Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Intelligent Design » Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design

Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design on Wed Dec 18, 2013 4:48 pm

Admin


Admin
Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1406-peer-reviewed-papers-on-intelligent-design

http://www.discovery.org/f/10141



Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Scientific Anthologies.

   Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

   David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).

   Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).

   Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).

   Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

   Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

   Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

   Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

   George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).

   William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

   Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010).

   Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” 42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 290-297 (March, 2010).

   David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).

   David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).

   D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).

   William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 2647 – 2652 (October, 2009).

   William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 39(5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

   David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).

   David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).

   David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009).

   A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009).

   A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

   David L. Abel, “The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 2:252-262 (2008).

   Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

   Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

   Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).

   Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

   David L. Abel, “Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models,” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler, Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic Differences between Misopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis,” Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability, Vol. 1(1):1-30 (2007).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).

   David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

   David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “More than Metaphor: Genomes Are Objective Sign Systems,” Journal of BioSemiotics, Vol. 1(2):253-267 (2006).

   Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 28:1000–1004 (2006).

   Kirk Durston and David K. Y. Chiu, “A Functional Entropy Model for Biological Sequences,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete & Impulsive Systems: Series B Supplement (2005).

   David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, Vol. 2(29):1-15 (August 11, 2005).

   John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Vol. 98: 155-166 (2005).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Recent Research Developments in Genetics & Breeding, Vol. 2:45-70 (2005).

   Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

   Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity,” in Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., Dynamical Genetics (2004).

   Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) 

The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
May 18, 2007

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

Due to an unusual number of inquiries about the article, Dr. Meyer, the copyright holder, has decided to make the article available now in HTML format on this website.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177


   John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (“DDPE”) (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2003).

   Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

   David L. Abel, “Is Life reducible to complexity?,” Fundamentals of Life, Chapter 1.2 (2002).

   David K.Y. Chiu and Thomas W.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September 2002).

   Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

   Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

   Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

   Solomon Victor and Vijaya M. Nayak, “Evolutionary anticipation of the human heart,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 82:297-302 (2000).

   Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 26:168-175 (1999).

   W. A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

   R. Kunze, H. Saedler, and W.-E. Lönnig, “Plant Transposable Elements,” in Advances in Botanical Research, Vol. 27:331-409 (Academic Press, 1997).

   Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

   Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984; Dallas, Texas: Lewis & Stanley Publishing, 4th ed., 1992).

   Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

   Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985) (HTML).

   William G. Pollard, “Rumors of transcendence in physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 52 (10) (October 1984).

   Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

   A. C. McIntosh, “Functional Information and Entropy in Living Systems,” Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 (Ashurt, Southampton, United Kindom: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, 2006).

   Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?” Rivista di Biologia /Biology Forum, Vol. 98:71-96 (2005).

   Heinz-Albert Becker and Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Transposons: Eukaryotic,” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

   Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004).

   Four science articles in William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, eds., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter “Debating Design”).
   Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 22(4) (2000). (HTML).

   Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals, or Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Books Supportive of Intelligent Design

   Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).

   William Lane Craig, “Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pp. 155-177. (Neil Manson ed., London: Routledge, 2003).

   Michael Behe, “Reply to my Critic: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 16, 685–709, (2001).

   Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).

   William Lane Craig, “The Anthropic Principle,” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia, pp. 366-368 (Gary B. Ferngren, general ed., Garland Publishing, 2000).

   Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin,” Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 67(1):155-162 (March, 2000).

   William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38: 389-395 (1988).

   William Lane Craig, “God, Creation, and Mr. Davies,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 37: 168-175 (1986).



Last edited by Admin on Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:20 am; edited 5 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/id-peer-reviewed-research-published-in-science-journals/

This OP provides just a sample of peer-reviewed papers that support Intelligent Design.
1. The Behe & Snoke (2004), “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163. This paper was critiqued by Michael Lynch (2005), “Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131652. The Behe & Snoke response to Lynch’s critique is here, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1110/ps.051674105/full.
2. Ariz. St. Univ. study, https://asunews.asu.edu/20121212_dawnoflife. Here's the paper, “Algorithmic Origins of Life,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4803v2.pdf. It discusses algorithms, and reads more like a paper similar to the kind of work William Dembski does. This is very telling just how far ID scientists are ahead of mainstream science on this subject. It's an approach to abiogenesis, but from an Information Theory approach instead of chemical evolution, http://www.livescience.com/25453-life-origin-reframed.html. Here's the PUBMED link, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235265.
3. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723.
4. Here's a paper that confirms predictions made by Behe in re irreducible complexity, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23028376.
5. Here's a couple more on the bacterial flagellum:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20006482
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18753783
6. Quantum Biology: http://www.nature.com/.../journal/v9/n1/full/nphys2474.html. I hope you accept articles published in Nature. It doesn't have to be Pubmed, does it? There might be a Pubmed link to this.
Another person added:
7. David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).
8. Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
9. Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).
10. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).
11. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
12. Behe (2010), "Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and 'the first rule of adaptive evolution.'" Michael Behe's original draft of "Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and "the first rule of adaptive evolution" contained a reference to Intelligent Design and explained how his paper related to Intelligent Design principles and it was refused publication. The publisher willingly published the exact same paper once he simply removed the words intelligent design and nothing else about the paper was corrected at all, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243963.
Behe (2010) is also posted here, http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf published in the journal Quarterly Review of Biology, http://www.jstor.org/…/journal/quarrevibiol/forthcoming.html. The paper is briefly described here, http://www.evolutionnews.org/…/peer-reviewed_scientific_pap…. 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 don’t 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. He thus concluded that “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”
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. Behe’s paper suggests that if Darwinian evolution is at work, something else must be generating the information for new molecular functions.
13: This Renyi Liu (2007) paper, "Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system" is a study of phylogenies of various flagellar bacteria and T3SS assemblies. It recognizes a core 24 proteins, and some variations between different species of flagellar bacteria.
Here's and excerpt from paper:
“Most evidence, including their much broader phylogenetic distribution, supports the view that the flagellum arose much earlier that the TTSS, which are largely limited to Proteobacteria. Here, we take advantage of complete genome sequence data to trace the history of each gene involved in the assembly and regulation of the bacterial flagellum. Our results show that flagellum originated very early, before the diversification of contemporary bacterial phyla, and evolved in a stepwise fashion through a series of gene duplication, loss and transfer events. In this article, we focus on the evolution of the core set of flagellar genes that is uniformly present in all flagellated bacteria. The later evolving and lineage-specific components of the flagellar gene complexes remain to be addressed.”
This study concludes that flagellar bacteria and those varieties of bacteria that have the T3SS appendage probably share a common ancestor. This finding contradicts more recent papers cited above in this thread that determine the T3SS actually evolved from a bacterial flagellum.
The original issue was whether Dr. Ken Miller was correct in criticizing irreducible complexity based upon a study of the homology between the T3SS syringe injector and the propeller flagella that provide bacteria propulsion and motility. According to Miller, the mere fact that the two biochemical structures are homologous was enough proof for him that the T3SS might be a precursor that he announced he had toppled ID Theory and destroyed Michael Behe's theory. Nothing of course could be further from reality.
This Renyi Liu (2007) paper does not study an evolutionary pathway demonstrating how the flagellum originally emerged. All we have here is a study of phylogenetic trees of fully operable flagellar systems to begin with.
This paper researched the phylogenetic history of the bacteria flagellum, hypothesizing that the bacteria flagellum and the T3SS evolved from a common ancestor, namely ATP synthase.
Remember, the T3SS is a pathogen, specifically a syringe that injects toxic secretions into a eukaryote host. Bacteria were around hundreds of millions of years before the rise of eukarya, possibly as much as a billion years.
The hypothesis of Michael Behe is that there is no stepwise evolutionary pathway that produces a bacterial flagellum. This Renyi Liu (2007) paper provides evidence of a stepwise evolutionary pathway of a T3SS, and studies phylogeny of already fully existing and functional flagellar bacteria, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.long.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design on Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:27 am

Admin


Admin
Do Intelligent Design scientists publish in peer reviewed journals?



This post is entirely dedicated to edarrall – the commentor who persistently and obstinately claims that only 2 papers have ever been published by creationist or ID scientists.
This post answers with David Buckna’s article (2006) on the subject and shows just how blind Darwinian fundamentalist believers can be – again!
From http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp
The article:



Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

© David Buckna. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 09 March 2006]
In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly “has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal” (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.
Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.
In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).
Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”
How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology107 [1984]:387-403)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.
It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t “explicitly” wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as a“n unresolved problem in theoretical biology” (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don’t really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory’s particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.
His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63, Number 10, October 1992, pp. 5068-5071, “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.” I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.
Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:
“Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1-6 October 1990.
“Progress toward a superconducting opening switch,” (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279-282.
“Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II,” (Principal author),Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10-12, 1985) pp. 262-2265.
“Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1983, pp. 261-268.
“The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials,” (Only author) Nuclear Physics, Vol. A182, 1972, pp. 580-592
Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.
In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.
Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)
On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journalNature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.
The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey’s article in their Impact series [No. 233, “Bumps in the Big Bang,” November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.
In the 70s and early 80s physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.
When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.
Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: “I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists.” (“Creation in the Physics Lab”, Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20-23).
Additional information on Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:
Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,” Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.
One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
See also the biographies of Dr Don BattenDr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström
NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/
Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
See also the biographies of Dr Don BattenDr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
If intelligent design theorists do manage to publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, Darwinists will make sure the editor suffers grievously for it.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1406-peer-reviewed-papers-on-intelligent-design#4498

From Jonathan Wells Phd., A politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design, page 111

A journal editor sends an article to several outside referees (“peer reviewers”) who advise the editor whether the article should be accepted as written, accepted only after revision, or rejected.

In 2003, Meyer submitted an article titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” to the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article provided extensive references from the scientific literature to support Meyer’s argument that DNA carries complex specified information that cannot be produced solely by natural processes such as mutation and selection. Relying on an inference to the best explanation, Meyer concluded that intelligent design was the cause of the enormous increase in biological information required to produce the major animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion.

Meyer wrote: “Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information . . . exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist.” Intelligent design theorists “are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires.”1

Sternberg, was a research associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) with two doctoral degrees in evolutionary biology. Following standard procedure, Sternberg sent Meyer’s article to three reviewers, all of them evolutionary and molecular biologists at well-known institutions. The reviewers recommended that the article be published, though only after substantial revisions. Meyer revised his article in accordance with their recommendations, and the journal published it in August 2004. 2

When the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published Meyer’s article proposing intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of biological information, all hell broke loose. Science journals regularly publish articles attacking intelligent design, but they routinely reject articles defending intelligent design. For example, Darwinists have criticized Michael Behe’s arguments for ID (Chapter Ten) in many peer-reviewed science journals, including Nature, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and the Quarterly Review of Biology. But those journals routinely refuse to publish Behe’s responses. One journal editor to whom Behe submitted a response cited a reviewer who wrote: “In this referee’s judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science.” The editor of another journal wrote to Behe: “As you no doubt know,
our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours . . . cannot be appropriate for our pages.” 3

In Joseph Heller’s classic novel about World War II, Catch-22, an aviator could be excused from combat duty for being crazy. But a rule specified that he first had to request an excuse, and anyone who requested an excuse from combat duty was obviously not crazy, so such requests were invariably denied. The rule that made it impossible to be excused from combat duty was called “Catch-22.” Darwinists use a similar rule—I call it “Catch-23”—to exclude intelligent design from science: intelligent design is not scientific, so it can’t be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. How do we know it’s not scientific? Because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Catch-23! 4

The 2004 publication of Meyer’s article shattered the rule. It also alarmed Darwinists at the Smithsonian Institution (SI), with which the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) is loosely affiliated. Smithsonian Darwinists teamed up with the militantly pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) to control the damage to their cause. NCSE staffers sent long, detailed emails attacking Meyer’s article to high officials at the Smithsonian. The NCSE then worked closely with Smithsonian employees to develop a strategy of character assassination to punish Sternberg for publishing the article. To protect himself, Sternberg lodged a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), established by Congress to investigate such cases. 5

To Dr. Richard Sternberg, concerning his treatment by the Smithsonian Institution (SI) after publishing a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer on intelligent design: “Our
preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions. . . . During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.” 6

In August 2005, the OSC sent Sternberg a letter notifying him that a recent administrative decision had removed his case from their jurisdiction, but confirming that “members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited,” noting that “OSC questions the use of appropriated funds to work with an outside advocacy group for this purpose.” The OSC letter also confirmed that the management of the Smithsonian had falsely accused Sternberg of mishandling specimens in his research and of violating Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington policies in the publication of Meyer’s article. These accusations “were published to several outside organizations,” severely damaging Sternberg’s reputation. The managers later admitted that the accusations were false, but the OSC saw no evidence that “any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was known.” There were other abuses, too, but since the OSC lost jurisdiction over the Sternberg case “the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation.” Nevertheless, the OSC concluded that the management of the publicly funded Smithsonian Institution had deliberately “created a hostile working environment” for Sternberg, hoping that he would “leave or resign.”

To investigate the Darwinists’ accusation that Sternberg had circumvented the normal peer-review process, the president of the Council of the BSW reviewed the file, and he found that the peer review had been properly conducted. Nevertheless, the council subsequently issued a statement declaring that “the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.” Although the BSW stopped short of formally retracting the article, the Darwinists did not end their ruthless campaign of character assassination against Sternberg. Catch-23 is still enforced by most science journals, but it is now supplemented with an additional rule: if intelligent design theorists do manage to publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, Darwinists will make sure the editor suffers grievously for it. 8

1) Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004), 213–39.
2) Meyer’s article itself is available online:  http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
3) http://www.discovery.org/a/450
4) Jonathan Wells, “Catch-23,” Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology, July/August 2002. Available online (April 2006) at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1212
5) Jim Giles, “Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design,” Nature 431 (2004): 114. Trevor Stokes, “Intelligent design study appears,” The Scientist 5 (September 3, 2004): 4. Available online (April 2006) at: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040903/04/
6) U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 2005
7) David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2005.
8  Richard Monastersky, “Biology Journal Says It Mistakenly Published paper That Attacks Darwinian Evolution,” Chronicle of Higher Education Daily News, September 10, 2004. “Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington,”

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6 Re: Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design on Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:34 am

Admin


Admin
https://www.academia.edu/22511392/Quadro_1_-_Artigos_revisados_por_pares_que_d%C3%A3o_suporte_ao_design_inteligente

ABEL, D. L. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
, v. 10, n. 1, p. 247-291, 2009. ABEL, D. L. Is Life Unique?
Life (Basel)
, v. 2, n. 1, p. 106-134, 2012. ANZAI, T.; SHIINA, T.; KIMURA, N.; YANAGIYA, K.; KOHARA, S.; SHIGENARI, A.; YAMAGATA, T.; KULSKI, J. K.; NARUSE, T. K.; FUJIMORI, Y.; FUKUZUMI, Y.; YAMAZAKI, M.; TASHIRO, H.; IWAMOTO, C.; UMEHARA, Y.; IMANISHI, T.; MEYER, A.; IKEO, K.; GOJOBORI, T.; BAHRAM, S.; INOKO, H. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 100, n. 13, p. 7708-7713, 2003. ARMITAGE, M. H.; ANDERSON, K. L. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus.
Acta histochemical
, v. 115, n. 6, p. 603-608, 2013. AXE, D. D. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
Journal of Molecular Biology
, v. 341, n. 5, p. 1295-1315, 2004. AXE, D. D.; DIXON, B. W.; LU, P. Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints.
PLoS One
, v. 3, n. 6, p. e2246, 2008. AXE, D. D. The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds.
BIO-Complexity
, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-12, 2010. BEAUREGARD, M.; PAQUETTE, V. Neural correlates of a mystical experience in Carmelite nuns.
Neuroscience Letters
, v. 405, n. 3, p. 186-190, 2006. BEAUREGARD, M. The Primordial Psyche.
Journal of Consciousness Studies
, v. 21, n. 7-8, p. 132

157, 2014. BEHE, M. J.; SNOKE, D. W. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
Protein Science
, v. 13, n. 10, p. 2651-2664, 2004. BEHE, M. J. Waiting Longer for Two Mutations.
Genetics
, v. 181, n. 2, p. 819

820, 2009. BEHE, M. J. Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'.
Quarterly Review of Biology
, v. 85, n. 4, p. 419-445, 2010. BERGMAN, J.; O'SULLIVAN, N. Did immune system antibody diversity evolve?
Journal of Creation
, v. 22, n. 2, p. 92-96, 2008. BOLLINGER, R. R.; BARBAS, A. S.; BUSH, E. L.; LIN, S. S.; PARKER, W. Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix.
Journal of Theorical Biology
, v. 249, n. 4, p. 826-831, 2007. DEVANAPALLY, S.; RAVIKUMAR, S.; JOSE, A. M. Double-stranded RNA made in C. elegans neurons can enter the germline and cause transgenerational gene silencing.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
, v. 112, n. 7, p. 2133-2138, 2015. DINES, J. P.; OTÁROLA-CASTILLO, E.; RALPH, P.; ALAS, J.; DALEY, T.; SMITH, A. D.; DEAN, M. D. Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones.
Evolution
, v. 68, n. 11, p. 3296-3306, 2014. D'ONOFRIO, D. J, ABEL, D. L. Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing.
Frontiers in Genetics
, v. 5, n. 1, p. 140, 2014. FISHER, M. A, MCKINLEY, K. L.; BRADLEY, L. H.; VIOLA, S. R.; HECHT, M. H. De novo designed proteins from a library of artificial sequences function in Escherichia coli and enable cell growth.
PLoSOne
, v. 6, n. 1, p. e15364, 2011.

GLAZKO, G.; VEERAMACHANEN
I, V.; NEI, M.; MAKAŁOWSKI, W. Eighty percent of proteins
are different between humans and chimpanzés.
Gene
, v. 346, p. 215-219, 2005. HARJUNMAA, E.; KALLONEN, A.; VOUTILAINEN, M.; HÄMÄLÄINEN, K.; MIKKOLA, M.L.; JERNVALL, J. On the difficulty of increasing dental complexity.
Nature
, v. 483, n. 7389, p. 324-327, 2012. HUGHES, J. F.; SKALETSKY, H.; PYNTIKOVA, T.; GRAVES, T. A.; van DAALEN, S. K.; MINX, P. J.; FULTON, R. S.; MCGRATH, S. D.; LOCKE, D. P.; FRIEDMAN, C.; TRASK, B. J.; MARDIS, E. R.; WARREN, W. C.; REPPING, S.; ROZEN, S.; WILSON, R. K.; PAGE, D. C. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content.
Nature
, v. 463, n. 7280, p. 536-539, 2010. JOHNS, R. Self-organisation in dynamical systems: a limiting result.
Synthese
, v. 181, n. 2, p. 255-275, 2011. KUHN, JA. Dissecting Darwinism.
Proceedings (Baylor University.Medical Center)
, v. 25, n. 1, p. 41-47, 2012. LAMICHHANEY, S.;

ANDERSSON, L. Evolution of Darwin's finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing.
Nature
, v. 518, n. 7539, p. 371-375, 2015. LÖNNIG, W. E.; SAEDLER, H. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements.
Annual Review of Genetics
, v. 36, p. 389-410, 2002. LÖNNIG, W. E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity.
Dynamical Genetics
, p. 101-119, 2004.
LÖNNIG, W. E.; STÜBER, K.; SAEDLER, H.; KIM, J. H. Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What
Extent can the Phenotypic Differences between Misopatesorontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis.
Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability
, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-30, 2007. LÖNNIG, W. E. Mutagenesis in Physalispubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on
Dollo’s Law and the La
w of Recurrent Variation.
Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology
, v. 4, n. 1, 1-21, 2010. LYNCH, M. The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
, v. 104, suplemento 1, p. 8597-8604, 2007 (a). LYNCH, M. The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes.
Nature Reviews Genetics
, v. 8, p. 803-813, 2007 (b). LYNCH, M. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
, v. 107, n. 3, p.961-968, 2010. MCINTOSH, A. C. Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration. International
Journal of Design &Natureza e EcoDynamics
, v. 4, n. 2, p. 154-169, 2009. MILLS, G. C. The origin of antibody diversity.
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
, v. 51, n. 4, p. 254-256, 1999. NOBLE, D. Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology.
Experimental Physiology
, v. 98, n. 8, p. 1235-1243, 2013. PERES, J. F.; MOREIRA-ALMEIDA, A.; CAIXETA, L.; LEAO, F.; NEWBERG, A. Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation.
PLoS One
, v. 7, n. 11, p. e49360, 2012.



PETERSON, K. J.; DIETRICH, M. R.; MCPEEK, M. A. MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion.
BioEssays
, v. 31, n. 7, p. 736-747, 2009. RADIN, D.; MICHEL, L.; JOHNSTON, J.; DELORME, A. Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern.
PhysicsEssays
, v. 26, n. 4, p. 553-66, 2013. REEVES, M. A.; GAUGER, A. K.; AXE, D. D. Enzyme Families

Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family.
BIO-Complexity
, v. 4, p.1-16, 2014. SAIER, M. H Jr. Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems.
Trends in Microbiology
, v. 12, n. 3, p. 113-5, 2004. SCHAPER, S.; LOUIS, A. A. The Arrival of the Frequent: How Bias in Genotype-Phenotype Maps Can Steer Populations to Local Optima.
PLoS One
, v. 9, n. 2, p. e86635, 2014. SCHWEITZER, M. H.; WITTMEYER, J. L.; HORNER, J. R.; TOPORSKI, J. K. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex.
Science
, v. 307, n. 5717, p. 1952-1955, 2005. SCHWEITZER, M. H.; ZHENG, W.; ORGAN, C. L.; AVCI, R.; SUO, Z.; FREIMARK, L. M.; LEBLEU, V. S.; DUNCAN, M. B.; VANDER HEIDEN, M. G.; NEVEU, J. M.; LANE, W. S.; COTTRELL, J. S.; HORNER, J. R.; CANTLEY, L. C.; KALLURI, R.; ASARA, J. M. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis.
Science
, v. 324, n. 5927, p. 626-631, 2009. SHAPIRO, J. A. Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology.
Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
, v. 38, n. 4, p. 807-819, 2007.
SHCHERBAK, V. I.; MAKUKOV, M. A.The “Wow!signal” of the terrestrial genetic code.
Icarus
, v. 224, n. 1, p. 228-242, 2013. SUMMERS, R. L.; DAVE, A.; DOLSTRA, T. J.; BELLANCA, S.; MARCHETTI, R. V.; NASH, M. N.; RICHARDS, S. N.; GOH, V.; SCHENK, R. L.; STEIN, W. D.; KIRK, K.; SANCHEZ, C. P.; LANZER, M.; MARTIN, R. E. Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite's chloroquine resistance transporter.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
, v. 111, n. 17, p. E1759-67, 2014. TOMKINS, J. P. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%.
Answers Research Journal
, v. 6, n. 1, p. 63

69, 2013 (a).
TOMKINS, J. P. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding
Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene

Negating Fusion.
Answers Research Journal
, v. 6, p. 367-375, 2013 (b). TOMKINS, J. The Human GULO Pseudogene

Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy.
Answers Research Journal
, v. 7, p. 91-101, 2014. TRENT-VON HAESLER, N.; BEAUREGARD, M. Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest: implications for the concept of non-local mind.
Archives of Clinical Psychiatry (São Paulo)
, v. 40, n. 5, p. 197-202, 2013. VICTOR, S.; NAYAK, V. M.; RAJASINGH, R. Evolution of the ventricles.
Texas Heart Institute Journal
, v. 26, n. 3, p. 168-176, 1999. VICTOR, S.; NAYAK, V. M. Evolutionary anticipation of the human heart.
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
, v. 82, n. 5, p. 297-302, 2000. VREELAND RH, ROSENZWEIG WD, POWERS DW. Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal.
Nature
, v. 407, n. 6806, p. 897-900, 2000.



WELLS, J. Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?
Rivista di biologia
, v. 98, n. 1, p. 71-96, 2005. YAN, K. K.; FANG, G.; BHARDWAJ, N.; ALEXANDER, R. P.; GERSTEIN, M. Comparing genomes to computer operating systems in terms of the topology and evolution of their regulatory control networks.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
, v. 107, n. 20, p. 9186

9191, 2010.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum