[tortoise]

Personally, I find it astonishing that the eye gene today was present in the earliest times, when it had no function. Not only do I not see how something which doesn't function could be a factor in the survival of the organism, the range of it at 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids is breathtaking!

I think you missed my point. There are a vast array of organic chemicals in biology that all could have been the basis for an eye. And in fact, many have non-eye uses in biology. A photo-reactive system in biology is not particularly remarkable in and of itself, and for there to be one over another seems to be pretty arbitrary to me.

My objection is to the idea that "eyes" are remarkable from a biochemical standpoint. I would actually assert that the neural systems behind the eye are for more intriguing and difficult to explain. I don't have a lot of context for Schroeder's position, I only find it odd that he focuses on one of the least remarkable aspects of the whole thing and tries to paint it as more remarkable than it actually is.

What I'm saying is that Schroeder is going to great length to say that the bear dances badly and ignores the remarkable fact that the bear dances at all. I don't really have a beef with Schroeder, just with his odd priorities and perception of "remarkability".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the clarification!!!

Nebullis and I have been mulling around Pax-6 and the import of it. You might be interested in the articles linked and partially excerpted at post 184.

Evidently what astonished the researchers was that (emphasis mine)

"mammals and insects, which have evolved separately for more than 500 million years, share the same master control gene for eye morphogenesis indicates that the genetic control mechanisms of development are much more universal than anticipated."

A little further in the conversation Nebullis offered some leads to stay on top of the research.