Authors' response: The concerned sentences have been reformulated The statement in the introduction that "the core of Darwin's theory was never really questioned".
Thus, while the statement in the introduction goes in the right direction, it would be better to soften it a bit.
Broad, sweeping statements are made, which by their nature are inaccurate, such as the statement in the introduction that Ebola "came and disappeared".
This Pfam (not the misleading DUF71) name and Pfam number should be indicated with just a statement in the introduction that it was formerly DUF71.
For example, the statement (in the Introduction) "A recent systematic review of guidelines for limiting bias in preclinical research design was unable to identify any guidelines in oncology (Han et al., 2013)" is not supported by Han et al., 2013.
We have added the following statement in the Introduction section: "These results suggest that R397A is suitable to capture the apo and ions-only bound outward-facing states for their structural characterization.
For example, we do not think that the following statement in the Introduction is a fair reflection of the literature: "In addition, widespread functional correlation patterns have been observed across visual cortex in both macaques (Leopold et al., 2003; Vincent et al., 2007) and humans (Nir et al., 2006; Nir et al., 2008; Yeo et al., 2011; Donner et al., 2013).
Other important points: (i) The statement in the Introduction (beginning "Although GLVs are released upon mechanical damage…") must be at least changed to: "… the oral secretions of Manduca convert 3-(Z -GLVs to the 2-(E)-structures, …" (This is because this is a rearrangement, not an isomerisation).
Finally, in February 2009, Pope Benedict XVI made the euphoric "Darwin-birthday-statements" quoted in the introduction of this Essay, claiming that Darwin's system of theories is compatible with Christian faith.
