I would be careful about feeling like one is learning much from this source. Andy
of course, by the time Nature got on to the story it was easy to debunk the conspiracy theory and demonstrate that some of the Altenberg 16 were, how shall I put it? ... not in the mainstream of biological thinking [Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?]. Bryan Alinsky
I could sense in Chuck's original post that the corrections Eub and Bryan provide were needed. Alan Rudy -----------
Thanks for the heads up. I wondered a little. But I figured what the hell, put it up and see. I came across the Mazur essay in Counterpunch, which is getting a shady reputation in my mind with anything to do with science. I looked around some more and found an extended interview between Suzan Mazur and Stuart Newman.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3516772316650379357#
Newman helps a lot to clarify what was going on at Altenberg. On the other hand Mazur seems to probe in various strange directions. Newman to his credit, keeps correcting her. It's like she is after juicy dirt which isn't there. She seems to look for scandal mongering and possible conspiracy theories. What's annoying about this is the actual science `news' is lost...and there is a lot of science news at least for me.
It takes listening to this interview a couple of times to think through all the interesting stuff. The main science material comes approximately between 9:00/min to about 27:00/min.
Mazur then goes back to what I think of as the sociology or politics of science and brings up the Darwinian Industry Tapeworm... the evolution industry... etc. I just got through reading some of Mazur's other essays. She seems to do much better in interviews with scientists where she can be corrected and held on track.
Newman mentioned a conference summary. I finally found some notes on the Altenberg Conference, written by participants.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/notes-from-altenberg-part-i.html
Repeat `notes from altenberg' adding i, ii, iii to get all of the notes.
In Newman's interview he used the word `plasticity' to describe the collection of mechanisms that are involved in evolution theory, in addition to the modern synthesis or orthodox Darwinian evolution. In part II, Massimo Pigliucci, after noting the idea of plasticity has been around for most of the 20thC:
``Still, there is much confusion among biologists about what plasticity is, and more importantly about the role it plays in our understanding of organic evolution. Plasticity includes a bewildering array of phenomena, for instance polyphenisms (discontinuous, environmentally-dependent, alternative developmental phenotypes).
Plasticity is a primitive (not necessarily adaptive) condition, which can then be selected (change in reaction norms) or eliminated (leading to environmental homeostasis). The mechanistic basis of plasticity include not only specific regulatory genes (so-called “plasticity genes”), but hormones, and epigenetic effects.
Evolutionary phenomena that involve plasticity, such as for instance genetic assimilation, may have important consequences for apparently disparate phenomena, such as invasive biology and speciation processes.
Discussion of the “two-legged goat” effect emphasized by West-Eberhard and the relationship between phenotypic and genetic accommodation. The latter two terms update ideas that have been explored here and there throughout the 20th century, particularly the work of Baldwin, Schmalhausen and Waddington. West-Eberhard’s scenario for a four-step evolutionary process where developmental plasticity gets things started and “genes follow” (i.e., they fix changes induced by the environment on the pre-existing plasticity).
Plasticity may also lead us to reinterpret (and make new sense) of “classic” evolutionary phenomena, like mosaic evolution (which may occur quickly as a result of correlated plastic responses among traits) and pre-adaptation (which may actually result from pre-existing plasticity exposed to correlated, not entirely novel, environments)...''
Newman applied the term to the general field of studies. I think they compliment MS and don't `overthrow' or replace it. But this idea is not much of a headline.
Going on part II is some fun reading. I'll just post this for now.
``Susan Mazur contacted me at the beginning of this episode and I tried to help her understand the difference between legitimate controversies in science and pseudo-controversies promoted by kooks. For a while I thought she was making progress but this turned out to be an illusion...'' (Bryan Atinsky)
Man did that message come out the further I dug around today.
CG