Lynn Margulis weblog tour

I wonder if she is really an AIDS/HIV Dissident...

I also wonder about Lynn Margulis' opinion on aids. Did she write the 'James McAllister AND Lynn Margulis' review of the biography of Peter Duesberg? Judging from the history, the wikipedia authors cannot seem to agree.

I was wondering that myself, Odie. I hadn't heard that, though I admit I don't know much about her in general.

But I do know that her endosymbiont theory was a watershed for me. An old junior-high science teacher described it to me during some side discussion about evolution, and it was the first time evolutionary biology really "clicked" for me. I'd understood the basic concept and had no objections to it, but that theory made it exciting. At that age I was bored with fossils and diagrams and lineages, but here was a woman saying that I had something essential inside me right now that bore the traces of a "whiz-bang" evolutionary event. That, and the Calvin in me said "I'm a mutant chimera! Coooollll..." Scientific progress indeed went "boink" for me that day.

Shes always struck me as someone who got a controversial thing right, stuck with it, won it out on the evidence. But as a result, shes started to think that every idea she has that the establishment doesn't buy must be the same way.

...won it out on the evidence.

That's why I haven't heard of her. She didn't peddle it to the public schools first!

One must never forget that while mavericks are a necessary corrective to the dangers of groupthink, they are usually wrong, and of course in any given case it's the evidence that decides. Margulis strikes me somewhat as an exemplar of the adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This is cool! Way back when I was a biology grad student at the University of New Hampshire in the '70's, she came and did a seminar for the department. Her talk was not all THAT long after she had finished handing her detractors their asses over the endosymbiont theory... man it was probably the best presentation I had heard up to then! Bunch 'o starry eyed grad students walked out of the auditorium that afternoon! I kind of have to agree with plunge (#4), though. I read a small book of hers a couple or three years ago and it almost seemed she regretted she had "won" because she wanted to keep arguing. Was a readable book for all that however.. Symbiotic Planet.
Uncle Don

Being a molecular biologist of course I´ve heard of her but I never knew until just now, looking at the wikipedia biography, that she had been married to Carl Sagan.

"Margulis strikes me somewhat as an exemplar of the adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

That strikes me as a particularly nasty comment. A stopped clock could not have come up with the endosymbiotic theory, as Mr. LaBonne must surely be aware.

Which of your toes has Lynn Margulis has stepped on?

So her here in Canada last year. I thought she was great, though perhaps a bit nuts. I tried discussing some of herideas with a visiting professor the following week and she got quite upset at me and dismissed Margulis as a crank. It was little embarassing and as a grad student I didn't really feel like pushing the issue. It's interesting that Margulis still provokes contraversy.

stopwink, can your little mind encompass difficult facts about the real world, such as the fact that the very same person can champion a very good idea (endosymbiosis) and go on to champion its generalization into a very bogus idea (Gaia)? (Out of charity let's not even mention her flirtation with HIV - AIDS denialism.)

Again, professional mavericks are indispensible but most of the time they're wrong (oh-oh, another complicated idea). When they're right it's the rightness that's important, not the maverickness.

Huh. Now again, no Margulis expert, but I've been reading Dugatkin's The Altruism Equation, and what I'm hearing is reminding me of Kropotkin.

Oh for the love of Pete.

Will you turn relevant portions of the chat into a post, PZ? Im interested in her HIV/AIDS position as well, but I have to work at that time.

Tend to agree with Steve LaBonne. Margulis undoubtedly made a major contribution to biology by championing and popularising the endosymbiotic theory, and that's great.

However, don't forget that she didn't come up with the theory out of thin air. The Russian biologist Konstantin Mereschkowsky laid the foundations of this theory with his book "Symbiogenesis and the Origin of Species" (1926). And Ivan Wallin first proposed that mitochondria were related to bacteria in the 1920's.

The general consensus is that Margulis has had one good idea but has rather over-worked it ever since.

"generalization into a very bogus idea (Gaia)?"

I would not call Gaia "very bogus," though it is problematic in some respects and unfortunately named (attracting New Agers and hippies). The hypothesis has been scientifically useful.

generalization into a very bogus idea (Gaia)
That was Lovelock, if I'm not mistaken.

Lynn Margulis is not a stopped clock or a person with one great idea.

Endocymbiotic theory is revolutionary. It is one of the most important scientific advancements of the century.

She had to work hard to push it. It probably did not help that the male dominated world of science in the 1960s was not too interested in listening to women or giving them credit for important work.

She has also done other important work, especially (in my mind) regarding the large scale picture of the "tree of life" (taxonomy).

This is not to say that I agree with her on every point. Gaia, and certain aspects of her symbiotic theory outside of cells, etc.

I dont think anyone disputes that she is a great mind who made a real contribution to biology. But its also hard to argue that she hasn't been a bit of a crank. Like Gould, she has pushed the rhetoric of her claims to a height that makes ID'iots giddy with their quote mining kits ready. And while she seized upon and defended a theory that won the day, at least in a particular case, the wider reasons for why it appeals to her and why she continues to push it in every venue and for a whole host of organelles that aren't so convincing are neither convincing nor particularly laudable as science.

Krystalline, Margulis is a big Gaia proponent (in extensive collaboration with Lovelock) and ties it in with her silly "everything is symbiotic with everything else" hobbyhorse. Tony's summary above is just.

And yes, Greg is right that her emphasis on the importance of horizontal gene transfer to prokaryote taxonomy is another good idea (again not one she really originated herself but one she has been instrumental in promoting). Should have given her credit for that as well.

I'd love to hear more from Dr. Margulis, ask her opinion of these?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=algae+symbi…

If she's not an irresponsible gift to creationism and ID, I'd like to see someone defend her, or her defend herself.

Steve:
Krystalline, Margulis is a big Gaia proponent (in extensive collaboration with Lovelock) and ties it in with her silly "everything is symbiotic with everything else" hobbyhorse. Tony's summary above is just.
Ummm...that was your summary. Otherwise, I stand corrected.

Kreystalline- I was trying to refer to the summing-up sentence in Tony Jackson's comment:

The general consensus is that Margulis has had one good idea but has rather over-worked it ever since.

I do think that's both a fair assessment, and pretty well reflects the consensus attitude of biologists. Of course, Professor Margulis is no slouch at defending herself and no doubt will do so vigorously during her visit here.

Looking at the Chelsea Green website, Margulis's books are in good company. Dorian Sagan's done well making science both interesting and accessible to young readers. Michael Pollan's illuminated how we live before, and his most recent book, 'The Omnivore's Dilemma', is great. And if anyone has not yet read that book and others about and by Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, you're missing a treat. The farmer and biologist I know who's spent time at his operation knew enough to be very, very impressed.

As a publisher, the website's collection is focused in a way that might well be described by the line about Pollan's latest:

"The "omnivore's dilemma," we learn, refers to anxiety that accompanies an excess of options; specifically, when you can eat everything, what should you eat?"

Another bite of planet-on-a-stick?

Lest anyone actually interested in the science skip too quickly over that Google Scholar link I posted a couple responses back --- have a look, seriously. I think there's a whole lot of good solid science coming out.

Consider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrie…

Plunge wrote re: Margulis:

But as a result, shes started to think that every idea she has that the establishment doesn't buy must be the same way.

I get the same impression. She seems awfully dismissive and even denigratory of things that she personally does not 'believe', scientifically.

Like Gould, she has pushed the rhetoric of her claims to a height that makes ID'iots giddy with their quote mining kits ready

I am immediately reminded of her anti-RM&NS mantra. Her dismissive claims in that arena has lead to her being a quote emporium for many anti-evolutionists.

Wow, sounds like most of you really despise her.Gaia proponent,HIV=AIDS dissident, dismissive of mainstream evolutionary theory and promoter of one really good idea which she didn't even come up with herself.I wouldn't want to be in her shoes monday!

...and less I forget, a quotemine for IDer's and Creationists.Sounds like a pack of hyeanas ready to slaughter a decrepit lioness and it's not even monday yet.

Umm, I expect it will quickly become obvious that she can hold her own very well indeed. ;)

Yeah, she's very interesting to listen to - even when she's wrong....

-Steve LaBonne

Are you saying the hyeanas are going to find that this old lioness' claws can still slice the consensus fat to ribbons?

I'm saying that she's no shrinking violet and will defend her views quite vigorously when challenged. That of course, is quite independent of the question whether she's right. ;)

Certainly true.I err on the side of caution and view both mavericks _and_ consensus as likely to be wrong.

"I'm saying that she's no shrinking violet and will defend her views quite vigorously when challenged."

What matters is HOW she defends herself: with evidence, or with more of the empty, evidenceless rhetoric she's used in the past?