Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  Eat Right 4 Your Type  /  Original Blood Type
Posted by: Don, Monday, February 26, 2007, 6:04pm
Quoted from nettik
Think about it- Type O was the 1st on the planet, the most common type in the world...

Welcome nettik,

Actually, type A is currently believed to be the original and oldest human type, not O.

Posted by: europa2001 (Guest), Monday, February 26, 2007, 7:05pm; Reply: 1
Really???
Can you explain - I sure would be interested to hear when that changed.  Can you direct me?
Thanks!
Posted by: Don, Monday, February 26, 2007, 7:15pm; Reply: 2
I don't have a link handy, but Dr. D did discuss the issue here on the forum a long time ago.
Posted by: 1501 (Guest), Monday, February 26, 2007, 7:19pm; Reply: 3
I had never heard this either Don...I thought all the books said O was the oldest. I would love to see more info, though.
Posted by: jayney-O (Guest), Monday, February 26, 2007, 8:16pm; Reply: 4
this is so interesting...because I thought the adaptation (typeA) was to agriculture.....hence grains, but I am open to finding out that there was some grainy grass that early man lived on or some such....
Posted by: nettik (Guest), Monday, February 26, 2007, 8:48pm; Reply: 5
Right...I thought the same thing.  Isn't the order of appearance O-A-B-AB?  O would have been hunter-gatherer, (and wheat, corn, and other grains aren't too tasty raw, so they probably didn't eat much of it, or have access to dairy too easily, causing them not to have proper digestive enzymes for these foods), and the progression to AB, as the newest type, explaining why AB has the widest range of OK food choices.
Posted by: Don, Monday, February 26, 2007, 8:55pm; Reply: 6
That is the order they became prevalent or common, but apparently not the order of existence.
Posted by: europa2001 (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 2:34pm; Reply: 7
Although this issue is not important to my diet, I feel that it is an important issue - an issue that I think would have garnered an important anouncment.  I'm not sure how "O" could be a universal donor ia "A" came before "O."  See my point?  It doesn't seem to make sense to me.  It would be great if we could get some hard evidence from the Doc himself on this issue.
Posted by: 972 (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 2:46pm; Reply: 8
Blood Type History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type
Posted by: 1501 (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 2:59pm; Reply: 9
Quoted Text
It would be great if we could get some hard evidence from the Doc himself on this issue.


Count me in the "me too" camp here...I'd liike something more specific than "it was discussed here once". I've been reading this forum faithfully for over a year, besides reading all the books, and this is the first I've heard of this.
Posted by: europa2001 (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 3:35pm; Reply: 10
Quoted from Mommy_to_Eliana



Thanks!  From the info in the Wiki article, it seems to me the chemical structure of "O" is the basis for all the other blood types - the others coming about because of various different molecules being added to the basic "O" structure.  

I still can't get it out of my head that Dr D said that "A" is only 10,000 years old and "O" was the oldest.  Still would like to "hear" it from him.
Posted by: Don, Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 3:43pm; Reply: 11
Quoted from Is the first ABO blood type A or O ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_diet#_note-17
In the article "Genetic of the ABO blood system and its link with the immune system" [17], Luiz C. de Mattos and Haroldo W. Moreira point out that in order to agree with D'Adamo's assertion that the O blood type was the first human blood type to appear, you need to accept that the O gene evolved before the A and B genes in the ABO locus. However, after constructing phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles, Saitou and Yamamoto concluded that the A gene represents the ancestral form.[18] Thus, in the evolutionary sense, it is difficult to believe that normal genes like A and B have evolved from abnormal genes like O.

They go on to say:

   The three most common O genes identified in different populations are O1, O1v (variant) and O2.[19][20][21][22][23] Compared to the ancestral form, the O1 and O1v genes have a deletion of a G base in exon 6 (guanine in position 261) and show additional nucleotide differences.[24] The O2 gene does not have the G deletion but has a substitution (G802A) in exon 7, which appears to abolish its function.[25],[26] Although the O blood type is common in all populations around the world,[27] there is no evidence that the O gene represents the ancestral gene at the ABO locus. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a defective gene would arise spontaneously and then evolve into normal genes.
Posted by: europa2001 (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 3:54pm; Reply: 12
Oh, OK...

So, does Dr. D agree with them on this?  When did this revision happen?  Since LRYBT?   I would think he would address this in more than just a passing reference - which can't even be found at this point.

I may have to shoot him a question.  ;)

Thanks for the welcom Sun.  

How do I show my Rh status? I can't seem to find it on my profile setup. Also, what do the "scales" below your name signify?
Thanks!

Posted by: jayney-O (Guest), Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 6:13pm; Reply: 13
thanks, Modon, but what's with the description, "defective gene"(O) and "normal gene" (A,B)...????
Posted by: Don, Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 6:44pm; Reply: 14
Quoted from europa2001
Thanks for the welcom Sun.  

How do I show my Rh status? I can't seem to find it on my profile setup. Also, what do the "scales" below your name signify?
Thanks!

You can add information below your avatar setting, such as Rh+/-, MN blood typing information or whatever else you want to, by going to the Profile Information section in the Member Center and typing in the Personal Message box.

You can also create a Signature of any other information you want to share that will go at the bottom of every message you post.

The scales indicates that I am one of the BTD Forums moderators.

MoDon is my screen name. Sun Beh Nim is my title. You can read about the Belt, Title, and Color System. I also encourage you to read the other threads in the Reference Section.
Posted by: apositive, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 2:51pm; Reply: 15
Quoted from europa2001
Really???
Can you explain - I sure would be interested to hear when that changed.  Can you direct me?
Thanks!


The information was probably presented in more specialized forums earlier, but the article "Molecular genetic basis of the histo-blood group ABO system" appeared in  Nature in 1990 (Yamamoto and others).
Posted by: Don, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 2:55pm; Reply: 16
I agree.

Molecular genetic basis of the histo-blood group ABO system
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 4:08pm; Reply: 17
The whole thing is more complicated that any one take on things. The majority of the links between blood type and anthropology are the result of 'genetic drift' and the 'founder effect'. The appearance of blood type O as a 'primordial' type was advanced first by anthropologists such as Jaenecke and Brues. It was also suggested by Mourant. of course, these people functioned in the pre-molecular days of genetics, and the feeling was that the occurence of type O in such great percentages in otherwise 'isolated' populatis (such as the Basques and Inuits) suggested that 'untocuhed' populations may have not gotten the later genes. This was too greatly simplified in ERFYT, but the fact does remain that type O may well have been numerically found in much greater amounts in earlier times, probably due to aspects of its resistance to som eof the more common infectious diseases (having two opposing blood group antibodies, anti-A and anti-B probably conveys survival advantages)
Posted by: jayney-O (Guest), Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 5:49pm; Reply: 18
but what's the meaning of "defective" (O) and normal(A,B)
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 6:20pm; Reply: 19
I think they mean 'null gene' (i.e the gene doesn't make anything)
Posted by: 1501 (Guest), Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 7:43pm; Reply: 20
So Dr. D,....is type A the original and oldest blood type, or not?

Thanks!
Posted by: apositive, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 8:07pm; Reply: 21
Quoted from jayney-O
but what's the meaning of "defective" (O) and normal(A,B)

In discussions I read on the matter, this sort of terminology was used to describe the evolutionary or mutation process.  It makes more sense when you see depictions of the A, B and O molecules, but, very simply, the A and B molecules are more complex than O.  So, speculation was that, based on other mutations that have been observed in nature, it was more likely that the simpler type O developed from more complex type A than the other way around, with the a "defective" O developing into A and/or B.
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 8:50pm; Reply: 22
Quoted from apositive

In discussions I read on the matter, this sort of terminology was used to describe the evolutionary or mutation process.  It makes more sense when you see depictions of the A, B and O molecules, but, very simply, the A and B molecules are more complex than O.  So, speculation was that, based on other mutations that have been observed in nature, it was more likely that the simpler type O developed from more complex type A than the other way around, with the a "defective" O developing into A and/or B.


True to a point. For instance, wheat plants have more genes than humans, but no one would argue that humans came before wheat plants.
Posted by: Dr. D, Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 9:00pm; Reply: 23
Quoted from semmens
So Dr. D,....is type A the original and oldest blood type, or not?

Thanks!


I doubt it. I would more likely believe that the alleles are of equal age, but that phenotypically type O was always more numerous percentage-wise. All three blood types are the result of mutations; however the A and B mutations are more like each other than either is like group O.

The difference between having the gene for type A blood or type B blood is a variation of a mere seven letters out of the total of 1,062 that make up the entire gene. We even know exactly where they differ: letters number 523, 700, 793 and 800. If you are type A blood, you have C,G,C,G in these locations, whereas if you are type B blood you have G,A,A,C there instead. These are called 'point mutations' because they are a simple one-letter misspelling in a gene, unless as in the case of blood type it is a consistent variation, in which case it is called a polymorphism.

The type O gene mutation is even more interesting. It is a 'frame shift mutation'; if you are type O you may be surprised to discover that rather than having a difference of letters, like A and B, type O is missing one letter, number 258, entirely.
Posted by: europa2001 (Guest), Thursday, March 1, 2007, 9:48am; Reply: 24
Thanks Dr. D and others for clearing that ABO legacy up. As with most things - it's more complex than it seems!  Interesting.
Posted by: Peppermint Twist, Friday, March 2, 2007, 6:15pm; Reply: 25
Quoted from admin
...the A and B mutations are more like each other than either is like group O.

The difference between having the gene for type A blood or type B blood is a variation of a mere seven letters out of the total of 1,062 that make up the entire gene. We even know exactly where they differ: letters number 523, 700, 793 and 800. If you are type A blood, you have C,G,C,G in these locations, whereas if you are type B blood you have G,A,A,C there instead. These are called 'point mutations' because they are a simple one-letter misspelling in a gene, unless as in the case of blood type it is a consistent variation, in which case it is called a polymorphism.

The type O gene mutation is even more interesting. It is a 'frame shift mutation'; if you are type O you may be surprised to discover that rather than having a difference of letters, like A and B, type O is missing one letter, number 258, entirely.


1.  Utterly fascinating and informative post, Dr. D.

2.  258!  My kingdom for 258!

Posted by: ieatmeatnlikeit, Friday, March 23, 2007, 3:44am; Reply: 26
Some of the more Biblically well versed might  scan Genesis again with all this in mind. I'm out on a limb here but I recall some mention of distinctly seperate hunters, tillers of the earth and herders of animals all being in position for the offspring of Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply with. As an -O- I admit I enjoyed, until reading this new take on blood type, the misconception of being with the original crowd but somehow this makes more sense.

Car 258 where are you?
Iemnli
Posted by: Lola, Friday, March 23, 2007, 11:22pm; Reply: 27
her new avatar is peppermint twist
http://www.dadamo.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=GC,v=memberpanel,a=view,u=Edna
Posted by: jayney-O (Guest), Saturday, March 24, 2007, 1:18am; Reply: 28
now all we have to do is find out what 258's job is........(digest wheat?)
Posted by: Lola, Saturday, March 24, 2007, 1:29am; Reply: 29
http://www.dadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl?search=258&dosearch=Go%21
Posted by: jayney-O (Guest), Saturday, March 24, 2007, 4:53pm; Reply: 30
fascinating, Lola, but I could not figure out how to pursue a line of inquiry.....or to understand it. What we need is "resting's" deductive reasoning powers to digest this for us!!!!
Posted by: Lola, Saturday, March 24, 2007, 10:27pm; Reply: 31
;)
Posted by: italybound, Sunday, March 25, 2007, 1:31am; Reply: 32
Quoted from ieatmeatnlikeit
Car 258 where are you?


Quoted from lola
her new avatar is peppermint twist


Wasnt PT's old screen name Car54?   ;)

Also, on Wikipedia..............according to what I saw the other day on TV, Wikipedia should be taken w/ a big grain of salt as they said anyone can go in and change anything. If that is true............ :o
Posted by: Lola, Sunday, March 25, 2007, 2:07am; Reply: 33
very possibly! lol
Posted by: 992 (Guest), Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 6:28pm; Reply: 34
I can see where there's molecular sense to the argument that all the types co-existed, or that A was first, but at first glance it doesn't make anthropological sense.

My understanding was that we were hunter-gatherers for millennia before we even thought of domesticating and herding any beasts, or clearing some ground and planting hoarded seeds to deliberately make a crop. If that's true, then either _everybody_ went around being sick and woeful most of the time - the A-came-first hypothesis - or half of everybody went around sick and woeful - the all types were present from the start hypothesis.

By that I mean, if everybody is doing nothing but hunting (meat or seafood) and gathering (nuts, berries and various non-grain plants), then the B people are not well served by the available diet (no milk... we haven't domesticated ungulates yet... so no cheese, yogurt, kefir, etc.), and the A people are not well served by the available diet (no agriculture at all) for tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of years.
The O folks would have been carrying the sickly A and B folks for a lo-o-o-ong time (thousands of generations?) before somebody invented domestication and herding and somebody else invented plowing and weeding and cities (so we could develop diseases-of-crowding and kill off some Os).

That's a long time to be (relatively) sickly and yet survive, generation after generation.

So where does that logic fail?

Kevin
Posted by: Lola, Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 10:59pm; Reply: 35
someone s theory
http://www.dadamo.com/forum/archivea/config.pl?read=74994
Posted by: jayneeo, Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 11:19pm; Reply: 36
actually, I have read that the hunter- gatherer should be called "gatherer-hunter" as a great deal of the diet was in fact gathered, as in roots, berries, fruits, tubers, nuts, etc........which does not preclude type A flourishing, and don't forget the great apes or whomever we evolved from may not have eaten meat .........hmmmm?
(read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn for interesting spiritual philosophy related)
Posted by: jayneeo, Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 11:20pm; Reply: 37
Oh yeah, don't forget that there was supposed to be a leap in brainpower when humans began to hunt and eat meat....( I can't help it if thats my type)
Posted by: Lola, Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 11:47pm; Reply: 38
cute!
Posted by: apositive, Friday, August 3, 2007, 8:14pm; Reply: 39
Quoted from kevinmcl
A was first, but at first glance it doesn't make anthropological sense.


When you look at other primates, it might.  (Bear in mind, though, that I am merely an anthropology undergraduate and have done only superficial reading on the matter.)  And it is not completely straightforward, either.  But my understanding is that the AB antigens are extremely close in primates but not identical to homo sapiens.  Nevertheless, chimps are mostly something like type A with some being type O; gorillas are mostly something like type B with some being type O.  This makes it look like any common ancestor might already have had the two antigens or absence of them.  And perhaps they were predominantly type A, there probable diet would have that makes sense.  Parallels with chimps work pretty well - they are not agriculturalists but gathers, but they are largely vegetarian; though I do not know what might be different with gorillas that they became predominantly type B.

Australopithecus adopted a very different diet - hunting and consuming much greater quantities of animal products.  So, maybe they were mostly type A to start, but their different diet, which helped them develop into homo sapiens, favored type O.  But since primates are social creatures, the stronger and healthier members of the group probably would have helped those who were not as well off.  And certainly it makes sense that as the hunting/gathering homo sapiens spread across the globe, type O was favored.  (Heck, if any As or Bs ventured further and further away from "home" in the first place, they certainly died out along the way!)

Type A being the first type (or at least having developed in Africa) goes a long way to explain a bunch of type A subtypes that show up in the continent.

Quoted from kevinmcl
By that I mean, if everybody is doing nothing but hunting (meat or seafood) and gathering (nuts, berries and various non-grain plants), then the B people are not well served by the available diet (no milk... we haven't domesticated ungulates yet... so no cheese, yogurt, kefir, etc.), and the A people are not well served by the available diet (no agriculture at all) for tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of years.
The O folks would have been carrying the sickly A and B folks for a lo-o-o-ong time (thousands of generations?) before somebody invented domestication and herding and somebody else invented plowing and weeding and cities (so we could develop diseases-of-crowding and kill off some Os).

That's a long time to be (relatively) sickly and yet survive, generation after generation.


I see your point.  But look at how things are today.  Most people are not eating for their type, and a generally healthy person does okay up to about age 50-60 before things start going really wrong.  That's plenty of time to pass the blood type on to a new generation.
Posted by: 992 (Guest), Tuesday, August 7, 2007, 7:36pm; Reply: 40
Quoted from apositive


I see your point.  But look at how things are today.  Most people are not eating for their type, and a generally healthy person does okay up to about age 50-60 before things start going really wrong.  That's plenty of time to pass the blood type on to a new generation.


That's an excellent point, and one that I've made in other discussions, so you'd think I'd come up with it in this context.  Must be something I ate.  :-)    

Oh well. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

Kevin
Print page generated: Saturday, December 20, 2014, 12:19am