Research Paper 12: doug Axe and Ann gauger have a new peer-reviewed paper up at bio-complexity, which provides a quantifiable measure of how many mutations are required for a relatively simple biological innovation evernote the functional conversion of one enzyme to that of its closest structural. The authors argue that their results show that similarity of structure does not guarantee ease of interconversion, and that that goes to the root of all Darwinian trees based on such similarity. Irreducible complexity: Research Paper 13: Christina toft and Mario. Fares; Mol biol evol (2008) 25 (9. The evolution of the Flagellar Assembly pathway in Endosymbiotic Bacterial Genomes, research Paper 14: Ciccarelli,. D., doerks,., von Mering,., Creevey,. J., Snel,., bork,., 2006.
In addition, i noted, a similar result was obtained by taylor. In their 2001 pnas paper. This paper examined the AroQ-type chorismate mutase, and arrived at a similarly low prevalence (giving a value of 1 in 1024 for the 93 amino acid enzyme, but, when adjusted to shakespeare reflect a residue of the same length as the 150-amino-acid section analysed from Beta-lactamase. Yet another paper by sauer and reidhaar-Olson (1990) reported on the high level of degeneracy in the information that specifies a particular protein fold, which it gives as 1 in 1063. Research Paper 9: In 2006, respected retired Cornell geneticist, john Sanford, argued in his book, genetic Entropy the mystery of the genome, that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection cannot arrest. This pro-id peer-reviewed paper published in pnas verified Sanfords hypothesis. Research Paper 10: Micrornas and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the cambrian explosion. . The discovery Institute comments are available here. Research Paper 11: douglas Axe (2000 Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors published in the journal of Molecular biology, volume 301, Issue 3, pages /p1jykq-1N.
Stephen meyer (2009) Signature In The cell: dna and The evidence for Intelligent Design, harper Collins Publishers, new York,.99. Research Paper 8: The babraham Institute, structural biology Unit, babraham Research Campus, cambridge cb2 4at, uk, estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds, j mol biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5 1295-315. Gov/pubmed/15321723 The results of this research concerned the rarity of catalytic domains within sequence space. . This is not an isolated result. . A number of papers document similar results were attained with respect to the rarity of functional domains within sequence space. In one study, published in Nature in 2001 by keefe szostak, it was documented that more than a million million random sequences were required in order to stumble upon a functioning atp-binding protein, a protein substantially smaller than the transmembrane protein specified by the gene.
Journal of Human evolution - journals - elsevier
He thus concluded that the rate of mumbai appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes. If Behe is correct, then molecular evolution faces a severe problem. If a loss (or decrease) of function is much more likely than a gain-of-function, logic dictates that eventually an evolving population will run out of molecular functions to lose or diminish. Behes paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else must be generating the information for new molecular functions. Research Paper 5: david.
Abel (2009 The capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, m/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf. Research Paper 6: douglas Axe (2010 the limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a simple model of Structured Bacterial Populations, abstract, pdf. Research Paper 7: Fisher ma, mcKinley kl, bradley lh, viola sr, hecht mh (2011) presentation de novo designed Proteins from a library of Artificial Sequences Function in Escherichia coli and Enable cell Growth. Plos one 6(1 e15364. This plos one open access research paper confirms long held id hypothesis that proteins function by non-Darwinian mechanisms. Stephen meyers book, signature In The cell, identifies that it is sequence specificity that is responsible for ensuring that amino acid chains fold into useful shapes or conformations.
The behe snoke response to lynchs critique is here. Research Paper 2: evolution by gene duplication Falsified:. . Further commentary on this subject is here,. Research Paper 3: measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, m/content/4/1/47. Research Paper 4: Michael Behe (2010 Experimental evolution, loss-Of-Function Mutations, And The first Rule Of Adaptive evolution published in the journal quarterly review of biology,.
The paper is briefly described here,. . This is technically a review paper, and not primary scientific research, although it is perfectly valid research and peer-reviewed science published in a mainstream science journal. This peer-reviewed paper by michael Behe in the journal. Quarterly review of biology helps explain why we dont observe the evolution of new protein functions. After reviewing many studies on bacterial and viral evolution, he concluded that most adaptations at the molecular level are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function. In other words, since darwinian evolution proceeds along the path of least resistance, behe found that organisms are far more likely to evolve by a losing a biochemical function than by gaining one.
Evolution: evidence and Acceptance bioscience
The history of the peer-review process Trends in biotechnology, 2002, by ray spier, available on ScienceDirect. The following links are a database of about one hundred research papers plus other review papers providing direct evidence in favor of Intelligent Design Theory. . nearly all the papers below are peer-reviewed. Disclaimer: For counting purposes some of the research papers are actually review papers. . The proper editing to distinguish these categories has not been made yet. General Molecular biology: Research Paper 1: The behe snoke (2004 simulating advantages evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. This paper was critiqued by michael Lynch (2005 simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins.
Enriches published articles and improves the reading experience. Article transfer service, elsevier authors can transfer their article submission from one journal to another for free if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and often without needing further peer review. Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. Authors do not need to spend additional time reformatting their manuscript. Interesting reads, chapter 2 of, academic and Professional Publishing, 2012, by Irene hames in 2012, available on ScienceDirect. "Is peer review in Crisis?". Perspectives in Publishing, no 2, august 2004, by Adrian Mulligan, available.japanese
the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. More transparent peer review. Reviewers play a vital role in academic publishing, yet their contributions are often hidden. Three elsevier journals now publish supplementary review files alongside the articles on ScienceDirect. Acknowledges the important role of reviewers.
The peer review process, types of peer review. Single blind review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Reviewer anonymity evernote allows for impartial decisions the reviewers will not be influenced by the authors. Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first. Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors work. Double-blind review, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias, for example based on an author's country of origin or previous controversial work. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
Org - journal of Human evolution
Reviewers play a central role in scholarly publishing. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation. Background, elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles hippie and the journals that publish them. Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process. In September 2009, Elsevier partnered with. Sense About Science, an independent ngo working to promote the public's understanding of 'sound science to launch the 2009 peer review Study the largest survey ever international survey of authors and reviewers. Visit the free e-learning platform, elsevier Researcher Academy to learn more about peer review.