Why have so many different blood groups evolved in humans? Do animals also have different blood groups?
466864
To my knowledge, nobody is sure what purpose blood groups serve.  It's possible that there is no purpose, it could simply be something that happened because there is no reason for it to not happen.  It's not like blood transfusions happened occasionally to our ancient ancestors, there just isn't that much reason to get rid of them.\n\nHowever, there are some possible explanations.  The one that I seem to hear most often is that they serve a purpose in the immune system.  Look at it this way, if all human blood cells had the same kinds of coatings, parasites could copy those coatings and the immune system wouldn't be able to tell them apart from good blood cells.  By having LOTS of different blood types, a species of parasite can't look like "human blood cell" because "human blood cell" doesn't have a single look.  If the parasite starts to look like an O, it will be spotted as foreign in an A, B or AB person.  If it starts to look A then O, B, and AB immune systems spot it as foreign.\n\nIt's a great story, but a bit difficult to find support for it.  It's not like we can run an experiment where we isolate a population of A+ people and keep any other blood types out, keep them infected with malaria and see if the malaria starts to develop type A chemicals on it's surface!  I mean, we could, but I hope people would object!\n\nAnimals do have blood groups.  In particular, chimpanzees and the great apes have the same blood groups we do as I recall.
677018
8\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_groups
1083295
Im astonished that people actually think that humans CAME FROM monkeys or apes. we didnt come from either of them, we just are in the same family, like dogs are related to wolves. We actually came from a much larger primate than a freakin monkey. we are of the same family as them but no we did not come from them. and why do people relate the evolution thing to whether there is a god or not? i dont get that at all, all it proves is that humans as we know them werent the first on earth, who knows... maybe adam and eve were cavemen.
4001
Blood types are not evenly distributed throughout the human population. There are also variations in blood-type distribution within human subpopulations. The figures given here are for people of European descent:\n\nType Frequency\nO+ 38%\nA+ 34%\nB+ 9%\nO- 7%\nA- 6%\nAB+ 3%\nB- 2%\nAB- 1%\n\nTherefore, O+ is the most common and AB- is the rarest.
958806
Humans and the other apes evolved from a common ancestor. That ancestor split from what we call monkeys some time before that.\nwww.talkorigins.org has a lot of good information. There is a good article here:\nwww.nature.com/nature/focus/hominid\n\nI also second the recomendation of www.becominghuman.org
925661
What a fascinating question.  I'm no geneticist, so take my words with such forewarning.\n\nI think if one were to closely look at human evolution, one would find a different degree in evolutionary history.  \n\nHow does one best differentiate the degree between races? That is not so debatable. Most scientist, today, do not recognize race.\n\nOnce upon a time they did it with "discernible" qualities based on "eyeball" measurements.  \n\nSkin color demonstrates this old fashioned method quite well.  And still, it counts for something, despite its inaccuracy.  \n\nOur world wide communication has increased, and people of different skin colors have discussed (and seem to agree) that human nature seems to be same, no matter where we are.  \n\nThere are good and bad people out there, despite the preponderance of race you live amongst.  \n\nThis could be comforting in the sense that no race is better than the other,  or discomforting in the sense that there will always be "different" people out there, no matter where you live.\n\nThe debate on "degree" of human evolution, in my humble opinion, should be viewed in light of the environment in which the human is required to adapt to.\n\nYes the degree of evolution among Humans is different, and so is the environment in which Humans live in.\n\nA current trend for scientist is to observe closely the Human genome and how it may or may not change within different situations.\n\nI suppose the phrase of "genetic adaptation" is appropriate to use here.\n\nSpecifically, I'm thinking of the adaptation of the Human gene 'hemoglobin' has gone through, in an attempt allow Humans to survive.  \n\nIn some environments Plasmodium parasitism has changed the degree of evolution by favoring the level of genetic adaptation in those with an altered (or evolved?) globin genes.  Having those altered genes in an an environment where Plasmodium is prevalent is a plus. (Please google "genes, hemoglobin, parasites, Africa).\n\nHaving those altered globin genes in a part of the world where Plasmodium is NOT prevalent might mark you as different.  Just like skin color.\n\nI sometimes wonder if race might better be described by historic ability to survive genetic insults.  \n\nDo you have an Alu element in NM_94327343?\n\nOr better yet, are you evolving differently because your Alu element at NM_94327343 is no longer methylated?\n\nTake home points: (1) Skin color is not a current basis of race.  (2) Environment suggestively role-plays in our differences during Human evolution.  (3) According to experts every time the sperm and egg "dance", there is an opportunity for a degree for evolution (Sorry I didn't expound on this in my answer, but it can be googled.  Try 'XX', 'XY', 'meiosis' as a point in a good direction).  (4) There are probably other reasons that Humans evolve to different degrees, and they might be unmeasurable at the moment. However, current standard genetic measures on "old" populations seems to say "yes, there are degrees of difference in human evolution".  \n\nI had a lot of fun thinking about your question.  I can't wait to see your other replies regarding this topic.  Don't forget to pass on your good Karma!
1062719
Due to differences of diversity of the human race, and the flora and fauna arond them, some diseases are localized only in certain areas, and due to genetic diveresity over time, people can develop immunities to certain diseases.\n\nFor example, it's been discovered that certain descendants of Scandinavians/Vikings are HIV immune.\n\nIt's for reasons like this that genetic diversity is such a good thing, and why imbreeding is so frowned upon.
980005
monkeys did NOT evolve into humans.  neither did apes or any other primate currently living on this planet.\n\nHUMANS AND MONKEYS AND APES SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR.\n\nIt has been 5 minutes since I last posted this answer.
500645
two distinct forms have to be different species... don't really get what you're asking but hope that helps...
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!
778159
Some people dispute the existence of these "marked differences" in humans. \n\nAs for other species, there is the counter-example of lionesses doing most of the hunting.
589522
It has bee several years since I studied blood banking but I think I remember this.  This is a really rare blood type.  To begin with, blood type is determined by antigens on the surface of red cells.  There are two of these antigens, A and B. a person can have one or the other, both or neither resulting in type A, B, AB or O type blood.  Whatever blood type a person has, They have antibodies against the others except for O since it has no antigen.  The antibodies are what make on blood type incompatible with another.  Type O blood is considered the universal donor because there are no antibodies against type O, except in the case of Bombay blood type.  These people actually do have antibodies against type O blood cells.  The condition is extremely rare and very dangerous for those who have it.
1118551
There are several vertebrates with blood that is green in color as a result of a buildup of the breakdown products of hemoglobin. This is a natural state for these species.
1037582
Not all people evolved, as can be seen by some of the questions and answers here.\n\n(Did you really want a sensible answer or would a banana do?)
474004
One thing for sure, HUMANS DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PRIMATES.\n\nLife was formed out of Africa.  All humans were first Black Men and Women.  Other races are "Mutations" of the original Black Men and Women of Africa.
427028
The differences in human blood are due to the presence or absence of certain protein molecules called antigens and antibodies. The antigens are located on the surface of the red blood cells and the antibodies are in the blood plasma. Individuals have different types and combinations of these molecules. The blood group you belong to depends on what you have inherited from your parents.\n\nThere are more than 20 genetically determined blood group systems known today, but the AB0 and Rh systems are the most important ones used for blood transfusions. Not all blood groups are compatible with each other. Mixing incompatible blood groups leads to blood clumping or agglutination, which is dangerous for individuals.\n\nNobel Laureate Karl Landsteiner was involved in the discovery of both the AB0 and Rh blood groups.\n\nCheck the full text\n\nhttp://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/landsteiner/readmore.html
423897
Science pretty much backs up the theory that HIV evolved from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency virus.)  SIV has been present in the ape population for probably thousands or millions of years.  \n\nSomeone may have become infected through a blood transfer - either by a bite, or by preparing a chimp for food.\n\nThe virus probably hung around in the human population for several years to maybe hundreds of years until it mutated into what we now know as HIV.  A virus is a great mutater and evolver.\n\nImmunodefiecency viruses are common in animals - there is FIV (feline), Bovine (cows,) etc.  None of them are transmittable to humans and HIV is not transferrable to them.  Because humans and apes are so similar, it makes sense that a virus that affects them would eventually be able to mutate into something that could infect us.\n\nThe idea that it was transferred by people having sex with chimps is ridiculous.