The Fundamentals

Do you see any evidence of intentional design around you? Do you think the question of “Were we designed?” merits any consideration? Does it matter at all? But most important, does it matter to you? Give this page just a little thought — it might even surprise you!

Evidence of Intentional Precise Order and
Arrangement — Sample 1


The first image here, showing a page full of seemingly meaningless letters, is a representation of a tiny sample of DNA — the so-called “code of life”. The second picture is a simplistic image of the human form — consisting of just 90 pixels or dots (30 black and 60 white). This latter image was sent by scientists into deep space in 1974 — using the enormous radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico (which was dismantled in 2020) — as part of a collaborative project. The purpose of the project was to present evidence to would-be deep space recipients that the transmission had an intelligent origin. The image did contain other symbols: a radio telescope, a representation of DNA, etc., as shown by the colourised representation of the image below.

“Hey, humans are here!”


Each part of this image was carefully planned by scientists, including the late Professor Carl Sagan.1

Any watchful “intelligence” that potentially existed on the target planetary system would, according to the plan, be able to reconstruct and interpret the meaning of this image.

But do you not see here a contradictory logic? … It seems that this image was intended to be received by intelligent life out in deep space. The alien recipients were expected to conclude that this image, because of its evident logical order and arrangement, was sent by someone who was very intelligent! — “Hey, humans are here in this far away solar system!”

Yet, some fail to reach the same conclusion when they see the far superior “order and arrangement” of DNA — the machine code of life!


If you received this Arecibo image from deep space (it comprises 1,679 “bits” of carefully ordered and arranged information), would you conclude that an alien life-form with a high degree of intelligence created it? On the other hand, would you conclude that the 3.2 billion “bits” of specifically arranged information in the DNA code … happened by a serendipitous series of chance events?

To enlarge on this idea of “contradictory logic”: The term “bits of DNA” implies simplicity, inasmuch as the “bits” that were sent by the Arecibo telescope were single units of energy — i.e. the Arecibo image really did consist of just 1,679 bits, nothing more, nothing less. But scientists say there is no simplicity with DNA, even at this level. The “bits” are not simply the two-states of computer bits that are either “0” or “1” — off or on — black or white. Each DNA “bit” consists of a molecular structure that is bound by the “numerous laws” of quantum and atomic physics (e.g. quark interactivity, atomic and nuclear binding, electron behaviour, finely balanced electromagnetic and nuclear forces, water molecule interactivity, etc.), each law contributing to the stable structure of the molecule.

Note particularly that — raising the level above that of the atomic — DNA is concerned with life at three levels:

(1) the cellular level,
(2) the organ level, and
(3) the complete individual.

Each strand of DNA has built-in mechanisms that control the development, growth, security, nutritional requirements, and accurate placement of every cell during (1) the early development stage, (2) the functioning of a complete body organ during later development stages, (3) the well-being of the person as a whole from birth onwards, not to forget (4) the perpetuation of the species for the entire process to begin all over again! Pretty good planning!

The Curious Inscription

By way of illustration, let us imagine that your lifetime’s goal is to take possession of your very own island! Additionally, you want an island untouched by human hands, where no man has ever “boldly gone before”. You spend your extended family’s entire accumulated fortune to buy this island, which you are assured is unspoilt; it is certified as never having been inhabited, nor touched, by any human.

However, after taking possession of your island and traversing its length and breadth, you encounter an inscription on a mountain rock-face: “Mr. John Williams, 19th July 1881.” This is carved into the side of this deeply-rooted rocky mountain. What would your natural conclusion be after seeing this? Would you assume that this inscription resulted from millions of years of freak winds or water erosion? Or rather would you not arrive at the obvious conclusion that someone had deliberately etched this into the rock? Would you not agree that this would be evidence of intentional precise order and arrangement?



Something to Get Your Teeth Into

Consider for another example the human body. When you see the logical arrangement of body organs, fluids, hard tissue, soft tissue, blood vessels, nerve fibers, bones, muscles, tendons, sinews, etc., does this not invoke a similar conclusion?

Image courtesy  of

Notice the accompanying illustrations of the arrangement of teeth within the mouth. Do you suppose that each tooth originally came about over considerable time one tooth after another; or by contrast do you think they were all created spontaneously in a single spurt of growth? Does not the arrangement, placement, width, length, quality, and usefulness of each tooth indicate intentional design? When an archaeologist finds a flint at a dig site, with a sharp edge and smooth hand-grip neatly chiselled, does he or she not conclude that this is a deliberately crafted artefact with the result that the item is thereafter kept on display in a museum?

Or do you consider that each tooth just happened to sprout up in the appropriate place, with its specific quality of hardness, its specially fashioned sharp edge and its ideal size; and in the course of time this sprouting activity managed to complete the familiar half-moon arrangement within the upper mouth cavity, including pairs of teeth that happen to match, tooth-by-tooth, on both sides of the mouth; and then, in the same fashion, the lower-jaw teeth sprang up in neat succession one after another, to correspond, tooth-by-tooth, with their counterparts in the upper jaw?

But the questions do not end here. How does the Darwinian argument account for, not only the above, but also for the convenient situation of:

  1. no teeth at birth ideally suited for breast-feeding,
  2. baby-teeth during the early years of immaturity and rapid growth, then
  3. adult teeth for the “finished product”?

Does this not point to the natural conclusion of “intentional precise order and arrangement”?

Random Letters Do Not a Shakespeare Make

This argument bears some resemblance to the story of the 1,000 monkeys who were given 1,000 typewriters and unlimited resources.

“No bananas until one of you succeeds!”

(The word honorificabilitudinitatibus occurs in Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labour’s Lost, uttered by the character Costard, the clown, Act V, Scene I. It is by far the longest word in the works of Shakespeare.)

The assertion was made (by those who deny Darwin’s hypothesis) that they would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare character-for-character. It is a curious argument, not without its obvious difficulties. But note the expanded and refined argumentation below.

The 8 paragraphs below contain the modified story, with a legend beneath them to show the real-life components that are being described…

Take 1,000 monkeys, a huge quantity of all the essential elements, and unlimited time, they would (allegedly) eventually produce the following:

(1) A code5 that would form the basis of a complex — and complete — instruction set6 (much as a computer requires machine code to form the basis of all its functionality).

(2) A template1 based on that code5 that would enable a self-contained and complete production unit2 to be built (a unit that, by itself, would not produce the complete product8, but, when combined with other units, would produce the complete product8).

(3) The monkeys would arrange the instruction set6 so that it would serve all the needs of this self-contained production unit2.

(4) The monkeys would also include code5 to future-proof this template1 by including as many variations of the production unit2 as will be necessary for the ultimate production of a larger self-contained unit3, which will use many disparate units2 functioning together in a correlated and coordinated way; but the code5 would be super-efficient by keeping all variations available within the one template1.

(5) Upon the completion of the design of this “production unit,”2 the monkeys would include code to make it self-replicating.

(6) The monkeys would ensure that additional code5 in this template1 produced a complete set of self-organising, self-repairing, and self-regulating components which would serve as on-demand machines4, that would not only benefit the unit2 that manufactured them, but would also provide services for other units2.

(7) Within the completed instruction set6, the monkeys would include the necessary code to build the above components4 rapidly whenever they were required (including the complex instructions7 to produce around 200,000 different types).

(8) The monkeys would have the foresight to build into this template1 accurately measured time-delayed actions that would produce the right units2 and components4 at the right time to eventually build a complete and highly ordered self-contained unit3.

1 Stem cell.
2 The human cell.
3 The human body.
4 Proteins, ATP, enzymes, etc.
5 DNA.
6 Chromosomes.
7 For example, protein folding (see below).
8 Intelligent life, according to its generally accepted definition.

A tall order! However, the above is merely a simplistic analogy that fails to take account of the many additional design features of the human cell.

Indeed, the Darwin supporters’ myth is more far-fetched than expecting a windstorm to produce a fully automated NASA Space Shuttle in just a few hours (the time it takes a strand of human DNA to be copied)!

TOE becomes NMDL

What On Earth Can Perform at 25 Billion Actions per Hour?


But this is just the beginning of a long series of interesting and persuasive arguments. What else is the DNA code responsible for?
This is an image (an artist’s impression) of a protein — manufactured inside the cell. One such protein is known as a “3-stranded β sheet.” As its name suggests, it consists of three ribbon-like strands of protein that bind together. In total, these sheets can require up to 90 folds.  — Science magazine, 10 Jul 1998: Vol. 281, Issue 5374, pp. 253-256.

As per the discussion in the book Dynamic Evolution (UK edition, or click here for the US edition), the shape a protein is folded into, determines the function that it will perform within the cell.


In theory these proteins can take on any of 10^90 different shapes, i.e. 1 followed by 90 zeros:
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 shape combinations.

If these combinations were tried at the rate of 100 billion per second (requiring modern computers to calculate), it would take longer than the age of the universe even to count this far, let alone to calculate the required shape of the finished item.

And yet, inside the cells of the human body, more than 7 million of these proteins are folded in just one secondIf you were asked to write a computer program that could do that, how would you go about it? Yet, the “code” (the instructions) to do this for all the 200,000 different protein types is built into every copy of DNA in almost every cell!

In our discussion so far, how much complexity have you seen in this cursory look at DNA in comparison to the 1,679-pixel image discussed at the outset? But the complexity is about to rise again by many orders of magnitude!


The “order and arrangement” of body cells written into DNA is even more remarkable when we consider the brain.

Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of the UK’s leading psychiatrists, described the human brain as the most complex known object in the universe. The late Isaac Asimov, professor of biochemistry at Boston University, USA, and well-known science fiction writer, once said: “The human brain … is the most complicated organization of matter that we know.”

The human brain’s processing power makes even modern computers look like crude abacus counting devices.

Neuro-scientists believe the brain is capable of handling 100 trillion instructions per second, and quite possibly a whole lot more than that!

Although the latest supercomputers are said to handle a greater number of instructions per second, only a few people can actually use them, and they only deal with very low level, simplistic instructions synchronously (one at a time — per processor), whereas the human brain handles immense complexity asynchronously. For example, the eye alone transmits some 100 million pieces of complex information to the brain per second, whilst at the same time innumerable signals are travelling to and from the brain along some 90,000 miles (150,000 kilometres) of the body’s nerve fibres. These nerve fibres themselves are precisely arranged to cover all parts of the body, delivering information to pretty much every single cell.


However, the total combined length of all the nerve fibres in the human body is dwarfed by that of the connections between brain cells. In an adult human brain, if the connections were laid end-to-end, they would circle the earth more than four times!

Some scientists theorise that the neurons in the brain use quantum principles to perform calculations. The complexity of these calculations makes the expression “astronomical numbers” seem as simple as counting on the fingers of your hand!

One clue that this is how the brain works is the concept of consciousness, sentience, that mysterious quality of life that makes us self-aware, possessing self-identity; including the ability to have sensory experiences, memories, and thoughts; and the thing that makes you, you. For a further discussion on this subject, see the book Dynamic Evolution. Click here for the US edition.

■ What do you think? Did these multiple inter-related, mutually dependent layers of design features — from tiny atomic particles to body organs — arrange themselves into this complicated, exquisite formation?

Evidence of Intentional Precise Order and
Arrangement — Sample 2

(Picture courtesy of

Colour is an excellent example of “dynamic dependencies” requiring precise order and arrangement at the quantum, atomic, molecular, and sometimes also the cellular and organ levels (see below).

The above image — at the atomic level — shows an atom’s electron dropping from one “orbit” to a lower “orbit” and emitting a “photon” of light of a specific colour in the process.


Iridescent colour
 is found in both animals and plants.


The structure that produces this beautiful effect is identical in almost every case: a perfectly ordered molecular arrangement at a level so small it is precisely the size of a light wave (in the above case blue). According to the exponents of Darwinian Evolution, such features are the result of the accumulation of millions of years of change! So how could these identical advanced molecular design features be present in both plants and animals? Note the following electron microscope image:
These structures — resembling trees with uniformly spaced branches — are too small for anything but electron microscopes to see.

The distance between the “branches” is so precise that only light-waves of a very specific colour range are reflected back to our eyes, as the image below demonstrates:


This is what makes these shimmering colours in nature so beautiful.

How did these characteristics appear in the cells of ancient plants and flowers as well as in the living cells of relatively modern animal skins, shells, and eyes? A common reply from proponents of Darwin’s evolution is that accumulated characteristics are passed onto offspring from generation to generation, resulting in a mechanism that produces iridescent colour… Not a very comprehensive answer. Additionally, there is the following major problem with this reply: How is it that the same mechanism is found in rocks, crystals, gemstones, and other inorganic minerals?


■ What do you think? Did these multiple inter-related, mutually dependent layers of design features — from tiny atomic particles to body organs — arrange themselves into this complicated, exquisite formation?

Evidence of Intentional Precise Order and
Arrangement — Sample 3


Aquaporins: the water channels of almost every one of the 100 000 000 000 000 (one hundred trillion) cells in each human body.

These remarkable proteins have only been discovered in recent decades.

But these molecular channels are also found in “lower” animals and even plant cells (including fungi), and in bacteria. Again, according to the exponents of Darwinian Evolution, such features are the result of the accumulation of millions of years of change! So how could these identical advanced molecular design features be present in “humble” bacteria that Darwin supporters say was associated with the initial “spark of life”?

■ What do you think? Did these multiple inter-related, mutually dependent layers of design features — from tiny atomic particles to body organs — arrange themselves into this complicated, exquisite formation?

Evidence of Intentional Precise Order and
Arrangement — Sample 4


Atoms bonding chemically: an example of precise order and arrangement at the quantum, atomic, and molecular levels. It is only due to the fine-tuned conditions that exist at all of these levels, that chemical bonding essential to life, and also to the superior quality of life, can occur at all.

For example, the strong nuclear force that binds the constituents of protons and neutrons together at the centre of atoms, is 1040 times stronger than the force of gravity. That’s a ‘1’ followed by 40 zeros:

10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 times stronger!

Yet the measure of this force is so finely balanced that an unimaginably tiny variation of its strength, one way or another, would prevent the multitude of chemical processes that life depends on! Additionally, the balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force affects the way protons and neutrons can combine to make stable atomic nuclei. This balance has to be mind-bogglingly fine-tuned for life to be possible.

Evidence of Intentional Precise Order and
Arrangement — Sample 5

In the 1990 film ‘Back to the Future III’ starring Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, and Mary Steenburgen (pictured above), the white-haired ‘Doc’ is discussing the idea of love at first sight. In his usual clinical fashion, he says to Marty: “There’s no scientific rationale for that.” Marty replies disparagingly: “Come on Doc, it’s not science!”

And this brings us to sample number 5, involving matters that are beyond the realm of science.


This point is highlighted by the fact that sex relations between a man and a woman can produce life, new life. And it is the initial “spark of life” that evolutionists believe happened spontaneously millions of years ago.


Exponents of Darwin’s theory frequently claim that their view is “scientific” in contrast to the “unscientific” biblical idea of an Originator. However, there are two basic questions that proponents of Darwin would do well to consider:

(1) Has there ever been a scientific experiment that has demonstrated this chance event that produced the “spark of life”?

(2) Has there ever been a scientific experiment that has demonstrated that life does not come from non-living matter?

Question (1) is a challenge that has never been successfully met. It is noteworthy that some scientists have produced interesting results that some have claimed “prove” this chance-event experimentally (the famous “Miller experiment” is just one). However, in each case scientists have used existing materials, i.e. components from DNA. They have never succeeded in building from elementary materials into a working, demonstrable, scientific “model.”

By contrast, an experiment does exist for question (2). In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed experiments which demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously arise in sterile, nutrient-rich media, but could only appear by incursion from without. Whilst this does not in itself prove that life could never spontaneously arise under any conditions (ref. the ‘Raven Paradox’), it is a scientific test nonetheless. The burden of proof rests with defenders of Darwin to produce genuine evidence to the contrary.

Pasteur summed up the situation with the following:

“Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.”

And why is that? Because, of course, the bedrock of science is experimentation. If something cannot be substantiated experimentally, it is not regarded as true science. There are no experiments that support the “branch nodes” of Darwinian Evolution, including the spontaneous generation of life.

Where Is the “Evidence”?

As we have seen above, there is an abundance of evidence that the universe, and life within it, was intentionally planned, structured, and organised. By contrast, adherents of Darwinian Evolution frequently point to blind chance — serendipity — as the sole cause of the above Samples 1-5. Their hope is that one day evidence will present itself, perhaps in the form of a comprehensive, universal formula that links it all together!


Thus, a very specific set of particles with their respective laws serves to build an atom. These in turn are each subject to their own set of laws and inviolable principles that result in the periodic table. And so the pattern continues, all the way up to the largest objects in the universe. Stars and galaxies, and the other objects that populate space, are confined by laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, energy conservation, and numerous other principles.

The conclusion then is clear: from the tiniest of particles to the grandest of super-galaxies, there is evidence of intentional order, arrangement, and design

But where do we go from here?

References and Bibliography:

• Baron M. Main AL. Driscoll PC. Mardon HJ. Boyd J. Campbell ID. 1992. 1H NMR Assignment and Secondary Structure of the Cell Adhesion Type III Module of Fibronectin. 31: 2068-2073.
• Baron M. Norman D. Willis A. Campbell ID. 1990. Structure of the Fibronectin Type I Module.
• Barrow, G. M., The Structure of Molecules, W. A. Benjamin, 1963.
• Bahcall, J. N., Phys. Rev. Letters 12, 300, 1964.
• Beiser, Arthur, Concepts of Modern Physics, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1995.
• Beiser, Arthur, Perspectives of Modern Physics, McGraw-Hill, 1969.
• Ffrench-Constant C. 1995. Alternative Splicing of Fibronectin–Many Different Proteins but Few Different Functions. Exp. Cell. Res. 221: 261-271.
• Harwit, Martin, Astrophysical Concepts, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
• Kaufmann, William J. III, Universe, 3rd Ed., W. H. Freeman, (1991).
• Rohlf, James William, Modern Physics from a to Z0, Wiley, 1994.
• Gehris AL. Oberlender SA. Shepley KJ. Tuan RS. Bennett VD. 1996. Fibronectin mRNA Alternative Splicing is Temporally and Spatially Regulated During Chondrogenesis in Vivo and in Vitro. Develop. Dyn. 206: 219-230.
• Main AL. Harve TS. Baron JB. Campbell ID. 1992. The Three-Dimensional Structure of the Tenth Type III Module of Fibronectin: An Insight into RGD-Mediated Interactions. Cell. 71: 671-678.
• Potts JR and Campbell ID. 1994. Fibronectin Structure and Assembly. Curr. Cell Bio. 6: 648-655.
• Potts JR and Campbell ID. 1996. Structure and Function of Fibronectin Modules. Matrix Bio. 15: 313-320.
• Downie SA. Newman SA. 1995. Different Roles for Fibronectin in the Generation of Fore and Hind Limb Precartilage Condensations. Develop. Bio. 172: 519-530.
• Brasnjevic, I., Hof, P.R., Steinbusch, H.W. & Schmitz, C. Accumulation of nuclear DNA damage or neuron loss: molecular basis for a new approach to understanding selective neuronal vulnerability in neurodegenerative diseases. DNA Repair (Amst.) 7, 1087–1097 (2008).
• Moreira, P.I. et al. Nucleic acid oxidation in Alzheimer disease. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 44, 1493–1505 (2008)
• Lu, T. et al. Gene regulation and DNA damage in the ageing human brain. Nature 429, 883–891 (2004).
• Bonner, W.M. et al. ?H2AX and cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8, 957–967 (2008).
• Ismail, I.H. & Hendzel, M.J. The ?-H2A.X: is it just a surrogate marker of double-strand breaks or much more? Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 49, 73–82 (2008).
• Kim, D. et al. Deregulation of HDAC1 by p25/Cdk5 in neurotoxicity. Neuron 60, 803–817 (2008).
• Fernandez-Capetillo, O. et al. H2AX is required for chromatin remodeling and inactivation of sex chromosomes in male mouse meiosis. Dev. Cell 4, 497–508 (2003).
• Lee, S.Y. et al. Histone XH2AX is required for Xenopus anterior neural development: critical role of threonine 16 phosphorylation. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 29525–29534 (2010).
• Yin, B. et al. Histone H2AX stabilizes broken DNA strands to suppress chromosome breaks and translocations during V(D)J recombination. J. Exp. Med. 206, 2625–2639 (2009).
• Fernando, R.N. et al. Cell cycle restriction by histone H2AX limits proliferation of adult neural stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5837–5842 (2011).
• Crowe, S.L., Movsesyan, V.A., Jorgensen, T.J. & Kondratyev, A. Rapid phosphorylation of histone H2A.X following ionotropic glutamate receptor activation. Eur. J. Neurosci. 23, 2351–2361 (2006).
• Crowe, S.L., Tsukerman, S., Gale, K., Jorgensen, T.J. & Kondratyev, A.D. Phosphorylation of histone H2A.X as an early marker of neuronal endangerment following seizures in the adult rat brain. J. Neurosci. 31, 7648–7656 (2011).
• Palop, J.J. et al. Vulnerability of dentate granule cells to disruption of Arc expression in human amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice. J. Neurosci. 25, 9686–9693 (2005).
• Vazdarjanova, A. et al. Spatial exploration induces ARC, a plasticity-related immediate-early gene, only in calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II-positive principal excitatory and inhibitory neurons of the rat forebrain. J. Comp. Neurol. 498, 317–329 (2006).
• Cheng, I.H. et al. Accelerating amyloid-ß fibrillization reduces oligomer levels and functional deficits in Alzheimer disease mouse models. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 23818–23828 (2007).
• Palop, J.J. et al. Neuronal depletion of calcium-dependent proteins in the dentate gyrus is tightly linked to Alzheimer’s disease-related cognitive deficits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9572–9577 (2003).
• Palop, J.J. et al. Aberrant excitatory neuronal activity and compensatory remodeling of inhibitory hippocampal circuits in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuron 55, 697–711 (2007).
• Palop, J.J. & Mucke, L. Amyloid-beta-induced neuronal dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: from synapses toward neural networks. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 812–818 (2010).
• Roberson, E.D. et al. Reducing endogenous tau ameliorates amyloid ß-induced deficits in an Alzheimer’s disease mouse model. Science 316, 750–754 (2007).
• Götz, J. & Ittner, L.M. Animal models of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 532–544 (2008).
• Kobayashi, D.T. & Chen, K.S. Behavioral phenotypes of amyloid-based genetically modified mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Genes Brain Behav. 4, 173–196 (2005).
• Marchetti, C. & Marie, H. Hippocampal synaptic plasticity in Alzheimer’s disease: what have we learned so far from transgenic models? Rev. Neurosci. 22, 373–402 (2011).
• Lange, J. et al. ATM controls meiotic double-strand-break formation. Nature 479, 237–240 (2011).
• Fillingham, J., Keogh, M.C. & Krogan, N.J. ?H2AX and its role in DNA double-strand break repair. Biochem. Cell Biol. 84, 568–577 (2006).
• Anderson, L., Henderson, C. & Adachi, Y. Phosphorylation and rapid relocalization of 53BP1 to nuclear foci upon DNA damage. Mol. Cell Biol. 21, 1719–1729 (2001).
• Ward, I.M., Minn, K., Jorda, K.G. & Chen, J. Accumulation of checkpoint protein 53BP1 at DNA breaks involves its binding to phosphorylated histone H2AX. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 19579–19582 (2003).
• Olive, P.L. & Banath, J.P. The comet assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nat. Protoc. 1, 23–29 (2006).
• Flint, M.S., Baum, A., Chambers, W.H. & Jenkins, F.J. Induction of DNA damage, alteration of DNA repair and transcriptional activation by stress hormones. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32, 470–479 (2007).
• Harris, J.A. et al. Transsynaptic progression of amyloid-ß-induced neuronal dysfunction within the entorhinal-hippocampal network. Neuron 68, 428–441 (2010).
• Roberson, E.D. et al. Amyloid-ß/Fyn-induced synaptic, network, and cognitive impairments depend on Tau levels in multiple mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neurosci. 31, 700–711 (2011).
• Verret, L. et al. Inhibitory interneuron deficit links altered network activity and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer model. Cell 149, 708–721 (2012).
• Palop, J.J. & Mucke, L. Epilepsy and cognitive impairments in Alzheimer disease. Arch. Neurol. 66, 435–440 (2009).
• Morris, M., Maeda, S., Vossel, K. & Mucke, L. The many faces of tau. Neuron 70, 410–426 (2011).
• Sanchez, P.E. et al. Levetiracetam suppresses neuronal network dysfunction and reverses synaptic and cognitive deficits in an Alzheimer’s disease model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2895–E2903 (2012).
• Hardingham, G.E. & Bading, H. Synaptic versus extrasynaptic NMDA receptor signalling: implications for neurodegenerative disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 682–696 (2010).
• Li, S. et al. Soluble Aß oligomers inhibit long-term potentiation through a mechanism involving excessive activation of extrasynaptic NR2B-containing NMDA receptors. J. Neurosci. 31, 6627–6638 (2011).
• Shull, E.R. et al. Differential DNA damage signaling accounts for distinct neural apoptotic responses in ATLD and NBS. Genes Dev. 23, 171–180 (2009).
• Bhogal, N., Jalali, F. & Bristow, R.G. Microscopic imaging of DNA repair foci in irradiated normal tissues. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 85, 732–746 (2009).
• Grudzenski, S., Raths, A., Conrad, S., Rube, C.E. & Lobrich, M. Inducible response required for repair of low-dose radiation damage in human fibroblasts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 14205–14210 (2010).
• Canugovi, C. et al. Endonuclease VIII-like 1 (NEIL1) promotes short-term spatial memory retention and protects from ischemic stroke-induced brain dysfunction and death in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14948–14953 (2012).
• Zhang, Y., Goodyer, C. & LeBlanc, A. Selective and protracted apoptosis in human primary neurons microinjected with active caspase-3,-6,-7, and -8. J. Neurosci. 20, 8384–8389 (2000).
• Lee, H.G. et al. Cell cycle re-entry mediated neurodegeneration and its treatment role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurochem. Int. 54, 84–88 (2009).
• Li, L., Cheung, T., Chen, J. & Herrup, K. A comparative study of five mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease: cell cycle events reveal new insights into neurons at risk for death. Int. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2011, 171464 (2011).
• Morris, M. et al. Age-appropriate cognition and subtle dopamine-independent motor deficits in aged Tau knockout mice. Neurobiol. Aging doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.12.003 (16 January 2013).
• Cissé, M. et al. Reversing EphB2 depletion rescues cognitive functions in Alzheimer model. Nature 469, 47–52 (2011).
• Li, S. et al. Soluble oligomers of amyloid ß-protein facilitate hippocampal long-term depression by disrupting neuronal glutamate uptake. Neuron 62, 788–801 (2009).
• Esposito, L. et al. Reduction in mitochondrial superoxide dismutase modulates Alzheimer’s disease-like pathology and accelerates the onset of behavioral changes in human amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice. J. Neurosci. 26, 5167–5179 (2006).
• Yang, J.L., Tadokoro, T., Keijzers, G., Mattson, M.P. & Bohr, V.A. Neurons efficiently repair glutamate-induced oxidative DNA damage by a process involving CREB-mediated up-regulation of apurinic endonuclease 1. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 28191–28199 (2010).
• Day, J.J. & Sweatt, J.D. Epigenetic mechanisms in cognition. Neuron 70, 813–829 (2011).
• Gräff, J., Kim, D., Dobbin, M.M. & Tsai, L.H. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression in physiological and pathological brain processes. Physiol. Rev. 91, 603–649 (2011).
• Cheng, J.S. et al. Collagen VI protects neurons against Aß toxicity. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 119–121 (2009).
• Kravitz, A.V. et al. Regulation of parkinsonian motor behaviours by optogenetic control of basal ganglia circuitry. Nature 466, 622–626 (2010).
• Spink, A.J., Tegelenbosch, R.A.J., Buma, M.O.S. & Noldus, L.P.J.J. The EthoVision video tracking system—a tool for behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice. Physiol. Behav. 73, 731–744 (2001).
• Pong, K., Doctrow, S.R., Huffman, K., Adinolfi, C.A. & Baudry, M. Attenuation of staurosporine-induced apoptosis, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction by synthetic superoxide dismutase and catalase mimetics, in cultured cortical neurons. Exp. Neurol. 171, 84–97 (2001).
• Rong, Y., Doctrow, S.R., Tocco, G. & Baudry, M. EUK-134, a synthetic superoxide dismutase and catalase mimetic, prevents oxidative stress and attenuates kainate-induced neuropathology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9897–9902 (1999).
• Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Development Core Team. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-102 (2011).


1 Author of Cosmos — a book and television series presented in the 1980’s — also former David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University, New York.