Can we date the events in Genesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnthonySorensen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
farpinho said:
Is there a plausible alternative explanation for the endogenous retrovirus evidence that we share with other primates as well as other said to be human ancestors? :confused:
Click to expand...
HGT and epigentics. I suspect more will be found on this.

Syncytin-A and syncytin-B, two fusogenic placenta-specific murine envelope genes of retroviral origin conserved in Muridae

Recently, we and others have identified two human endogenous retroviruses that entered the primate lineage 25–40 million years ago and that encode highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (syncytin-1 and -2), possibly involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion at the materno–fetal interface. A systematic in silico search throughout mouse genome databases presently identifies two fully coding envelope genes, present as unique copies and unrelated to any known murine endogenous retrovirus, that we named syncytin-A and -B. Quantitative RT-PCR demonstrates placenta-specific expression for both genes, with increasing transcript levels in this organ from 9.5 to 14.5 days postcoitum. In situ hybridization of placenta cryosections further localizes these transcripts in the syncytiotrophoblast-containing labyrinthine zona. Consistently, we show that both genes can trigger cell–cell fusion in ex vivo transfection assays, with distinct cell type specificities suggesting different receptor usage. Genes orthologous to syncytin-A and -B and disclosing a striking conservation of their coding status are found in all Muridae tested (mouse, rat, gerbil, vole, and hamster), dating their entry into the rodent lineage ≈20 million years ago. Together, these data strongly argue for a critical role of syncytin-A and -B in murine syncytiotrophoblast formation, **thus unraveling a rather unique situation where two pairs of endogenous retroviruses, independently acquired by the primate and rodent lineages, would have been positively selected for a convergent physiological role. **
 
someperson555 said:
well there are many different theories about when exactly man emerged, but i believe the current consensus is around 200, 000 years ago (?) im not 100% sure on that, but anyway, the way we would be able to distinguish the first humans from apes is if they are self-aware. sentience seems to be something of the spirit. so from the point in time which God decided to breath a spirit into the animal body.
Click to expand...
That is the sixty-four dollar question. It keeps coming up when they Talk about AI. HOW THE HECK does one find evidence in the field of self-aware apes?
 
buffalo said:
HGT and epigentics. I suspect more will be found on this.

Syncytin-A and syncytin-B, two fusogenic placenta-specific murine envelope genes of retroviral origin conserved in Muridae

Recently, we and others have identified two human endogenous retroviruses that entered the primate lineage 25–40 million years ago and that encode highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (syncytin-1 and -2), possibly involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion at the materno–fetal interface. A systematic in silico search throughout mouse genome databases presently identifies two fully coding envelope genes, present as unique copies and unrelated to any known murine endogenous retrovirus, that we named syncytin-A and -B. Quantitative RT-PCR demonstrates placenta-specific expression for both genes, with increasing transcript levels in this organ from 9.5 to 14.5 days postcoitum. In situ hybridization of placenta cryosections further localizes these transcripts in the syncytiotrophoblast-containing labyrinthine zona. Consistently, we show that both genes can trigger cell–cell fusion in ex vivo transfection assays, with distinct cell type specificities suggesting different receptor usage. Genes orthologous to syncytin-A and -B and disclosing a striking conservation of their coding status are found in all Muridae tested (mouse, rat, gerbil, vole, and hamster), dating their entry into the rodent lineage ≈20 million years ago. Together, these data strongly argue for a critical role of syncytin-A and -B in murine syncytiotrophoblast formation, **thus unraveling a rather unique situation where two pairs of endogenous retroviruses, independently acquired by the primate and rodent lineages, would have been positively selected for a convergent physiological role. **
Click to expand...
How the heck do they date these things?
 
rossum said:
By looking at average fixation rates for mutations.

rossum
Click to expand...
Extrapolating backwards. Doesn’t that presuppose a uniformity of conditions throughout a very long period of time? Radioactive decay is one thing, but that’s a relatively simple process.
 
farpinho said:
How big will be the difference once the clock is “recalibrated”?
Click to expand...
Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
 
buffalo said:
Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
Click to expand...
The age of this lovely being nicknamed Eve is useless since she is one of many mysterious beings living with her.

Catholic teaching is that the first Eve was immediately recognizable as a human person.

I realize that all you scientific experts are interested in age of this and age of that using this evolution clock or that evolution clock…

Looks like you don’t believe that God is capable of creation.😦
 
grannymh said:
The age of this lovely being nicknamed Eve is useless since she is one of many mysterious beings living with her.

Catholic teaching is that the first Eve was immediately recognizable as a human person.

I realize that all you scientific experts are interested in age of this and age of that using this evolution clock or that evolution clock…

Looks like you don’t believe that God is capable of creation.😦
Click to expand...
We simply don’t know much about the history of mankind. Assuming the historicity of Genesis, it seems to consists of events glimpsed from a great distance, passed onto us by means we do not know. What it does insist on, however, is that we have the same identity as those ancient ancestors, and our separation from the other beings of Creation. I wonder about the Old Testaments use of numbers. I think of the way that some Indians counted: one, two, three, four…many. What is 900 years for instance. A count or a similar wave of the hand to encompass many more?
 
RobbyS said:
Extrapolating backwards. Doesn’t that presuppose a uniformity of conditions throughout a very long period of time? Radioactive decay is one thing, but that’s a relatively simple process.
Click to expand...
I said “average”. That means that we are looking at fixation rates for a lot of genes, and non-genetic material, in different parts of our genome. Rates vary depending on many things, and we can select different parts depending on what we want to measure. the parts used for DNA fingerprinting change too rapidly for any long term dating. Cytochrome-C changes too slowly for anything in the human range, it is unchanged since we diverged from our LCA with the chimps.

Conditions are not uniform, hence the different rates in different places. These different rates are known and are measured.

rossum
 
rossum said:
I said “average”. That means that we are looking at fixation rates for a lot of genes, and non-genetic material, in different parts of our genome. Rates vary depending on many things, and we can select different parts depending on what we want to measure. the parts used for DNA fingerprinting change too rapidly for any long term dating. Cytochrome-C changes too slowly for anything in the human range, it is unchanged since we diverged from our LCA with the chimps.

Conditions are not uniform, hence the different rates in different places. These different rates are known and are measured.

rossum
Click to expand...
I respect the fact that you are a scientist.
 
RobbyS said:
We simply don’t know much about the history of mankind. Assuming the historicity of Genesis, it seems to consists of events glimpsed from a great distance, passed onto us by means we do not know. What it does insist on, however, is that we have the same identity as those ancient ancestors, and our separation from the other beings of Creation. I wonder about the Old Testaments use of numbers. I think of the way that some Indians counted: one, two, three, four…many. What is 900 years for instance. A count or a similar wave of the hand to encompass many more?
Click to expand...
It is obvious that posters know very little about the history of their ancestors.

My question is – why would a big, old organization claim that two persons are the sole progenitors of humanity?
 
farpinho said:
Is there a plausible alternative explanation for the endogenous retrovirus evidence that we share with other primates as well as other said to be human ancestors? :confused:
Click to expand...
Of course there is an alternative explanation…

Humans and non-human ancestors are not necessarily interchangeable. Only their rotting anatomies are in the broad sense somewhat similar. (look for chins)
 
grannymh said:
It is obvious that posters know very little about the history of their ancestors.

My question is – why would a big, old organization claim that two persons are the sole progenitors of humanity?
Click to expand...
Well, you put two mice together (a male and a female) and they will be progenitors of a whole lot of mice before too long.:rolleyes:
 
RobbyS said:
That is the sixty-four dollar question. It keeps coming up when they Talk about AI. HOW THE HECK does one find evidence in the field of self-aware apes?
Click to expand...
My humble position is to start with the knowledge that currently, self-aware apes are not allowed to vote. However, they probably voted in some long ago Chicago elections. Just kidding! :rotfl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top