Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/krauthammers_id_strawman.html ^

Posted on 11/22/2005 7:58:24 PM PST by truthfinder9

Charles Krauthammer's syndicated essay against intelligent design ran opposite mine in today's Seattle Times. The piece is full of problems, which Tom Gilson and Lawrence Seldon explore in loving detail here and here.

Now I would have framed a couple of points in their otherwise fine analysis a little differently. In one place, Gilson describes agnostic David Berlinski as an ID proponent. It would be more precise to call Berlinski a Darwin skeptic and friendly critic of design theory. Also, Seldon writes that Krauthammer "rants about Dover and Kansas ... writing out of ignorance and knocking down a straw man." To be generous, I would have said that Krauthammer "writes calmly and authoritatively out of ignorance, knocking down a straw man."

I'm rooting for Krauthammer to do his homework and, like British philosopher Antony Flew, change his mind.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bibleidolatrycult; creation; crevolist; design; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; junkscience; kansas; krauthammer; moonysinmortarboards; science; scienceeducation; snakehandlersindrag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: cookcounty

[...Secularist societies have killed more people than all the religious societies put together...]

Excellent Smithers. The beginning of the decline of Western civilization may have its marker in the Scopes decision.


51 posted on 11/22/2005 10:27:34 PM PST by Jo Nuvark (The Koolaid can easily be avoided. It is RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

And if I might add. . .

Doesn't it take a lot more faith to believe that this was all an accident of (what is the current guesstimate) 25 million years than it takes to have faith in a Creator?


52 posted on 11/22/2005 10:34:59 PM PST by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Badray

Uh... and how old is the sun?


53 posted on 11/22/2005 10:41:17 PM PST by Jo Nuvark (The Koolaid can easily be avoided. It is RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
knowing how it happened is not going to get me into Heaven

Yes, but you don't want to trust a weak BS theory over what God clearly says.

54 posted on 11/22/2005 10:49:06 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I'm starting to wonder how conservative Krauthammer truly is.


55 posted on 11/22/2005 10:50:54 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
["Well, at least the "darwin fundies" tend to have science and data behind them."]

And the best they can do is say that the fossil record supports the ToE.

This is a lie, and you *know* it's a lie -- you've been shown links to the vast amount of data from multiple independently cross-confirming other lines of evidence as well, such as the overwhelming molecular data (DNA and otherwise). The fossil record is just the *tip* of the huge iceberg of evidence for evolution.

Please explain why you're purposely lying like that.

We've been told time and again that you can't "prove" anything in science, (see I've been listening)

...but not understanding...

so they can't really tell us it's a fact

Yes we can.

or that Creation didn't happen because they don't KNOW that God DIDN'T create the universe and use evolution.

Where do you hallucinate that we ever did make such a claim?

Come back when you're able to *honestly* discuss our position.

56 posted on 11/22/2005 10:58:33 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
The Hebrew calendar says the creation days were 24 hours long. No longer.

Does the BIBLE? if not, to content absolutely that creation days were 24 hours long is not Biblically sound ... Hebrew calendar is not the Bible it a tradition of men...

Even 6 24 hours day is creation not SUDDENLY..."Beginning and finish of creation in the same moment... 6 24 hours day is still a lenght of time

The Bible is the true word of God ... tradition of men is is not...

57 posted on 11/22/2005 11:02:14 PM PST by tophat9000 (lose 3000 in an hour and you want to fight, lose 2000 in 2 years and you want to run !???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
DNA... the code.

Okay, so?

My daughter is a genetic anomaly. She cannot procreate because the genetic code is mutated. She is a 45 XO or a Turner.

I'm sorry to hear that, but this does nothing to invalidate evolutionary biology. The fact that there are certain kinds of mutations which can prevent fertility (or cause early death, etc.) in no way demonstrates what you're tyring to imply -- that *all* mutations are dead ends. That is simply not the case, and has been well known for centuries.

A mule is also sterile because the dna code is broken.

No, sorry, that's not why mules are sterile.

Nature takes care of mutations.

Nature takes care of *harmful* mutations. On the other hand, nature *enhances* the reproduction of beneficial mutations.

They stop at once.

Only the severely harmful ones. Please don't make blanket claims about biology when you clearly don't have any kind of background in it.

A cat makes another cat. Period.

Evolutionary change is a reality. Period.

A bird cannot make a reptile.

No one claimed that they would. In fact, birds came from reptiles, not vice versa.

The deviancy in the genetic code won't allow it.

This is quite simply incorrect.

For material which addresses the several fallacies you've made in your argument, see:

29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent

Evolution FAQs

Index to Creationist Claims


58 posted on 11/23/2005 12:08:09 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
[Evolution has nothing to do with either the creation of the world, or the creation of life.]

However that is what many are taught...

Really? Where? Be specific.

In fact I do believe the book is called "Origin of Species" not Differencing of Species...

Wow, hairsplitting word quibbles as a cheap attempt to "prove" that the author was saying something different than what he really wrote -- how lame.

The first life would be the first "Species" therefore Origin of Species would imply Origin of life...

No, it wouldn't, except in that goofy word-lawyering way you're trying to use to twist what Darwin actually clearly wrote about...

Why don't you try to make your case, if you can, on the *actual* content of the book instead of how you can dance around the words of the title by misapplying definitions?

evolution theory does not allow for any non-evolution creation of any Species/Life ...does it?

Of course it does. Just how ignorant are you?

Hint: The *majority* of American evolutionists are Christians.

Hint #2: Here's a passage from the conclusion of Darwin's book:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Darwin *quite* clearly differentiated the processes of his own theory, versus whatever it was that "breathed" life into the first living things, which he did *not* speculate or theorize about. Nor is Darwinian evolution in any way dependent upon the origins of life itself -- evolution occurs whenever life is present, *wherever* it may have originated from.

...because if it did then ID is back in the mix to create the very first life that is designed to survive and improve itself...I.E "evolution" is designed in to it's program

That's one possible hypothesis, of course. Feel free to present any evidence you think you may have for it.

But don't misrepresent evolutionary biology.

59 posted on 11/23/2005 12:24:09 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine
Ok - here's your math.
From http://expertpages.com/news/dna.htm:
    All the human chromosomes taken together contain about 3 billion
    base pairs from an alphabet of the 2 bases of  or :
 
 	2 ^ (3 * 10^9)	= 10 ^ (3 * 10^9 / Log2(10))
			= 10 ^ (3 * 10^9 / 3.3)
			= 10 ^ (0.9 * 10^9)
So there are about "ten to the .9 billion" different DNA combinations
possible, with DNA the size of a humans.

From http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=342:
    Mass of Universe: 3 x 10^55 gram, 

Large subatomic particles (Neutrons and protons) per gram:
6.022 x 10^23 (Avogadro's Constant)

The number of large subatomic particles (protons and neutrons)
in the universe (if all mass in the universe were such particles)
is approximately 3 x 10^55 x 6.022 x 10^23, or 1.8 ^ 10^79.

A chromosome is a few nanometers across -- let's say one nanometer.
Light travels at 3 * 10^8 meters per second.  There are about
1/32 billion seconds in a year, and the universe is perhaps 15
billion years old.  So a computer fast enough to have
one cycle in the time it took like to travel across the width
of a single chromosome, running continuously for the life of the
universe would execute the following number of cycles:
	1/32 * 10^9 * 15 * 10^9 * 3 * 10^8 * 10^9 = 1.4 * 10^35 cycles.

So replacing every large subatomic particle with a computer capable
of computing, composing and testing the viability of some random
combination of human DNA in the time it took light to travel across
a gene, that ran for the life of the known universe, would result
in testing about 1.4 * 10^35 * 1.8 * 10^79 = 2.52 * 10^114  = 10^114.4
different DNA combinations being tried.

There are 10 ^ (0.9 * 10^9) combinations to try.

So we would need to have 10 ^ (0.9 * 10^9 - 114.4) = 10 ^
899999885 Universes before such a universe of ultra fast
computers tried all DNA combinations.  That's a billion billion
billion ... billion (repeated 100 million times) universes, each
containing a billion billion ... billion (repeated 9 times)
computers, each fast enough to calculate a billion billion
cycles per second (about a billion times faster than your
PC), running for the entire 15 billion year life of a typical
Universe, computing and testing for viability an entire DNA
sequence once each cycle, to find your DNA and recognize its
viability as a human.

That is infinitesmally small.
60 posted on 11/23/2005 12:38:25 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
The Evolution v Creation argument may be the undoing of civilization.

Yeah. Right. Sure.

If we deny that we are created beings (a creation must have a Creator), we have no accountability and an excuse to behave badly.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Even absent a creator, we still have accountability to others in our society. Behave badly, and pretty soon you're going to get the crap kicked out of you (literally or figuratively) -- and excuses about "it's in my nature" aren't going to fly.

If kin to apes, our primal desires to murder and breed are then instinctual.

...and so are our "primal desires" for cooperation, family and community bonds, love, caring for and protecting our children, defending our peers, etc. etc.

You really haven't thought this through at all, have you?

We are without guilt and free to roam and do as we please.

Horse manure. Even *apes* feel guilt, and fail to act as hedonistically and unrestrained as you ignorantly assume they "should". Get a clue.

Even apes understand that that sort of behavior is a recipe for disaster. And humans have even more of an ability to use their minds to understand why short-term selfish gains are *not* worthwhile or desirable strategies in the long run. Instead, cooperation, mutual altruism, "golden rule" ethics, and so on are vastly more effective ways to enhance even your *own* net benefits in a society, as well as the welfare of others. It's a win-win situation.

Duh. Even *apes* figure this out pretty fast as they grow up. What's *your* excuse?

Promiscuous sex, unwanted pregnancy, abortion (murder). The decline of the family... the decline of civilization.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

Tell me, if it were somehow proven tomorrow that there wasn't a creator after all, would *you* suddenly start raping, killing, and pillaging? Yes or no? If Yes, shame on you, and you'd better have "fun" quick before you get shot or thrown in jail. If No, then realize you're not the only one with an actual brain and a conscience.

61 posted on 11/23/2005 12:39:07 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Mangled html - the phrase: should have been:
62 posted on 11/23/2005 12:44:17 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow

You do realize, I hope, the pointless of your 'calculations'? Or shall I spell it out for you?


63 posted on 11/23/2005 12:50:22 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Dr. K should stick to politics


64 posted on 11/23/2005 12:55:45 AM PST by Cincinna (HILLARY and her HINO want to take over your country. STOP THEM NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow; 2ndreconmarine
Ok - here's your math.

Well, it's "math" all right, but it models a really stupid scenario which has no resemblance at all to actual biological processes.

That is infinitesmally small.

Yes, and also infinitismally valid as a meaningful model of reality.

On top of *that*, it makes the common ad hoc probability fallacy. Here's an example just like yours about a more familiar process, in order to show how idiotic your math is:

There are 52! (52 factorial, or 52x51x50...x1) possible arrangements to a single deck of cards. Take a deck, shuffle it thoroughly, and spread the deck face up on the table. See that arrangement of cards you ended up with? The odds of getting that exact arrangement are an astronomically small 1 out of 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 -- it's a miracle!!!
Nice try.

Sorry, son, but all your "math" has demonstrated is that it you were randomly shuffling DNA like a deck of cards, the odds of producing someone's specific genome from scratch (and which one? Not counting identical twins, everyone's DNA is *different*) are astronomically low. But so freaking what? No one ever suggested that human life came about by *shuffling*. That's highly idiotic.

Instead, human life has come about via evolutionary processes, which are *not* as pointless and unfocussed as shuffling. And for a taste of just how *much* evolution can speed up things over purely random processes like the one you *incorrectly* try to use as an analogy for evolutionary processes, here's an older post of mine:

Or are you one of those who insist that a room full of monkeys with keyboards can write the complete works of Shakespeare?

In theory? Yes they can, if you're willing to wait long enough (where "enough" is an amount of time that boggles the imagination). In practice (by simple random output)? No they can't.

But they can do it pretty quickly and easily if a replication and selection process is involved.

You wanted to see a calculation, so let's do one.

Consider the Shakespeare phrase, "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." That's 109 characters (including spaces and punctuation). Upper and lower case letters, plus digits and puntuaction, make up a pool of about 70 different characters. This means that the odds of producing the Shakespeare phrase in one random trial is 1 out of 70109, or 1 in 1,305,227,939,201,292,014, 528,313,176,276,968,928,001, 249,110,077,400,839,115,038, 451,821,150,802,274,449,576, 205,527,736,070,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.

Needless to say, that's a big number. It's so huge that if every atom in the universe (about 1080 of them) were a computer capable of making a billion (1,000,000,000) random trials per second, the expected time required to produce the above line from Shakespeare would be 2,585,011,097,170,911,314,802,759,827,024,569,612,393, 783,728,161,759,843,736,212,615,624,189,581,658,716,078, 309,043,891,309 times the expected lifespan of the universe. That's close enough to "never" in my book.

But that's for *purely* random production process. How much do you think an evolutionary process could cut down that figure? Knock a few zeros off the end, maybe?

Well let's try it. Using an evolutionary process, which couples random variation with replication and selection and *nothing* else, the above Shakespeare phrase can be produced on a *single* computer (mine), using a breeding population of 1024 character strings in a whopping... 15 seconds (using this applet):

Generation: 0
Tries <= 1024
Best Critter: "xSeOSEpc3Lm6rnRWnpFYL?QEDY7a67XlfRoJ0e8Len'X'1u'BhdrNqSNaXr7kVjondNozkf2CH9d96SaI?'f43M.CUGJ5XHbqfeR.UJP'tgNP"
Score (0 is best) 101

Generation: 100
Tries <= 26624
Best Critter: "vf,ioV c3RKlooioifBFQXh, PeHTskof!oJ0e,Lrn'X'1u BhkchESNaXr kVjo dNozpanSI div1Qwi8h taQ,jswMkk,us1S'ugYtmm7."
Score (0 is best) 72

[...]

Generation: 1115
Tries <= 286464
Best Critter: "If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me."
Score (0 is best) 0

Checked 286464 critters in 15 seconds == 19097 tries/sec.

Hmm, 15 seconds is a hell of a lot faster than zillions of times the lifespan of the universe, isn't it? Evolution sped things up (compared to a purely random process) by a factor of more than 10195 -- that's a "1" followed by a hundred and ninety-five zeros, or: 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

Lesson: Even simple evolutionary processes are *incredibly* more efficient and effective than simple randomness alone. Evolution can *easily* accomplish things which would be *impossibly* improbable by purely random means.

For further discussion of the many ways in which your analysis is flawed, see:

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs

65 posted on 11/23/2005 12:56:18 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
You do realize, I hope, the pointless of your 'calculations'? Or shall I spell it out for you?

I just spelled it out for him in my prior post.

66 posted on 11/23/2005 12:57:07 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
Dr. K should stick to politics

He is.

67 posted on 11/23/2005 1:00:50 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Yes, but you don't want to trust a weak BS theory over what God clearly says.

Funny, that's just what these folks were saying -- and they were dead wrong:

"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".
And:
"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
If the Vatican get get Scripture so freaking wrong when they read it, I have even less confidence in the textual interpretations of amateurs.

Here, ponder this:

"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by Biblical literalists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations." -- Galileo Galilei
Pop quiz: Who was right -- Galileo, learning from observation and evidence, or the Pope and his entire Church, relying on their reading of the text of the Bible?

Does the Sun actually revolve around the fixed Earth, as the Church was convinced the Bible clearly said?

68 posted on 11/23/2005 1:05:50 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Badray; truthfinder9
Doesn't it take a lot more faith to believe that this was all an accident of (what is the current guesstimate) 25 million years than it takes to have faith in a Creator?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't take any "faith" at all -- it takes evidence, research, knowledge, and understanding of the relevant processes.

Here, read this: Do You Believe In Evolution?

69 posted on 11/23/2005 1:08:07 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
That is exactly what I was trying to demonstrate.

Precisely. I agree. I have no such delusions that evolution is random card (or genome) shuffling. I was responding to another posters doubts (show me the math) to my claims that evolution wasn't simple random selection.

Though misread my intent, you did a nice job of taking my position one step further, and explaining how some more sensible form of evolution than just random shuffling can make dramatic improvements in the rate of advancement.

Thank-you.

70 posted on 11/23/2005 1:09:04 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

Yes I fully realize how pointless they are. That was my point ;).


71 posted on 11/23/2005 1:10:06 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow; 2ndreconmarine; PatrickHenry; AlexandriaDuke; Badray; Cicero; Cincinna; ...
We don't know how to explain say the design of an eyeball, as a scientifically possible evolution with any statistical chance of occurring in the span of ten trillion universes, even once, on one planet.

Sure we do -- have you bothered to actually *look* at the science journals before saying something like this?

So "we" don't know how to explain the origins of the eyeball, as an evolutionary scenario? Oooookay. Pull the other leg now:

Uncovering The Ancestry of A Complex Organ, The Eye

The Visual System II

The Evolution of Eyes

The Evolution of Color Vision

Life's Grand Design

Life's Grand Design (II)

How Could An Eye Evolve?

And those are just some pages for *laymen*. If you really want to get into the gritty details, read some actual journal articles on the subject, for example:
Cubozoan jellyfish: an Evo/Devo model for eyes and other sensory systems
To give a taste of the vast amount of research that has actually been published on this subject (which the creationists routinely falsely mischaracterize as as if nothing at all is actually known), consider:
ARENDT, D. and WITTBRODT, J. (2001). Reconstructing the eyes of Urbilateria. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 356: 1545-63.
BAKER, C.V. and BRONNER-FRASER, M. (2001). Vertebrate cranial placodes i. Embryonic induction. Dev Biol 232: 1-61.
BAKER, N.E. (2001). Master regulatory genes; telling them what to do. Bioessays 23: 763-6.
BALCZAREK, K.A., LAI, Z.C. and KUMAR, S. (1997). Evolution of functional diversification of the paired box (Pax) DNA-binding domains. Mol Biol Evol 14: 829-42.
BALL, E.E., HAYWARD, D.C., REECE-HOYES, J.S., HISLOP, N.R., SAMUEL, G., SAINT, R., HARRISON, P.L. and MILLER, D.J. (2002). Coral development: From classical embryology to molecular control. Int J Dev Biol 46: 671-8.
BOPP, D., BURRI, M., BAUMGARTNER, S., FRIGERIO, G. and NOLL, M. (1986). Conservation of a large protein domain in the segmentation gene paired and in functionally related genes of Drosophila. Cell 47: 1033-40.
BOUCHARD, M., SOUABNI, A., MANDLER, M., NEUBUSER, A. and BUSSLINGER, M. (2002). Nephric lineage specification by Pax2 and Pax8. Genes Dev 16: 2958 70.
CALLAERTS, P., MUNOZ-MARMOL, A.M., GLARDON, S., CASTILLO, E., SUN, H., LI, W.H., GEHRING, W.J. and SALO, E. (1999). Isolation and expression of a Pax6 gene in the regenerating and intact planarian Dugesia(G)Tigrina. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 558-63.
CAROSA, E., KOZMIK, Z., RALL, J.E. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (2002). Structure and expression of the scallop omega-crystallin gene. Evidence for convergent evolution of promoter sequences. J Biol Chem 277: 656-64.
CHI, N. and EPSTEIN, J.A. (2002). Getting your Pax straight: Pax proteins in development and disease. Trends Genet 18: 41-7.
COATES, M.M. (2003). Visual ecology and functional morphology of cubuzoa (cnidaria). Integr. Comp. Biol. 43: 542-548
CONANT, F.S. (1897). Notes on the cubomedusae. Johns Hopkins Univ CircNo. 132: 8-10.
CONWAY MORRIS, S. (2000). The cambrian «explosion»: Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 4426-9.
CVEKL, A. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1996). Lens development and crystallin gene expression: Many roles for Pax-6. Bioessays 18: 621-30.
CZERNY, T., BOUCHARD, M., KOZMIK, Z. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1997). The characterization of novel Pax genes of the sea urchin and Drosophila reveal an ancient evolutionary origin of the Pax2/5/8 subfamily. Mech Dev 67: 179-92.
CZERNY, T. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1995). DNA-binding and transactivation proper ties of Pax-6: Three amino acids in the paired domain are responsible for the different sequence recognition of Pax-6 and BSAP (Pax-5). Mol Cell Biol 15: 2858 71.
CZERNY, T., HALDER, G., KLOTER, U., SOUABNI, A., GEHRING, W.J. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1999). Twin of eyeless, a second Pax-6 gene of Drosophila, acts upstream of eyeless in the control of eye development. Mol Cell 3: 297-307.
CZERNY, T., SCHAFFNER, G. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1993). DNA sequence recognition by Pax proteins: Bipartite structure of the paired domain and its binding site. Genes Dev 7: 2048-61.
D’ALESSIO, G. (2002). The evolution of monomeric and oligomeric betagamma-type crystallins. Facts and hypotheses. Eur J Biochem 269: 3122-30.
DAVIS, J.A. and REED, R.R. (1996). Role of Olf-1 and Pax-6 transcription factors in neurodevelopment. J Neurosci 16: 5082-94.
DE JONG, W.W., HENDRIKS, W., MULDERS, J.W. and BLOEMENDAL, H. (1989). Evolution of eye lens crystallins: The stress connection. Trends Biochem Sci 14: 365-8.
DE JONG, W.W., LEUNISSEN, J.A. and VOORTER, C.E. (1993). Evolution of the alpha-crystallin/small heat-shock protein family. Mol Biol Evol 10: 103-26.
DORFLER, P. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1996). C-terminal activating and inhibitory domains determine the transactivation potential of BSAP (Pax-5), Pax-2 and Pax 8. EMBO J 15: 1971-82.
DOSE, A.C., HILLMAN, D.W., WONG, C., SOHLBERG, L., LIN-JONES, J. and BURNSIDE, B. (2003). Myo3A, one of two class III myosin genes expressed in vertebrate retina, is localized to the calycal processes of rod and cone photoreceptors and is expressed in the sacculus. Mol Biol Cell 14: 1058-73.
DUNCAN, M.K., CVEKL, A., KANTOROW, M. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (2004). Lens crystallins. In Development of the ocular lens, (ed. ROBINSON, M. L. and LOVICU, F. J.). Cambridge University Press, New York.
DUNCAN, M.K., HAYNES, J.I., 2ND, CVEKL, A. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1998). Dual roles for Pax-6: A transcriptional repressor of lens fiber cell-specific beta-crystallin genes. Mol Cell Biol 18: 5579-86.
EAKIN, R. (1979). Evolutionary significance of photoreceptors: In retrospect. American Zoologist 19: 647-653.
EAKIN, R.A.W., JA. (1962). Fine structrue of photoreceptors in the hydromedusan, Polyorchis penicillatus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 48: 826-833.
FRITZSCH, B. and BEISEL, K.W. (2001). Evolution and development of the vertebrate ear.Brain Res Bull 55: 711-21.
FRITZSCH, B. and BEISEL, K.W. (2003). Keeping sensory cells and evolving neurons to connect them to the brain: Molecular conservation and novelties in vertebrate ear development. In Development of the auditory and vestibular systems. Current topics in developmental biology, vol. 57 (ed. ROMAND, R. and VARELA-NIETO, I.), pp.1-48.
FU, W., DUAN, H., FREI, E. and NOLL, M. (1998). Shaven and sparkling are mutations in separate enhancers of the Drosophila Pax2 homolog. Development 125: 2943-50.
FU, W. and NOLL, M. (1997). The Pax2 homolog sparkling is required for development of cone and pigment cells in the Drosophila eye. Genes Dev 11: 2066-78.
GALLIOT, B. and SCHMID, V. (2002). Cnidarians as a model system for understanding evolution and regeneration. Int J Dev Biol 46: 39-48.
GEHRING, W.J. (2002). The genetic control of eye development and its implications for the evolution of the various eye-types. Int J Dev Biol 46: 65-73.
GEHRING, W.J. and IKEO, K. (1999). Pax 6: Mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution. Trends Genet 15: 371-7.
GLARDON, S., CALLAERTS, P., HALDER, G. and GEHRING, W.J. (1997). Conservation of Pax-6 in a lower chordate, the ascidian Phallusia mammillata. Development 124: 817-25.
GLARDON, S., HOLLAND, L.Z., GEHRING, W.J. and HOLLAND, N.D. (1998). Isolation and developmental expression of the amphioxus Pax-6 gene (AmphiPax6): Insights into eye and photoreceptor evolution. Development 125: 2701-10.
GLASER, T., WALTON, D.S. and MAAS, R.L. (1992). Genomic structure, evolutionary conservation and aniridia mutations in the human Pax6 gene. Nat Genet 2: 232-9.
GOPAL-SRIVASTAVA, R., CVEKL, A. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1996). Pax-6 and alphaB-crystallin/small heat shock protein gene regulation in the murine lens. Interaction with the lens-specific regions, LSR1 and LSR2. J Biol Chem 271: 23029-36.
GROGER, H., CALLAERTS, P., GEHRING, W.J. and SCHMID, V. (2000). Characterization and expression analysis of an ancestor-type Pax gene in the hydrozoan jellyfish Podocoryne carnea. Mech Dev 94: 157-69.
GROGER, H. and SCHMID, V. (2001). Larval development in cnidaria: A connection to bilateria? Genesis 29: 110-4.
HALDER, G., CALLAERTS, P. and GEHRING, W.J. (1995). Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science 267: 1788-92.
HANSON, I.M. (2001). Mammalian homologues of the Drosophila eye specification genes. Semin Cell Dev Biol 12: 475-84.
HAYWARD, D.C., SAMUEL, G., PONTYNEN, P.C., CATMULL, J., SAINT, R., MILLER, D.J. and BALL, E.E. (2002). Localized expression of a dpp/BMP2/4 ortholog in a coral embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 8106-11.
HEANUE, T.A., RESHEF, R., DAVIS, R.J., MARDON, G., OLIVER, G., TOMAREV, S., LASSAR, A.B. and TABIN, C.J. (1999). Synergistic regulation of vertebrate muscle development by Dach2, Eya2, and Six1, homologs of genes required for Drosophila eye formation. Genes Dev 13: 3231-43.
HILL, R.E., FAVOR, J., HOGAN, B.L., TON, C.C., SAUNDERS, G.F., HANSON, I.M., PROSSER, J., JORDAN, T., HASTIE, N.D. and VAN HEYNINGEN, V. (1991). Mouse small eye results from mutations in a paired-like homeobox- containing gene. Nature 354: 522-5.
HORRIDGE, G.A. (1969). Statocysts of medusae and evolution of stereocilia. Tissue & Cell 1: 341-353.
HORWITZ, J. (1992). Alpha-crystallin can function as a molecular chaperone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 10449-53.
HOSHIYAMA, D., SUGA, H., IWABE, N., KOYANAGI, M., NIKOH, N., KUMA, K., MATSUDA, F., HONJO, T. and MIYATA, T. (1998). Sponge Pax cDNA related to Pax-2/5/8 and ancient gene duplications in the Pax family. J Mol Evol 47: 640-8.
HYMAN, L. (1940). The invertebrates: Protozoa through ctenophora. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York.
INGOLIA, T.D. and CRAIG, E.A. (1982). Four small Drosophila heat shock proteins are related to each other and to mammalian alpha-crystallin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79: 2360-4.
JACOBSON, A.G. (1963a). The determination and positioning of the nose, lens and ear. I. Interactions within the ectoderm, and between the ectoderm and underlying tissues. J Exp Zool 154: 273-83.
JACOBSON, A.G. (1963b). The determination and positioning of the nose, lens and ear. Ii. The role of the endoderm. J Exp Zool 154: 285-91.
JACOBSON, A.G. (1963c). The determination and positioning of the nose, lens and ear. Iii. Effects of reversing the antero-posterior axis of epidermis, neural plate and neural fold. J Exp Zool 154: 293-303.
JARMAN, A.P. (2002). Studies of mechanosensation using the fly. Hum Mol Genet 11: 1215-8.
JARMAN, A.P., SUN, Y., JAN, L.Y. and JAN, Y.N. (1995). Role of the proneural gene, atonal, in formation of Drosophila chordotonal organs and photoreceptors. Development 121: 2019-30.
JORDAN, T., HANSON, I., ZALETAYEV, D., HODGSON, S., PROSSER, J., SEAWRIGHT, A., HASTIE, N. and VAN HEYNINGEN, V. (1992). The human PAX6 gene is mutated in two patients with aniridia. Nat Genet 1: 328-32.
KADOR, P.F., ZIGLER, J.S. and KINOSHITA, J.H. (1979). Alterations of lens protein synthesis in galactosemic rats. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18: 696-702.
KAMACHI, Y., UCHIKAWA, M., TANOUCHI, A., SEKIDO, R. and KONDOH, H. (2001). Pax6 and Sox2 form a co-DNA-binding partner complex that regulates initiation of lens development. Genes Dev 15: 1272-86.
KAVALER, J., FU, W., DUAN, H., NOLL, M. and POSAKONY, J.W. (1999). An essential role for the Drosophila Pax2 homolog in the differentiation of adult sensory organs. Development 126: 2261-72.
KLEMENZ, R., FROHLI, E., STEIGER, R.H., SCHAFER, R. and AOYAMA, A. (1991). Alpha B-crystallin is a small heat shock protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 3652 6.
KOSTROUCH, Z., KOSTROUCHOVA, M., LOVE, W., JANNINI, E., PIATIGORSKY, J. and RALL, J.E. (1998). Retinoic acid x receptor in the diploblast, Tripedalia cystophora. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 13442-7.
KOZMIK, Z., DAUBE, M., FREI, E., NORMAN, B., KOS, L., DISHAW, L.J., NOLL, M. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (2003). Role of Pax genes in eye evolution. A cnidarian PaxB gene uniting Pax2 and Pax6 functions. Dev Cell 5: 773-85.
KRALOVA, J., CZERNY, T., SPANIELOVA, H., RATAJOVA, V. and KOZMIK, Z. (2002). Complex regulatory element within the gammaE- and gammaF-crystallin enhancers mediates Pax6 regulation and is required for induction by retinoic acid. Gene 286: 271-82.
KRESLOVA, J., HOLLAND, L.Z., SCHUBERT, M., BURGTORF, C., BENES, V. and KOZMIK, Z. (2002). Functional equivalency of amphioxus and vertebrate Pax258 transcription factors suggests that the activation of mid-hindbrain specific genes in vertebrates occurs via the recruitment of Pax regulatory elements. Gene 282: 143 50.
KUMAR, J.P. and MOSES, K. (2001a). EGF receptor and Notch signaling act upstream of eyeless/Pax6 to control eye specification. Cell 104: 687-97.
KUMAR, J.P. and MOSES, K. (2001b). Eye specification in Drosophila: Perspectives and implications. Semin Cell Dev Biol 12: 469-74.
LAND, M.F. and NILSSON, D.-E. (2002). Animal eyes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
LASKA, V.G. and HUNDGEN, M. (1982). Morphologie und ultrastruktur der lichtsinnesorgane von Tridpedalia cystophora Conant (Cnidaria, Cubozoa). Zool. Jb. Anat. 108: 107-123.
LECHNER, M.S. and DRESSLER, G.R. (1996). Mapping of Pax-2 transcription activation domains. J Biol Chem 271: 21088-93.
LEYS, S.P., CRONIN, T.W., DEGNAN, B.M. and MARSHALL, J.N. (2002). Spectral sensitivity in a sponge larva. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol 188: 199-202.
LEYS, S.P. and DEGNAN, B.M. (2001). Cytological basis of photoresponsive behavior in a sponge larva. Biol Bull 201: 323-38.
LOOSLI, F., KMITA-CUNISSE, M. and GEHRING, W.J. (1996). Isolation of a Pax-6 homolog from the ribbonworm Lineus sanguineus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 2658-63.
MANSOURI, A., CHOWDHURY, K. and GRUSS, P. (1998). Follicular cells of the thyroid gland require Pax8 gene function. Nat Genet 19: 87-90.
MILLER, D.J., HAYWARD, D.C., REECE-HOYES, J.S., SCHOLTEN, I., CATMULL, J., GEHRING, W.J., CALLAERTS, P., LARSEN, J.E. and BALL, E.E. (2000). Pax gene diversity in the basal cnidarian Acropora millepora (cnidaria, anthozoa): Implications for the evolution of the Pax gene family. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 4475-80.
MONTELL, C. (2000). A PDZ protein ushers in new links. Nat Genet 26: 6-7.
NILSSON, D.E. and PELGER, S. (1994). A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 256: 53-8.
NIWA, N., HIROMI, Y. and OKABE, M. (2004). A conserved developmental program for sensory organ formation in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Genet 36: 293-7.
NOLL, M. (1993). Evolution and role of Pax genes. Curr Opin Genet Dev 3: 595-605.
NORDSTROM, K., WALLEN, R., SEYMOUR, J. and NILSSON, D. (2003). A simple visual system without neurons in jellyfish larvae. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270: 2349-54.
NORNES, S., MIKKOLA, I., KRAUSS, S., DELGHANDI, M., PERANDER, M. and JOHANSEN, T. (1996). Zebrafish Pax9 encodes two proteins with distinct c- terminal transactivating domains of different potency negatively regulated by adjacent N-terminal sequences. J Biol Chem 271: 26914-23.
NUTT, S.L., HEAVEY, B., ROLINK, A.G. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1999). Commitment to the B-lymphoid lineage depends on the transcription factor Pax5. Nature 401: 556-62.
O’BRIEN, E.K. and DEGNAN, B.M. (2002a). Developmental expression of a class IV POU gene in the gastropod Haliotis asinina supports a conserved role in sensory cell development in bilaterians. Dev Genes Evol 212: 394-8.
O’BRIEN, E.K. and DEGNAN, B.M. (2002b). Pleiotropic developmental expression of HasPOU-III, a class IIIpou gene, in the gastropod Haliotis asinina. Mech Dev 114: 129-32.
O’BRIEN, E.K. and DEGNAN, B.M. (2003). Expresson of Pax258 in the gastropod statocyst: Insights into the antiquity of metazoan geosensory organs. Evol Dev 5: 572-578.
PACKARD, A. (1972). Cephalopods and fish: The limits of convergence.Biol. Rev. 47: 241-307.
PAPATSENKO, D., NAZINA, A. and DESPLAN, C. (2001). A conserved regulatory element present in all Drosophila rhodopsin genes mediates Pax6 functions and participates in the fine-tuning of cell-specific expression. Mech Dev 101: 143-53.
PEARSE, J.S. and PEARSE, V.B. (1978). Vision of cubomedusan jellyfishes. Science 199: 458.
PFEFFER, P.L., GERSTER, T., LUN, K., BRAND, M. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1998). Characterization of three novel members of the zebrafish Pax2/5/8 family: Dependency of Pax5 and Pax8 expression on the Pax2.1 (noi) function. Development 125: 3063-74.
PIATIGORSKY, J. (1984). Delta crystallins and their nucleic acids. Mol Cell Biochem 59: 33-56.
PIATIGORSKY, J. (1992). Lens crystallins. Innovation associated with changes in gene regulation. J Biol Chem 267: 4277-80.
PIATIGORSKY, J. (1993). Puzzle of crystallin diversity in eye lenses. Dev Dyn 196: 267-72.
PIATIGORSKY, J. (2003a). Crystallin genes: Specialization by changes in gene regulation may precede gene duplication. J Struct Funct Genomics 3: 131-7.
PIATIGORSKY, J. (2003b). Gene sharing, lens crystallins and speculations on an eye/ear evolutionary relationship. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43: 492-499.
PIATIGORSKY, J., HORWITZ, J., KUWABARA, T. and CUTRESS, C.E. (1989). The cellular eye lens and crystallins of cubomedusan jellyfish. J Comp Physiol [A] 164: 577-87.
PIATIGORSKY, J., HORWITZ, J. and NORMAN, B.L. (1993). J1-crystallins of the cubomedusan jellyfish lens constitute a novel family encoded in at least three intronless genes. J Biol Chem 268: 11894-901.
PIATIGORSKY, J., NORMAN, B., DISHAW, L.J., KOS, L., HORWITZ, J., STEINBACH, P.J. and KOZMIK, Z. (2001). J3-crystallin of the jellyfish lens: Similarity to saposins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 12362-7.
PIATIGORSKY, J., O’BRIEN, W.E., NORMAN, B.L., KALUMUCK, K., WISTOW, G.J., BORRAS, T., NICKERSON, J.M. and WAWROUSEK, E.F. (1988). Gene sharing by delta-crystallin and argininosuccinate lyase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85: 3479 83.
PIATIGORSKY, J. and WISTOW, G. (1991). The recruitment of crystallins: New functions precede gene duplication. Science 252: 1078-9.
PIATIGORSKY, J. and WISTOW, G.J. (1989). Enzyme/crystallins: Gene sharing as an evolutionary strategy. Cell 57: 197-9.
PICHAUD, F. and DESPLAN, C. (2002). Pax genes and eye organogenesis. Curr Opin Genet Dev 12: 430-4.
PICHAUD, F., TREISMAN, J. and DESPLAN, C. (2001). Reinventing a common strategy for patterning the eye. Cell 105: 9-12.
PLAZA, S., DE JONG, D.M., GEHRING, W.J. and MILLER, D.J. (2003). DNA-binding characteristics of cnidarian Pax-C and Pax-B proteins in vivo and in vitro: No simple relationship with the Pax-6 and Pax-2/5/8 classes. J Exp Zoolog Part B Mol Dev Evol 299: 26-35.
QUIRING, R., WALLDORF, U., KLOTER, U. and GEHRING, W.J. (1994). Homology of the eyeless gene of Drosophila to the small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in humans. Science 265: 785-9.
RELAIX, F. and BUCKINGHAM, M. (1999). From insect eye to vertebrate muscle: Redeployment of a regulatory network. Genes Dev 13: 3171-8.
ROBERTS, D.G., LAMB, M.R. and DIECKMANN, C.L. (2001). Characterization of the EYE2 gene required for eyespot assembly in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Genetics 158: 1037-49.
ROLINK, A.G., NUTT, S.L., MELCHERS, F. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1999). Long-term in vivo reconstitution of t-cell development by Pax5-deficient B-cell progenitors. Nature 401: 603-6.
SCHWARZ, M., ALVAREZ-BOLADO, G., URBANEK, P., BUSSLINGER, M. and GRUSS, P. (1997). Conserved biological function between Pax-2 and Pax-5 in midbrain and cerebellum development: Evidence from targeted mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 14518-23.
SHENG, G., THOUVENOT, E., SCHMUCKER, D., WILSON, D.S. and DESPLAN, C. (1997). Direct regulation of rhodopsin 1 by Pax-6/eyeless in Drosophila: Evidence for a conserved function in photoreceptors. Genes Dev 11: 1122-31.
SIMPSON, T.I. and PRICE, D.J. (2002). Pax6; a pleiotropic player in development. Bioessays 24: 1041-51.
SINGLA, C.L. (1974). Ocelli of hydromedusae. Cell Tissue Res 149: 413-29.
SINGLA, C.L. (1975). Staocysts of hydromedusae. Cell Tissue Res 158: 391-407.
STARR, C.J., KAPPLER, J.A., CHAN, D.K., KOLLMAR, R. and HUDSPETH, A.J. (2004). Mutation of the zebrafish choroideremia gene encoding Rab escort protein 1 devastates hair cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 2572-7.
SUN, H., DICKINSON, D.P., COSTELLO, J. and LI, W.H. (2001). Isolation of Cladonema Pax-B genes and studies of the DNA-binding properties of cnidarian Pax paired domains. Mol Biol Evol 18: 1905-18.
SUN, H., RODIN, A., ZHOU, Y., DICKINSON, D.P., HARPER, D.E., HEWETTEMMETT, D. and LI, W.H. (1997). Evolution of paired domains: Isolation and sequencing of jellyfish and hydra Pax genes related to Pax-5 and Pax-6. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 5156-61.
TANG, H.K., SINGH, S. and SAUNDERS, G.F. (1998). Dissection of the transactivation function of the transcription factor encoded by the eye developmental gene Pax6. J Biol Chem 273: 7210-21.
TOMAREV, S.I., CALLAERTS, P., KOS, L., ZINOVIEVA, R., HALDER, G., GEHRING, W. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1997). Squid Pax-6 and eye development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 2421-6.
TOMAREV, S.I. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1996). Lens crystallins of invertebrates— diversity and recruitment from detoxification enzymes and novel proteins. Eur J Biochem 235: 449-65.
TON, C.C., HIRVONEN, H., MIWA, H., WEIL, M.M., MONAGHAN, P., JORDAN, T., VAN HEYNINGEN, V., HASTIE, N.D., MEIJERS-HEIJBOER, H., DRECHSLER, M. et al. (1991). Positional cloning and characterization of a paired box- and homeobox-containing gene from the aniridia region. Cell 67: 1059-74.
TORRES, M., GOMEZ-PARDO, E. and GRUSS, P. (1996). Pax2 contributes to inner ear patterning and optic nerve trajectory. Development 122: 3381-91.
TREISMAN, J., HARRIS, E. and DESPLAN, C. (1991). The paired box encodes a second DNA-binding domain in the paired homeo domain protein. Genes Dev 5: 594-604.
URBANEK, P., FETKA, I., MEISLER, M.H. and BUSSLINGER, M. (1997). Cooperation of Pax2 and Pax5 in midbrain and cerebellum development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94: 5703-8.
VAN HEYNINGEN, V. and WILLIAMSON, K.A. (2002). Pax6 in sensory development. Hum Mol Genet 11: 1161-7.
VERPY, E., LEIBOVICI, M., ZWAENEPOEL, I., LIU, X.Z., GAL, A., SALEM, N., MANSOUR, A., BLANCHARD, S., KOBAYASHI, I., KEATS, B.J. et al. (2000). A defect in harmonin, a PDZ domain-containing protein expressed in the inner ear sensory hair cells, underlies Usher syndrome type 1C. Nat Genet 26: 51-5.
WALSH, T., WALSH, V., VREUGDE, S., HERTZANO, R., SHAHIN, H., HAIKA, S., LEE, M.K., KANAAN, M., KING, M.C. and AVRAHAM, K.B. (2002). From flies’ eyes to our ears: Mutations in a human class III myosin cause progressive nonsyndromic hearing loss DFNB30. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 7518-23.
WEBER, C. (1981). Structure, histochemistry, ontogenetic development and regeneration of the ocellus of Cladonema radiatum dujardin (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae). J. Morphol. 161: 313-331.
WERNER, B., CHAPMAN, D.M, AND CUTRESS, C.E. (1976). Muscular and nervous systems of the cubopolyp (Cnidaria). Experientia 32: 1047-1048.
WERNER, B., CUTRESS, C.E. AND STUDEBAKER, J.P. (1971). Life cycle of Tripedalia cystophora Conant (Cubomedusae). Nature 232: 582-583.
WERTEN, P.J., ROLL, B., VAN AALTEN, D.M. and DE JONG, W.W. (2000). Gecko iota-crystallin: How cellular retinol-binding protein became an eye lens ultraviolet filter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 3282-7.
WES, P.D., XU, X.Z., LI, H.S., CHIEN, F., DOBERSTEIN, S.K. and MONTELL, C. (1999). Termination of phototransduction requires binding of the NINAC myosin III and the PDZ protein INAD. Nat Neurosci 2: 447-53.
WEST, J.A., SIVAK, J.G. and DOUGHTY, M.J. (1995). Microscopical evaluation of the crystalline lens of the squid (Loligo opalescens) during embryonic development. Exp Eye Res 60: 19-35.
WEST, J.A., SIVAK, J.G., PASTERNAK, J. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1994). Immunolocalization of S-crystallins in the developing squid (Loligo opalescens) lens. Dev Dyn 199: 85-92.
WISTOW, G. (1990). Evolution of a protein superfamily: Relationships between vertebrate lens crystallins and microorganism dormancy proteins. J Mol Evol 30: 140-5.
WISTOW, G.J. and PIATIGORSKY, J. (1988). Lens crystallins: The evolution and expression of proteins for a highly specialized tissue. Annu Rev Biochem 57: 479 504.
XU, H.E., ROULD, M.A., XU, W., EPSTEIN, J.A., MAAS, R.L. and PABO, C.O. (1999). Crystal structure of the human Pax6 paired domain-DNA complex reveals specific roles for the linker region and carboxy-terminal subdomain in DNA binding. Genes Dev 13: 1263-75.
XU, Q., WANG, Y., DABDOUB, A., SMALLWOOD, P.M., WILLIAMS, J., WOODS, C., KELLEY, M.W., JIANG, L., TASMAN, W., ZHANG, K. et al. (2004). Vascular development in the retina and inner ear: Control by Norrin and Frizzled-4, a high- affinity ligand-receptor pair. Cell 116: 883-95.
XU, W., ROULD, M.A., JUN, S., DESPLAN, C. and PABO, C.O. (1995). Crystal structure of a paired domain-DNA complex at 2.5 a resolution reveals structural basis for Pax developmental mutations. Cell 80: 639-50.
YAMASU, T. and YOSHIDA, M. (1976). Fine structure of complex ocelli of a cubomedusan, Tamoya bursaria Haeckel. Cell Tissue Res 170: 325-39.
ZUBER, M.E., GESTRI, G., VICZIAN, A.S., BARSACCHI, G. and HARRIS, W.A. (2003). Specification of the vertebrate eye by a network of eye field transcription factors. Development 130: 5155-67.
Perhaps creationists "don't know" how the eye evolved, but if so it's because they're not bothering to read the science journals before they make their pronouncements. Biologists actually know a great deal about how the eye evolved, in what stages, in what lineages, at what points in time, via what genetic and molecular changes, etc. etc. There's still a lot to discover yet, of course, but the usual creationist canard of "you guys don't know nothin' and have no evidence, it's all just guesswork" is a gigantic misrepresentation.

However the argument that "We don't know how it happened, so someone must have designed it" answers nothing for me. It just regresses the magic.

Bingo! Creationists like to offer "a designer did it" as an "explanation", but it actually *explains* nothing. An actual explanation would involve details as to processes, methods, materials, etc.

72 posted on 11/23/2005 1:38:58 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

My great grandmother who lived to the ripe old age of 102 always called it "Divine Design".

We all knew what she meant. We all agreed.

We also knew it is based on Faith, not on pseudo-science.

Science does not conflict with Faith. There are just some things that are "broader than the measure of the mind."


73 posted on 11/23/2005 1:47:01 AM PST by Cincinna (HILLARY and her HINO want to take over your country. STOP THEM NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; 2ndreconmarine; AlexandriaDuke; Badray; Cicero; Cincinna; Coyoteman; Ichneumon; ...
I'm rooting for Krauthammer to do his homework and, like British philosopher Antony Flew, change his mind.

Your links misrepresent Flew's "conversion", and "forget" to inform the reader that Flew has since retreated from his primary reasons for pondering the existence of a "designer". And Flew has never believed in anything resembling the Christian or Muslim god, as many creationist accounts like to imply.

For a more honest and complete (and more up to date) overview of Flew's position, see: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of

74 posted on 11/23/2005 1:56:46 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Now found in The List-O-Links, in the section SOME INCORRECT (BUT COMMON) CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS:

NEW Ichneumon's post 72 on eye evolution.

75 posted on 11/23/2005 4:37:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Excellant reply. Thanks.


76 posted on 11/23/2005 6:02:34 AM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie (Cowards cut and run...Marines never do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Charles is off the reservation on this one.


77 posted on 11/23/2005 6:04:01 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

So you're saying ID proponents won't "do" science the way that all the other researchers in the world do? That's the gist I get from you analogy.


78 posted on 11/23/2005 6:25:21 AM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jo Nuvark
If we deny that we are created beings (a creation must have a Creator), we have no accountability and an excuse to behave badly. If kin to apes, our primal desires to murder and breed are then instinctual. We are without guilt and free to roam and do as we please.
Promiscuous sex, unwanted pregnancy, abortion (murder). The decline of the family... the decline of civilization.

"Scientologists Creationists really believe this" pace South Park's John Smith

79 posted on 11/23/2005 6:33:22 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The Kraut is the man. Calling him ignorant displays ignorance.


80 posted on 11/23/2005 6:34:39 AM PST by Poser (Willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
However that is what many are taught...In fact I do believe the book is called "Origin of Species" not Differencing of Species...

19th Century authors favoured long titles with short words

Hence "On the Origin of Species" instead of "Speciation"

81 posted on 11/23/2005 6:40:05 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Evolutionary change is a reality.

Correction: "Evolutionary change" is a redundancy.

82 posted on 11/23/2005 6:52:06 AM PST by BlueYonder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Even if evolutionists could really "prove" (inasmuch as you can prove anything in science) evolution, then what? Their point is....?

Well, maybe filling in about 4.5 billion years of our history for a start.

83 posted on 11/23/2005 7:01:09 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine

[But the total publications from ID: ZERO]

Good Darwin Fundie Talking Point, but it's a lie. ID supporters have pusblished lists of their peer reviewed works. But you wouldn't know that, being a Darwin Fundamentalist.


84 posted on 11/23/2005 7:05:54 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
filling in about 4.5 billion years of our history

Roughly the age of the Earth. Are you saying that evolution accounts for history even before the Earth was habitable?

85 posted on 11/23/2005 7:09:16 AM PST by BlueYonder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

We know that God is the Author and Creator of the Universe, but we really don't know technicaly how he did it. Did he simply say the magic words and poof, everything appeared? Even Genesis doesn't support that, it supports that God did different things on different days. Why would God need to do this? God doesn't measure time is days, He is not bound by time.

Days are a human concept and the creation story is written in terms that men (and women) can understand. I believe that the first observations of God occur in observing His creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." Science is not the antithesis of religion, it is its first cousin. Christians who seek to reject science for religious reasons are just as short-sighted as scientists who attempt to prove that life began without a creator.


86 posted on 11/23/2005 7:18:17 AM PST by ShandaLear (Announcing you plans is a good way to hear God laugh. Al Swearengen, 1877óDeadwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; 2ndreconmarine
[But the total publications from ID: ZERO]
Good Darwin Fundie Talking Point, but it's a lie. ID supporters have pusblished lists of their peer reviewed works

The key is not the number of publications, but the number of citations

ID supporters can publish their works, peer review them to their hearts desire. But unless scientists think the content is useful enough to mention in their own papers, the IDeologues are just blowing smoke.

87 posted on 11/23/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
>Charles Krauthammer's Ignorant Essay on Design

So, Krauthammer writes
on Intelligent Design . . .
I guess, Real Soon Now,

we'll have Ann Coulter
and Pat Buchanan weigh in.
Those will be good reads . . .

88 posted on 11/23/2005 7:46:06 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Thanks for the references. They don't surprise me at all. Pretty obviously, when I wrote "we don't ..." I meant by we myself and the creationists to whom I was responding, not necessarily all humans. And obviously I had not looked for the science on this myself.

Sorry - I pulled a common ploy. When too lazy to look something up, state an outrageous claim to the contrary and let someone else have the fun of showing how wrong you were.

And I used another common rhetorical ploy. When you want to focus the readers attention on one of a couple of reasons they are wrong (the regressed magic, in this case) willingly grant without qualification the other points so as not to defocus the reader.

89 posted on 11/23/2005 7:53:53 AM PST by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Correction: The Genesis day is 24 hours. I misspoke to have said Hebrew Calendar. Please forgive. The Bible IS the true word of God. I am human, therefore I err.


90 posted on 11/23/2005 7:59:18 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (The Koolaid can easily be avoided. It is RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Ichneumon... Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

No matter how much of that evolutionary nonsense you throw at the wall, it still won't stick. You cannot ignore design. Look in the mirror, design is staring you in the face. Evolution does not work, no matter how many zero's you add to the age of the earth.

Further, we DO run amock. We ARE uncivilized. Why do you think we must have laws? The jungle order works because the jungle is full of animals. But, WE are human and without excuse.


91 posted on 11/23/2005 8:11:30 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Having to explain God is like having to point out the sun. (Ray Comfort))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9; longshadow; Ichneumon
Good Darwin Fundie Talking Point, but it's a lie. ID supporters have pusblished lists of their peer reviewed works. But you wouldn't know that, being a Darwin Fundamentalist.

No, sport, I would not know that because it is not on any of the standard publications databases. I do know where to find references in physics publications: the American Physical Society, I know where to find references on nuclear safeguards and NDA: the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management, I know where to find references on nuclear fusion, at Nuclear Fusion, and I know where to find references in Medicine and Biology, it is the National Institutes of Health PubMed database. Pretty much everyone knows that.

The simple, unarguable fact is that ID is missing from that database. Look for yourself.

So, if the IDers have published in recognized, peer-reviewed journals, instead of calling people liars, prove it by providing a reference. Post a list of publications. Give me search criteria at PubMed that will provide a list. Post the link to the search criteria at PubMed.

Produce something.

Now, just in anticipation of the quality of ID research, let me make a couple of restrictions. A paper authored by a Discovery Institute "scientist", peer reviewed by other Discovery Institute "scientists", and published in a journal that is published by the Discovery Institute does not count. That is not peer review and it is not a scientific publication. Moreover, when listing credentials, I am not interested in "Ph.D's" who received their degree from a mail order house. I am not interested in Ph.D's who received their degree as an honorary degree from the Discovery Institute. Moreover, I am not interested in papers that the Discovery Institute claims "imply" intelligent design, as their web site argues. Finally, I am not interested in papers on entirely different subjects than ID, but were published by people who subscribe to ID. The original issue was peer reviewed, published papers that support the ID thesis.

So, if you are really telling the truth, provide a list or provide a link to a list of real, peer reviewed papers published in support of ID. Given the demonstrated integrity of the Discovery Institute members, and the quality of intellect demonstrated by the 4 "essays" in your post, I won't hold my breath. (But I will enjoy reminding you on every subsequent post of yours I find).

92 posted on 11/23/2005 8:52:54 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

bookmark for later


93 posted on 11/23/2005 8:54:15 AM PST by Aloysius88 (tagline to be determined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; PatrickHenry; Junior
Sure we do -- have you bothered to actually *look* at the science journals before saying something like this?

Remind me never, ever, ever to get into an argument with you!!!!

LOL.

Fantastic post, as always.

94 posted on 11/23/2005 8:55:26 AM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Placemarker and plug for The List-O-Links.
95 posted on 11/23/2005 1:51:20 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

But the earth revolving around the sun is observable. And all evidence found in the earth points to special Creation (although I'm sure you disagree). :)


96 posted on 11/23/2005 3:46:39 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
But the earth revolving around the sun is observable.

It is? When and how, exactly, did you directly observe it doing that?

And all evidence found in the earth points to special Creation

In what way? How, for example, does the pattern of endogenous retroviruses across the vertebrate lineages point to special Creation? And how does it *not* actually indicate evolutionary origins via common descent, as the overwhelming majority of biologists (including the Christian ones) have concluded? Where is their mistake concerning that evidence, exactly?

Repeat the same questions for the SINE and LINE and Alu-repeat evidences. Then apply those questions to the evidence from synonymous SNPs, and to the evidence from synonymous protein substituions?

I'll wait for your answers to those before I ask more.

(although I'm sure you disagree). :)

I'm always open to new evidence which can be validated/falsified by the testing of the predictions it makes. What have you got?

97 posted on 11/23/2005 4:47:55 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Having faced death more than most folks...here is my take....not a bad notion because you only have to do it once.......


98 posted on 11/23/2005 4:53:58 PM PST by RVN Airplane Driver (Freedom isn't Free....never has been...never will be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
we'll have Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan weigh in.

Do you know where Ann stands on the debate? I've never heard her say.

99 posted on 11/23/2005 5:02:00 PM PST by Tim Long (I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

100


100 posted on 11/23/2005 5:29:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson