[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

They are homologous (from the same genes) as other insect wings. But they are like feathers, being analogous (similar structure but not similar genes) to avian feathers.

So how can a structure be evidence of DNA complex information showing the emergence of feather like structures, your saying the structures of the fairy antennae comes from the structures of the wings...so they are NOT the same.... So Barbarian this is NOT evidence of evolutionary speciation at all...why did you show it...? In fact insects use antennae to smell pheromones, and the fairy fly obviously has greatly expanded this capacity....nothing to do with feathers whatever... I would predict if you electron microscope antennae on insects you will find feathery like appendages used to sense chemicals...


No. If that were true, they'd be holomogous to bird feathers. One of the most devastating problems for creationism, is the distribution of homologous and analogous traits.

Yes evolution talk about the so called toolkit that comes with many organisms ,, so its seems all organisms have similar genes,,, I would imagine many genes are not in this toolkit evolutions love to steal things from Creationists... If GOD made unique features of some kinds, we would predict that those DNA complex information sequences are also unique to those kinds and not other kinds. The basic framework of life might be in the toolkit for living organisms, but many genes won't be...

Instead of many brief comments with fancy words, how about explaining exactly what creationists are afraid of, with these so called " homologous and analogous traits", whatever your words mean.

Birds are only organism making feathers.... (science says the so called reptile bird, was in fact a bird, not an intermediate fossil, but many other science people dispute this...in any case it's not conclusive) Parrots are only organism that make bright red protein colour. There would be many organism with unique genes, and many organisms sharing similar genes... The Creator would have made a basic construct for organisms, and switching code for many forms, thus saving code, ie a basic design for basic forms of life. Evolutionist's so called toolkit....

Again Barbarian your showing very scarcity pictures, no science papers and no scientists looking at the details of DNA in fireflies..... don't you have real evidence?
I spend hours myself looking for evolutionary evidence also and can't find any ?






I showed that he provided evidence for the evolution of bacterial flagella (as you learned, there are different kinds with different levels of complexity) by showing there are conserved and variant segments of genes for the flagellum. So there is considerable genetic variety in some parts and almost none in others. This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolved system

You showed me nothing so far, you have the paper by Howard, show me sentences where he writes about evolution

So there is considerable genetic variety in some parts and almost none in others

This is also expected by ID Science as well... how about some real evidence instead of talking your words, show me some sentences of authority....please...

My prediction of ID Science of bacteria flagella is the design will become more and more complex over time, until you reach molecular level of chemistry...I would also predict that the DNA code would have programming code other that start and stop commands such as if and decision making code, its not just information for making proteins...Science has hardly learnt anything so far, and we are really beating around the bush you and I with our discussions....

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
They are homologous (from the same genes) as other insect wings. But they are like feathers, being analogous (similar structure but not similar genes) to avian feathers.

So how can a structure be evidence of DNA complex information showing the emergence of feather like structures

Biological things are organized according to Shannon information. But this merely illustrates the fact that natural selection isn't designed. It uses whatever is at hand to adapt. Hence many "simular structures" are evolved to look similar (because similar function), but they have quite different genes mediating them. This is the nature of analogous structures.

your saying the structures of the fairy antennae comes from the structures of the wings...

More precisely , they are wings. But the resemblance to feathers is only functional, not genetic.

so they are NOT the same....

Functionally the same, genetically, quite different, derived from different structures. This is a difficult problem for creationists. Analogous organs show that living populations evolve similar strategies, but use quite different ways to get there. On the other hand, the limbs of birds, horses, humans, and dolphins are functionally very different, but have the same genetic source, and are based on the same structures. And the most conclusive point is that homologous organs are never found where they shouldn't be. So "feathers" on insects come from quite different developmental structures than feathers on birds.

Unless you can grasp the difference between homology and analogy, you cannot hope to understand evolution.

In fact insects use antennae to smell pheromones, and the fairy fly obviously has greatly expanded this capacity....

Those are wings, not antennae. Notice the wasp still has antennae. Antennae are modified legs, through the process of tagmosis, while wings come from a different source, the upper part of biramous legs.

Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills.

Michalis Averof

Stephen M. Cohen

European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 03/1997; 385(6617):627-30.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of insect wings. One holds that wings evolved by modification of limb branches that were already present in multibranched ancestral appendages and probably functioned as gills. The second proposes that wings arose as novel outgrowths of the body wall, not directly related to any pre-existing limbs. If wings derive from dorsal structures of multibranched appendages, we expect that some of their distinctive features will have been built on genetic functions that were already present in the structural progenitors of insect wings, and in homologous structures of other arthropod limbs. We have isolated crustacean homologues of two genes that have wing-specific functions in insects, pdm (nubbin) and apterous. Their expression patterns support the hypothesis that insect wings evolved from gill-like appendages that were already present in the aquatic ancestors of both crustaceans and insects.

So is there more than genetic evidence for this? Turns out, there is. Stoneflies are primitive insects that don't actually fly, or fly very weakly. They have gills as adults, four of them becoming wings as is typical for insects. However, many don't fly. There are different stages of flight in these insects as shown below:

nothing to do with feathers whatever...

Merely the functional analogue of feathers.

I would predict if you electron microscope antennae on insects you will find feathery like appendages used to sense chemicals...

They are wings, not antennae.

Barbarian, earlier:
If that were true, they'd be holomogous to bird feathers. One of the most devastating problems for creationism, is the distribution of homologous and analogous traits.

Yes evolution talk about the so called toolkit that comes with many organisms ,, so its seems all organisms have similar genes,,,

You have more genes in common with bacteria, than genes by which you differ. And another conclusive source of evidence for evolution is the fact that genetic relationships confirm evolutionary phylogenies worked out before Darwin.

I would imagine many genes are not in this toolkit evolutions love to steal things from Creationists...

Interesting claim. I'd be interested in seeing the names of creationists who made significant contributions to evolutionary development (the field which studies "toolkits"). Who do you have in mind?

If GOD made unique features of some kinds, we would predict that those DNA complex information sequences are also unique to those kinds and not other kinds.

Do you have any documentation of this prediction made by creationists before scientists found it? Who do you have in mind?

Instead of many brief comments with fancy words, how about explaining exactly what creationists are afraid of, with these so called " homologous and analogous traits", whatever your words mean.

The most serious problem for creationists is that similar structures in evolutionarily-separated organisms, are analogous; that is, they are functionally similar, but are genetically, and structurally distinct. Like the wings of fairy flies and bird feathers. On the other hand, very dissimilar structures on evolutionarily-connected organisms may be quite different, but are genetically alike and derived from the same structures, like fins on a dolphin and legs on a horse. Creationists have no answer for this.

Birds are only organism making feathers....

Birds and dinosaurs. There are now many, many known examples of feathered dinosaurs. Would you like to learn about some of them?

(science says the so called reptile bird, was in fact a bird, not an intermediate fossil, but many other science people dispute this...in any case it's not conclusive)

Are you thinking of Archaeopteryx? If so, we can test that assertion. If it's something else, we can look at that. Let me know.

Parrots are only organism that make bright red protein colour.

Interesting. Link?

Again Barbarian your showing very scarcity pictures, no science papers and no scientists looking at the details of DNA in fireflies..... don't you have real evidence?

See above. Sorry to use terminology with which you're not familiar, but you're asking about a rather technical area of biology. A textbook of genetics would help you.

I showed that he provided evidence for the evolution of bacterial flagella (as you learned, there are different kinds with different levels of complexity) by showing there are conserved and variant segments of genes for the flagellum. So there is considerable genetic variety in some parts and almost none in others. This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolved system

This is also expected by ID Science as well...

ID is a religion. The results of the Dover trial showed it to be so. Micheal Behe, a leading IDer, admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

I think the discussion is proceeding nicely; we've clarified for you how homology differs from analogy, and a demonstration of the gradual steps toward flight in insects.

As usual, I'll be open to showing you more detail, if you'd like to see it.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian observes:
They are homologous (from the same genes) as other insect wings. But they are like feathers, being analogous (similar structure but not similar genes) to avian feathers.



Biological things are organized according to Shannon information. But this merely illustrates the fact that natural selection isn't designed. It uses whatever is at hand to adapt. Hence many "simular structures" are evolved to look similar (because similar function), but they have quite different genes mediating them. This is the nature of analogous structures.



More precisely , they are wings. But the resemblance to feathers is only functional, not genetic.



Functionally the same, genetically, quite different, derived from different structures. This is a difficult problem for creationists. Analogous organs show that living populations evolve similar strategies, but use quite different ways to get there. On the other hand, the limbs of birds, horses, humans, and dolphins are functionally very different, but have the same genetic source, and are based on the same structures. And the most conclusive point is that homologous organs are never found where they shouldn't be. So "feathers" on insects come from quite different developmental structures than feathers on birds.

Unless you can grasp the difference between homology and analogy, you cannot hope to understand evolution.



Those are wings, not antennae. Notice the wasp still has antennae. Antennae are modified legs, through the process of tagmosis, while wings come from a different source, the upper part of biramous legs.

Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills.

Michalis Averof

Stephen M. Cohen

European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 03/1997; 385(6617):627-30.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of insect wings. One holds that wings evolved by modification of limb branches that were already present in multibranched ancestral appendages and probably functioned as gills. The second proposes that wings arose as novel outgrowths of the body wall, not directly related to any pre-existing limbs. If wings derive from dorsal structures of multibranched appendages, we expect that some of their distinctive features will have been built on genetic functions that were already present in the structural progenitors of insect wings, and in homologous structures of other arthropod limbs. We have isolated crustacean homologues of two genes that have wing-specific functions in insects, pdm (nubbin) and apterous. Their expression patterns support the hypothesis that insect wings evolved from gill-like appendages that were already present in the aquatic ancestors of both crustaceans and insects.

So is there more than genetic evidence for this? Turns out, there is. Stoneflies are primitive insects that don't actually fly, or fly very weakly. They have gills as adults, four of them becoming wings as is typical for insects. However, many don't fly. There are different stages of flight in these insects as shown below:

Merely the functional analogue of feathers.



They are wings, not antennae.

Barbarian, earlier:
If that were true, they'd be holomogous to bird feathers. One of the most devastating problems for creationism, is the distribution of homologous and analogous traits.



You have more genes in common with bacteria, than genes by which you differ. And another conclusive source of evidence for evolution is the fact that genetic relationships confirm evolutionary phylogenies worked out before Darwin.



Interesting claim. I'd be interested in seeing the names of creationists who made significant contributions to evolutionary development (the field which studies "toolkits"). Who do you have in mind?



Do you have any documentation of this prediction made by creationists before scientists found it? Who do you have in mind?



The most serious problem for creationists is that similar structures in evolutionarily-separated organisms, are analogous; that is, they are functionally similar, but are genetically, and structurally distinct. Like the wings of fairy flies and bird feathers. On the other hand, very dissimilar structures on evolutionarily-connected organisms may be quite different, but are genetically alike and derived from the same structures, like fins on a dolphin and legs on a horse. Creationists have no answer for this.



Birds and dinosaurs. There are now many, many known examples of feathered dinosaurs. Would you like to learn about some of them?



Are you thinking of Archaeopteryx? If so, we can test that assertion. If it's something else, we can look at that. Let me know.



Interesting. Link?



See above. Sorry to use terminology with which you're not familiar, but you're asking about a rather technical area of biology. A textbook of genetics would help you.

I showed that he provided evidence for the evolution of bacterial flagella (as you learned, there are different kinds with different levels of complexity) by showing there are conserved and variant segments of genes for the flagellum. So there is considerable genetic variety in some parts and almost none in others. This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolved system



ID is a religion. The results of the Dover trial showed it to be so. Micheal Behe, a leading IDer, admitted under oath that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

I think the discussion is proceeding nicely; we've clarified for you how homology differs from analogy, and a demonstration of the gradual steps toward flight in insects.

As usual, I'll be open to showing you more detail, if you'd like to see it.

Yes Barbarian the discussion is proceeding very nicely, but you will have to stop presenting so new material each time, and just stick to the material you are showing people....rather than changing the goal posts all the time....

OK I found two papers, you didn't supply the link...

One of the papers has a really interesting thing... http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...cgdy5k8_wsohPYOH1Lu5L6g&bvm=bv.85076809,d.dGY

Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Michalis Averof & etal
View attachment 5955

I placed the DNA sequence on a single line....
Here is a section a little bigger
View attachment 5956
We have three kinds on the left, flies, Crustaceans and Humans. I assume LIM1 and LIM2 are gene sections showing similar patterns, but are they really similar ?

I mean if the DNA code is just ACTG, what's the probability of some strings of genes looking similar ?

Looking at the f gene the first red box, what is S, and crustacean R and human R mean in terms of ACTG? Does S and R refer to the triplet code for an amino acid ?

Can you answer these questions for me please Barbarian in simple English ?

SHalom

 

[Barbarian]

Yes Barbarian the discussion is proceeding very nicely, but you will have to stop presenting so new material each time, and just stick to the material you are showing people....rather than changing the goal posts all the time....

It all works on evidence. I only present evidence concerning the things you bring up

OK I found two papers, you didn't supply the link...

That reminds me; I asked for a link for this:

If GOD made unique features of some kinds, we would predict that those DNA complex information sequences are also unique to those kinds and not other kinds.

Barbarian asks:
Do you have any documentation of this prediction made by creationists before scientists found it? Who do you have in mind?

And this:

I would imagine many genes are not in this toolkit evolutions love to steal things from Creationists...

Barbarian ask:
Interesting claim. I'd be interested in seeing the names of creationists who made significant contributions to evolutionary development (the field which studies "toolkits"). Who do you have in mind?

There's some more. How about getting to those next post?

One of the papers has a really interesting thing... http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...cgdy5k8_wsohPYOH1Lu5L6g&bvm=bv.85076809,d.dGY

I mean if the DNA code is just ACTG, what's the probability of some strings of genes looking similar ?

You're looking at HOX domains, not individual codons. Notice that the string is not just ACTG or ACTU. He discussing how these domains change in the arthropods. All animals have Hox genes, the comparable human segment is shown. This might help:

He's talking about (C) in this case.

Looking at the f gene the first red box, what is S, and crustacean R and human R mean in terms of ACTG? Does S and R refer to the triplet code for an amino acid ?

No, and I'm unfamiliar with the HOX domains in insects. I'll see if I can find that for you. Basically, it's talking about the genetic basis of tagmosis, the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods.

Can you answer these questions for me please Barbarian in simple English ?

That's like asking someone to explain orbital mechanics in elementary school math. But I'll see what I can do.

 

[rthom7]

It all works on evidence. I only present evidence concerning the things you bring up

Actually you bring many interesting papers presenting new material to me, but you do not actually show me the sentences of authority from which you cite application of your own words...


That reminds me; I asked for a link for this:
Do you have any documentation of this prediction made by creationists before scientists found it? Who do you have in mind?

Well I heard a Creationist mention Edward Bligh, who was apparently a Creationist at the time of his publication in 1835, and shared letters between Darwin and himself, becoming an Evolutionist over time it seems.

Interesting claim. I'd be interested in seeing the names of creationists who made significant contributions to evolutionary development (the field which studies "toolkits"). Who do you have in mind?

How does a unimportant unnoticed scientist of different theories to Evolution, Barbarian get his material published in Science or Nature ? First you have to have a PhD, then you have to conform to schools of Evolutionary thought, so I would find it near impossible for anybody who thinks differently to be allowed to publish anything they like. So I am not going to discuss this....



You're looking at HOX domains, not individual codons. Notice that the string is not just ACTG or ACTU. He discussing how these domains change in the arthropods. All animals have Hox genes, the comparable human segment is shown.

He's talking about (C) in this case.

Thanks for the great help, love the diagrams...

No, and I'm unfamiliar with the HOX domains in insects. I'll see if I can find that for you. Basically, it's talking about the genetic basis of tagmosis, the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods.

Can you write that in simpler words "genetic basis of tagmosis," remember you writing to one of child like faith... no idea what your saying...


That's like asking someone to explain orbital mechanics in elementary school math. But I'll see what I can do.

Albert Einstein used to tutor grade 8 maths....a great teacher should be able to explain himself.
View attachment 5965

The paper does not mention "domain" ...I looked up a reference to the EMBL database and found this for Y00913...it seems each letter, R S etc, is a bp , a "base pair" as I suspected, the triplet amino acids for each part of the gene, your term "codon" might also be correct ?

So the Af-pdm gene is 499 codons long I suspect? What does "pdm" stand for ?
View attachment 5966
Notice the paper does not prove Evolution at all, it uses the word "support"
It also says just because genes have similar patterns (fancy word homology) to other genes, doe snot mean they "evolved" from one another. I agree.

He's also a good scientist, studying the present is no proof of the past.

View attachment 5967
Here the paper says the patterns for each of the outer leg segments are similar, therefore they show evolution.... That is an assumption...
View attachment 5968
Here is the pattern...where is it similar? Consider the first 24 bp of each kind here for LIM2
Drosophila has 13/24 bp the same = 54%
Artemia species has 12/24 bp the same = 50%
and Human has 10/24 bp the same = 41 %

Come on science, what does similar mean? They are not even close.

Now Barbarian when you cite a paper and discuss with me, do it like I have done here...I show you evidence from the paper of authority and then add my own application. That's how a science person discusses science. Now refute my examples of evidence from your paper if you can. I really do enjoy talking with you because I want to learn about evolution, but so far you have not shown me any real hard evidence of anything evolutionary at all..

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian, I did some research , being raining here, so spent a few hours researching into Evolution, especially the HOX macro-evolution....

Sherwin, F. 2006. Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution. Acts & Facts. 35 (1
http://www.icr.org/article/fruit-flies-face-macroevolution/

As an embryo develops, its body plan arises under the direction of developmental control genes which includes a group called the homeobox, or Hox genes. The bithorax gene is part of the Hox genes which, if mutated, may produce a four-winged fruit fly (they normally have two). It is said that "in many cases, experimentally induced mutations in homeotic genes create drastic changes in the [basic body design],"3
Then it should be possible for science to engineer a fruit fly with 8 legs and allow it to survive normally and live generation after generation. Does this sort of thing exist today ?

Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their [fruit fly] constructs.4
Why not ? How hard can it be to make macro-evolutionary changes ?

Decades ago, an example of a "good mutation" was given by a Denver University biologist during a public debate with this author. It involved the bithorax gene that produces an atypical four-winged fruit fly. Unfortunately, the evolutionist failed to tell the audience that the fruit fly's ability to fly was severely impaired. What would natural selection do to such mutated creatures?

Surely one could engineer a fruit fly with different body parts and have it survive, generation after generation?

McGinnis etal 2002 FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution," says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. "How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

So he discovers God's basic gene build (BGB) the so called hox genes. So if its so easy to change a fruit fly into the legs of a shrimp, then let's see it happen from Science intelligent designers. Of course changes structures is just the beginning of change. You also have to add lots of other things.

Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hoxgene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—

Great, so we have discovered the elementary development of the BGB of this animal kind. This discovery is all about how kinds were engineered during development.

This kind of gene is one that turns on and off lots of other genes in order to make complex structures," says Ronshaugen, a graduate student working in William McGinnis’ laboratory and the first author of the paper. "What we’ve done is to show that this change alters the way it turns on and off other genes. That’s due to the change in the way the protein produced by this gene functions."

Reverse engineering about God's BGB for organism development.

"The word evolution may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may evolve into gray moths). This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact.

Correct, a science observation first made by Edward Bligh, before Evolution science swamped Creation science thinking. God programmed organisms to change and survive.

Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles and birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory."

Correct, one can't even engineer tis process in the lab as yet.

The creationists’ argument rests in part on the fact that animals have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes, you’d need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes," explains McGinnis. "It’s incredibly unlikely that you would get mutations in the same gene in two chromosomes in a single organism. But in our particular case, the kind of mutation that’s in this gene is a so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to mutate one of the chromosomes to get a big change in body plan."

Really, I wonder if the HOX genes are so easily affected by mutation.

DeWitt D, 2002. Hox Hype Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/hox-hype/

Evolutionary biologists believe that the six-legged insect body plan evolved from crustacean-like ancestors (including creatures like shrimp) that lost the large number of legs1 Such a radical change would require mutation(s) that result in the suppression of leg development. McGinnis and coworkers believed that they found the mutation and the gene responsible for this change. However, careful examination of their efforts reveals that the situation is much more complicated.

Yes things are complex.

The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.3

Recounting McGinnins work

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

Yes a lot more needs to happen before a structure is fully functional.

Pray L 2002 Surprise, Surprise: Hox Proteins Have Evolved
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/14293/title/Surprise--Surprise--Hox-Proteins-Have-Evolved/

Insects have evolved a Ubx protein that represses limb development, whereas crustaceans and onychophorans have each evolved slightly different Ubx proteins without the same limb-repression capability. In part, these differences in Ubx account for why insects have fewer limbs than their multilimb crustacean and onychophoran relatives. Together, the papers provide "perhaps the clearest example of a change in a regulatory protein being implicated so directly in developmental, or morphological, change during evolution," says Michalis Averof of the Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in Greece. "Until now, it was not clear whether such changes were involved."

Recounting McGinnis work
As Sean Carroll at the University of Wisconsin explains, scientists had this "tacit assumption that if I show you a Hox protein from Drosophila and the same protein from, for example, a frog, they are the same protein."3
So the mechanism for embryonic change is similar

Another eyebrow-raiser was that a single protein would have such a profound morphological change in the animal body plan, says UC San Diego's William McGinnis, the second study's senior author.4

So are we seeing macro-evolution change? Or ID engineering?

 

[rthom7]

Notice I show both evolution science papers and creation science papers, and balance my evidence fairly.

Much of the evolution science so far is about reverse engineering, not really explaining how one kind evolved into another kind... In fact I see it s looking at God's Basic Gene Build....

Gellon G and McGinnis, 1998. Shaping animal body plans in development and evolution by modulation of Hox expression patternshttp://adi-38.bio.ib.usp.br/ibi5023/2003/textos/textoIIIb.pdf

Hox genes are expressed in discrete domains of the body

along the anterior-posterior axis, and are required for the

proper morphological differentiation of all or part of these

expression domains. Hox proteins are homeodomain transcription

factors which assign different identities to body

regions by the differential regulation of numerous downstream

genes, many of which are regulated by multiple Hox

proteins.1
McGinnis explains the HOX gene system

The biological

complexity of a regulatory circuit may thus be a virtue for the

organism possessing it, if not necessarily for an investigator

attempting to dissect its component parts

McGinnis explains the HOX gene system is more complex than simply a genetic switch.

Cross regulatory relationships among the Hox genes also

play an important role in determining their transcriptional

patterns. The Bithorax complex proteins Ubx, Abd-A, and

Abd-B are all capable of repressing the transcription of more

anterior Hox genes,2 and there is evidence in one case
reported by Appel and Sakonju55 that this repression is
exerted by direct interaction with Hox protein binding sites in

the genes that are being repressed.

Many more functions are required he admits.

The cofactors, if any,

that might assist in Hox-mediated repression, are as yet

unknown

Many more functions as yet unknown....

What happens

when comparisons are made not within a class but between

classes, such as Insecta and Branchiopoda? Branchiopod

crustaceans (e.g., Artemia) differ significantly in design from

insects: they possess a thorax with eleven segments all

harboring legs (as opposed to only three in insects) and

many postgenital ‘‘abdominal’’ segments. Averoff and Akam69
has shown that Antp, Ubx, and abd-A are expressed in most

of the thoracic segments of Artemia whereas they have

overlapping but distinct domains in insects. Averoff and

Akam69 have proposed that the crustacean thorax is homologous
to the insect trunk, and that the Hox expression

patterns in Artemia reflect a primitive condition.

So when you look at these patterns what do you see ? Nothing much...see my posts

Since the expression

of Hox proteins in different somites seems to depend on

discrete regulatory elements, such broad changes in Hox

domain size might involve alterations in upstream transcriptional

regulation.

McGinnis admits the Hox proteins have other factors in structural regulation.

A fascinating problem in biology is to understand the

developmental and molecular mechanisms behind the patterns

of macroevolution. The comparative study of Hox gene

expression patterns have already proven a very useful tool to

define plausible and realistic connections between patterning

genes and evolutionary changes
In other words macro-evolution changes are not possible naturally by blind chance.
Things are far too complex.

 

[rthom7]

View attachment 5969

Here after reading all the papers I put together a proposal using the HOX genes.
I assume GOD had a Basic Kinds Build (BKB), and this is used to engineer changes in the embryonic development of forms. If you look at the diagram, the DNA sequence for both forms (fruit fly and shrimp) are shown. Each genes has similar codons, yellow and blue matching strips, but also you see differences, major differences in both the length of genes, and the patterns. I show only eight gene families required for building a functional organism and changing from one to another.

Its a great read when science discovers how things change and were engineered by GOD.

If an Evolutionist wanted to show macro-evolution engineer a fruit fly with 8 legs, and let it breed normally for generation after generation. Let's see the worlds first engineered organism survive of thousands of generations. That would be one small step towards macro-evolution. One giant leap for faith in Evolution !

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
That reminds me; I asked for a link for this:
Do you have any documentation of this prediction made by creationists before scientists found it? Who do you have in mind?

Well I heard a Creationist mention Edward Bligh, who was apparently a Creationist at the time of his publication in 1835, and shared letters between Darwin and himself, becoming an Evolutionist over time it seems.

So nothing? Would you try again, or perhaps modify your claim?

Barbarian asks again:
Interesting claim. I'd be interested in seeing the names of creationists who made significant contributions to evolutionary development (the field which studies "toolkits"). Who do you have in mind?

How does a unimportant unnoticed scientist of different theories to Evolution, Barbarian get his material published in Science or Nature ?

By gathering evidence and demonstrating that his theory is correct. Dobzhansky, Gould, Morgan, et al were all "unimportant and unnoticed" scientists until they came up with something that showed flaws in the existing theory. I gather your response means that you second claim is also without support.

First you have to have a PhD, then you have to conform to schools of Evolutionary thought, so I would find it near impossible for anybody who thinks differently to be allowed to publish anything they like. So I am not going to discuss this....

It was probably a bad idea to bring up the topic, then. There seem to be no such creationists.

Barbarian oberserves:
You're looking at HOX domains, not individual codons. Notice that the string is not just ACTG or ACTU. He discussing how these domains change in the arthropods. All animals have Hox genes, the comparable human segment is shown.

Barbarian obeserves:
No, and I'm unfamiliar with the HOX domains in insects. I'll see if I can find that for you. Basically, it's talking about the genetic basis of tagmosis, the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods.

Can you write that in simpler words "genetic basis of tagmosis,"

I did. It's easier to write "tagmosis" than it is to write "the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods." So we call it tagmosis. There's no royal road to biology. If you want to learn, you have to learn the terminology.

That's like asking someone to explain orbital mechanics in elementary school math. But I'll see what I can do.

Albert Einstein used to tutor grade 8 maths....

So do I, in biology, from time to time. But I don't teach them the details of molecular biology.

a great teacher should be able to explain himself.

Virtual particles are a real thing, and are used in a weird kind of microscope. But there's really no simple and accurate way to explain how they work.

So the Af-pdm gene is 499 codons long I suspect? What does "pdm" stand for ?

Gene in the POU box, I think. Abdominal features regulated by this? I'd have to look it up.

Notice the paper does not prove Evolution at all, it uses the word "support"

Formally, nothing is proven in science, because it's inductive. "Support" is about as strong a statement as you'll get in a paper.

It also says just because genes have similar patterns (fancy word homology)

No. "Similar" would be more like analogous features. To be homologous, you'd have to show evidence of common origin. We know that homologies in genes show common descent, because we can check that with populations of known descent.

to other genes, doe snot mean they "evolved" from one another.

In other words, analogous. The difference between homology and analogy seems to be a difficult concept for creationists.

He's also a good scientist, studying the present is no proof of the past.

Here the paper says the patterns for each of the outer leg segments are similar, therefore they show evolution.... That is an assumption...

Come on science, what does similar mean? They are not even close.

Drosophila and Artemia are in different classes but the same phylum. So they are more alike to each other than either is to a human, because humans are in a different phylum. They are all rather distantly related, but as you see, the genetic distances work out about right.

Now Barbarian when you cite a paper and discuss with me, do it like I have done here...I show you evidence from the paper of authority and then add my own application. That's how a science person discusses science.

Every scientist I've ever worked with, depended on evidence, not authorities. Science is possibly the most libertarian process humans do. There is no "decider" in science. The

Now refute my examples of evidence from your paper if you can.

See above. Mostly misconceptions.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian

You're looking at HOX domains, not individual codons. He discussing how these domains change in the arthropods. All animals have Hox genes, the comparable human segment is shown.
View attachment 5974
Actually Barbarian the letters MNSYFEQN are codons, and here is pictured four motifs of the Ultrabithorax protein(Ubx)of four organisms.

For those programs that use amino acid query sequences (BLASTP and TBLASTN), the accepted amino acid codes are:
A alanine P proline
B aspartate/asparagine Q glutamine
C cystine R arginine
D aspartate S serine
E glutamate T threonine
F phenylalanine U selenocysteine
G glycine V valine
H histidine W tryptophan
I isoleucine Y tyrosine
K lysine Z glutamate/glutamine
L leucine X any
M methionine * translation stop
N asparagine - gap of indeterminate length
http://flybase.org/blast/blast_help.html#query_sequence

I did. It's easier to write "tagmosis" than it is to write "the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods." So we call it tagmosis. There's no royal road to biology. If you want to learn, you have to learn the terminology.

Sorry, you did try to explain it...fancy word for body parts of insects...
(Sorry, I deplore jargon, it's done purely to cause exaltation of self, and make your world higher than somebody else's. Christians are supposed to be lowly and humble. )

Formally, nothing is proven in science, because it's inductive. "Support" is about as strong a statement as you'll get in a paper.
You agree with my evidence from his paper....so why jam evolution down our mouths as if, the theory of evolution is a fact ?


In other words, analogous. The difference between homology and analogy seems to be a difficult concept for creationists.
Barbarian you have to stop belittling people...everybody on this Christian website deserves respect even those who have different theories of faith.
View attachment 5975
According to McGinnis ....
Sequence motifs that are shared to different extents between all
of these Ubx homologues are blue; motifs shared only by the
hexapods Drosophila and Anopheles are yellow.
So if Amino Acids are the same in the Ubx protein for a short chains across different organisms, they are homologues. I guess if the amino acids are shared by only some organisms but not others, the yellow shading, we could say they are analogous...is that it Barbarian?

Drosophila and Artemia are in different classes but the same phylum. So they are more alike to each other than either is to a human, because humans are in a different phylum. They are all rather distantly related, but as you see, the genetic distances work out about right.

Yes, but your not acknowledging my words, with the evidence, we can both see...I get your point....I am being courteous to your words, but your not acknowledging mine, that the ubx proteins are different for different organisms.

And again despite all the effort to learn this stuff of complex reverse engineering, it is still not one step towards macro-evolutionary model....not even close....


Every scientist I've ever worked with, depended on evidence, not authorities. Science is possibly the most libertarian process humans do. There is no "decider" in science. See above. Mostly misconceptions.

When you speak Barbarian in words that is your authority...you do it often...without evidence, hence your words are without credibility ....the decider in our words is the evidence we present....that's why I ask you for links to evidence from others...
The Bible says truth is established on the witness of two or three others. One's own authority is not good enough....that's why we have to support our words with "evidence" from "actual witnesses" using observational science experiments. (to be continued)

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

View attachment 5976

The ubx protein looks like this, it is around 300 amino acid chains long and folded into a 3D shape, used to regulate other genes for building developmental features during embryonic development.
View attachment 5977

This is the amino acid sequence for a typical fruit fly ubx protein, the blue box is the shared amino acids for McGinnis work with 4 organisms having different ubx protein super molecules. My first investigation was to simply match the codons in the McGinnis samples to this standard ubx...but it doesn't work.
View attachment 5978
I mean the ubx are so different, they are completely different proteins with different 3D structures, how can anybody say just because the different proteins have some AA chains the same, this is evidence of common origin?

I note in Fly Base, there are over 100 species of fruitfly, do they all have the exact 386 AA sequence for the Ubx protein? That would be a start....

When you fold the ubx AA into the 3D shape, obviously the shape makes each protein unique for each unique organism...so how about electron microscope picture so the ubx shape for each organism... that would be a better evidence for similar origins....

Barbarian is it possible for you to get me the ubx exact AA sequences for all four organisms please ? of McGinnis ?

An
amino-acid sequence alignment of Ubx protein sequences from the fruit fly Drosophila
(DmUbx), the mosquito Anopheles gambiae (AgUbx), the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana
(AfUbx) and the velvet worm Akanthokara kaputensis (AkUbx).

Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the

insect body plan
Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis & William McGinnis


Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

You're looking at HOX domains, not individual codons. He discussing how these domains change in the arthropods. All animals have Hox genes, the comparable human segment is shown.

Actually Barbarian the letters MNSYFEQN are codons,

Amino acids, each individual letter. A "codon" is a triplet of DNA bases that code for the amino acid, not the amino acids themselves.

Barbarian observes:
I did. It's easier to write "tagmosis" than it is to write "the reduction and modification of body segments in arthropods." So we call it tagmosis. There's no royal road to biology. If you want to learn, you have to learn the terminology.

Sorry, you did try to explain it...fancy word for body parts of insects...

No. It does not refer to the segments themselves. It's the process of reduction and modification of segments.

(Sorry, I deplore jargon, it's done purely to cause exaltation of self, and make your world higher than somebody else's. Christians are supposed to be lowly and humble. )

"Tagmosis" is a short way of writing a long phrase. Scientists use it because it's easier to use a small word than a lot of big ones.

Barbarian observes:
Formally, nothing is proven in science, because it's inductive. "Support" is about as strong a statement as you'll get in a paper.

You agree with my evidence from his paper....

No, so far, you're still trying to understand it.

so why jam evolution down our mouths as if, the theory of evolution is a fact ?

It's directly observed. Can't be more sure than that.

Barbarian observes:
In other words, analogous. The difference between homology and analogy seems to be a difficult concept for creationists.

Barbarian you have to stop belittling people.

It's just an observation. Apparently homology and analogy are difficult concepts if one is committed to creationist worldviews.

everybody on this Christian website deserves respect even those who have different theories of faith.

I teach. The first step to education, is to understand where a person's understand lies. And also misunderstandings. If I'm wrong, could you explain the difference between the two?

So if Amino Acids are the same in the Ubx protein for a short chains across different organisms, they are homologues.

No. But there are vertebrate genes that are homologous with some arthropod genes. Amino acids are merely organic molecules and with a few odd exceptions, identical in all organisms.

There are homolgous proteins, like heme, and homologous genes:
In Drosophila, the development of dorsal structures is under the control of the gene decapentaplegic (dpp), which is expressed in dorsal cells of the embryo. The dpp product is a secreted protein of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) family. In Xenopus, on the other hand, a gene closely related to dpp —the gene BMP-4, encoding the growth factor bone morphogenetic protein-4, also a member of the TGF-β family —is expressed ventrally and controls ventral development. Intriguing though this observation is, on its own it hardly provides definitive evidence for an inversion of the dorsoventral axis at the time of chordate origin. But supporting evidence is gradually accumulating to show that other genes involved in specifying the dorsoventral axes in Drosophila and Xenopus are also homologous and expressed in this mutually inverted fashion.

Drosophila and Artemia are in different classes but the same phylum. So they are more alike to each other than either is to a human, because humans are in a different phylum. They are all rather distantly related, but as you see, the genetic distances work out about right.

Yes, but your not acknowledging my words, with the evidence, we can both see...I get your point....I am being courteous to your words, but your not acknowledging mine, that the ubx proteins are different for different organisms.

And often do different things: they are homlogous. That's the point.

And again despite all the effort to learn this stuff of complex reverse engineering, it is still not one step towards macro-evolutionary model....not even close....

It's very compelling evidence, all the more compelling, because it verifies phylogenies worked out from previous evidence. So one more source of evidence for common ancestry. For example, them material posted that showed two members of Arthropoda, although of different classes, were genetically closer to each other than either is to vertebrates. Exactly what fossil records, biochemistry, and anatomy say.

Barbarian observes:
Every scientist I've ever worked with, depended on evidence, not authorities. Science is possibly the most libertarian process humans do. There is no "decider" in science. See above.

When you speak Barbarian in words that is your authority...you do it often...without evidence,

If you doubt anything, feel free to ask for more evidence. It's easily shown.[/quote][/quote]

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said: "It's directly observed. Can't be more sure than that"
When did the theory of evolution become a fact, have they found a missing link?

tob

 

[rthom7]

My fellow Barbarian, I enjoy talking to you, but if your going to teach me anything, we have to do it together, teacher/child , so let's not introduce anything new until I thoroughly understand what is already before me...that's being fair isn't it ?
View attachment 5996
We were looking at this diagram of McGinnis , remember ?

We have four segments of Ubx protein, the letters MNSYFEQ represent Amino Acids in the segment chain of the Ubx protein.

Is this sentence correct so far ?

Now we see four organisms the fruit fly Drosophila
(DmUbx), the mosquito Anopheles gambiae (AgUbx), the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana (AfUbx) and the velvet worm Akanthokara kaputensis (AkUbx). According to McGinnis, the blue shaded amino acids are homologues to each of these four Ubx proteins because the Amino Acid Acids in a small segment are the same across the Ubx protein for all four organisms.
View attachment 5997
Here is what a typical Ubx protein looks like. Each of these four organism would have their own unique Ubx protein in its own unique 3D shape. So if one was to change the shape of the protein, this then must change it regulatory nature? So adding different kinds of amino acids to other Ubx proteins must change the shape and thus change they way the Ubx protein functions.

So just because different Ubx proteins share similar segments of Amino acids, is this supposed to mean anything ? I don't see this as evolution origin proof at all.

What I see is GOD designed each Ubx protein to change shape slightly , unique to each organism, and obviously the change in the shape impacts the regulation of the protein doing its work during embryonic development.

Now if you going to comment Barbarian, please comment on McGinnis diagram only, its application and implications to evolution, and comment on my sentences, looking at the same evidence.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

We were looking at this diagram of McGinnis , remember ?

We have four segments of Ubx protein, the letters MNSYFEQ represent Amino Acids in the segment chain of the Ubx protein.

Yes.

Now we see four organisms the fruit fly Drosophila
(DmUbx), the mosquito Anopheles gambiae (AgUbx), the brine shrimp Artemia franciscana (AfUbx) and the velvet worm Akanthokara kaputensis (AkUbx). According to McGinnis, the blue shaded amino acids are homologues to each of these four Ubx proteins because the Amino Acid Acids in a small segment are the same across the Ubx protein for all four organisms.

No. Ubx is homologous. The entire protein is homologous in each of these. Again, I would like you to define what you think "homologous" and "analogous" mean.

Here is what a typical Ubx protein looks like. Each of these four organism would have their own unique Ubx protein in its own unique 3D shape. So if one was to change the shape of the protein, this then must change it regulatory nature?

Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes. If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.

So adding different kinds of amino acids to other Ubx proteins must change the shape and thus change they way the Ubx protein functions.

Could, depending on the site.

So just because different Ubx proteins share similar segments of Amino acids, is this supposed to mean anything ?

Yep. The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory. If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related. Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran). If this continues, we could show that all of them (protostomes) are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a vertebrate (a deuterostome).

Picture a tree with mosquito and fly on the same forked twig. Then the twig on the same branch as the brine shrimp. And the branch on the same major limb as the velvet worm. Again, precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

I don't see this as evolution origin proof at all.

It confirms precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

What I see is GOD designed each Ubx protein to change shape slightly , unique to each organism, and obviously the change in the shape impacts the regulation of the protein doing its work during embryonic development.

He did better than that. As St. Augustine wrote, God created the world with the capacity to develop according to His will.

 

[rthom7]

Yes.
Glad you agree

No. Ubx is homologous. The entire protein is homologous in each of these.
What do you mean ?
Again, I would like you to define what you think "homologous" and "analogous" mean.
I have no idea? Please explain the terms, using Amino Acids and the Ubx protein....
Is it necessary, your introducing jargon ?

Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.
Isn't that the job of a functional Ubx protein, to change the regulation of gene sites?

If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.

Please stick to Ubx for these four organism please...child/teacher remember ?


Yep. The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.
Again we are talking only about the McGinnis diagram ...OK ?
shrimp MNSYFEQN-GFYGSHP
fruitfly MNSYFEQASGFYG-H
mozzie MNSYFEQ-TGFYG-HP
worm MSSFFEPANMSNTIER

Ok here is the first 16 Amino Acids (AA) of each Ubx protein. What can you predict from that ? The shrimp, fly and mozzie share the same 12 AA...? big deal....we are talking about Ubx protein aren't we ? Shouldn't the protein be basically the same shape for all organisms needing HOX gene regulation?

One could predict the AA sequence should be the same for all species of fruit fly, and all species of mozzie and all species of shrimp and all species of worm. If small changes exist one could argue that's due to mutations, but under Creation model, no Ubx protein should be radically different within a "kind of organism". Under the Evolution model, Ubx proteins should be radically different for all species and even organisms related to each other within Biblical kinds. So to disprove Creationism, one only need to map the ubx protein of all the dog species, or all the fruit fly species for example. Perhaps you can answer this question now. There are over dozen of fruit fly in nature how different is each species of fruit fly Ubx AA sequence ?


If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related. Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran).

Your saying the pattern for each Ubx AA sequence? The fly and mozzie should have similar patterns of Ubx AA sequence ? OK sounds nice but what does Creation define as "Bible kinds"....I don't know.... Perhaps fruit fly and mozzie are the same kind? Not sure.... how similar is the Ubx AA sequence to say human and fly ? That should be different, or fly to fish, or worm to fly, these are outside "Bible kinds" and should be radically different to each other, assuming we both know enough about how animals are engineered....I fear we hardly know anything ...

If this continues, we could show that all of them (protostomes) are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a vertebrate (a deuterostome).
(no jargon please )

Picture a tree with mosquito and fly on the same forked twig. Then the twig on the same branch as the brine shrimp. And the branch on the same major limb as the velvet worm. Again, precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.
(Your off topic)

Please answer my queries and makes comments on my application.
Stick only the AA sequence of each UbX protein of these four organisms.
Thank you Barbarian.

Shalom

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said: "He did better than that. As St. Augustine wrote, God created the world with the capacity to develop according to His will"

Augustine was just a man where do we find this statement in scripture?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. Ubx is homologous. The entire protein is homologous in each of these.

What do you mean ?

Ubx in each of these organisms is modified, but still Ubx. And since the modifications sort out to show evolutionary lineages predicted by other lines of evidence, we can use this homology to confirm those predictions
Again, I would like you to define what you think "homologous" and "analogous" mean.

I have no idea?

You were using the terms, so I'd just like to know what you think they mean

Please explain the terms, using Amino Acids and the Ubx protein....

Analogous features are those that have the same function, but are not derived from the same things. The bacterial and the eukaryote flagella, for example. Homologous features are those that are derived from the same thing, but may or may not have the same function. Bird and insect wings, are an example,as are the different versions of Ubx.

Is it necessary, your introducing jargon ?

Picture trying to explain the process of getting a home loan, without using "credit rating", "bank", "mortgage", "interest rate", and so on. You could do it, but you would take a much longer time, and be much less precise.

Regarding the question of whether or not a point mutation affects Ubx:
Depends. If it changes the shape of an active site, yes.

Isn't that the job of a functional Ubx protein, to change the regulation of gene sites?

The point is whether or not a single mutation will change the activity of Ubx. Many of them won't.

If not, unlikely to cause any change of function. There are numerous homologues of cytochrome C, for example, from bacteria to animals, and it seems to all work the same; essentially interchangeable.

Please stick to Ubx for these four organism please...child/teacher remember ?

Evidence from examples is important, if you want to understand.

Yep. The differences are predicted by evolutionary theory.

Again we are talking only about the McGinnis diagram ...OK ?

Yep. Go back and look at the entire strand you posted. The phylogeny derived from your evidence (number of differences) shows the two insects to be most closely related, the insects and the crustacean to be more closely related to each other than any is to the velvet worm. Precisely what evolutonary theory predicts.

Ok here is the first 16 Amino Acids (AA) of each Ubx protein. What can you predict from that ?

The shorter the strand, the less you can determine. Hence your lower amount of evidence only shows arthropods alike to the exclusion of velvet worms, while longer strands also distinguish insects from crustaceans.

The shrimp, fly and mozzie share the same 12 AA...? big deal....we are talking about Ubx protein aren't we ?

"Homologous" doesn't necessarily mean "identical." And in this case, they aren't.

Shouldn't the protein be basically the same shape for all organisms needing HOX gene regulation?

If you want them to develop identically. Otherwise not.

One could predict the AA sequence should be the same for all species of fruit fly, and all species of mozzie and all species of shrimp and all species of worm.

Not the case. There are significant differences, and even some noncoding sequences in some species of fruit flies:
A comprehensive survey across the proximal half of the bithorax complex has now revealed nine distinct noncoding RNA transcripts, including four within the Ultrabithorax transcription unit. At the blastoderm stage, the noncoding transcripts collectively span ∼75% of the 135 kb surveyed. Recombination-mediated cassette exchange was used to invert the promoter of one of the noncoding RNAs, a 23-kb transcript from the bxd domain of the bithorax complex. The resulting animals fail to make the normal bxd noncoding RNA and show no transcription across the bxd Polycomb Response Element in early embryos. The mutant flies look normal; the regulation of the bxd domain appears unaffected. Thus, the bxd noncoding RNA has no apparent function.
Noncoding RNAs of the Ultrabithorax Domain of the Drosophila Bithorax Complex
Genetics December 1, 2013 vol. 195 no. 4

If small changes exist one could argue that's due to mutations, but under Creation model, no Ubx protein should be radically different within a "kind of organism".

Many things that science has discovered quickly become claimed to be part of the "creation model", but only aftere the fact. It would be more convincing you could show us a prediction for Ubx before this was known.

Under the Evolution model, Ubx proteins should be radically different for all species and even organisms related to each other within Biblical kinds.

You've been misled by that; an early prediction of evolutionary theory is that organisms that are closely related should have very similar genes. One of the major frustrations for creationists, is their inability to explain why this should be so only in cases of homology, but not for analogous features.

There are over dozen of fruit fly in nature how different is each species of fruit fly Ubx AA sequence ?

Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Differences, but less with the order than within insecta. And less within insecta than within arthropodia.

If we take each organism and count the number of differences between that organism and the others (as other scientists do, tracing human ancestry) we find that we get a distribution showing that the fly and the mosquito (both insects) are most closely related. Then the brine shrimp and the insects (all arthropods) are more closely related to each other, than any is to the velvet worm (an onychophoran).

Your saying the pattern for each Ubx AA sequence?

I think you're missing a verb there.

The fly and mozzie should have similar patterns of Ubx AA sequence ?

Evolutionary theory predicts closely related species should be more alike sequences. And they are.

If this continues, we could show that all of them (protostomes) are more closely related to each other than any of them is to a vertebrate (a deuterostome).

(no jargon please )

If you want to talk about biology, you're going to have to learn the terminology.

Picture a tree with mosquito and fly on the same forked twig. Then the twig on the same branch as the brine shrimp. And the branch on the same major limb as the velvet worm. Again, precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

(Your off topic)

Probably a bad decision for you to bring it up, then.

 

[Barbarian]

He did better than that. As St. Augustine wrote, God created the world with the capacity to develop according to His will

Augustine was just a man

And a rather good theologian. He recognized that God left some things in His creation, not listed in scripture, for us to see and understand His power and majesty.

where do we find this statement in scripture?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[turnorburn]

That scripture speaks to creation and creationists.. everything we need to know is written in Gods word, not books and ideas put forth by man..

tob