two lectures on Evolution of Consciousness as per following schedule; Aug 2014

Replies

Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 24, 2014 7:36

Good day!

Progession of increasing in blissful varieties, is expressed by the Vedas as the nature of Godhead, the sarva karana karanam. Sri Isopanisad explains that the Source, sarva karana, is self-complete whole, atma-rama, and that many representative expansions or "wholes", part-and-parcel jivas, emanate from that originating source. That the material bodies which we currently inhabit also display some degree of this tendency towards ever-increasing facility and proximity to perfection, is then a given, a localized expression of Krsna's nature.

Thus adaptation and change to accomodate the desires and karma of the jivas inhabbiting the material body is expected, as all things are but small expansions reflecting the originating Nature of Godhead. Evolution or adaptation is but an expression of the spiritual nature,"frozen" into cold dense slow molecules, yet ultimately driven by the spiritual nature. E=MC2, similarly, spirit energy can be brought down to a mundane frequency, as energy can be frozen as matter.

Karma restricts our access to suitable vehicles to inform ourselves, hence the importance of cultivating by chanting , which destroys bad karmas and allows us to be eligible for true knowledge, enabling us to understand and see, and thus perfectly manifest our true natures despite the encumbrance of varieties of restricted human and other forms.

Just some thoughts....

Tamohara dasa, Msc.
- Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 24, 2014 7:37
  
  Dear Prof Mishra:
  
  For the past 50 years I have been expressing views against Darwin's
  evolution theory. I do not agree that today's human beings have evolved from
  Apes or Monkeys. Today we see monkeys at one end and we see humans at the
  other. Where are the intermediate products in this chain? Why could not they
  survive?
  Human race has less than 60,00 years existence. Cockroaches are here for
  over 65 million years! Where is the evolution in cockroaches or ants ? Why
  only Monkeys should evolve? Human gene has arrived from outside the earth
  and separately evolved, responding to climate change.
  Could you kindly pass-on this e-mail to the speakers?
  
  Best regards
  Dr Shrikant D. LIMAYE
  Pune
  - Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 24, 2014 7:37
    
    Hello Limayeji,
    I agree with you. I think every geologist will also agree with you.
    
    I have moved to Perth permanently. I am retired, now.
    
    With regards.
    
    Verma
    - Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 24, 2014 7:38
      
      Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
      
      Esteemed Gyanijan:
      
      Please understand that during evolution not each individual of a species gets transformed into another species and hence it is no wonder that species older than human still exist and humans being most recent among them have the shortest period of history on Earth. Even if human genes came from another planet, the fundamental issue of origin remains the same.
      
      I am very happy to see growing concerns and debates about Origin of Matter and Origin of Life. It is here that the man-made boundaries between various religions get erased.
      
      Kind regards and best wishes,
Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 25, 2014 6:06

Dear MRN Murthy et al; Aug 25, 2014

"May, trust, and appears to be", these are the key words, which I must point out in your thoughtful reply, dear Dr. ? That is alright, in experimental science, of course, but grounds us in speculations based on limited human intelligence, as opposed to that knowledge given from above by the Creator.

Allow me to point out; D arwin's in-between has not been explained at all. Where is the evolutionary advantages for example, to a 1/2 rotary organ for mobility in a rotarian micro-animal? It appears rather that all the extremely complex informations for producing such a complex mechanical system as a functionning rotor come already perfectly formed from nothing, there is no halfway organism, no half-rotor that has any function, there is no half-a-rotary organ which has any evolutionary use, but rather would impede the growth and mobility of the organism. It appears that other factors control the process other than what evolutionary Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest theories would suggest.

Just to be clear, population studies actually reveal that those incapable die off, leaving the majority of a population to survive and reproduce, as opposed to the notion of the best surviving due to evolutionary advantages, as in Darwin et al.

I dare to posit; What we actually observe is intelligent control and creation, there is nothing random. This is observable, there is no need for "may bes". By Occams razor we must reject such speculation as actually unobservable, there is no such fossil record of step-by-step evolution. Changes of bodies are seen, yes, in leaps, but Darwin's gradualistic ideas are too simplistic and miss the vital Supersoul. Without understanding karma and the spiritual self, there can be no final conclusions.

Sincerely

Tamohara dasa , MSc.

From: M. R. N. Murthy <mrn@mbu.iisc.ernet.in>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:02:01 AM
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Seminar on Evolution of Consciousness

25 August 2014

Dear All,

Research on the structure and function of proteins strongly
supports Darwinian hypothesis. We could construct phylogeny based
on protein sequences or structures and it largely agrees with
Darwinian descent of species. Every time a protein structure is
determined, our trust in Darwinian hypothesis increases. This
corraboration of earlier theory by new data is at the root of
success of Science.

Darwin's theory provides the simplest and least ambiguous
explanation of evolution of life. The theory provides elegent
explanations for most of animal and human behavior.

Darwinian theory is viewed with suspision because most of us
cannot visualize evolutionary time scales. What appears to be
improbable in finite time may become a certainty if time is
unlimited.

Regards,

Murthy

> Dear All,
> Please pardon my ignorance but where is venue L5 ( Venue: L5; Date : 26th
> August 2014; Time: 6-7 PM).
> A small query : As far as I know the difference between human gene and a rat
> gene is less than 1% and I believe the difference is even less between that
> between human and monkey. So how do you account for human coming from a
> different planet but still having majority of genes so closely related to
> monkeys (and even other animals).
> Further, the fact that there were no intermediate animal classes in between man
> and monkey can indeed happen if we believe that they did exist at one point of
> time in evolution but did not survive. As we all know even humans faced a very
> tough time at one point of time (faced extinction) and barely survived.
>
> Thanks
>
> Prof Sundeep Mishra
> Department of Cardiology
> AIIMS, New Delhi
>
> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:43:58 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Seminar on Evolution of Consciousness
> From: pkyadava1953@gmail.
- Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 25, 2014 9:14
  
  In fact it is not so easy in some sense is exactly the opposite (proteins are too similar each other and mutations are each other coordinated and not random) the point is that evolution happened but not by the mechanisms supposed by Darwin there is a very recent issue of journal of physiology edited by Denis Noble on this topic
  
  Best
  
  Alessandro Giuliani
  - Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 26, 2014 5:48
    
    Dear friends:
    
    The ‘Seminar on Evolution of Consciousness’ will be held at L5, IIT-Kanpur, during 6-7 PM on 26th & 27th August, 2014.
    
    It is good to see the interesting postings on Darwinian concept of Life, Its Origin and Evolution. The objective of science is to understand the truth and spread the same among society for betterment of all. However, Darwin’s theory does not allow this objective of science to be practiced in reality and evidence of the same can be found from the statement of the famous proponent of Darwinian ideology Nobel Biologist Francis Crick[1]
    
    “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truth, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendents.”
    
    If we strictly accept Darwin’s theory then we must conclude that our entire scientific research effort is not trust worthy at all. Following Darwinian ideology there is no way to guarantee that the research work conducted by Darwinists is focused on truth and not for survival and leaving behind descendents. Hence, Darwinism is self-defeating in nature.
    
    None of the replies actually provided any evidence to support Darwinism, rather most of the replies contain only unproven statements to support the Darwinian doctrine. Therefore, we would like to list below a few relevant developments in frontier biology that refute Darwinian abiology.
    
    (1)    Abiogenesis hypothesis has no place in frontier biology:
    
    (a)   Rudolph Virchow’s statement in 1858 “omnis cellula e cellula” – “every cell comes from a cell”[2] is still valid.
    
    (b) Louis Pasteur’s theory of biogenesis: Omne vivum ex vivo – ‘life comes from life’ is the only provable theory in biology.
    
    (c)   Primordial bombardments dumped in Darwin’s ‘Warm Little Pond’, hence first two paragraphs of the article ‘Goodbye to the Warm Little Pond?’[3], published in Science magazine states:
    
    “Ever since 1871, when Charles Darwin made his oft-quoted allusion to life’s beginnings in a “warm little pond,” scientists have tended to imagine the origin of life as being a rather tranquil affair-something like a quiet afternoon in a country kitchen, with a rich organic soup of complex carbon compounds simmering slowly in the sunlight until somehow they became living protoplasm.
    
    “Sorry, Charles. Your Warm Little Pond was a beautiful image. It’s been enshrined in innumerable textbooks as the scientific theory of the origin of life. But to hear the planetary scientists talking these days, you were dead wrong. The Warm Little Pond never existed.”
    
    (d) Those who still believe abiogenesis for them Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. (Serving Director of Bhakti Vedanta Institute, Princeton, NJ, USA) offers a challenge:
    
    “Despite all their science, all the scientists in the world working together cannot make even a single blade of grass.”
    
    (2)    The invalid assumptions of Darwinian abiology are still commonly recognized and used in the scientific literature on objective evolution. For example, Darwinists continuously insist on the blind parent-to-progeny hereditary variation. They claim that all genetic alteration happens accidentally and randomly. They also insist that genome alteration happens only by gradual change and natural selection. For them genome is a ROM (read-only memory), which is modified only by accident. This claim of Darwinists about randomness and accident became dogmatic with the intent to reject all possible revivals of the role of a supernatural agent found in religious explanations as the cause of origin of diverse living organisms.
    
    However, in 21st century biology it is now well established that genome alteration did not happen by gradual change (for example the non-parental transfers: Transduction, Natural-Transformation, Lateral DNA transfer) and natural selection (for example the non-parental transfers: Symbiogenesis). Evidence confirms the transfer of genetic material among non-mating species, even between parasitic invertebrates and some of their vertebrate hosts. Now we know that living organisms have the capacity to modify their own heredity – natural genetic engineering[4]. Large parts of DNA alteration in bacteria and eukaryotes are a result of a coordinated accomplishment of natural genetic engineering. The traditional understanding of genome variation as stochastic events or unpredictable accidents is now replaced by a controlled and coordinated accomplishment of cellular biochemistry. This paradigm shift is a major setback to Neo-Darwinism, because cellular biochemistry is based on guided mechanisms and thus acts in predictable ways. In contrast to Neo-Darwinism, DNA changes are now known as nonrandom with respect to time, physiology and life history.[5] As a result of all these developments, frontier biology rejected the dogmatic faith of Darwinists: genome is a ROM, which is only modified by accident. The emerging alternative view of 21st century biology explains the genome as a RW (read-write) memory system subject to nonrandom change by dedicated cell functions. The genome is actively modified in a coordinated and controlled mode by the sentient cell functions and hence new biology views life forms as self-modifying beings.
    
    However, most importantly none of such transfers could produce a new species. Both Darwinian and non-Darwinian alterations do occur in nature, but they always produce only minor changes (microevolution) within species. We cannot find a single case in the literature where either Darwinian or non-Darwinian alterations successfully lead to the appearance of a new species.
    
    (3)   Darwinists commonly argue that we cannot see macroevolution now because it takes place very slowly (tens of thousands of generation). Micro organisms are found to exhibit faster mutation rates.[6] Hence, it is possible to experimentally verify whether macroevolution takes place or not in such cases. As an example, bacterial colonies are found to grow (reproduce) in as quickly as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours and more in almost all types of environments. We can test the bacteria generation after generation but there is not a single case reported in the available scientific literature where they turn into something else. They always remain bacteria. Recently, Kuhn in his article ‘Dissecting Darwinism’[7] stated:
    
    “In all fairness, there is convincing evidence, that is widely acknowledged, that random mutation and natural adaptation (Darwinian evolution) does occur within species, leading to minor changes in areas such as beak size, skin pigmentation, or antibiotic resistance. Some of these changes involve a simple biologic survival advantage for a population, without a mutation in DNA. Others might be influenced by a single deletion or insertion within the DNA strand. However, the modern evolution data do not convincingly support a transition from a fish to an amphibian, which would require a massive amount of new enzymes, protein systems, organ systems, chromosomes, and formation of new strands of specifically coding DNA. Even with thousands of billions of generations, experience shows that new complex biological features that require multiple mutations to confer a benefit do not arise by natural selection and random mutation. New genes are difficult to evolve. The bacteria do not form into other species.”
    
    (4)   The morphologically based Tree of Life (TOL) representation has dominated evolutionary biology from the time when Darwin first established it as a sufficient description of the total history of life forms on Earth. Later, a three-domain tree of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) was introduced by constructing trees of other universal genes, such as ribosomal proteins and core RNA polymerase subunits.[8] Thus, TOL was perceived as an authentic victory of tree thinking in biology. However, genome-wide analysis of gene phylogenies (phylogenomics), revealed an additional intricate image of evolution.[9] The discovery of HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer) has completely changed the whole picture. There are cases reported where phylogenetic trees of individual genes commonly have dissimilar topologies and this variety of tree topologies cannot be elucidated by artifacts of phylogenetic rebuilding.[10] These research studies recommend that TOL should be replaced by a “net of life” or a “forest of life”.[11] With further advancements in research, evolutionary genomics successfully knocked down the simple idea of the TOL by enlightening the dynamic, reticulated nature of evolution where HGT, genome fusion, and interaction among genomes of cellular life forms and diverse selfish genetic elements play a vital role. Hence, phylogenetic TOL becomes the genetic “forest of life” and this genetic “forest of life” includes trees, bushes, thickets of lianas, and obviously, several dead trunks and branches.[12] Darwinism does not encompass within its framework the complex mechanisms needed for creating a “forest of life” to support its presumption of objective evolution.
    
    (5)   The archaeological record is very limited and its analysis has been contentious. Hence, molecular biologists have shifted their attention to molecular dating techniques. On April 2013, the prestigious Cell Press Journal Current Biology published an article entitled “A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes”.[13] This paper has twenty authors and they are researchers from the world’s top institutes like Max Planck Institute, Harvard, etc. We discussed a few significant fallacies of the methodology employed by this paper in Current Biology.[14] The introduction to this Current Biology paper begins with:
    
    “Differences in DNA sequences correspond to nucleotide substitutions that have accumulated since their split from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). When the average number of substitutions occurring per unit of time can be determined, the ‘‘molecular clock’’ rate can be estimated. Under the assumption of constant rates of change among lineages, molecular clocks have been used to estimate divergence times between closely related species or between populations. Fossil evidence has been frequently used to estimate a date for the MRCA of two related groups, thus providing a calibration point for the molecular clock. The sparseness of the fossil record, however, poses limitations on the reliability of such estimates. For example, in human evolution, no fossil has yet been identified to represent the uncontested MRCA for humans and chimpanzees or other closely related primate species. As a consequence, the nuclear and mitochondrial mutation rates for the human lineage have been heavily debated.”
    - Tamohara dasa ADMIN. > Tamohara dasa ADMIN. August 26, 2014 5:48
      
      Respected authors of this paper have emphatically accepted that the fossil record is inadequate and unreliable. These statements clearly substantiate that now biologists are agreeing that fossil records do not provide any significant evidence at all for conventional evolution theory. Despite the well-recorded fact of the continual grand propaganda of Darwinism based on fossil evidence for more than 150 years, in recent times biologists are surprisingly coming up with such statements, based on their confidence that evolution can be explained purely by the genealogical/genomic record provided by modern molecular biology. Still many respected journals (for example the Nature[15]) continue to publish articles on fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution. These incoherently diverse claims prove that Darwinists are struggling with unscientific ideological approaches to explain biodiversity.
      
      (6) Zygote to adult embryonic development of every species also follows a fixed unique blueprint leading to the production of an adult organism of that particular species only. Driesch[16] explained this in a sequence of results where embryological growth progressed by the interactions of the nucleus and cytoplasm:
      
      “Insofar as it contains a nucleus, every cell, during development, carries the totality of all primordia; insofar as it contains a specific cytoplasmic cell body, it is specifically enabled by this to respond to specific effects only. …When nuclear material is activated, then, under its guidance, the cytoplasm of its cell that had first influenced the nucleus is in turn changed, and thus the basis is established for a new elementary process, which itself is not only the result but also a cause.”
      
      This spectacular realization of nuclear-cytoplasmic interaction and nuclear equivalence finally forced Driesch to reject the vision of a living organism as a physical machine. Examining natural history, researchers also reported that living organisms never evolved into different novel anatomical structures; rather they continually unaltered, even over the period of hundreds of millions of years. This non-changing aspect of an organism is known as stasis in the fossil record. Many similar observations in the literature establish that species preservation is a natural characteristic of life. Life’s ability to preserve its own species over the period of hundreds of millions of years (‘Stasis’ in the fossil record) offers a significant challenge to Darwinian gradualism.
      
      (7)    Charles Darwin in his evolution theory advocated an extreme reductionistic view that the human ability to form and hold beliefs had evolved from purposeless chemicals and the lower animals. In due course of time Darwin’s abiology also produced a general consensus among scientists for an extreme reductionistic view that in a future based on gene analysis science can understand and control all the functions of living entities including psychological behavior. However, in reality what to talk about psychological behavior, even the simplest physiological functions like muscle contraction cannot be understood by simplistic reductionistic biochemical explanations such as the interaction between actin and myosin.[17] Biochemical pathways do not precede physiological functions and in reality they both take place at the same time. Therefore, biochemical explanation cannot provide a causal rationalization for the physiological event.[18]
      
      (8)    Evolutionary biology proclaims that during the course of evolutionary history natural selection can select a particular molecular structure that is responsible for a specific function with survival advantage. In an organism different mechanisms with several different genes and gene products may be responsible for the appearance of the same function and vice versa. For example, using genome data scientists found that two enzyme functions are associated with seven different folds each [19] and several biochemical functions can be carried out by proteins with the same fold (even by members of a single homologous family).[20] In such situations natural selection (only looking for a function with survival advantage) has no means to distinguish between different molecular structures. Therefore, instead of structural explanation, this abiology attempts to provide a functional explanation for the present biological structures on the basis of survival advantages in the past. Like a man looking-for-keys-under-the-lamppost evolutionists try to analyze DNA sequences with the belief that a linear causal succession connects the sequence of a gene to the biological function of the product of that gene. This simplistic stance overlooks the role of cellular and extra-cellular environment, and of regulatory genes when it claim that gene sequence is exclusively the cause of the manifestation of a co-linear protein sequence. Ignoring the role of the sentient cell, this view further believes that the three-dimensional structure of the protein is solely determined by the protein sequence only. In reality, biological systems cannot be grasped either by the determinism of Newtonian mechanics or by random systems analysis of statistical mechanics.[21] The properties of a protein are not equal to the sum of the properties of each amino acid. In a living cell proteins can distinctively catalyze a chemical reaction or identify an antigen not only because their amino acids are arranged in a particular manner, but also because their three-dimensional structure and function are controlled by sentient living cell.
      
      (9) The commonly practiced linear causality explanations in physics and chemistry are insufficient to address the network and circular causality of an organic whole. The immensely complex organic whole does not allow abiology to unravel all the causal relations of a functional dynamic integrated biological phenomenon.[22] Due to a misunderstanding, reductionists falsely believe that causality is as a relationship between two chemicals/objects or between a structure and a function. In reality, causality is a relationship between successive events and abiology cannot establish a unique causal relationship between the structure and the function of a biomolecule in an organism. In living organisms a single chemical structure of a biomolecule can execute many different functions and also one function can be produced by several different chemical structures.[23] Abiology can at best hunt for correlations and not causal relationships between a structure and a biological function.[24]
      
      The recent issues of our Newsletter The Harmonizer ( www.scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer ) elaborate these points. Under the guidance of our siksa Gurudev, Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. we are organizing Second International Conference ‘Science and Scientist – 2014 (Conference Page: www.scsiscs.org/conference )’ at Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur during 28-29 November 2014. The major focus of this conference is to understand how 21st century biology refutes Darwin’s theory and there is a trend towards growing interest in the cognitive nature of life. We request all of you to actively participate in this unique event so that we can properly understand this most important subject matter with the exchange of dialogue from scholars of multi disciplinary and religious background.
      
      Sincerely,
      
      On behalf of Organizing Committee
      
      Science and Scientist – 2014
      
      Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.
      
      General Secretary
      
      Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
      
      http://scsiscs.org
      
      References:
      
      [1] Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis. New York: Touchstone, P. 262.
      
      [2] Tan, S.Y. and Brown, J. (2006). Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): Pope of pathology. Singapore Med J, 47, pp. 567 – 578.
      
      [3] Waldrop, M.M. (1990). Goodbye to the warm little pond? Science, Vol. 250, pp. 1078-1080.
      
      [4] Shapiro, J.A. (1992). Natural genetic engineering in evolution. Genetica, Vol. 86, pp. 99–111.
      
      [5] Shapiro, J.A. (1984). The use of Mudlac transposons as tools for vital staining to visualize clonal and non-clonal patterns of organization in bacterial growth on agar surfaces. J General Microbiology, Vol. 130, pp. 1169–1181.
      
      [6] Bryan, J., Chewapreecha, C., and Bentley, S.D., 2012. Developing insights into the mechanisms of evolution of bacterial pathogens from whole-genome sequences. Future Microbiol. Vol. 7, pp. 1283-1296.
      
      [7] Kuhn, J.A., 2012. Dissecting Darwinism. Proc Bayl Univ Med Cent, Vol. 25(1), pp. 41-47.
      
      [8] Woese, C.R. (1987). Bacterial evolution. Microbiol Rev., Vol. 51, pp. 221–271.
      
      [9] Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H. and Philippe, H. (2005). Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet., Vol. 6, pp. 361–375.
      
      [10] Koonin, E.V. and Wolf, Y.I. (2008). Genomics of bacteria and archaea: the emerging dynamic view of the prokaryotic world. Nucleic Acids Res., 36, pp. 6688–6719.
      
      [11] Bapteste, E. et al. (2009). Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things. Biol Direct., Vol. 4, p. 34.
      
      [12] Koonin, E.V. (2009). Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Research., Vol. 37, pp. 1011-1034.
      
      [13] Fu, et al. (2013). A revised timescale for human evolution based on ancient mitochondrial genomes. Current Biology, Vol. 23, pp. 553–559.
      
      [14] Does Current Biology have the Misfortune of Owning an Unreliable Clock?: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/2013/04/20/does-current-biolo...
      
      [15] Retallack, G.J. (2013). Ediacaran life on land. Nature, Vol. 493, pp. 89–92.
      
      [16] Driesch, H. (1894). Analytische Theorie de organischen Entwicklung. W. Engelmann, Leipzig.
      
      [17] Rose, S. (1998). What is wrong with reductionist explanations of behaviour?. In: The limits of reductionism in biology, Bock, G. and Goode, J. (Eds), Novartis Foundation Symposium, No. 213, Wiley, Chichester, UK, p. 176.
      
      [18] Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 385.
      
      [19] Hegyi, H. and Gerstein, M.J. (1999). The relationship between protein structure and function: A comprehensive survey with application to the yeast genome. Mol. Biol., Vol. 288, pp. 147-164.
      
      [20] Todd, A.E., Orengo, C.A. and Thornton, J.M. (1999). Evolution of protein function, from a structural perspective. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., Vol. 3, pp. 548-556.
      
      [21] Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P. and Gershenson, C. (2007). Complexity and philosophy. In Complexity, Science and Society, J Bogg, R Geyer (eds). Oxford, UK: Radcliffe.
      
      [22] Berger, R. (1998). Understanding science: why causes are not enough. Philos. Sci., Vol. 65, pp. 306-332.
      
      [23] Martin, A.C.R., et al. (1998). Protein folds and functions. Structure, Vol. 6, pp. 875-884.
      
      [24] Van Regenmortel, M.H.V. (1999). Biosensors and the search for structure–activity correlations. J. Mol. Recogn., Vol. 12, pp. 277-278.