Podcasts of the talks are available on iTunes. Simply cut and past this URL into your web browser: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=312182647

If you don't have the iTunes software, the podcasts are also available on Rob Skipper blog, hpb, etc. at: http://drrob.typepad.com

The schedule of talks is as follows.

April 3, 4:00-6:00, John Beatty, "The Details Left to Chance: Contingency in Darwin and Gould," 300 Braunstein, UC

Abstract: In his 1989 book, Wonderful Life, Stephen Gould posed the following thought experiment. If we could rewind the "tape" of life back to some point in the past, and then push "play," would things turn out as before? Gould argued that we would get a different outcome every time. In this presentation I will discuss the idea of evolutionary contingency, from Darwin to Gould (and beyond), and also some of the broader theological, political and moral issues that have been raised in connection with this sort of unpredictability.

April 15, 4:00-6:00, Roberta Millstein, "Towards a Concept of 'Population' for Evolutionary Biology and Ecology," 201 Braunstein, UC

Abstract: Biologists studying ecology and evolution use the term "population" in many different ways. Yet little philosophical analysis of the concept been done, either by biologists or philosophers, in contrast to the voluminous literature on the concept of "species". This is in spite of the fact that "population" is arguably a far more central concept in ecological and evolutionary studies than "species" is. The fact that such a central concept has been employed in so many different ways is potentially problematic for the simple reason that inconsistent usages (especially when the usage has not been made explicit) might lead to false controversies in which disputants are simply talking past one another. However, the inconsistent usages are not the only, or even the most important reason to examine the concept. If any set of organisms is legitimately called a "population," selection and drift become purely arbitrary, too. Moreover, key ecological variables, such as abundance and distribution, depend on a non-arbitrary way identifying populations. I sketch the beginnings of a population concept, drawing inspiration from the Ghiselin-Hull individuality thesis, and show why some alternative approaches are non-starters.

May 1, 4:00-6:00, Kenneth Waters, "Getting Real about Genetics and Genomics: An Antirealist Perspective," 300 Braunstein, UC

Abstract: I introduce a novel epistemology for sciences such as genetics and genomics by drawing a new antirealist division. On one side of the division are claims generated from fundamental theorizing about the alleged essentials of a domain. On the other side are claims generated from situated a theorizing. I argue that we ought to be realists about claims associated with situated theorizing because they provide scientists with the knowledge they need to manipulate organisms, explain experimental results, and design new experiments. I argue that claims associated with fundamental theorizing play a different kind of role: they serve to generate excitement that helps recruit scientists, secure financial resources, and instill a sense of common mission among scientists working on separate problems. Hence, we do not have compelling reason to believe them.

May 13,4:00-6:00, Michael Dietrich, "Hopeful Monsters: Richard Goldschmidt and Evolutionary Thought in the Twenteith Century," 201 Braunstein, UC

Abstract: Richard Goldschmidt is one of the most controversial and enigmatic figures in twentieth century biology. During a career that stretched from 1900 to 1958, Goldschmidt became known as one of the top biologists in the world by producing groundbreaking studies of sex determination, gene action, evolution, and geographic variation. After he was forced to leave Nazi Germany in 1936, however, he also produced incredibly controversial theories denying both the existence of the gene and the possibility of gradual evolution of new species. Rather than fade into obscurity after his death, Goldschmidt's work and reputation have persisted, even flourished, in the last half of the twentieth century. In this presentation, I will trace the history of Richard Goldschmidt's bad reputation focusing on how prominent biologists in the last thirty years have reinforced Goldschmidt's reputation as a biological heretic. 

May 29, 4:00-6:00, Richard M. Burian, Virginia Tech "On Some Recent Biological Arguments that Support (Darwinian) Evolution, But Challenge the So-Called Synthetic Theory of Evolution," 201 Braunstein, UC

Abstract: Three lines of argument that, along with many others, have challenged some key claims of orthodox versions of the synthetic theory of evolution.  These challenges stem from recent findings supporting the following claims:

•  For biological, not epistemological, reasons, no satisfactory 'tree of life' for prokaryotes (bacteria and other organisms without a nucleus) can be constructed.  Very roughly, the early ancestry of the tree of life cannot be rooted in a single organism because, very early on, all prokaryotes were composites of many ancestors.  This is concordant with Darwin's views, but not with the usual versions of the tree of life propounded by the synthetic theory.
• Evolutionary-Developmental biology, which sometimes purports to provide an alternative synthesis to that of the synthetic theory, has provided considerable evidence that key features of developmental systems (which are, themselves, inherited) played significant roles in shaping evolutionary history.  In particular, variation among organisms is structured in non-random ways that affect what sorts of novelties are feasible and what materials are available to selection, thus contributing importantly to the shape of evolutionary history.
• Recent work on epigenetic inheritance – i.e., inheritance of traits without changes in the sequence of nucleotides in the genetic material – has altered our understand of the (still central) role of genes in evolutionary history.  On particular, it provides ways for selection to act, in the first instance, on non-genetic (inherited!) traits, so that phenotypic change can lead the way and genetic change can follow behind.

Taken together, these claims suggest a transformation of evolutionary biology.  A tough-nosed version of the synthetic theory of evolution claimed that evolution consists, at its core, of changes of gene frequencies in populations of organisms. Evolutionary theory, as revised, should hold that organismal variation (largely constrained by the character of developmental systems for multicellular organisms) provides the opportunities for selection, which cannot be as dominant a force as it was in the more gene-centered versions of the synthetic theory.  As I will argue, the result is, in some respects, closer to Darwin's views than the synthetic theory. 

If you are in or near Cincinnati, OH, please join us. For more information, contact Rob Skipper at robert.skipper@uc.edu

Back to ISHPSSB Listserv on the Web