Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Massimo Pigliucci | July 17th 2008 02:28 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Rationally Speaking articles

All

About Massimo Pigliucci

Massimo Pigliucci is Professor in the Departments of Ecology & Evolution and of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, NY.

His research is on the evolution of genotype-environment interactions


... Full Bio

Below is the final statement emerging from the Altenberg workshop, agreed upon by all 16 participants. Individual commentaries about the workshop will be posted on the KLI web site, and MIT Press will publish the full proceedings by the end of 2009.

A group of 16 evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science convened at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg (Austria) on July 11-13 to discuss the current status of evolutionary theory, and in particular a series of exciting empirical and conceptual advances that have marked the field in recent times.

The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.

The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves.
Signed,

John Beatty (University of British Columbia); Werner Callebaut (University of Hasselt); Sergey Gavrilets (University of Tennessee); Eva Jablonka (Tel Aviv University); David Jablonski (University of Chicago); Marc Kirschner (Harvard University); Alan Love (University of Minnesota); Gerd Muller (University of Vienna); Stuart Newman (New York Medical College); John Odling-Smee (Oxford University); Massimo Pigliucci (Stony Brook University); Michael Purugganan (New York University); Eors Szathmary (Collegium Budapest); Gunter Wagner (Yale University); David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton University); Greg Wray (Duke University).

Comments

Hank's picture
It sounds pretty moderate compared to the hype it got outside science. I guess you didn't set your guitar on fire?

Hatice Cullingford's picture
Q: Is there a dictionary committee for new terms? In all seriousness, for example, "developmental plasticity" could be pretty elastic from my perspective.
According to Stuart Newman it seems that this summit was called together to speak of all these things mentioned above, however there is one thing the writer leaves out which are self organizational models. This is not consistent with the modern synthesis and will make a lot of people uncomfortable. I believe the National Academy of Sciences boycotted this summit for this particular reason. The goal is to create a new synthesis and consensus. Newman pointed out that while there is still disagreement about methodology and plausible pathways, one thing is clear among these men, and that is that the modern synthesis that's been taught for the last 50 years does not provide a viable frame work for the kind of creative mechanisms needed to support the theory. In this sense I share my opinions with S. J. Gould as stated thirty years ago, the modern synthesis is dead. Lets stop bullshitting each other.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.