Is there a way of knowing for sure that O comes
from a deletion, rather than A coming from an insertion
and B from a copy error of A ? (or A a copy error of B)
Or is this all guesswork at this level ?
As i understand it, it was formerly believed that O came first,
but now that A was first (there's a link lower to some
work on this).
OO has type O blood (like me) is that what you meant ?
http://www.er4yt.org/Education/Science_A2_Subtype.html
I think it tends to suggest that dominant/recessive model is likely
somewhat of a simplification though.
I also found this ineresting (although I don't agree with
the conclusions)::
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi9.htm
Don't know much about the site itself, so checking up on the
data it presents ... but ...
It concerns primate blood groups and says that Chimps have A and O
blood types, but no B, while Gorillas have B and O but no A.
It also says that the earliest (supposed) human ancestral remains
are found in an area of africa where chimp and gorilla territories
overlap.
Other mammals (felines, canines, equines, etc.) do not have an
ABO blood type system (although cats have an AB system that is
somewhat similar, although the co-dominance is not apparent).
To me this says that there is some direct ancestral relationship
between man, chimps and gorillas. Common design seems less likely
since only the primates seem to have this blood group.
Perhaps man is the missing link between chimps and gorillas
This site::
http://www2.justnet.ne.jp/~shozo_owada/saitou-e.htm
Actually is suggesting that A was the original and both O and
B are mutations of this. It also suggests that there are many
more differences than those I cited previuosly.
More differences requires more time ??
I also, in the context of a previous question found this interesting::
"When we consider the direction of
substitutions, it is clear that there is a bias toward AT richness; G-to-A and C-to-T changes are much more abundant than A-to-G and T-to-C changes."
If some substitutions are more likely than others (for some
unknown but deterministic reason) doesn't that make parallel
evolution more likely. If we all start from the same place
and there are some 'rules' governing substitution then we
could all end up in a similar place.