You asked a year ago, but I see no one answered. The Rh factor is a glycoprotein on red blood cells (RBC). Similar to A or B factors. O is the absence of an A or B glycoprotein and Rh - is the absence of the Rh factor. Our immune systems need to recognize self or it will attack itself. That is what an auto immune disease is. So a person with an A or B or an Rh on their RBCs needs an immune system that does not attack that Cell. However a person who does not have a, let’s say an Rh or A or B factor on their RBC, their immune system will not recognize Rh as self and will develop antibodies against the Rh if it ever comes into contact with it. We have 2 genetic copies of a certain gene called an allele, one from each parent. And our parents each have a copy from their parents and so on and so on. If one parent is type A blood they can have an A allele from their mother and an A allele from their father. We Wright that as AA, or the person can have an A allele from one parent but not have one from the other. Written as AO. Both sceneries the RBCs will express A glycoproteins on their RBCs and that person will be blood type A. The same applies to B. A person can be AB blood type as well. An A was given by one parent and a B is donated by the other. A and B are on the same allele so we can’t have AABB, an AB person can accept blood from type A,B and O donors. Type O people don’t have either A or B expressed and will develop a strong immune response to RBCs with an A or B and the blood type mismatching will almost immediately clot and cause serious problems. Same is true, an A type will attack a B type, and both can accept type O donors who are universal donors. I tell you this for a little background Now to Rh. Rh response is not as severe as an A or B, better to say, not as quick. Same as with ABO blood typing, one allele from each parent. A person can be Rh ++ or can be +- will both have Rh factor on their RBC, a person that is Rh - - will not have Rh factor and will develop Rh antibodies against Rh factor if they ever come in contact with Rh+ blood. Now to the placental barrier. The placenta does not allow for the mother’s blood to mix with the babies blood. Gasses, nutrients and some types of antibodies can cross the placental barrier. So a mother who is Rh- will only develop antibodies against Rh factor if they come in contact with Rh + blood. So an Rh- mother with an Rh + child (technically it will be Rh +- the - allele comes from her, the + from the father) the 1st child will be okay most of the time because the blood does not mix between baby and mother. BUT! At birth when the placenta separates from the mother there is inevitable contamination from the babies blood and the mother. Or more rarely some other type f placental breech might happen earlier in the pregnancy. The mother will then developed antibodies against Rh factor and a reaction will be stored in her memory T cells. Initially the type of antibody produced is called IgM its a pentameter and does not cross the placenta barrier, and it takes weeks to develop the IgM, but the immune system will eventually isotope switch and produce a smaller, more efficient antibody monomer called IgG and it does cross the placental barrier. Either way, that 1st baby will be out of danger, because of the time it takes to develop the antibodies. but the next Rh+ child will be at risk. The 2nd + child in the womb will be exposed to that IgG antibodies produced from the mother. And it will attach itself to the Rh glycoprotein on the babies RBCs. The antibodies mark the RBC as foreign to the babies own immune system and will attack it own RBCs . The fetuses immune system is not fully mature, and the mothers immune cells don’t actually cross the placenta, so the fetus will develop somewhat, it’s not a fast kill, but ultimately will die from a condition called hydrops fetalis.

Read Prof. Bryan Sykes book 'Adams Curse'. He was a Fellow of Wolfson College and Emeritus Professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford. Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone and was one of the founding fathers of modern genetics.

True. But it does come back again.

Based on Moses's description, it must be supernatural since normally what a sheep is looking at during the process of reproduction has no bearing on the offspring.

Aladin Darkness there’s pictures. I’m taking embryology right now. I am a devout Christian. I believe God created everything, and guided evolution

@Anon Di No, it wouldn't do any good, because you won't find the similarities that are on the drawings in the real photos.

@@mantis2048 That's a contradiction. Evolution is supposed to be an unguided proces. And if it is guided, it isn't random evolution.

Pauw Media Filmproducties Evolution isn’t guided? Natural selection is caused by the guiding hand of nature. Mutations that coincidentally adapt to a change in the environment (or become more beneficial in general) are the heart of evolution. And they are only beneficial when in the context of an environment. You define natural selection as unguided, when the infinite factors that guide a specie’s evolution are impossible to know. The unseen hand of God could make a certain area colder, causing a creature to evolve for that new climate. Don’t limit the possibilities with semantics. That’s a failure in logic. “Evolution is caused by random mutation means evolution is random” ignores the context. Evolution is not random, it is controlled by the environment. If we put an organism in a desert environment for millions of years, what would evolve? Probably not a fur coat. Perhaps God controls the environment to guide evolution. Let’s say God wants humanity to have hands that can grab and eyes that look forward, he guides us to an arboreal environment where that is evolutionarily beneficial. God could even cause the genetic mutations that result in evolution. We simply don’t know. No one can prove otherwise. Although I guess it’s equally true that no one can say for sure. But there is no proof against the possibility that God could guide evolution. I mean we’re talking about an all knowing all powerful being here.

@Robert Dunn. Maybe that is the way God saw best to do it. Who are we to presume the will of God, or presume what “perfect creation” means? I think evolution and a forever changing biological world are beautiful. There is no reason God would have to have made every animal and plant like the modern “evolved” organisms we have today. He could have made environments and plants and animals to fit perfectly into them from the start. But why? Why is He constrained by time? What is Time to God? I mean what is time to us? We can only perceive time in the third dimension anyways. How can we call the way the world was made flawed? There is nothing wrong with it. Gods creation is how he saw fit to make it. Some will point out how, for example, if a human’s femoral artery is cut they will almost certainly die. But biological weaknesses may have been intentional. A limit placed upon us.

Atheism and Islam both agree that Jesus is not God revealed in the flesh. Christians say he is. Somebody’s not correct. Jesus said those who have the Son have life. Those who don’t have the Son don’t have life.

@@robertdonofrio7342 I don't understand bro what are saying in last please explain

@@rixgamer5748 He is saying that Christ is King, buddy.

Non of these books are in the Apocrypha. They are all New Testament books.

You can put it in all caps, but it's still a lie. Praise God.

The elements deserve worship and we should be thankfull to them. Mother earth deserves respect. And all. Living things. We are all one formed from this world we came from.

All in harmony with the natural nature of things.

Because all these things came from the most high God.

Pablo Varela and He told us specifically not to worship anything other than Him

Because they can;t prove god exists

All cats and all canines are all in the same family, some in the same genus, not all of the them are the same species. Lion=Pantera leo, Housecat=Felix catus very very different

No, he doesn't say that, although I can see that you could easily misunderstand that. He says that a tiger and a lion can (a) interbreed, and (b) have viable offspring. He also says that big cats and medium cats can interbreed (but he didn't say that they can have viable offspring) and that medium cats and small cats can interbreed (but he didn't say that they can have viable offspring). Do you dispute _that?_

@@PJRayment Tiger/Lion hybrids are non-viable. They have effective reproductive mechanisms that make them less viable than their origin species. Thus Tiger/Lion hybrids are non-viable. Although he does say a house-cat can interbreed with a tiger, which is laughable.

@@leandroeusebio8315 Ever heard of a liliger? It the offspring of a lion and a liger, the latter being the offspring of a lion and a tiger. The liger is obvious viable, being able to mate to produce the liliger. He doesn't say that house cats can interbreed with a tiger. He says that "all of the cats, from the house cat to the tiger, can interbreed". What he means, as he goes on to say and which I've already pointed out, is that big cats can interbreed with medium cats and medium cats with small cats. That is, A can interbreed with B which can interbreed with C. That's what he's saying; not that A can interbreed with C. For more detail, and evidence of feline interfertility, see the paper "The family of cats-delineation of the feline basic type" by Barnabas Pendragon and Niko Winkler, in particular figure 4 in that paper. Carter was not wrong; you are.

@@PJRayment The paper you cited makes no mentioned of reproductive isolation mechanisms a KEY aspect of the species concept. It fails to mention anything about the viability of hybrids either, thus is not relevant

Oh, the number of comments I see where the discussion is dismissed out of hand with absolutely no reason given as to what is wrong with it. Just like this one. It suggests that they can't actually fault it, but simply don't like it.

@@PJRayment Would you like me to tell you what is wrong with it? I never make a comment without an argument to back it up. And I don't mean an argument derived from You Tube videos or similar uninformed ignorant spiel.

@@peterleadley7103 Yes, I would. Even just a sample if you think there's too much wrong. Some KZfaq sources are quite good; yes you have to be selective about that, but you can't dismiss something just because it's on KZfaq.

@@PJRayment My first point would be that this video is a propaganda tool to promote some Christian agenda. From the very start there is no expectation that it will be anything other than a glib derogation of accepted academic theories. My second point is that the premise of universal creation by a singular deity is simplistic beyond belief. Other than the belief of the members of the Christian cult that is. My third point (one that I make to myself) is that entering into debate with people who are members of said Christian cult is a waste of time. My final observation is that these people must be making good money from You Tube by attracting large numbers of cult followers to their channel. It is appropriate that their currency has the words 'In God We Trust' printed on it.

@@peterleadley7103 "My first point would be that this video is a propaganda tool to promote some Christian agenda. " Well, that's true. The agenda is to promote the truth. Is there something wrong with that? "From the very start there is no expectation that it will be anything other than a glib derogation of accepted academic theories." That is a statement of your expectation; not evidence of there being anything wrong with the video. And of course there is nothing wrong with challenging accepted views, is there? "My second point is that the premise of universal creation by a singular deity is simplistic beyond belief." There's something wrong with a premise being simple? How so? "Other than the belief of the members of the Christian cult that is." Talking about being derogatory, calling the world's largest religion a 'cult' is just that. So far you've said _nothing_ to substantiate your claim. Your score so far is 0/4. "My third point (one that I make to myself) is that entering into debate with people who are members of said Christian cult is a waste of time." Again, not any sort of evidence in support of your claim. 0/5 "My final observation is that these people must be making good money from You Tube by attracting large numbers of cult followers to their channel." That is a supposition, not an observation. And it assumes a bad motive, that is not in evidence. So you've provided absolutely no evidence or reason for your opening comment, despite your claim to never make a comment without an argument to back it up. Although, I guess you did have an argument; just a terribly bad one.