serious complication in Europe, where type O negative blood appears with a significant frequency in the overall population distribution.

For the moment, as a way of example, we will assume your blood is type A. That means that your antigens will recognize type A blood as “self” but will identify type B blood as alien. Not only will your immune system make that identification, it also will try to prevent the invader blood from mixing with your blood.

This is why your blood type becomes a critical issue if you need a transfusion. The hospital has to determine that you are a type A person first, then make sure you get blood from either another person with type A blood or from a person with type O blood.

Now it starts getting a little more complicated.

Type A blood reacts to type B by clotting (and vise versa with B to A), which can cause serious medical problems, even death. It will react to type AB blood in the same way. However, a type A person can receive a transfusion from a type O person. That is so because the latter blood type lacks the A and B antigens, and that means it is the universal donor blood type.

A type O person can give blood to people with all the other blood types. But types A and B people can only receive blood from their own or a type O donor, whereas type AB people can receive blood from an A, B, or O person; which makes them the universal recipients.

Now we have to add another factor that adds to the complexity of the situation a bit more. While there are four main blood groups, there is also another blood group antigen, located on red blood cell surfaces. It is known as the Rhesus factor (Rh factor), and this antigen is either present or absent (Rh positive or Rh negative, respectively).

While you are a basic type A person, you are also either Rh positive or Rh negative. In fact, the hospital needs to know the Rh status just as much as it does the ABO data. Why? If you have type A negative blood, you can only receive blood from another type A negative person or an O negative person.

A person who is Rh negative will produce antibodies against Rh positive blood cells if exposed to them. Exposure can be due to a blood transfusion with Rh positive blood or a pregnancy in which the Rh negative mother has an Rh positive infant in her womb.

The same is not true with Rh positive blood. If you have type A positive blood, you can receive blood from a person with type A negative or O negative blood. The Rh positive blood type does not attack the Rh negative blood, as the latter does the former. So an Rh positive mother can carry an Rh negative fetus without any problems.

This body of knowledge may seem of academic interest only until you get to the emergency room and have to receive a blood transfusion or need an organ transplant. Then it becomes critical (even life-saving) genetic knowledge that you will be grateful for.

Every human being is either Rh positive or Rh negative; this is really the main genetic division where human ABO blood group distribution is concerned. Why do people have different blood groups?

Shouldn’t we all have the same blood group and Rh type if we originated in Africa from a single ancestral mother (mtDNA Eve) in whom the Rh factor occurred? If not, where did this difference originate?

Anti-A antibodies are hypothesized to originate from an immune response toward an influenza type virus; anti-B antibodies are hypothesized to originate from antibodies produced against gram-negative bacteria, such as E. coli.

It appears that the A and B blood groups developed to reduce the transmission of viruses and bacteria within a human population. This possibility suggests that individuals in a human population supply and make a diversity of unique antibodies to fend off invading antigens (i.e., viruses and bacteria) so as to keep the population as a whole more resistant to infection.

On the other hand, it may be that the force driving evolution of blood group diversity is that cells with rare variants of membrane antigens are more easily distinguished by the immune system from pathogens carrying antigens from other hosts. Thus, individuals possessing rarer types (A, B, AB) are better equipped to detect pathogens.

The high within-population diversity observed in human populations would then be a consequence of natural selection on individuals. Note that while humans have four basic blood groups, chimpanzees are virtually type A homogenous, and gorillas are type B only.

From this, it is apparent that people who are types O negative and AB positive are, in effect, opposites, as the former can be the universal donor and the latter can receive blood from any other blood group. The fact that the vast majority of people are Rh positive and a minority is Rh negative further reinforces the probability that humanity evolved in diverse regions and not just one: Africa.

We can envision that at some point in human evolution there were splits between at least two and probably more human groups. In all probability, one group in Africa was exposed to the Rh factor and reacted to it; in a different locale another group, the type O negative population, was not exposed to it, so the Rh negative group does not have that genetic trigger.

This has far-reaching implications as regards human history and the evolution of different human populations.

The Rh negative population lacks the gene composition that Rh positive people possess, which means their blood is more neutral and the other groups do not react to it with antibodies. However, the reverse is not likewise true.

Before delving into that issue, we need to return to the basic ABO distinctions with the Rh factor added to them. Now we see that a type A negative person can give blood to a type A positive or another A negative person, but a type A positive person cannot donate blood to an A negative person.

Next, type B negative individuals can give blood to type B positive or B negative individuals, but a B positive person cannot give blood to a B negative person; likewise an O negative person can give blood to an O positive or another O negative person but an O positive person cannot give blood to an O negative individual.

For instance, to reinforce a scenario presented above, we can envision that the type A blood group was exposed to a certain virus, which caused the bodies of people in that group to react by creating specific antibodies to fight off the invader.

Likewise, the type B blood group did the same in another environment to a different bacterial invader. This resulted in two distinct blood groups that have basic antibody incompatibilities.

In fact, those incompatibilities are so great that people with different blood types can neither give nor receive blood to or from one another, even if the donor and recipient are from the same family.

Of course, this does not mean that type A and type B blood is so different that such people cannot marry and reproduce and have healthy offspring; they can. However, on the ABO level they cannot give or receive blood to or from each other.

The ABO blood groups represent profound genetic differences in the human population that must be taken into consideration. In fact, these differences mean that even members of the same family cannot cross these genetic ABO blood barriers.

Now, since types A and B represent mutations, then type O must represent the ancestral blood group that existed prior to these mutations. The O allele (a variant form of a gene) occurs most frequently in modern humans. It carries a human-specific inactivating deletion that produces a nonfunctional enzyme at the point along the gene sequence in a DNA molecule where functional enzymes are produced by people with types A and B alleles.

In a sense, type O positive blood is inactive (or silent), whereas types A positive and B positive blood are reactive.

Therefore, a person with O positive blood can be a donor to someone with either A or B positive blood, but those with types A positive and B positive cannot give blood to a person who is O positive.

In effect, type O positive blood has a simpler molecular structure than either A positive or B positive blood. Then when we bring type O negative into the picture, we see that it represents an even simpler molecular model in that it also lacks the Rh factor.

So we can now appreciate why the type O negative person is the only universal blood donor; it is due to the fact that this is the most stripped-down blood type, in genetic terms, offering no mutations for the antibodies or the Rh factor to react to.

In April 2007, an international team of researchers announced in the journal Nature Biotechnology an inexpensive and efficient way to convert types A negative, B negative, and AB negative blood into type O negative.

This was achieved by using glycosidase enzymes from specific bacteria to strip the blood group antigens from red blood cells. However, they noted that removal of A and B antigens still did not address the problem of the Rh blood group antigen.

Now let us focus on the population genetics of the basic Rh factor. An Rh negative mother carrying an Rh positive fetus causes major problems. The type O negative blood of the mother will react to the Rh positive fetus by treating it as a “nonself ” (very much as if it were an alien invader).

This can result in hemolytic disease, which can be fatal for the fetus or newborn. It was not an uncommon experience for women in Europe, where type O negative blood was and still is more common than anywhere else on Earth.

This is, in part, why our collective memory recalls the concern that every birth evoked prior to the twentieth century, the reaction of an Rh negative mother to an Rh positive fetus. From this, it becomes apparent that the Rh factor is the genetic barrier that points to a significant division in the human population. Why?

While the type A and B blood groups are divergent, the Rh positive members of both groups can receive blood from similar Rh positive people as well as their Rh negative counterparts. But the Rh negative people cannot receive blood from the Rh positive people. This makes the Rh positive gene dominant. Of course, this is also true of type O positive genes.

We saw above that the type O negative mother could not successfully carry and give birth to a type O positive baby; however, a type O positive mother can carry and successfully give birth to a healthy baby of either Rh group.

This gives a great advantage to the transmission of Rh positive genes, while conferring distinct evolutionary disadvantages to the type O negative blood group.

In addition, the A and B antigens and antibodies have advantages over both type O positive and negative blood groups. Types A, B, and AB positive are more resistant to certain environmental pathogens because they are mutations that occurred in response to certain pathogens. Therefore, they are codominants, making the latter blood group recessive. This too presents some enigmas where human history and evolution are concerned, which we will examine shortly.

In sum, to this point we have seen that the high rate of differentiation in the human ABO blood group gene seems to be related to susceptibility to different pathogens (viruses, bacteria, etc.). It has been estimated that all genetic variation underlying the human ABO alleles appeared along the human lineage, after the divergence from the chimpanzee lineage.

This means that the human ABO blood group mutations came about after the alleged branching off of protohumans from the chimpanzee lineage. If this scenario is accurate, then we are not nearly as similar to chimpanzees or other great apes as evolutionary geneticists would have us believe.

Why do I make that assertion?

Chimpanzees are almost all type A, never B, and virtually never O. We humans are mostly type O, slightly lesser A, with an even smaller frequency of B, and a fourth blood group, type AB, which neither chimps nor gorillas display at all. Gorillas are strictly type B.

As we learned above, type O is the result of a recessive gene that is rather quickly displaced by the genes for types A and B, since they are codominant. We can see that in the chimpanzee population, where type O is a mere remnant since type A displaced type O in succeeding generations over time.

If we descended directly from a common ancestor along with chimpanzees, down the great ape genetic pathway, then why is type O our major group to this day?

This has confounded genetic biologists for some time.

Our ABO blood groups differ from those of chimpanzees; though their blood grouping also uses the ABO nomenclature, none of our blood groups could be exchanged for the blood of chimps.

In addition, we also cannot interbreed due to our mismatched chromosomes. A chromosome is the basic stuff of cells, an organized structure of DNA and proteins housed in cells. It comes as a single piece of coiled DNA containing many genes, regulatory elements, and other nucleotide sequences. Chromosomes also contain DNA-bound proteins, which serve to package the DNA and control its functions.

While evolutionary geneticists try to emphasize how close we are to chimpanzees by pointing to our similar number of chromosomes, forty-six for humans to forty-eight for chimps, in fact, this allegedly small difference prevents us from interbreeding.

We are obviously not as close to our so-called primate cousins as horses are to donkeys or lions to tigers, which can interbreed.

It is obvious that one or two chromosomes and several major ABO divergences represent a huge amount of information and not the insignificant amount inferred by evolutionists.

If we were so similar, then our blood group distribution pattern should be in relative synch since we, supposedly, came from a common ancestor. But we cannot share blood nor can we interbreed and produce offspring. Are we being lied to by our scientists about being virtual “humanzees”?

Now, for the time, please forget the history you have been taught that claimed that (1) we all came out of Africa, and (2) Native American populations originated in Asia. Why? Because those ideas do not square with the known ABO and Rh factor genetics facts given above.

If type O blood is from a recessive gene and humans branched off from a common ancestor shared with chimps, then why do the latter display virtual homogenous type A blood, while we humans are largely type O? And no other primates display Rh negative blood, by the way.

Trying to claim, which some evolutionary biologists do, that type O blood actually confers some survival advantages does not explain how it has cheated its recessive status and overcome the A-B codominance factor. (They can argue this if they want to also argue that modern humans arose no more than five thousand years ago.)

The out-of-Africa or Bering Strait theories present problems that defy not only the rules of common, deductive logic, but also the rules of genetics and population statistics.

Since the O gene is recessive, the only way to have type O blood is to have an O father and an O mother (OO); both parents have to have it. The A and B genes are dominant, so AA and AO blood types both give the offspring type A blood; similarly, BB and BO both yield type B blood.

So ancestors with the combination AO and BO would yield the following expected values for the prevalence of types A, B, AB, and O blood:

    A: 5/16
    B: 5/16
AB: 1/8
 O: 1/4

These genetic values make it clear that types A, B, and AB will be transmitted about 75 percent of the time. So how did an Asian population that had a high percentage of types A and B (OA, OB) supposedly migrate to the Americas to produce a Native American population that was virtually absent those two blood groups? Did only one OO couple float across the Pacific on a raft to populate all the Americas?

In fact, no matter what the genetic situation, type O blood should be rarer than A or B. In fact, we see no such thing: type O blood is the most common human blood type worldwide.

Different populations vary, but almost half the world’s people have type O blood, roughly a little more than a third have type A, an eighth or so have type B, and about four percent have type AB.

This means that their type O positive homogeneity shows that the precontact Central and South American populations had been in isolation from other human populations. This explains why they lacked the antibodies necessary to fend off the contagious diseases that Europeans brought from Europe.

Disease, and not warfare, is what killed off native populations for the most part.

Moreover, we have a five-hundred-year, unplanned, natural laboratory experiment that further calls the two theories on the carpet. When Europeans began colonizing Central and South America in the sixteenth century, the indigenous population was virtually 100 percent blood group O positive.

This has been shown to still be the case in native populations that resisted intermarriage or remained isolated until recently.

However, native peoples, like the Aztecs and others in central and northern Mexico, did mix with Europeans to produce a largely Mestizo (mixed) population. Today, that mixed population displays about the same ABO/Rh factor distribution pattern as the people of Europe do (type O: 45 percent, A: 38 percent, and B: 10 percent). That proves just how quickly types A and B displace type O.

Some very torturous and improbable logic has to be used to get an African population carrying O and A alleles to Asia, then an Asian population carrying A and B alleles across the Pacific without finding any A or B codominant alleles in the migrating population.

(It does not matter what the newer mtDNA evidence that is used to support these theories claims to show; the blood group data sit on a priority position in the gene pool.)

The indigenous population of Central and South America had fixed type O positive dominance prior to contact with European populations. It only required five hundred years of intermarriage to dilute type O from 100 percent dominance to less than 50 percent, which is exactly what the A and B codominant mathematics would predict.

Clearly, type O would not have been homogenous if this native population had had any type of contact with either Africa or Asia. The theories that today dance around the science of ABO genetics by using mtDNA studies and ignore the more reliable ABO/Rh factor genetics fall apart under the filter of the latter.

Several more sharply conflicted issues remain.

How has type O remained dominant in the global human population if it was in the ancestral blood group? If the ABO distribution dates back even several tens of thousands of years, then types A and B should have displaced O to the remnant level, or very near that fractional frequency, that we already see in chimpanzees.

Next, an equally enigmatic issue revolves around the Rh factor: where did type O negative come into the picture? This question has long plagued biologists and anthropologists.

As we have seen, Rh positive is the dominant gene by far. In fact, the global distribution of type O negative today actually masks the historic genetic background of this blood group.

The O negative blood type did not exist in the indigenous populations of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, or the Americas; it did not exist at all.

The O negative blood type is truly an outlier blood group that is difficult to account for. While the general literature claims that about 15 percent of the human population is Rh negative, that is an average that actually hides the reality. Most of the world’s populations have less than 1 percent who are Rh negative, while Europe and the countries that were colonized by Europeans five hundred years ago show frequencies from 6 percent to as high as 35 percent.

(Moreover, the 15 percent figure that is still used today actually came out of research conducted seventy years ago. If you carefully examine the Rh factor numbers kept in blood bank graphs, you will find they are closer to a 10 percent average frequency today.)¹

In fact, blood type Rh negative is very concentrated among Europeans (especially Basques) and a few North African peoples (Berbers, Canary Islanders); O negative, therefore, is the least likely to have prevailed.

How can this radical departure from the rest of the human population be explained? It cannot be accounted for using the conventional out-of-Africa hypothesis.

This could only have occurred if the O negative population spent a long period in isolation, as the pure type O positive population did in the Americas—separated from the O positive, A positive, B positive, and AB positive populations.

The narrow locus of type O negative suggests that this was the case. Since the Basque population predates the Indo-European population in Europe and the Basques still retain a 30 percent type O negative frequency, then it must have been far higher in the remote past.

Clearly, the Basques are culturally, linguistically, and genetically different from the other European cultures, a fact established long ago. They predate the rest of the population of Europe by thousands of years. Yet despite contact and intermarriage, they still retain a high level of type O negative blood, whereas, the Inca and Bororo indigenous populations of South America have 100 percent type O positive and zero percent type O negative blood types, even today.

Next, the Berbers are also a distinct population in North Africa. Though they have become more and more assimilated into the Arab culture over the past seven hundred years, like the Basques, the Berbers retain a strong sense of autonomy and distance from other cultural groups.

What is of great interest is that some Berbers still show seemingly Caucasian-type traits such as blond or red hair, fair skin, and even blue or green eyes.

(In ancient times, the people of North Africa were referred to as the Atlantoi or the Atlantes by the Greeks, who also cast them as outliers.)

The Berbers also display a high Rh negative frequency today, about the same as the Basques, a 25 to 35 percent distribution. Just as fascinating are the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, which lie off the northwest coast of Africa, close to southern Europe and Morocco.

Spanish sailors landed on the Canary Islands in the fourteenth century and found an indigenous population of people who resembled other Europeans. (They called themselves Guanches.) However, they spoke a dialect related to Amazigh, which the Berbers speak. This native group had built a step pyramid, and they practiced mummification of their dead.

The sailors were mystified by this unknown race of people, who resembled them in appearance yet were not Europeans. Blood group ABO studies of the mummies and of the modern population showed that they also had a high level of type O negative blood, up to 35 percent.

A world map depicting the ABO/Rh blood group data shows that the locus of the Rh negative group is in the region of southwestern Europe and northwestern Africa, including the Canary Islands. This is a small geographic spot on the globe, a tiny dot really.

From this region, the Rh negative blood group radiates outward in all directions.

This is obviously a great historical enigma given the present hypothesis, the out-of-Africa and out-of-Asia theories. Even today, native African people who have never married outside of their tribes do not display any Rh negative blood.

Not surprisingly, the populations of Western Europe display the next highest frequencies of type O negative blood. The distribution steadily drops off in Asia and approaches near zero in eastern Asia. It also drops off steeply in sub-Saharan Africa. Then, as we have noted previously, it never existed in the Americas until the postcolonization era.

It would appear that the Basque, Berber, and Canary Island populations, who all share the highest frequencies of type O negative blood in the world by far and are known to be cultural outliers, once existed in near total isolation, as did those people who had type O positive blood in the Americas.

Remove these populations and the rest of Europe and the countries where European colonization occurred from the global ABO Rh factor distribution averages, and the type O negative group drops radically to less than 1 percent.

This blood group represents a gene pattern that is so recessive to the A positive and B positive codominant types that it simply should not exist at all in modern times, and probably would not save for colonization, and will not in another five hundred to one thousand years.

Every individual stands a 1 in 4 chance of inheriting the O positive blood type, a 7.5 in 10 chance of inheriting an A, B, or AB group, and a less than 6 in 100 chance of inheriting the Rh negative gene, depending on where one lives in the world. You stand an almost zero chance of inheriting the Rh negative gene if you are a member of an indigenous tribe in Central or South America or sub-Saharan Africa.

We have to add the Rh negative blood group to the isolated O positive homogenous blood group of the Americas, as another population that was once isolated from the populations that were predominantly O, A, and B positive.

The latter populations, in ancient times, were in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.

So where did type O negative originate if not Europe as we know it today?

It was most likely the ancestral blood group of a population that existed in geographical isolation. Type O negative blood is so recessive to the other blood groups and to Rh positive blood that it could not have survived long in a mixed population.

The mere existence of this blood group strongly supports Plato’s history of Atlantis, as that would explain both why these groups are all on the Atlantic and where the isolation occurred.

Rather than a single population carrying type O positive and type A positive blood out of Africa to Asia, where the type B mutation was added, and then having that ABO mixed population migrating to the Americas, we will examine another possibility.

Let us assume that there were several genesis events that caused the type O positive blood group to appear. One took place in the Americas, another in sub-Saharan Africa, and a third involved an O negative implant.

The out-of-Africa migration eastward ended in a mixed Asian population that produced and added the type B mutation to the mix. That meant that both Africa and Asia had the ABO distribution long ago. But that mixed population did not carry their ABO gene pool to the Americas.

Remember, it took only five hundred years of intermixing to clone the European ABO distribution pattern into the mixed modern population of Mexico. That meant a 50 percent reduction in type O positive and the complete insertion of A and B as well as Rh negative blood types in that time frame.

(I do not care what the mtDNA evidence is supposed to show; I categorically dispute those interpretations since they are at complete odds with the more critical and reliable ABO data. We shall examine more reasons in the next chapter.)

Now we have two outlier groups, one type O positive (Americas) and one type O negative (unknown), to account for. Neither could have been in contact with any mixed ABO group for an extended period. Then we must assume that they were both isolated populations. What do those two groups have in common, if anything?

The Maya and Aztecs claimed that they originally arrived in Central America from a land to the east. The Aztecs called that land Aztlan, coincidentally enough. The Canary Islanders told the early European explorers that they were refugees from some greater islands that once existed to their west.

Other European cultural groups, mostly along the western coastal regions of Europe, also claim to be from other lands that vanished long ago.

The Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, now Mexico City, was said to have been built on the civic plan of that culture’s ancient, lost empire. How was it laid out? An artificial lake was first constructed. Then bridges were built to connect the roadways that led in and out of the city. Each house had direct access to a complex canal system.

In fact, it sounds remarkably similar to Plato’s description of the supposedly mythical land of Atlantis.

Would it not, in fact, be entirely logical for the oldest surviving cultural groups in southwestern Europe and northwestern Africa to have fled an isolated group of islands to settle in the lands closest to them? Would the same not also be true for the Maya and Aztecs on the western side of the Atlantic? Of course it would!

It has been easy for the proponents of the out-of-Africa and Bering land crossing theories to dismiss the whole lost continent theory, skirt around the ABO blood group enigmas, and latch onto mtDNA data, which, coincidentally enough, support their theories. However, as we saw above, the ABO/Rh data are factual, are proven every day, and cannot be ignored.

In fact, the Berbers and Canary Islanders are indigenous populations of North Africa. Whoops! Even the recent mtDNA studies show that these populations are very ancient and indigenous, much to the chagrin of orthodox historians.

One would at least expect black Africans to have made it to the northern part of their own continent regardless of the Sahara; there are ways around it, given tens of thousands of years to migrate and settle the world. But the appearance of O negative blood in North Africa and the lack of it in sub-Saharan Africa derail the out-of-Africa theory.

In fact, it appears that some people came out of Africa while others did not. The ABO data suggest multiple sources of origin for various human groups.

There are only two ways that type O could predominate as it does today: (1) if the human population was split up and lived in isolation for an extended period, or (2) if the human population represents a recent insertion event by an external agency.

We could account for the fact that chimps and gorillas have replaced the ancestral type O blood group with the codominant A and B blood groups and humans have not, if the latter represents a genetic intervention event. But aren’t we closely related to the great apes in terms of sharing such a large proportion of our genes and chromosomes? Yes, so what?

We shall address that neo-Darwinian propaganda shortly.

Consider the oral traditions of ancient human cultures that claimed that we are the product of an intervention by “gods” from the heavens. Can geneticists rule this out by resorting to any branch of science, including microbiology, physics, or astronomy? No, they cannot.

In fact, does the Bible not say that “gods,” an advanced race, created human beings? It most certainly does, and it does so in the first chapter of Genesis. It does not say that a singular God created humans; it says, “Let us create them in Our image and likeness.”

The very concept of God means a singularity, not an “Our,” not a plurality. The Old Testament always switches to the plural when referring to the beings that intervened in human development in Genesis.

Perhaps geneticists are more caught up in their own cultural baggage than they realize. Nowhere does the Bible evoke the concept of a miracle when it comes to human generation.

It is quite specific, and it should be interpreted in terms of our understanding of genetics today, not the lack of understanding that generations have approached the Bible with in the past.

In fact, Genesis 1 refers to the first act of genetic intervention, when an ancestral race was created to inhabit Earth and “eat the herbs and fruits” that the earth freely provided. Is this not a clear reference to the earliest, primitive, premodern human types (Neanderthals), which were not even hunters but, like other great apes, largely gatherers?

Please reread Genesis without the interpretations overlaid on it by many generations of traditional misinterpretation. Note that the humans are created, male and female, not Adam first and then Eve, which happens in the next chapter, Genesis 2.

At the end of chapter three, Adam and Eve (the new prototypes) become the forerunners of modern, crop-and-agriculture-based civilization. That is the true distinction that is made between the earliest humans, who gathered and subsisted on plants, fruits, and nuts, and the next genetically engineered humans, who were told they must plow the earth and plant seeds and harvest crops.

I am not making this up; that is what the Old Testament actually says in no uncertain terms. There were at least two genetically engineered human types. Each embraced a different way of earning a living.

The first race was a hybrid of the advanced race and a great ape species, probably the ancestral type O group that predated the chimpanzee lineage. This hybrid died out, which is not at all inconsistent with the scenario envisioned by anthropologists. The modern human hybrid was inserted into several branches at different points around the globe.

The Bible (only one of many ancient texts that include this kind of information) goes on to tell how the offspring of this advanced race, the sons of the gods, interbred with human females, producing a distinctly alien subrace (Genesis 6:1–9). It also tells how this advanced race intervened to prevent humans from evolving a homogenous civilization (Tower of Babel) too early (Genesis 11:1–9).

When read through technologically informed eyes, the Old Testament becomes a history of early human and nonhuman genetics. No document is more careful about tracing bloodlines than the Talmud or the Old Testament. That even crosses over into the New Testament, where it is made very clear that Christ is a direct descendant of the King David lineage.

In fact, when the obsolete, pretechnological interpretations are discarded, what is Genesis but a history of how one group of people was selected to completely expunge the genetics of several other groups after the Flood?

The ancient Hebrews were told, in no uncertain terms, to spare not a single inhabitant, not even women and children; all were to be exterminated.

The Dogons of Northern Africa relate a different extraterrestrial intervention, from a people called the Nommo, as do other cultures, including the Sumerians, who allegedly created the first civilization on Earth.

Is it possible that an advanced race genetically created several different human hybrids that were crosses between their own genetics and those of the great apes? Yes. There is nothing in the science of genetics that precludes this possibility.

In fact, the astronomical data strongly suggest that such a civilization should exist out there in the infinite reaches of space, as was shown in the early chapters of this volume.

The genetic anomalies noted above can be addressed and resolved by inserting the activities of an outside, quasi-human population intervening to direct human (and planetary-wide) genetic development.

CONCLUSION

The ABO/Rh blood groups present a situation that is directly at odds with several conventional theories about human origins and historical migrations. The existence of a pure type O positive population in the Americas contradicts the Asian migration theory, and the existence of a type O negative population in southern Europe and North Africa contradicts the out-of-Africa theory.

The genetics underlying the ABO blood groups is superior, in importance, to the mtDNA data, which are now being used to shore up those theories, while the enigmatic ABO data have been shoved aside.