Evolution articles reviewers wanted

[Dirk Bontes]

L.S.

 

I have published two for pay articles on evolution theory at Smashwords (an Internet publisher).

 

I hope some experts at evolution theory are willing to read them, cogitate on them and write reviews about them. This in the hope that they will then get noticed and sell - because at the moment they do not sell at all.

 

If interested, please send me a mail.

 

The one is about the evolution of the guttural pouches of horses.

 

That one was a spin off from the other, longer article - which is about evolution as a teleological process.

[Ophiolite]

The only advice I can give is "never set up a peanut vending stall at a funeral".

[ajb]

Were these articles sent to a peer-review journal?

[Arete]

I've reviewed for both the peer review process and for publishers. While peer review is generally unpaid, when the purpose of the review is to profit the author/publisher, reviewers generally get paid. People like American Journal Experts and Bio Science Writers offer the type of service you're looking for.

[Dirk Bontes]

Were these articles sent to a peer-review journal?

No. Journals do not pay. I am looking for paying customers.

I've reviewed for both the peer review process and for publishers. While peer review is generally unpaid, when the purpose of the review is to profit the author/publisher, reviewers generally get paid. People like American Journal Experts and Bio Science Writers offer the type of service you're looking for.

I have myself reviewed plenty of books for no pay. If one has to pay someone for a review, in my opinion the review is bought and suspect and not independent.

The reward that accompanies my articles - I hope - is the enjoyment of genuinely new ideas.

[Ophiolite]

Dirk, I have a considerable interest in evolutionary theory. In preparing this post I just did a quick check on my personal library catalogue, where I found I have the following:

 

Human Evolution: 25 books

General Evolution: 36 books

Complexity in Evolution: 3 books

Abiogeneis: 30 books

Genetics: 12 books

Biochemistry: 5 books

Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Mendel, etc: 41 books

Palaeontology: 25 books

 

That's a total of around 180 monographs, textbooks and popular science works directly or closely related to evolution. In addition I have in excess of 150 research papers on various aspects of evolution and a comparable number on abiogenesis.

 

In gathering this material I would not expect to source any of it at somewhere like Smashwords, an internet publisher. What will you say that will convince me it is worth my time to read, let alone review what you have written?

 

Perhaps you could place a short, but typical example of one of the pieces here, so that we could see if there was sufficient interest to pursue the matter further.

 

I realise in this post you may find me coming across as an elitist snob. Not so. I'm an interested amateur who is just rather surprised at the idea that anything revolutionary, or even solidly interesting would appear where you are trying to promote it. I am ready to be persuaded, but I need to see something substantive for that to happen.

[ajb]

No. Journals do not pay. I am looking for paying customers.

Then my advice would be to write a popular science book, they can sell. Journal articles make no money for the authors directly, only the publishers make money here.

[Dirk Bontes]

What will you say that will convince me it is worth my time to read, let alone review what you have written?

 

Perhaps you could place a short, but typical example of one of the pieces here, so that we could see if there was sufficient interest to pursue the matter further.

 

Dear sir (or Ms), I would be immensely flattered if you were to read my articles.

 

People who have an intention to review can get a coupon for a free download from me. In which case there is no obligation to write a review, of course.

 

The structure of the articles is fact followed by reference, repeated as many times as necessary. It would be easier reading if the references were in notes, but I like to keep the two together; also because the titles of the referenced articles often themselves add some information. When done presenting facts, I offer a solution to the problem.

 

The reason for the existence of guttural pouches in horses has never been answered satisfactorily. I provide such a reason. This article has a 45 % free sample download at the moment.

 

I here quote the entire chapter 2 of the other - far more important and longer - article: Evolution Is Teleological. This article at the moment has a 32 % free download.

 

Chapter 2. Teleological evolution at the molecular level

Most of this article will be about the evolution of macroscopic characteristics, but these derive from changes in (sub)microscopic structures, which usually will be proteins. Proteins can be changed in various ways, one of which – in an eukaryotic organism – is the insertion, exchange or deletion of an exon in the genetic material that encodes it. Here, though, we will examine changes in the active site of a protein by point mutations in the encoding DNA.

Wikipedia: “...proteins [assume] one or more specific spatial conformations, driven by a number of non-covalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, Van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic packing”.

All of these interactions are essentially electromagnetic in nature – and electromagnetic forces – like gravity – vary exponentially with the distance between the interacting components.

Let us assume that a point mutation occurs which varies the distance between two components of the active site by one nanometer and that this change is of some benefit to the organism: the evolution algorithm will favour this change. Let us further assume that the optimal change is a variation in the distance between the two components of the active site by fifteen nanometers. A second mutation which increases the first variation of the distance between the two components by another nanometer will increase the benefit to the organism to a greater degree because the electromagnetic force between the two components itself increases (or decreases) exponentially, and therefore this second mutation will be more strongly selected for than the first mutation was selected for. And so on for any further mutations that increase the variation of the distance between those two components of the active site. Thus the evolution in this manner of active sites, is with each mutation more strongly selected for and therefore is purposeful and therefore is teleological".

 

Infrequently, as above, I quote Wikipedia. Usually the references are to articles from scientific journals.

 

"Evolution Is Teleological" presents arguments - usually of a geometric nature - that subsequent beneficial mutations of a characteristic are exponentially stronger selected for by natural selection. This causes a directional - fast - evolution of that characteristic.

 

The chapter quoted above argues that evolution was teleological in nature to start out with. However, even if it wasn't, if at any time during non-teleological evolution a mutation would arise that would enable teleological - purposeful - evolution, natural selection would immediately select for the far more effective teleological evolution and non-teleological evolution would become extinct.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Dirk Bontes

[Ophiolite]

Well, I may follow up with more detail later, but here is a two minute scan:

 

1. Chapters are lengthy expositions on a topic. You are calling three paragraphs (in need of editing) a chapter! Really?

2. Never quote wikipedia in a context like this. I don't even quote it in summaries I write on topics for my own amusement.

3. I don't think you know what teleology is. Selecting for a genetic makeup, and hence phenotype, that is fitter is not what is meant by teleology, but that is what you are asserting. If you mean something else, then you have expressed yourself - at best - ambiguously.

 

Edit: Are you moving the points by one nanometre on the DNA helix, the transfer RNA, the ribosome, or the raw protein, or the folded protein? you need to be specific. (And we need a molecualr chemist in here, but I think a one nanometre move on any of these, when a 15 nanometre move is optimal is, I think, meaningless.)

 

(Keep in mind I'm a geologist, with engineering tendencies working in training and knowledge management, so I know bugger all.)

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Dirk Bontes]

Well, I may follow up with more detail later, but here is a two minute scan:

 

1. Chapters are lengthy expositions on a topic. You are calling three paragraphs (in need of editing) a chapter! Really?

2. Never quote wikipedia in a context like this. I don't even quote it in summaries I write on topics for my own amusement.

3. I don't think you know what teleology is. Selecting for a genetic makeup, and hence phenotype, that is fitter is not what is meant by teleology, but that is what you are asserting. If you mean something else, then you have expressed yourself - at best - ambiguously.

 

Edit: Are you moving the points by one nanometre on the DNA helix, the transfer RNA, the ribosome, or the raw protein, or the folded protein? you need to be specific. (And we need a molecualr chemist in here, but I think a one nanometre move on any of these, when a 15 nanometre move is optimal is, I think, meaningless.)

 

(Keep in mind I'm a geologist, with engineering tendencies working in training and knowledge management, so I know bugger all.)

1. I am open for suggestions. In this case the term chapter is obligatory: Smashwords automatically generates a content index, but requires that each content item is preceeded by the word 'Chapter'.

 

2. I can delete the quote of course and simply say that interactions between the atoms in proteins are electromagnetic in nature.

 

3. Teleology - fact of being directed to an end, as by Providence; doctrine as to the purposes of nature; explanation of a phenomenon by reference to its purpose. (Wordsworth Dictionary of Difficult Words)

 

My thesis is that once natural selection selects a mutation that benefits an organism in the slightest way, it will select all subsequent mutations that contribute to the benefit of that characteristic at an accelerating rate. In this sense the evolution of such a characteristic is directed at an inevitable optimum end - and therefore per the first part of the definition of the concept 'teleology' it is teleological.

 

As for your last question, I quote from the above text: "we will examine changes in the active site of a protein".

In the example given the distances of 1 nanometre and 15 nanometres are arbitrary. They illustrate the principle: in a series of mutations that each increase (or decrease) the distance between two components of an active site by an equal amount, each subsequent mutation will confer an exponentially greater benefit and will therefore also be selected for at a rate that is exponentially faster than the previous mutation was selected for.

[Ophiolite]

1. I am open for suggestions. In this case the term chapter is obligatory: Smashwords automatically generates a content index, but requires that each content item is preceeded by the word 'Chapter'.

Confirmation that Smashwords is hardly the best place for a scientific paper. Is your aim to make money - in which case write a book, or to get exposure for your hypothesis? If the latter, what' wrong with peer reviewed journals?

 

2. I can delete the quote of course and simply say that interactions between the atoms in proteins are electromagnetic in nature.

I think that would be the preferred option here, but I'm just troubled by your approach. Follow me here; your argument is this:

1. The interactions between molecules is electromagnetic in nature.

2. Electromagnetism falls off with distance in a predictable manner.

3. So interactions will be influenced by distances between potentially interacting sites.

 

I don't think this is how a biochemist, or physical chemist would describe the situation. It feels clumsy to me. You should be using the terminology of molecular dynamics and force fields and potential energy. Again, I hope a member with skills in this area will step in.

 

3. Teleology - fact of being directed to an end, as by Providence; doctrine as to the purposes of nature; explanation of a phenomenon by reference to its purpose. (Wordsworth Dictionary of Difficult Words)

 

My thesis is that once natural selection selects a mutation that benefits an organism in the slightest way, it will select all subsequent mutations that contribute to the benefit of that characteristic at an accelerating rate. In this sense the evolution of such a characteristic is directed at an inevitable optimum end - and therefore per the first part of the definition of the concept 'teleology' it is teleological.

You really can't use a standard dictionary definition of a technical term in a science discussion. You are twisting the generally accepted meaning of teleology to the point that what you are saying is trivial and simply another way of describing natural selection.

[Mordred]

what about biochemical interactions? doesn't the protein to protein interaction include both electrostatic forces and/or biochemical events?

 

for example how does it explain the interactions described in say this paper?

"principles of protein to protein interactions"

http://www.pnas.org/content/93/1/13.full.pdf

 

keep in mind I have no appreciable knowledge in this field

[Arete]

"Evolution Is Teleological" presents arguments - usually of a geometric nature - that subsequent beneficial mutations of a characteristic are exponentially stronger selected for by natural selection. This causes a directional - fast - evolution of that characteristic.

 

 

This contradicts the bulk of experimental results in which the rate of fitness increase a population under selection slows, rather than escalates over time:

 

"A common observation in microbial evolution experiments is that the rate of fitness increase tends to decelerate over time."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.short

 

 

Most notably, it contradicts long term results from studies like the Lenski experiment: "Both morphology (cell size) and fitness (measured in competition with the ancestor) evolved rapidly for the first 2000 generations or so after the populations were introduced into the experimental environment, but both were nearly static for the last 5000 generations."

http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6808

 

As such, I'd say the argument appears fundamentally flawed at the outset, and lacking a basis in sound evolutionary theory.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Arete

[Dirk Bontes]

 

 

Confirmation that Smashwords is hardly the best place for a scientific paper. Is your aim to make money - in which case write a book, or to get exposure for your hypothesis? If the latter, what' wrong with peer reviewed journals?

 

 

I have no idea what is the best place for my article. I have written two articles. Two articles are not two books, unless one wants to call 3k or 10k words a book. Smashwords pays. Journals do not pay.

 

your argument is this:

1. The interactions between molecules is electromagnetic in nature.

2. Electromagnetism falls off with distance in a predictable manner.

3. So interactions will be influenced by distances between potentially interacting sites.

I don't think this is how a biochemist, or physical chemist would describe the situation. It feels clumsy to me. You should be using the terminology of molecular dynamics and force fields and potential energy.

 

Actually my argument was quite different.

 

You really can't use a standard dictionary definition of a technical term in a science discussion. You are twisting the generally accepted meaning of teleology to the point that what you are saying is trivial and simply another way of describing natural selection.

 

That is a good point. Using the word 'teleology' to describe 'purposeful evolution by accelerating natural selection' may cause confusion. On the other hand the latter is quite a mouthful. So we may have to define a new concept: e.g. finisology; this would result in the title "Evolution is finisological".

 

I apologize for not yet knowing how to edit the quote boxes here.

 

[Ophiolite]

 

Actually my argument was quite different.

Then you have not presented it clearly enough to be understood by the average punter. Would you like to give it another go?

[Dirk Bontes]

what about biochemical interactions? doesn't the protein to protein interaction include both electrostatic forces and/or biochemical events?

 

for example how does it explain the interactions described in say this paper?

"principles of protein to protein interactions"

http://www.pnas.org/content/93/1/13.full.pdf

 

keep in mind I have no appreciable knowledge in this field

 

There are electromagnetic interactions within a protein and also between a protein and a substrate (which may be another protein). There may also be chemical interactions between a protein and a substrate.

 

The general example I provided was about changes in the initial condition of the conformation of an active site, resulting in a hypothetical change in its function. A series of beneficial mutations is supposed in order to attain a new optimum conformation of the active side, usually resulting in the ability to bind to another substrate or to process an existing substrate in a new way.

 

The article you linked to, is about the interaction between two or more proteins. Since the one protein in a dimer or tetramer has the other(s) as a substrate, the same principle applies when it evolves by natural selection from a monomer to a dimer and from a dimer to a tetramer. The interaction between two monomers at first will be weak and it will eventually evolve to an optimum strength. Because of the exponential nature of the forces between the two monomers any subsequent mutation that benefits their association will be more strongly selected for until the optimum is attained.

 

 

This contradicts the bulk of experimental results in which the rate of fitness increase a population under selection slows, rather than escalates over time:

 

"A common observation in microbial evolution experiments is that the rate of fitness increase tends to decelerate over time."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.short

 

 

Most notably, it contradicts long term results from studies like the Lenski experiment: "Both morphology (cell size) and fitness (measured in competition with the ancestor) evolved rapidly for the first 2000 generations or so after the populations were introduced into the experimental environment, but both were nearly static for the last 5000 generations."

http://www.pnas.org/content/91/15/6808

 

As such, I'd say the argument appears fundamentally flawed at the outset, and lacking a basis in sound evolutionary theory.

I think that I am going to read those two articles.

 

But before I do so, I can already say this: There are lots of processes in chemistry and biology that have graphs with sigmoid curves. If the evolution of a characteristic which requires many mutations, would be graphed, it is to be expected to also be sigmoid. Its start would be slow, as the first mutations provide minimal benefits. All that time - according to my hypothesis - the rate of natural selection is accelerating, though, and at a certain time it will become noticeable and take off. Near the top of the curve, when the optimum condition is nearly attained, subsequent mutations will provide little extra benefit and will therefore be selected for at a proportionately lower rate.

 

In populations of species that have occupied an ecological niche, lots of mutations may accumulate that have no effect at all on the optimum function of the proteins or individual, since that already had been attained before those mutations occurred.

Then you have not presented it clearly enough to be understood by the average punter. Would you like to give it another go?

 

Proteins [assume] one or more specific spatial conformations, driven by a number of non-covalent interactions such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, Van der Waals forces, and hydrophobic packing”. These interactions vary exponentially with the distance between the interacting components.

 

If a number of mutations causing equal increases or decreases in the distance between two components of an active site, are required for an active site to change its functionality, then with each such mutation the interaction between the two components will increase respectively decrease exponentially, as will the benefit that is conferred and therefore the rate at which these mutations are selected for will accelarate exponentially as well.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Dirk Bontes

[Mordred]

Thanks for the clarity on that, unfortunately having myself review your article would be next to useless lol. Its not a field of study I have looked into

[Endy0816]

Most I can say is that much of what I've seen supports the standard view.

 

May be an idea to try publishing in a different venue in order to introduce people to your work(site, blog, social media, etc). There are a bunch of self published works out there along with preprints of professional articles available for free. I know I would be hard pressed to see the need to pay.

[Arete]

 

There are lots of processes in chemistry and biology that have graphs with sigmoid curves. If the evolution of a characteristic which requires many mutations, would be graphed, it is to be expected to also be sigmoid.

 

I don't know why you would expect this. The rate at which a mutation sweeps to fixation is proportional to the fitness benefit of the mutation. This means that large effect alleles will fix before smaller effect alleles.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/04/P04014

 

The resultant expectation is rate of adaptation will begin rapidly and slow over time, as allele which confer a large effect fix first, and alleles which confer a smaller require more generations to reach fixation. This expectation has, as previously cited, been experimentally validated many times over.

[Dirk Bontes]

Thanks for the clarity on that, unfortunately having myself review your article would be next to useless lol. Its not a field of study I have looked into

 

That is quite allright. Exponential functions are difficult.

 

Thank you for your interest.

Most I can say is that much of what I've seen supports the standard view.

 

May be an idea to try publishing in a different venue in order to introduce people to your work(site, blog, social media, etc). There are a bunch of self published works out there along with preprints of professional articles available for free. I know I would be hard pressed to see the need to pay.

 

What my hypothesis offers is an addition to the standard view. Similar to sexual selection and other such additions.

 

I am sympathetic to the position that people ought not to be paid for their work. I never give candy to children who knock on the door to do trick or treat at Halloween, either. ;-)

 

I therefore do at the moment give away 32 % of the article "Evolution Is Teleological" for free: nobody need to pay for those 32 %. That ought to be sufficient to introduce the concept of evolution by accelerating natural selection. The article itself is priced at $ 300000.99 at the moment. 32 % of which is $ 96000.00 worth. Let nobody claim that I am a niggard.

 

 

I will answer other replies at a later time.

[Endy0816]

Well, that almost gave me a heart attack...

 

https://www.smashwords.com /books/view/435068

 

Mostly your price is unrealistic. You may value your work at that level, but others will not and they are the ones you are attempting to sell to. I know I wouldn't even download free sample text if there is no hope of me ever purchasing.

 

Need to check your market and prices of similar offerings. For speculative works many readers don't expect to pay much if anything and many authors publish for non-monetary compensation. That is what you are contending with in practical terms.

 

 

Promoting your work is broader in scope than offering free samples(though this remains a good option).

 

Here is a fairly well done example: http://www.jim-butcher.com

 

Author commentary, graphical elements, news, etc. Lot of possibilities open as to where you can take it.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Endy0816

[barfbag]

The OP has asked us to review his book which we must pay for (This is part I'm unsure of). I would have thought this spam if not so many pages of responses, especially since the poster has only 7 posts

 

So question for OP?

 

If we write to you will you

 

a) give us a link to buy your paper

or

b) explain your Theory in full for free.

 

Let me clarify.. Are you asking us to buy your paper first to comment upon it, or are you seriously just in want of input and will provide inquirer's with the paper in question?

 

I should think option A should be against Forum rules.

Edited July 15, 2014 by barfbag

[ajb]

The article itself is priced at $ 300000.99 at the moment.

Is that a typo?

 

I hope so as I have not stopped laughing! (USD right?)

 

A more realistic price for a journal article is closer to $30-$50 (UDS). It varies but that is the sort of order.

 

http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/sciencedirect/articles#pay-per-view

Edited July 15, 2014 by ajb

[Strange]

A more realistic price for a journal article is closer to $30-$50 (UDS). It varies but that is the sort of order.

 

http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/sciencedirect/articles#pay-per-view

 

And that is for one you know has been reviewed and has, perhaps, been referenced or recommended by someone else.

[ajb]

And that is for one you know has been reviewed and has, perhaps, been referenced or recommended by someone else.

Yes, peer-reviewed for sure. So, the figures I quote must be seen as a cap in this context. I would say then < $20 is much more sensible. Even then I am not sure anyone would actually buy this article, but the price would be more inline with what you would expect.