 Welcome to Paranormal, Episode 9. The topic for our episode today is RH-negative blood factor. Is it proof of alien hybridization or nephalema hybridization? And we have some of the usual guests, the partners in crime. Doug Overmire is with us, Brian Godalla, Doug Vandoren and Trey Strickland. But we have a special co-host guest for this one, my pastor, Grace Church Bellingham in Bellingham, Washington, Dax Swanson. And you might be wondering, why would you invite your pastor to this particular episode? He has a medical background. So, Dax, why don't you introduce yourself. Well, first, it's with fear and trembling that I'm your pastor, Mike. That's a difficult thing. But I have to say, yeah, my background is in medicine. I went to Princeton University. I did my medical training at the University of California in San Francisco. I even did a bit of research there in the surgery department with states of Anemia and blood. So, this particular topic I'm familiar with, though I've not done particular research into the RH factor. Yeah. But you know a lot about blood. And there's life in the blood, right? Yeah. I mean, you more or less have to. Again, as a doctor, a physician, I asked Dax to be on this to sort of decipher the blood talk in what we read and also some of the genetics as well. And what we did read for this time, we focused on one article. And it was a paper by Dr. Ellen Tarr, who is an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Midwestern University in Glendale, Arizona. And her paper was entitled, Everything You Know About Being RH Negative Is Wrong. And this was a paper that she delivered at the CSI con, the SCI con. Again, that's a skeptic organization in 2016, so last year in Las Vegas. And I came across the list of speakers for that event last year. And when I saw her paper, I emailed her and said, you know, hey, can you give me an advance copy of the paper that you're going to deliver? And she did. And so, you know, we've been sitting on this topic because I wanted to wait until her paper had been published. It's been published at Skeptical Inquirer. So if you're a subscriber to that, you would be able to get the whole paper. You can get little snippets of it in interviews with her online. But we will post the link to the Skeptical Inquirer site where her paper is located. So if you wanted to, you know, subscribe or I guess, I don't know if they give you a purchase option or not for an individual article, but you could get it. And I've also posted, even though this wasn't our reading, but I've also posted two medical journal articles, just again, to make the point that this is not an impenetrable conundrum in the medical community. RH blood factor is well known. The genetics of it is, you know, there's a solid knowledge of that. And so the two articles that we'll post along with the link to TAR's material, which was our reading for this episode, is an article entitled, you know, one of them is RH blood group system, a review. It's published by the journal Blood, as you could guess, something to do with blood, blood. That's volume 95, issue number two, that was in 2000. And it's published by the American Society of Hematology at Penn State. And the same journal, I posted a second article titled the genetic basis of RHD positive and RHD negative blood group polymorphism as determined by Southern analysis. And to actually be proud of me, I looked up Southern analysis refers to the Southern blot method used in molecular biology for detecting specific DNA sequences. So again, listeners can go up, you can download those, both of those are freely accessible online. And they're very technical, you know, you'd more or less have to have a medical background or, you know, some sort of genetics background to really understand what you're reading there. But I post them to again, just to make the point reinforce the point that this is not an impenetrable mystery. This is not something as often in the fringe community, you know, someone will latch on to something they don't understand, and say, Oh, the the academic community is mystified, you know, but we have the answer. And this this unknown confusing thing that we don't really understand means this. And that's what we have going with the RH negative issue. So I want to open with Tars beginning of her paper, just so that listeners get a feel for it. And then we'll just jump into the discussion. She writes, the plus or minus following the A, B, or O blood type indicates the presence or absence of a protein on the surface of human red blood cells that is referred to as the RH factor. RH stands for Rhesus. That's R-H-E-S-U-S. However, this protein is not found on the surface of Rhesus monkey red blood cells. The human protein was renamed to D antigen over 50 years ago. But the original term, the RH, and its connotations of a factor specifically shared between Rhesus monkeys and some humans have remained in use despite the inaccuracy. The function of this protein was not immediately apparent. And there is a great deal of speculation on the implications of being RH negative versus RH positive. These include, but are not limited to, non-human extraterrestrial ancestors or associations with physical traits or high IQ or sensitivity to psychic paranormal phenomena and lastly disease resistance. The sense that RH negative individuals are special persists despite the lack of scientific data. The goal of this article is to address various claims regarding being RH negative. Now, that's her opening. And I think it, you know, it introduces pretty well what you're going to get in the article. And I think for our discussion, you know, what we should do is defer to DAX at the beginning here, at least for the first couple of questions that I have written down in my notes. But DAX, can you give us the lay definition, the layman understanding of what RH negative means? I think you read it pretty well there, Mike. I'm sure you'll do a better job. Well, your blood on the outside, your blood cell has a membrane that kind of holds it together and little proteins are dotted around there. And one of the protein complexes is named after this finding that they did, you know, many years ago with Rhesus monkeys and agglutination and immunology. But I guess the lay piece would be is that there are proteins on the outside of your blood cell that can be seen by the environment. One of them is this D antigen or D protein that that's been labeled the RH factor. And if you have it, your RH positive, that means it's there. If you don't have it, then your RH negative. Why, why did this become sort of important to determine, you know, medically, why, why was this a, you know, big deal in discovering this? Oh, it's a, it's a really big deal in medicine because of what happens in pregnancy. This is the main area that it has come up. You know, blood typing, which is A, B and O and A, B, those were discovered. And then it was discovered there were still moms who were giving birth where their infants were having hemolytic anemia. So it was the mom's system, if you will, was attacking the baby's blood. And they didn't know why because the blood types were the same. And they figured out that it was there was another protein that was involved. And it was this RH factor. So, I mean, if the baby, if the baby did or didn't have it, or does it work both directions? There was a problem? Only one way. This is really a talk that is about immunology as much as anything else. But it only happens with an RH negative mom. So mom's immune system has not seen this protein. But then all of a sudden she has a baby whose RH positive. And the first baby doesn't matter. It just exposes her body to it. The body says, oh, we don't know that we don't know this for an intruder. And so the next child, the second child will have trouble because mom's primed, mom's body is primed to attack blood cells it doesn't recognize. So it's really the only problem with an RH negative mom, a mom that doesn't have this protein on her blood cells, and an RH positive child that does have it. Okay, can you give us a simple description of how tar discusses the genetic explanation for this? In other words, why? Her article talks about how, and lots of other sources too, but how a minority of the human population is RH negative doesn't have this particular protein on their blood cells. So she gave a genetic explanation for this. I'm wondering if you can summarize that for again, a lay audience. Well, the explanation she went into is very much a sort of population based genetics, which, which is fine. The genetics aren't very difficult in this case. The gene that kind of codes for this protein as it's expressed so that the body has the code and it makes the protein and puts it on the cell wall. We think the proteins involved with the structure of the cell keeping the shape of the cell. But it's on chromosome one, there are two linked genes. It's not just the D antigen, there's actually several other antigens, other proteins that are all coded linked together. There's a C and an E and I think there's 50 of them. But the one that gets reacted to is D. So, so what she's postulating and it's guessing is that there's a set of people who are fairly, fairly insular and I guess it's very common in this Basque Southern, Southern France, Northern Spain area. And that therefore you had a bunch of people that have this particular mutation or have had these things going on. We don't know. I mean, it's all guesswork right to where these things came from. It's just not genetically very interesting. Mm hmm. At least there are, would it be fair to say there are sort of genetic pathways toward understanding why some have it and some don't, even if we don't know sort of the mechanics of that. Oh, for sure. Whenever you have a particular mutation or a particular section of DNA code that one person has and another person doesn't, how that's passed on. And this particular trait is very much the only way to be RH negative is essentially to be recessive. So it follows a really common recessive pattern that you're, you're not RH negative unless both your mom and dad are RH negative or have at least one of those genes. So, so it's very difficult. And then the population skew of that follows pretty well. I think 85% of the population is RH positive and 50% is RH negative. Right. So just, just so that I'm, my, my thinking is clear here. We have a blood cell that, that there's something not on it, something absent. Okay, this particular protein. So how can a thing that isn't there be passed on? In other words, it sounds to me like, I don't know how you can pass on something that isn't there. Okay, is, is, is the point. So how do we talk about that? Yeah, it's actually a concept that argues against some of the theories that are going around that there's some added piece that you have because what RH factor negative actually is, is that you're missing a piece, right? You don't have the expression of this particular antigen. So if you don't have it, then the only way you're not going to have it is if your, your, your mom or your dad didn't have it on one of their chromosomes. Right. So you the, what I'm getting at here, again, my reading of this was that this, this idea of an alien mating, okay, with a human being, the way this is popularly talked about is that the alien gives the human child it contributes RH negative factor, which wouldn't make any sense because we're talking about an absence, not an addition. You know, something missing, not something added. That's right. The only thing you could think of, I suppose you could, you could postulate that someone was abducted and this gene was spliced out of them, like taken away. But it doesn't really work to think that something was added. Right. So the, you know, the inner breeding thing is sort of a misnomer. Right. Yeah. Well, let's jump in and bring everybody else in here. What did, what did we all think of Tars essay and anything else that we might have, you know, read in relation to this, because, you know, I know a lot of you will use the articles that we sort of assign as springboards. So we might want to talk about some of the claims that are associated with this, that she does bring up, but we might have again, more to add there. And then basically, how did we feel about the her essay? Anybody can jump in? Well, this is Doug Overmire. I, I had never actually heard of this theory until just like a couple of weeks after you sort of sent out the first article, Mike, when my wife, my wife works in, she's a licensed clinical professional counselor, works specializing with children who have been abused and neglected. And most of her clients are in foster care. And so she came home one day and said, oh, my word, one of my, one of my kids moms is, is crazy. And I'm like, well, that doesn't surprise me. A lot of your kids parents are crazy. But she said, Well, this one thinks she's an alien. I'm like, Oh, she said, Yeah, because she has Rh negative blood. I'm like, Oh, you're kidding. I'm like, you're, where did she hear that? I don't know YouTube, I guess. And so she's just convinced this lady is just convinced that she's an alien. And she told her social worker, and she told the state workers who are investigating the neglect and abuse of her children. And which, by the way, is not something you want to tell someone who's investigating your parenting skills. But it's, it's, it's tragic. You know, it's like, I laughed, but then I'm like, it's just horrible. And she actually, to justify her, her belief, she said, well, she had her bone marrow was tested, and the doctors called it unremarkable. And see, they can't even remark on it. That's how weird it is. It's how alien it is. Yeah. And it's like, we're talking pretty, I think, I think it's safe to say pretty low SES or social economic status, low functioning people who are just desperate for some significance, I think, I don't really know where or how someone gets programmed to just interpret things that way. And it was just, it's just tragic. That's not, I mean, this belief system is not why she lost her children. But it's, it probably plays into a really warped view of reality. And I don't know, I could probably be used against her later on if she wanted to get them back. I mean, yeah, it's right, for sure. Well, anyway, I don't know, who knows how that will work out. But I thought the article was very, it was very thoughtful. And like, well, here are the claims, let's just, just to bunk them one at a time. And the genetics was a little over my head. But I think I've tracked along pretty well that it just seemed like these aren't a mystery. It's not alien. And then she even added Nephilim in there, which, because there's a whole segment of people who think that are each negative blood or just are evidence of Nephilim descendants, I think. And I thought it was very, I just like, people should read this, because when I started looking on the non scientific sites about this, it was just, it was like a hodgepodge of mythologies thrown together with some weird narrative to try to say you might be just headed from an alien. And that's just really, there's a better solution to finding significance in life than that. Yeah, this is Godawa. I, you know, I also found the article very, or the, the piece very, very helpful. And yeah, you know, gets a little tough with the genetics at times, but she does a good job of going through the common myths that are connected. And it's interesting because she was mentioning them. And so, and I noticed they were the same things that I saw on these other, you know, wacky websites, and some of the traits that have been commonly connected with this RH factors slash hybrid, you know, concept is blue, green or hazel eyes, red or reddish hair, low body temperature, low pulse, low or high blood pressure, depending which websites you're at, extra rib or an extra vertebrae, a vestigial tail. Now these are not all necessarily, all these factors are involved in those individuals, but these are the kinds of traits that they think are connected, as well as larger than average head or forehead. And then we get into some of the alien notions, which is unexplained body scars, unclonable blood, heightened senses, sensitivity to heat and sunlight, which also I think is connected to fairness of skin and stuff, and the ability to disrupt electrical appliances. So these are all the factors that she kind of goes through, as Doug said, one by one, and, and answers them. And so it was very, you know, it was a real good attempt to scientifically address these popular myths. And I too had never really, I never really looked into it. I'd heard about it in the background. But I'd never really looked read up on it. So I found it a fascinating topic. But also with a dangerous side to it, because when I first started hearing this notion of you know, the RH blood and connection with aliens and Nephilim, my thought was, you know, jumping right to the danger of it is if people start really believing that there's like Nephilim among us, think about, you know, we are in a highly polarized culture already. Things are being being exacerbated, politics, social, everything's just being extreme and polarized with the other the notion of the other and you are the others. So I hate you. So I react against you. Well, now, if you have people who into the Nephilim theory, and the Nephilim you study it, and it's, you know, biblically, at least, it's basically a negative concept, right? These are bad guys, basically. So now you're starting these people are thinking, well, these people are Nephilim hybrids of some kind, they're bad, they're evil people. Then the logical end of this stuff is violence against these people, you know, and that's the danger that I felt when I first heard about it. Well, I've actually gotten emails, not nothing recently, this is years ago. But I've actually gotten emails that yeah, basically call for I hate to use the word, but I'll use it because that was what the email suggested hunting down, you know, people who are our Nephilim descendants, you know, for elimination, like we're fulfilling a biblical mandate, like the conquest narrative lives on, you know, through us. And we're supposed to go hunt these people down. I've actually seen that. You know, so that's not just sort of a speculative, you know, outcome of this. There are people who have actually said such things. And it's, you know, I think it's respectable. Yeah, but the violence in our culture, as we already see is growing, where the environment is ripe for that stuff to be acted on. This is no, in other words, you know, in the past, like, you know, even five years ago, I would have just said, Oh, my God, I mean, look, I'm very skeptical. So I just like, Oh, just another nutty thing. These people are nuts. But now I'm actually thinking, No, this is more than nuts, because people are becoming actively violent against those with whom they disagree. And this is not, this is seriously, this has deep potential for really serious problems in my mind. But of course, you know, how far will it go? I don't know. I'm just saying, I see it as one of the many elements of our society that's just ramping up, if I can say that. The Alex Jones world. I don't know that he's latched onto this one yet. But, you know, who knows? Anybody else, the other Doug impressions? Yeah, maybe I'll piggyback a little bit off of what Brian was saying. You know, my overall thoughts of the article were that it was, it was actually really good. And I would, I would recommend people would read it as well if they can get ahold of it. But that said, my mind went to a few kind of kind of things that that hit me as as so so when I was doing the giant book, several years ago, and doing the research for it, you know, you kind of go into the weird world of, of the Nephilim and, and modern mythology and stuff. And there's, there's some like triggers that that she spoke about, that I started thinking I, you know, I have a feeling that that there's kind of a prior mythology that is going into the bloodline thing. And she's like bringing it up. And so I can see people actually reading, you know, reading her article and not listening to the things that she's saying because of it. So like one example would be the origin of the blue eyed people, she traces it back to the, you know, I think she's something like one individual in the black sea region. So as I was studying for that book, you come across these people called the Kurgans. And you know, if you've ever seen Highlander, the Kurgan is like the greatest of all the evil Highlanders and stuff like that. And depicted as a giant. So, so the idea is that that these giant Kurgan people have these migrations that went into Northern Europe from kind of that black sea area. Some of them ended up going to like the Canary Islands. And you find the Ganch people that was brought up in the article. Now, she's not bringing them up in a way to like, I don't even know she has any idea that this is this is stuff that's out there. But I could see somebody reading this saying, Oh, it's kind of feeding right into the into the worldview. And you're bringing it up. And then, and then kind of the key one of the other keys to me was because she seems to rely to some degree on an evolutionary view of, of the blood, you know, talking about pre neanderthal kind of blood divergent stuff like that, I could see somebody reading this, and just dismissing that out of hand, and then seeing these other triggers and just not listening to the article at all, and almost, almost, you know, using the articles a way to reinforce a previously held belief that yeah, it is all about Nephilim bloodlines and stuff like that. Dax, what do you what do you think of that? How would you, you know, handle somebody? Okay, they read the article. This is sort of a quasi pastoral, but quasi, you know, academic, you know, issue as well. So somebody comes to you and says, Hey, you know, I believe I'm an alien, you know, and then you show them this article, and then they come back. Yeah, it talks about, you know, evolution in there. So I'm going to throw it out. And I still believe I'm an alien. What, you know, what kind of response would you give to somebody like that? That's a really good observation. I do think that she's proposing kind of one possibility, which is a combination of Neanderthal or a little bit different variety of human and the different pieces there, thereby. I don't think you have to go there at all. In order to think through that it's not aliens. There's a variety of other medical pieces that could be going on there that don't involve Neanderthals. I mean, that's that's kind of that piece of the article for her. In my view, was somewhat pulled out of thin air a bit. I mean, it's possible. But there are other possibilities. Yeah, reflects certain presuppositions. Yeah, you know, not no, it was brought up about, you know, some of these traits. It may be a fruitful way of approaching would be well, you know, to this person, well, let's talk about the traits, you know, why, you know, the kind of things that are associated allegedly, you know, with this particular factor, and then, oh, that reflects, you know, that we're aliens or something like that, you know, that the extrapolations that are made, you know, it would certainly I mean, again, I'm not, you know, into genetics to the extent that I really could follow everything in the article. But there are certain, I would agree, there are certain other ways to approach taking parts of the idea and showing them to be fallacious. Like she makes a comment on page nine about just as an illustration, the unclonable blood. And she says, Well, that's due to a misunderstanding. Molecular cloning involves expression of genes. And there's no such thing as an Rh negative gene. So well, of course, you can't clone this blood, because there's nothing to clone. You know, at that particular point or whatever. So, you know, I think there are other ways, you know, to sort of whittle away, you know, at sort of the predisposition to reject her work because of the evolutionary, you know, presuppositions, but somebody else jump in. I think some of our young Earth creationist friends would have would would really have it, they would they would like, they suggest that people have lost information over time since humans were formed. And this just goes along with that. I mean, if if, if RH positive blood has the protein, our negative doesn't lost a protein through a mutation, I mean, that's to me, that's distills it all down to that one issue. And, and through, if you want to say through the intervention of the watchers or the Nephilim or aliens or, or whoever, they didn't just undermines that whole argument. That it's just actually a genetic mutation. It lost information in this one region of Europe during, you know, and I think they speculated or she speculated that some people think that mutation came because of a certain bacterial infection. And maybe the body was trying to adapt to fight off this particular infection, which is pretty benign anyway. And so you don't really need it. But that was so long ago that, and it's not an advantage. I mean, there's really no advantage to it, except that you can give blood to people. You know, it's actually a negative because of the because of the pregnancy, the pregnancy issue. So I just, you know, people who are searching for significance, and like, well, I'm an alien, you know, this explains so much just explains why I'm interested in the supernatural or why I, you know, cell phones, those are batteries and everybody touched them or, you know, just all the little things that people are looking for a narrative like no, no, no, that's those things may happen. I mean, you are interested in supernatural, but let me tell you why you're significant is because you're an imager of God, you know, and so it's like reframing the narrative to them. Like, let me just tell you what that means. I mean, God made you and so on all the things that we talk about elsewhere. But yeah, then you know, you then, you know, they're gonna they're gonna take that and say, well, yeah, the gods made me and all that kind of but that that's a different discussion as opposed to the, you know, to something scientific, you know, that right, it's related, but distinct my answer that would shoot down all this, what I learned from this is that the RH factor is not exclusive to humans, but other animals like horses have it too. So yeah, you know, that's kind of a big thing that I took away from it. Yeah, I mean, that would be kind of I mean, that's absolutely relevant, you know, because that they're trying to, you know, isolate it to this unique set of circumstances, you know, with the creation of, you know, humans, you know, the aliens take a primate and they fiddle with it genetically, and now we get homo sapiens, you know, that that sort of thing or this hybridization idea. Yeah, that's a good point. Anyway, like like a summary statement, would this be fair? It's not disputed at all that the absence of the D antigen, the RH thing was caused by a mutation. What tar is doing is she's speculating on how that mutation occurred. So we have we have two different things are different but related. We have a scientific, you know, genetic fact, the loss of this particular thing is going to be due to some sort of mutation because the presence of it is in most of the human population. So something had to happen to create the absence. Okay, some again, genetic mutation. But what, you know, what is wide open? And again, she offers her own speculation based on her, her predisposition to certain evolutionary views. She speculating on how it happened. And that's something we don't really need to embrace unless we care to unless we're convinced by it for some other reason. So there's there's the speculation of the how but that doesn't mar or tarnish the fact of what happened, you know, some sort of mutation. Is that fair? The only thing I think there's a little more nuance or someone might take, um, Richard, you as as is not necessarily a mutation as as it's used in common parlance. Okay, mutation is like a Hey, we've learned one DNA pair that they got swapped. And therefore, this protein isn't there. Because there's actually, you know, 4050 different antigens that are part of the RH complex. And with these two linked genes, some people don't have many of them. So it's not like there was a single point mutation. Okay, or that to be a description. Yeah, and she's a better word. Well, I was just going to read what she says. She says that negative individuals do not have a separate evolutionary history. The D antigen expressed by the RH positive individuals is encoded by the RHD gene. This gene is a result of a duplication of the RHCE gene that occurred approximately eight and a half million years ago prior to the divergence of humans, grillas and chimpanzees. Yeah, is there a better word? I would say that they don't necessarily have the same gene. And it could be due to mutation. It could also be due to miscoding. I mean, she's trying to track it down in populations to say, yeah, it's possible they came from different populations, right? She's not making the mutation claim. She's making the statement that there was actually a little bit different genetic code in this human population millions of years ago. And that's been passed down. It actually, if you would substitute Nephilim for Neanderthal, I could see somebody saying, now wait, look, I mean, it's possible, right? Yes, those arguments. I think you don't have to go there. There's other reasons, good reasons why it's not necessarily that. Could it be not not in the way you're linking them all together? But yeah, you can you can see where where you can see where populations are a factor. I mean, I understand, you know, that's her angle. But I think, you know, some people assume that, you know, all humans have the same genes. Well, that isn't true. You know, it's I mean, pick a pick a disease, you know, it just that just isn't true. And so, you know, you have, again, this you have humans, you know, breeding with humans, okay, and then that you're going to have recessive traits and what not. So that'd be there. There is this population factor. But again, what what you're saying is that's really not, you don't you don't really need that explanation to explain presence or absence per se. You might bring it into the discussion when you're talking about a population group or versus another population group. But the difference itself is, you know, is sort of a thing that is that is an issue before you ever get to the breeding kind of thing. Is that correct? That's the major issue to me. It's like, human beings have a lot of differences and they're passed on genetic differences. To me, that's the best way to think about these things is you think, hey, we we in populations tend to pass down different characteristics that are genetic. This is one of them. And the reason why to me it's become a conspiracy theory is because it's a rejection of mom and baby. Look, this is incompatibility and actually one blood is attacking the other and there's room there to. Yeah, as though that was an anomaly, you know, as though the genetic mismatch is an anomaly. Yeah, it's a question of the immune system, not really a question of, hey, are human beings different? So what, what about other, I mean, anybody please, you know, jump in here. I had a couple. I think Dax, you just got into one thing. I put in my notes like, like, what's the best way to talk about this? And, you know, in one or two sentences, how would we summarize that, hey, using RH negative factor to defend the idea of alien hybridization just can't be coherent because, I mean, how, how would we talk about that? And then we can jump in on that. But I also have a note to myself about pastoral, you know, concerns here because we try to take these discussions into, you know, how do we deal with people who we meet, you know, either in church, in the quote, normal community or in the fringe community. So anybody feel free to chime in on either of those. Dax, how would you put it into a couple sentences? Oh, I think those are really good questions that I would put it in. Hey, we all are have different things about us. And to say that RH factor is evidence of alien splicing or whatever it is, is the same as saying why don't you pick blue eyes or why don't you pick some other characteristic because if things are passed down and you're trying to trace it back, you're postulating your guessing. The way a bigger question, I think someone said it already to me is where you're finding your identity. And there are so many other important things are identities in Christ. And to focus on ourselves in that way and to think that there's something there. But the difficulty in this area is that I don't think people are necessarily rational in that way. So well, they probably don't even know enough about genetics to you know, there's this human and nonhuman dichotomy. Oh, I have this genetic thing that you don't therefore, you know, either I or you are are a product of an alien human union. In other words, not realizing that being a human doesn't mean having identical genetic stuff. I mean, we might think that that's self evident. But apparently it's not. Yeah, I mean, why not pick sickle cell anemia? Why not pick some other trait that people are different in in the blood even and use that as your point of takeoff. So what you're saying is then that the the lack of the or the R.H. Factor is simply just one more of the multiple elements of genetic variation of genetic expression within humanity, that natural selection. So in other words, the micro evolution of natural selection can still account for that, you know, diversion of the 15% and versus the 85% and and you could even like in a way, she refers to macro evolution with the Neanderthal notion interbreeding with humans, but she also provides the micro evolutionary notion of, you know, that was mentioned earlier, you know, with the Europeans and and environment and all this kind of stuff can also affect that genetic variation expression. Right. So is that kind of is that accurate to say that? Absolutely, because this is a pretty much a simple recessive trait. So it follows that pattern very well. It's not something unusual in those regards. Micro evolution. Definitely. I mean, natural selection pieces or population genetics can can account for that very easily. And she postulates a few of those and boy, yeah, for sure. Mike, I have a question for you then, since you're like you're the expert on this particular issue, you know, it does. How do you answer the Christian as a Christian who, you know, I I believe the Bible does talk about this strange thing in Genesis about the sons of God interbreeding with women, you know, and they create the knuffling. And and as your book even writes about, that's a bloodline theory that becomes the basis for the Israelites to destroy them because of their bloodline link to these knuffling. So how do you address the claim that that's that's a very similar sounding sort of holocaust or whatever you want to call it, you know, a racial theory of destroying people is that was it good back then, but it's not now? How do you how do you work with that? Yeah, I would say that there's there's no there's a couple of thoughts here again in no particular order and no, I guess, particular, particularly coherent presentation of it, just throwing these things out. There's nothing in the text that would suggest that, you know, those members of the Nephilim bloodline interbred with non-Nephilim. There's no commentary on that. The impression you get is you get you get certain of these individuals that are that are peppered throughout the general population of Canaan. But that's about all you have. There's there's nothing that indicates that there would be some sort of cross fertilization for one thing. Another factor is the Nephilim bloodlines are according to scripture anyway, died out. So without the interbreeding, you wouldn't have these characteristics passed down if the lines die out or eliminated. So that that to me again, if you're just going with what scripture actually says, that wipes the the vestigial genetic stuff, do we have it in our population? That wipes it off the table. If you're just going with what the text actually tells you or at least, you know, you can't build that argument on something that that's in the text, because it's not in the text, you know, this idea of interbreeding, you know, there were two things that made a Nephilim offspring or one of the descendants different. You know, one was that internally, if I can use that term, their immaterial part, according to all the traditions, is this is a nonhuman spirit, OK, that that that somehow that that's a factor. And then you have the height issue, you know, some something unusually tall. And as I talk about an unseen realm, again, there's there's two ways to look at this. There's the literal taking the language of Genesis six to be literal in breeding. The other way is to take the language of Genesis six and see it as a as a euphemistic thing that somehow, you know, rival divine beings did something to certain humans or populations to, you know, make them their own or raise up their own seed, you know, that kind of thing. Like we're told with what God does with Abraham and Sarah, there's no sexual contact there between God, God, embodied or whatever. It's just we're told that God enabled this to happen. We're not told how. So we have these gaps, you know, in but nevertheless, the you have a second possibility here because of what is described in the text, even though we have gaps in how the stuff worked. But to me, you know, I can't if I wanted to prove this idea that there's a nephaline bloodline and there's a genetic vestigial genetic stuff that filters down and is still present in the population, I don't have a scriptural hook to hang that on at all because I don't have any reference to them, you know, again, cohabiting with non them. But even even if you wanted to take that assumption that they that they enter bread, as you point out in reversing Hermon, one of the I think it's a Matthew, one of the genealogies of Christ points out that you have Canaanite women or people who lived amongst those communities that had giant clans in or nearby. And they were in in the Lord's genealogy. So it's almost like if someone brings this up as an issue, well, just because it just because it didn't say so doesn't mean it didn't happen. Yeah, well, but then I look at Jesus died for everybody who's human and he didn't really care what your genetics are. God doesn't really care who you do what your genetics are. You're the only genetics that really matters is Jesus's and you get and so that's why you have to be in the Lord through faith. So like I just these people who in our society the fringe people who are I've been told by some people to watch out for certain people in your church because they're they're going to be they're going to infiltrate and they're going to be kind of weird and they're going to, you know, they probably have Nephilim DNA and that's just going to be Satan's army. I'm like, are you kidding me? Like these are the people who need the Lord the most. I mean, not the most, but you know, I'm saying they're the ones the ones who are ostracized from society, like this one client that I referenced, she needs to find it. She needs to be pastured. She needs to get into a church, a community who can love her and introduce her to the Lord. So she's not getting community on fringe websites, you know. I mean, she's everybody. So I just like this whole modern Nephilim theory is just so it's it's so crushing because Jesus did what he did on the cross is enough. You don't have to. But again, that part of that email I alluded to earlier was this, you know, like, like identify them and they're, you know, they're either I mean, I've also got other emails that's like, oh, can Nephilim be saved, you know, because because of this belief, you know, this vestigial genetic stuff, you know, this idea. But then you then you'll get the other ones that say no, they can't. So they need to be eliminated. I mean, it's just that blunt. You know, so it. Yeah, it it is crushing. I mean, in either respect, you know, how how people can can use arguments at the best. The best you got here is an argument from silence, which isn't very good. I mean, Paul never mentioned it. And I mean, the origins of Rome was supposedly the the union of a God and a human. Right. I mean, Mara remiss and and boy, my mythology just went out of my head. But that's the origin of Rome. And so that's where supposedly that's where the Roman Empire is based on Paul. Never never once when you talk to the Gentiles ever express any concern. He only preached Jesus. He didn't preach, well, because you're descendant of, you know, of a God and a human mating, you know, in Roman mythology, therefore, you know, you're not qualified. I mean, if Paul didn't mention it, then why are we talking about it? Actually, from Paul's perspective, the Gospel in the New Testament, it's kind of it's kind of the reversal of the whole concept of genetics anyway, right? Because it's it's from every tribe and every nation, every clan, you know, and and so in a way, he's saying people from all genetic sources, at least from within, from from within their own world, however much they understood it at that time, right? So in a very real sense, he is saying there is no genetic component to salvation whatsoever, all nations and all tribes, which could also include the clans of the Nephilim, maybe, but certainly, I mean, if it's negative, yeah, yeah, the gospel is not for them. Yeah. You know, Mike, go ahead. Yeah, Mike, you made a point earlier that I think is really important that when the speculation is going on, it's it's moving out of the Bible. And now it might be it might be, you know, have some fairly close kind of sources to it. But you're moving out of the text itself, and you really are moving into the realm of mythology. And so you're creating your own mythology out of this hike like hybrid of some biblical text and then mythological text to just create this modern mythology of, you know, of your own making. And it might sound, you know, really coherent. And some of it, some of it, frankly, can be quite coherent, but it doesn't mean that it's corresponding to reality. And I think that's pretty important. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you can like I did in the I don't know if you guys read the second novel, the portent, you know, it, I actually use some, you know, scholarly journal literature from the 19th century by a guy named Paul Hout, who was a leading semitist of the day, and used his arguments as part of the storyline for Jesus being a non Jew. You know, and this was this was this was pure, I didn't have the peer review process them, but you get the idea they this was, you know, academic stuff, you know, respectable academic stuff in the late 19th century, where he is making, you know, different, you know, arguments to divorce Jesus from the Jewish population. And it's the same era, you know, when you get, you know, a lot of the the I'm trying to put it generously, a lot of the responses, you know, to the age of discovery, you know, when you have all these other population groups, you know, you got people, human beings being discovered in all sorts of places that the Bible doesn't mention. Well, we got to find that in the Bible somewhere, you know, and and and, you know, using the Bible to sort of, you know, standing the Bible on its own head to accommodate these discoveries produces all sorts of weird racial theories. And then out of that, there's this preference for European bloodlines. And then out of that, you know, the Germans just take this and do the Nordic thing, you know, the master race idea, you know, and trying to to marry Jesus to this work, again, because of a of an anti Semitism that has a number of, you know, causes. So this is my big concern, you know, with with a lot of this, it's not, it's not the goofiness, even though that that's concerning and it can be soul crushing. And, you know, we can, we can sort of joke about that, but it also still mean it. But it is that this is another example of thinking that can be used to not only just divide people and pit them against each other, but can, you know, it just becomes like support, quote, unquote, support for these old anti Semitic and racial superiority ideas, whether you marry him to Jesus or not, it's just fodder for that. And I could, you know, thank goodness that that that the Nazis didn't have advanced genetic knowledge or else they would have used this stuff as an argument, you know, for what they were doing. It's just it's like repeating itself. Here we have another cycle of of this kind of thought. And our culture is just sort of, you know, open to it, or at least, at least large groups are. It's primed to it. Some of these fringy articles are very Gnostic in how they, you know, the ancient aliens and trying to ascend to a higher like the R.H. negative people are priming the society to descend to the next level of enlightenment or whatever. I mean, it's just I was like, man, that's just like, that's right out of that's right. You're discovering your own divinity. Yeah. Yeah, it's just not right. Not just the positive side, you get the negative side of there's some evil piece to your physical body. Whatever yeah, right. It's funny, like there's this whole the whole this is going in two completely opposite directions from the very same kind of twisting of the story. So you've got like the Aryan stuff on the one side with the anti-Semitism of, you know, and some of these guys are writing Atlantis books and getting into the Nephilim and stuff. But then you've got you can trace back and do the very same thing, but opposite. So like you can find very easily sources that will tell you that look, the Egyptians talked about the Anakim as being blonde haired, blue eyed and, you know, very, you know, obviously that's got to be the giants from the Bible. So there's the whole blonde hair blue eyed thing. And so that's the Nephilim connection. But now the Nephilim in the Bible, like Brian said earlier, well, they're completely evil. So instead of having it being this like incredibly good thing because they're Aryans, now all of a sudden it's exact opposite and all of the Europeans are completely evil because they're the ones who are to send it from the Nephilim. And it's like, you know, there's there's just no there's no sense to any of it. One article I read said that Japeth had been killed and replaced by a Nephilim and, you know, and that he had Irish negative blood. And that's why he went up to descend or have to settle in Europe. And that's why 40% of Northern Europeans have Irish negative. But all this just nonsense. I'm like who it's just unbelievable this mythology. You're right. It was a mythology people are creating and they're latching on to it to give them meaning. And it's scary where people can take it. Yeah, I mean, instead of using scripture as a either a polemic or a corrective to a specific set of ideas that that the biblical writers, you know, shared a certain worldview. But instead of using the biblical version of that stuff, as again, a corrective commentary or polemic in this pool of ideas, what I fear is that you have Christian researchers that are creating marriages, you know, intellectual marriages between the Bible and this other stuff. And so then the Bible loses its status as again, something that, you know, is a corrective commentary. And it just becomes one of all the other myths. And in fact, because the Bible has still has this virtue association, now it can legitimize these other mythologies. In other words, it'll work in the opposite direction. And and I just I see too many Christians that are are using the Bible to defend ancient alien ideas thinking that this helps the Bible. But what it really does is it amounts to an endorsement of the other stuff. Again, because this virtue association is still there, you know, within a lot of within a lot of people. I don't know if any of you guys have ever seen this, but it's kind of related. It goes back to what I think it was Doug talking earlier about the origins of Rome. Remember, he goes into one of these towns in Galatian in Galatia, and they call Barnabas Zeus and they called Paul Hermes. And so if you go in to read the book of Galatians, there's this really strange verse where it talks about how he couldn't heal himself. He couldn't get well. And it's kind of surrounded by the gospel. Well, now all of a sudden you start connecting the dots. Well, who is Hermes? Well, he's among other things. He was the God of healing. And it's like it's like what Paul is saying there is that here's your mythology of who you thought that I was and God's going to do something to me to prove that that's that your mythology is completely wrong. And he's not doing anything though with the gospel message like was said earlier. He's not saying, well, you know, it's only going out to some of you because some of you are are human and the rest of you aren't. And that whole idea of Hermes and Zeus placed completely into that. That's really good. That's awesome. Yeah, it's really subtle, you know, that very subtle. Yeah. Yeah. But again, if that's what's floating around your head, people are going to pick it up. The the the initial, you know, the original hearers and readers would have picked that up. You know, what Paul's doing there. So I guess, again, by way of, you know, summary, we can we can wrap up, you know, the episode here. You know, here we go again, you know, we have this this really, you know, fringe belief. And again, it's based upon, yeah, there's certain presuppositions that go into it. And I think just a lack of understanding not only just genetic makeup in general, but also, as Dax pointed out, there are alternate explanations, you know, for how this difference, you know, in the human population, you know, would have arisen there. There's nothing about this topic. There's nothing about the absence, you know, of R.H. in this particular antigen that speaks to non human origin. You know, this is all, you know, accountable scientifically within the human family, just by genetic variation, you know, and like, you know, a number of you, you guys have pointed out, well, why not pick this thing? Why not pick that thing? The answer is because those things are negative, you know, we're not picking sickle cell anemia because that, you know, we don't like that, you know, we'll gravitate toward high IQ, you know, or something like that or some sensitivity, you know, something that that that more easily slides into this paranormal world stuff, you know, or, you know, even the red hair, you know, like with, you know, giant mummies and stuff like this, or sort of out of place, you know, mummies that have red hair or that we, again, people just assume that it's out of place. How do you know that it's out of place? You know, all this stuff that there's some connection point into the this sort of middle world of the strange and that, oh, that must be an indicator. And if I have that, then I'm special, as opposed to, again, some, you know, some negative disease factor or something like that. So I would mean, I would, I would assess this as just being sort of that simple. This is a known thing. Science unders, understands what it is. It's all within the human family. It's genetic variation. There's nothing unusual about that. We may not know in the history of humanity, you know, how the genetic variants occurred. But who cares? Again, we know that there's nothing about the absence of this antigen that calls for a nonhuman point of origin, that sort of thing. So I think, I mean, that's where I'm, you know, that's where I'm landing. That's how I'm summarizing it in my head. Anybody else have anything to add just by way of, you know, wrapping it up and summarizing it? Well, this is Godel. I just wanted to point out that for those who are interested in reading more about this, since we can't have the actual article we're referencing. If Trey would put up that one article, Mike, you sent us, it was called Why R.H. Negative is Not Blood of Gods or of Alien Origin. I liked that because it was it was very layman expression, a lot more understandable in some ways than what we were reading and very helpful in terms of trying to give some of this scientific understanding explanation. And so I would I would recommend people check that out if you guys can put that thing up there. We'll post that on the episode page, certainly. Well, thanks, everybody, for coming. You know, I think I think people who are sort of drawn into this, I hope this is going to be helpful. I think it will. So thanks for taking the time again. Thanks. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. And Dax, it was great hearing from you. Thanks for having me, guys. Thanks a lot. Thanks. Thanks for doing it, Dax. You're a fantastic guest. Dax uses it.