ReviewFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2012
Darwin's goldmine is still open: variation and selection run the world.
Review in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Last Universal Common Ancestor of Ribosome-Encoding Organisms: Portrait of LUCA.Journal of molecular evolution · 2024Review
- Molecular Mechanism of Response and Adaptation of Antioxidant Enzyme System to Salt Stress in Leaves ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
- Carl Woese: Still ahead of our time.mLife · 2022Article
- Leftovers of viruses in human physiology.Brain structure & function · 2021Review
- A Place for Viruses on the Tree of Life.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Review
- Somatic genetic rescue in Mendelian haematopoietic diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2019Review
- Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by a Family B DNA Polymerase from Self-Replicating Mobile Genetic Elements.Cell reports · 2017Article
- Viruses and cells intertwined since the dawn of evolution.Virology journal · 2015Review
- The universal tree of life: an update.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Review
- DNA topoisomerase VIII: a novel subfamily of type IIB topoisomerases encoded by free or integrated plasmids in Archaea and Bacteria.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Bacterial genome instability.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2014Review
- The distribution and impact of viral lineages in domains of life.Frontiers in microbiology · 2014Article
- Review
- Updated clusters of orthologous genes for Archaea: a complex ancestor of the Archaea and the byways of horizontal gene transfer.Biology direct · 2012Article
- Microbial genomics challenge Darwin.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scientific contribution of Darwin, still agonized in many religious circles, has now been recognized and celebrated by scientists from various disciplines. However, in recent years, several evolutionists have criticized Darwin as outdated, arguing that "Darwinism," assimilated to the "tree of life," cannot explain microbial evolution, or else was not operating in early life evolution. These critics either confuse "Darwinism" and old versions of "neo-Darwinism" or misunderstand the role of gene transfers in evolution. The core of Darwin explanation of evolution (variation/selection) remains necessary and sufficient to decipher the history of life. The enormous diversity of mechanisms underlying variations has been successfully interpreted by evolutionists in this framework and has considerably enriched the corpus of evolutionary biology without the necessity to kill the father. However, it remains for evolutionists to acknowledge interactions between cells and viruses (unknown for Darwin) as a major driving force in life evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.