Что ответить дарвинисту? Часть I

Olofsson M., Lovlie H., Tibblin J., Jakobsson S., Wiklund C. (a) Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naïve adult fowl // Behavioral Ecology. 2013. V. 24. P. 305–310.

Olofsson M., Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Wiklund C. Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings deflect bird attacks under low light intensities with UV wavelengths // PLoS ONE. 2010. V. 5. P. e10798.

Paley W. Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. J. Faulder, London, 1802.

Parker J., Tsagkogeorga G., Cotton J.A., Liu Y., Provero P., Stupka E., Rossiter S.J. Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals // Nature. 2013. V. 502, P. 228–231.

Poelstra J.W., Vijay N., Bossu C.M., Lantz H., Ryll B., Muller I., Baglione V., Unneberg P., Wikelski M., Grabherr M.G. Wolf B.W. The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows // Science. 2014. V. 344. P. 1410–1414.

Pough F.H., Brower L.P. Predation by birds on great southern white butterflies as a function of palatability, sex, and habitat // American Midland Naturalist. 1977. V. 98. № 1. P. 50–58.

Prudic K.L., Jeon C., Cao H., Monteiro A. Developmental plasticity in sexual roles explains mutual sexual ornamentation // Science. 2011. V. 331. P. 73–75.

Quint M., Drost H.-G., Gabel A., Ullrich K.K., Bonn M., Grosse I. A transcriptomic hourglass in plant embryogenesis // Nature. 2012. V. 490. P. 98–101.

Richardson M., Hanken J., Gooneratne M., Pieau C., Paynaud A., Selwood L., Wright G. There is no highly conserved embryonic state n the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. // Anat Embryol. 1997. V. 196. P. 91–106.

Richardson M.K., Keuck G. Haeckel’s ABC of evolution and development // Biol. Rev. 2002. V. 77. P. 495–528.

Rivera M.C., Lake J.A. The ring of life provides evidence for a genome fusion origin of eukaryotes // Nature. 2004. V. 431. P. 152–155.

Robertson K.A., Monteiro A. Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils // Proc. R. Soc. B. 2005. V. 272. P. 1541–1546.

Rodriguez-Trelles F., Tarrio R., Ayala F.J. Erratic overdispersion of three molecular clocks: GPDH, SOD, and XDH // PNAS. 2001. V. 98. № 20. P. 11405-11410.

Rothschild M. Is the buff ermine (Spilosoma lutea (Huf.)) a mimic of the white ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda (L.))? // Proc. Royal Entomol. Soc. London. 1983. V. 38. P. 159–164.

Roughgarden J., Akcay E. Do we need a Sexual Selection 2.0? // Animal behaviour. 2010. V. 79. P. e1-e4.

Rudd S. The piltdown moth. Взято 22.02.2015 с http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm

Ruell E.W., Handelsman C.A., Hawkins C.L., Sofaer H.R. Ghalambor C.K., Angeloni L. Fear, food and sexual ornamentation: plasticity of colour development in Trinidadian guppies // Proc. R. Soc. B. 2013. V. 280. P. 2012–2019.

San Martin G., Bacquet P., Nieberding C.M. Mate choice and sexual selection in a model butterfly species, Bicyclus anymana: state of the art // Proc. Neth. Entomol. Soc. Meet. 2011. V. 22. P. 9–22.

Sanford J.C., Baumgardner J., Brewer W., Gibson P., ReMine W.

(a) Mendel's Accountant: a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program // SCPE. 2007. V. 8. P. 147–165.

Sanford J.C., Baumgardner J., Brewer W., Gibson P., ReMine, W.

(b) Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. / In: Computational Science – ICCS 2007. Ed. by Shi et al. LNCS, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. V. 4488. P. 386–392.

Sargent T.D. On the relative acceptabilities of local butterflies and moths to local birds // Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 1995. V. 49. № 2. P. 148–162.

Scott M.P. Intimations of a Creature // Cell. 1994. V. 79. P. 1121–1124.

shCherbak V.I., Makukov M.A. The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code // Icarus. 2013. V. 224. P. 228–242.