Hox genes and different taxa

I wonder if anyone is familiar with what kind of changes of the hox genes that are responsible for a new family, order or class to evolve? Ive heard that changes in the downstream region of hox genes is caracteristic for species within a family. For different families in the same order, for example dogs, cats or bears, Ive heard that it is mutations within the hox genes themselves. What about bigger morphological differences, such as whales and artiodactyles? What differs there?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have to say that I am unaware of any such clear relationship between HOX genes and taxonomic levels. It is by no means a given that the formation of a species or family would require any modification of the HOX genes at all.Most of the well established data linking the HOX genes to evolution are focused more on the duplication of the entire cluster (Wagner, 2003) or on changes in the regulatory elements (Santini, 2003) although there is some work on more functional changes (Grenier, 2000).Certainly changes in clusteumber or the loss of whole genes are likely to be associated with larger scale morphological differences than small changes in expression governed by regulatory elements, but I don't think the relationship is anythin like as clear cut as you seem to think.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-18-2004 02:41 AM

Interesting suggestion though... somebody might come up with the idea of using Hox genes to define phylum/class/higher taxa.

I had resolved that in the past into the Fibbinonci like patterns of annular apodian scale doublets that result in different actual lineage claims by Michigan vs French anantomists WITHIN Crozat's notion of how a cell cuts but I have not been impressed with Gould Double Wing extension phylogenetically to a larger segement ontogenically that I would guess that is evo prejudice but I might be wrong.My guess would be that Biologists will start to fail as much as Drug Discovers (will)(if that is not already apparent) as they afford more information content to protein dynamics and less money towards increasing the mathematical sophistication of any mass of students you might equate taxogenically to any non-primate clade. Computers will only go -so far- automatonly to solution and though we have not reached this point, larger religious issues have appeared globally DURING THE SAME TIME population knowledge has been replaced research wise with molecular conditions.

Could you clarify what you ment, Brad!

You're new here aren't you? For Brad, that is clear.

This pertains to evolution of bats. BMP2 is not a hox gene, but it still is important as a 'morphological initiator' in development, and is thus relatively 'high up' in the heirarchy of developmental genes, of which the hox family(-ies) are penultimate...I feel that mutations in hox genes and other heirarchical developmental 'switch' genes may provide an important genetic basis to punctuated equilibrium events. I'm not assuming or attempting to overstate the importance of P.E. I just feel that it has a place in modern evolutionary theory in conjunction with 'gradualistic' processes, depending on the ecological contexts. They are, after all, not inherently mutually exclusive.EurekAlert! Science News ReleasesThis message has been edited by Darwin Redux, 11-22-2004 03:28 AMThis message has been edited by Darwin Redux, 11-22-2004 03:29 AM

I'd get ready to be jumped on if I were you DR. I once made a similar point in passing about developmental genes allowing quasi-saltational morphological change being connected to punctuated equilibrium, and was given chapter and verse in no uncertain terms about how PE is simply TTFN,WK

Thanks for the buffer Ned, but I know Z from HIS OWN BARAMIN Board!
http://EvC Forum: Invitation to group about created kinds. -->EvC Forum: Invitation to group about created kinds.
Zar, I will get back to you, but first I am "taking apart" Gould's use of PLANT SAP (in my mind) as directional as to *any* change in his promotion of hoxology in his book "Structure Of Evolutionary Theory" as to plants no matter the animal. I will give you a better take on it indeed, but, later. The highest hierachical layer will only be the cell however in what I write on this specifically. There are possible alternatives populationally that I might not be commenting on in this regard.

A little about about me.I started here as a creationist. I think it was early or middle 2002. In the late 2002 when I checked things up at ncbi after a few discussions and I was also reminded of biogeography I switched rather gradually. I called myself Convince-me here and at a group on MSN. First I could imagine 50.000-100.000 years and now the whole 4,6 billion years of time. Since the spring 2003, I believe in both God and evolution.2001-2002 I also discussed creation on Yahoo groups. My name there was "Bovinae".There is appearently a single baramin!

If the transfinite DOMAIN IS NOT - more than ONE:I:NTERVAL Morphometrically,,, then indeed! I might agree with you provided an L-measure
Henri Lebesgue - Wikipedia
be findable in the disconinuty per reproductive connection, else I must consequently agree to disagree (as I will), with Mammuthus;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that GOULD was likely ^more^ mistaken than JAD is wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I disagree. While Gould and PE at some level may be wrong or eventually found to be wrong, it is a testable hypothesis that was developed to explain an observed phenomenon. What JAD proposed does not explain

quote:

---

an observed

---

phenomenon. He merely chose to ignore decades of published research and claim that it does not exist. He brought no supporting evidence for his hypothesis. Only out of context quotes and personal attacks against his opposition. In this light, Gould and Eldredge performed much better and is why PE is debated among scientists and PEH is not considered worth the paper or hard drive space it is stored on.

see @
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information
over just WHAT was being observed tangentially at least for all prefixed physics that we debate morally at most such as in I didnt see this debate so I dont know if I, BSM, have performed any better. BencipONENINE has correctly noticed that I USE uncoordinated relations which would fall into Mammuthus', "unobserved" category in general.Of course I agree with you no matter what the purple is not navy blue.

Z

quote:

---

wonder if anyone is familiar with what kind of changes of the hox genes that are responsible for a new family, order or class to evolve? Ive heard that changes in the downstream region of hox genes is

---

I will still do a little better job with Gould's interpretation of hoxology if you like but he introduces his understanding of the series or sequences bodily by referencing Arabidopsis & Goethe to a profit he thinks is tuned. I dont think so. His understanding of hox genes either "up" stream or DOWN does depend on his being able to bring both plants and animals into his "tripod". I dont think he suceeded, so if I was correct about this I guess some of the data from the differences of effects up and down will continue to "be" in my favor. I am suspecting all of these things BECAUSE Gould had not worked up apoptosis and THERE ARE REASONS to think that this can be DIFFERENT in plants and animals.Z

quote:

---

caracteristic for species within a family. For different families in the same order, for example dogs, cats or bears, Ive heard that it is mutations within the hox genes themselves. What about bigger morphological differences, such as

Replies to this message:
Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 11-18-2004 02:40 AM
Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2004 11:01 AM
Message 8 by Darwin Redux, posted 11-22-2004 03:27 AM

---

quote:

---

Posts: 852
From: Dundee, Scotland

​

I have to say that I am unaware of any such clear relationship between HOX genes and taxonomic level.

---

AND THIS IS HOW IT COULD STILL BE UNCLEAR:
Gladyshev HAS OPENED UP
"Therefore, each partial evolution is a process of self-assembly (i) for the substance of variable composition in an open non-stationary system (j). "
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
and Grehan has CLEARED UP
"tools that panbiogeography can provide a spatial context for "
Page not found - Buffalo Museum of Science
but here at EvC Sidelined still was writing:
"As an atheist I do not personally have any problem with you believing in pink unicorns orbiting Saturn just don't give us the impression that you have any means of showing us evidence that such a thing exists without having an arguement that can be investigated.
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."
http://EvC Forum: Dawkins' Preachings -->EvC Forum: Dawkins' Preachings I think this of WK IS CORRECT. WE JUST DONT KNOW.As you know I, BSM, said::

quote:

---

I would guess that is evo prejudice but I might be wrong.

---

The only way around the fact/opinion crossed sideline eyes as I can see it, is to let Creationism get "ripped" to shhhreads.. in a few days as Nosy said; but in the process DOING this opening and clearing of Croizat and Gladyshev. BUT WE NEED THE AFFIMATIVE TOOL. We dont have it.Obvioulsy better math skills among biologists whether gained by detailing creation/evolution issues or bulding comptuer tools would benefit reaching a true answer.So we COULD get BY accepting provisionally macrothermodyNamics Darwinized and Nelson submarined.see again,Platnick and Nelson (1988: 417) admit they may have been wrong in their earlier supposition of panbiogeography and cladistics being interrelated in the form of vicariance biogeography as expressed in Nelson's (1973) view that tracks are phylogenetic trees mapped according to the criterion of a minimal geographical spread. It is this mapping of phylogenetic trees according to the minimum distance criterion that is usually missing from vicariance cladistic analysis and is certainly absent from Seberg's (1988) study of Oreobolus. Expressing their dismay at the thought of cladistics being subsumed within panbiogeography as a source of taxa for spatial analysis by way of minimum spanning trees or as a source of evidence for orientation of such structures, Platnick and Nelson (1988: 417) assert it is false to affirm difference and to deny sameness of anything. They also express a concern for systematics being able to contribute to biogeography in a way that goes beyond writing checklists for biogeographers who insist that biogeographic endeavors have nothing whatever to do with systematists and insist that systematics is so narrow a field of specialization that it is irrelevant to biogeography except as a purveyor of fact.
Page not found - Buffalo Museum of ScienceThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-04-2004 11:42 AM

quote:

---

I called myself Convince-me here...

---

OK, an often considered serious breach of forum guidelines - But thanks for coming clean now.For the record:
The Convince-me message indexI think the Convince-me/ZAURUZ creationist to evolutionist story merits a topic of its own. Much better than scattering bits and pieces of it all over the place (at this and other forums).Cheers,
Moose (the non-admin mode)This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-11-2004 05:01 PM

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution II forum.