"Landmark discoveries between 1978 and 1984 showed the reality of a common genetic basis prescribing how similar structures could be built across diverse groups of organisms.
Genes with regulatory and developmental functions responsible for core basic-design patterns in developing embryos are called Hox genes (a contraction of longer descriptive words, homeotic and homeobox).
--This astounding finding was so opposite to the evolutionists’ notions that it clearly constitutes a spectacular blunder on their part.
Evolutionary developmental biologist Sean Carroll describes the implications of the stunning details:
"When the sequence of these homeoboxes were examined in detail, the similarities among species were astounding. Over the 60 amino acids of the homeodomain, some mice and frog proteins were identical to the fly sequences at up to 59 out of 60 positions. Such sequence similarity was just stunning. The evolutionary lines that led to flies and mice diverged more than 500 million years ago, before the famous Cambrian Explosion that gave rise to most animal types. No biologist had even the foggiest notion that such similarities could exist between genes of such different animals. The Hox genes were so important that their sequences had been preserved throughout this enormous span of animal evolution.
The discovery that the same sets of genes control the formation and pattern of body regions and body parts with similar functions (but very different designs) in insects, vertebrates, and other animals has forced a complete rethinking of animal history, the origins of structures, and the nature of diversity. Comparative and evolutionary biologists had long assumed that different groups of animals, separated by vast amounts of evolutionary time, were constructed and had evolved by entirely different means."
Yet evolutionists remain closed-minded to an explanation of the Hox genes’ origination by a common designer. They need not concede they were greatly mistaken in their predictions, they were merely “stunned” at the appearance of new, unexpected evidence for evolution (in their reworked, conveniently fluid evolutionary story, that is).
Yet, the only “evidence” that Hox genes can be “preserved throughout this enormous span of animal evolution” is the belief that life evolved from a common ancestor. All of the stories about convergence get promptly scrapped. Firmly held prior accounts like convergent evolution are run through the magic tunnel of evolutionary belief, and, voila, Hox genes somehow instantly turn into “preserved” ancient DNA, which is now used—with equivalent certainty—as evidence of common ancestry.
Q: Could it be that Hox genes are the “smoking gun” of common design expected by supporters of intelligent design for decades?
-Q:-Consider this—if engineers were tasked to investigate for common design in any other area, how would they proceed?
--They would study various sets of plans and specifications, identify any common features, and verify if there was, in fact, common underlying information.
Genetic research has identified this common information across diverse groups of organisms prescribing traits with the same general function. In other areas of research, this fact would be ascribed to common engineering instructions.
--Evolutionary theory predicted the complete opposite of common underlying information for similar traits. The fact that it was dogmatically taught as evidence for evolution and later found to be profoundly wrong catalogs it as a spectacular blunder and makes its teaching misguided at best. This repressed prediction-evidence mismatch is connected to ever-changing evolutionary explanations like “convergence” or “conservation/common ancestry.” These come across scientifically as a mishmash of improvised, after-the-fact stories aimed at forcing observations into an evolutionary paradigm.
Creationists can say with credibility that in creatures as diverse as bacteria, insects, and humans the same genetic information controls the formation and utilization of many key anatomical or molecular structures observed to be performing broadly similar functions.
Applying organism-focused, design-based analysis to biological phenomena brings great clarity to our understanding of life. A compelling case is made that these are clearly the common designs creationists have been looking for the last 200 years."
ICR
