[Hat Tip: GrrlScientist]
Tuesday November 24, 2009
08:00-09:00 Breakfast
09:00-11:00
Symposium V: Taxonomy
Chair: TBA
09:00-09:40
Mary Winsor (University of Toronto)
"Classification is a Census:" Huxley's Private Quarrel
with Darwin and its Public Consequences
09:40-10:20
Kevin Padian (University of California, Berkeley)
What is "Evidence for Evolution" to an Evolutionist?
10:20-11:00
Richard A. Richards (University of Alabama)
Context and Evidence in the History of Science
11:15-12:45
Session 4.i: Ancient Debates, Ancient Roots
Chair: Charissa Varma
11:15-11:45
P. William Hughes (Carleton University)
Aristotle contra Democritus: Anticipation of the Neutralist-Selectionist
Debate and a Haphazard Route Back to Darwin
11:45-12:15
Andreas Avgousti (Columbia University)
Pre-modern, Modern and Natural Understandings of Man:
Plato, Hobbes, and Evolutionary Theory
12:15-12:45
Robin Zebrowski (Beloit College)
The Evolution of Experience and the Experience of Evolution:
Revisiting Dewey's Analysis of the Influence of Darwin on Philosophy
11:15-12:45
Session 4.ii: The Devil’s Chaplain
Chair: David Smillie
11:15-11:45
Peter Sachs Collopy (University of Pennsylvania)
Naturalizing Calvinism: The Darwinism and Anti-Evolutionism
of George Frederick Wright
11:45-12:15
Stephen D. Snobelen (University of King’s College)
Theological Themes in Darwin's Origin of Species (1859)
12:15-12:45
Christopher diCarlo (University of Ontario Institute of Technology)
The Zing of Perceived Control: Memetic Equilibrium
and the Evolution of Religion
11:15-12:45
Session 4.iii: Laws of Evolutionary Economics
Chair: Mike Thicke
11:15-11:45
André Ariew (University of Missouri-Columbia)
Darwin’s Invisible Hand?
11:45-12:15
Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte (University of Toronto)
Breaking the Bonds of Biology: Natural Selection
in Nelson and Winter's Evolutionary Economics
12:15-12:45
Chris Haufe (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
Darwin’s “Laws”
12:45-13:30 Lunch Break
13:40-15:40
Symposium VI: Evolution and Development
Chair: Jean-Bernard Caron
13:40-14:20
Manfred Laubichler (Arizona State University)
From Boveri to Davidson and Back
14:20-15:00
Jane Maienschein (Arizona State University)
From Epigenesis to Epigenetics and Back
15:00-15:40
Michael Dietrich (Dartmouth College)
From Goldschmidt to Gould and Back
15:50-17:20 Session 5.i: It's All in the Mind
Chair: Eugene Earnshaw-Whyte
15:50-16:20
Byron Kaldis (The Hellenic Open University)
Species-Qua-Individuals and the Modularity of the Mind: The Saving Grace for Humans
16:20-16:50
Alain Ducharme & Sheldon Chow (The University of Western Ontario
Keeping Darwin in Mind
16:50-17:20
Steve DiPaola (Simon Fraser University)
Darwin, Creativity, and Evoluionary Programming
15:50-17:20
Session 5.ii: International Receptions
Chair: Ari Gross
15:50-16:20
Paranbes Nath (Calcutta University)
Darwin and India
16:20-16:50
Alex Levine & Adriana Nova (University of South Florida)
The Fate of Darwinian Analogies in Latin America:
The Reception of Darwinism in 19th Century Argentina
16:50-17:20
Nolan Heie (Queen’s University)
Albert Kalthoff, Entwicklung and the "World View of Modern Man"
15:50-16:50
Session 5.iii: Fitness
Chair: Ellie Louson
15:50-16:20
Marshall Abrams (University of Alabama at Birmingham)
Individuals have no Fitnesses if Fitness Differences Cause Evolution
16:20-16:50
Kent A. Peacock (University of Lethbridge)
The Three Faces of Fitness
15:50-16:50
Session 5.iv: Language and Logic
Chair: S.J. Patterson
15:50-16:20
Alexander G. Yushchenko (Kharkov State Polytechnic University)
Logics & Ethics of Evolution from the Point of View of Evolutionary Theology
16:20-16:50
Justin Humphreys (New School for Social Research)
Darwin on Language
17:20-18:20
Keynote Address: Brian K. Hall (Dalhousie University)
Charles Darwin, Evolutionary Embryology and Evo-Devo
18:20-19:00 Break
19:00-19:45
Keynote Address: Spencer Barrett (University of Toronto)
Charles Darwin and Current Perspectives on the Evolution and Function of Plant Sexual Diversity
Monday November 23, 2009
09:00-11:00Symposium III: Theistic Evolution
Chair: Michael Bourgeois
09:00-09:40
Bernard Lightman (York University)
Christian Evolutionists in the U.S., 1860-1900
09:40-10:20
Michael Ruse (Florida State University)
Are Science and Religion Compatible and If So, Why?
10:20-11:00
Denis O. Lamoureux (University of Alberta)
Darwinian Theological Insights: Toward an Intellectually Fulfilled Theism
11:15-12:45
Session 2.i: Acceptances and Denials
Chair: David Smillie
11:15-11:45
Fermin Fulda (University of Toronto)
Against Fodor Against Darwinism
11:45-12:15
Stefaan Blanke (Ghent University)
"A million guesses strung together:" Creationist Denial of the Science Behind Evolutionary Theory
12:15-12:45
Daniel A. Newman (University of Toronto)
The Rhetoric of Probability: How Darwin Overcame the Argument from Design
11:15-12:45
Session 2.ii: Historical Receptions
Chair: Jaipreet Virdi
11:15-11:45
John Court (University of Toronto)
Darwinian Evolution's First Fifty Years of Impact
on Botany at the University of Toronto. 1859 to 1909
11:45-12:15
David M. Steffes (Arizona State University)
Population Ecology and Evolution: Darwin's Origin and the
Modern Synthesis of the 1940s and 50s
12:15-12:45
Kevin Pent (York University)
Julian Huxley's 'Apogee of Species': Darwin's 'Man' Comes of Age
11:15-12:45
Session 2.iii: A Brave New Darwin
Chair: Chris Belanger
11:15-11:45
Peter Fedor (Comenius University)
Advances in Artificial Intelligence in Species Identification
11:45-12:15
Wybo Houkes (Edinhoven University of Technology)
Hypothesis Testing in Artefact Evolution
12:15-12:45
Laura Landen (Queen's University)
Natural Selection, The Intentional Stance, and Mirror Neuron Research
12:45-13:30 Lunch Break
13:40-15:40
Symposium IV: Species
Chair: Ronald de Sousa
13:40-1420
John Beatty (University of British Columbia)
Darwin on Species
14:20-15:00
Kevin de Queiroz (Natural Museum of National History; Smithsonian)
Charles Darwin and the Evolution of the Species Concept
15:00-15:40
Marc Ereshefsky (University of Calgary)
Mystery of Mysteries: Darwin and the Species Problem
15:45-16:45
Keynote Address: Michael Ruse (Florida State University)
Is Darwinism Past its “Sell-By” Date?
16:45-18:15
Session 3.i: Naturalism
Chair: Curtis Forbes
16:45-17:15
Jason Marsh (University of Western Ontario)
Darwinism and Divine Hiddenness
17:15-17:45
Khaldoun Sweis (Olive-Harvey College)
Philosophical Paradoxs of Darwin Evolutionary Naturalism
17:45-18:15
Maarten Boudry (Ghent University)
Methodological Naturalism as an Intrinsic Property of Science:
A Grist to the Mill of Intelligent Design Theory
16:45-18:15
Session 3.ii: Reconstructing Darwinism
Chair: Erich Weidenhammer
16:45-17:15
Peter Gildenhuys (Lafayette College)
Putting the Struggle for Existence to Work
17:15-17:45
Katharine Browne (University of Toronto)
A Darwinian theory of Games
17:45-18:15
Sarah Winter (University of Connecticut Storrs)
Species as Value: Biosemiotics in Darwin's Origin and Saussurian Linguistics
16:45-18:15
Session 3.iii: Applying Darwinism
Chair: Mike Stuart
16:45-17:15
Marion Blute (University of Toronto at Mississauga)
Darwinism in the Social Sciences Today
17:15-17:45
Howard M. Huynh (Acadia University)
In the Footsteps of Darwin: The Value of Scientific Collecting in
Biodiversity Research and Conservation
17:45-18:15
Joel Velasco (Stanford University)
The Tree of Life: From Darwin to Today
18:15-19:15
Keynote Address: Evelyn Fox Keller
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Darwin as the Newton of a Blade of Grass
Sunday November 22, 2009
08:00-09:00 Breakfast
09:00-10:00
Keynote Address: Alison Pearn (Darwin Correspondence Project)
Cast of Thousands: Charles Darwin's Life in Letters
10:00-12:00
Symposium I: Gender, Evolution, and Sexual Selection
Chair: Joan Steigerwald
10:00-10:40
Lisa Lloyd (Indiana University)
Bias in Evolutionary Explanations of the Female Orgasm
10:40-11:20
Marlene Zuk (University of California, Riverside)
Sex and the Scala Naturae
11:20-12:00
Erika Milam (University of Maryland, College Park)
Negotiating Choice: Animal Minds and Human Instincts
in the History of Sexual Selection
12:00-12:30 Lunch Break
12:45-13:45
Session 1.i: Reassessing Themes and Sources
Chair: Michael Cournoyea
12:45-13:15
Scott Sinclair (St. Louis University)
Three American Philosophers’ Response to Darwin
13:15-13:45
Fred Wilson (University of Toronto)
Replacing an Old Paradigm: Intelligent Design and Natural Selection; Hume, Mill, and Darwin
12:45-14:15
Session 1.ii: Social Perceptions
Chair: Jaipreet Virdi
12:45-13:15
Eleanor Louson (University of Toronto)
Nature, Projected: Evolutionary Theory in Wildlife Documentaries
13:15-13:45
David Smillie (University of Toronto)
Evolution and Popular Culture: Darwin on the Box
13:45-14:15
Ian Hesketh (Queen’s University)
Of Apes and Ancestors: Myth and the Cultural Memory of the Oxford Debate of 1860
12:45-14:15
Session 1.iii: Species and Sexuality
Chair: Sebastián Gil-Riaño
12:45-13:15
Masoud Hassanpour Golakani (Macquarie University)
The Spiral Valve Intestine of the Australian Lungfish, a Primitive Characteristic
13:15-13:45
Eugene S. Morton (Hemlock Hill Field Station)
Sexual Conflict and Brood Desertion in Blue-Headed Vireos: How Females Won
13:45-14:15
Jerome Goldsten (San Francisco Clinical Research Center)
The Neurobiology of Sexual Orientation: A Tribute to Charles Darwin
14:30-16:30
Symposium II: Ecology
Chair: Richard Landon
(Coffee/Tea Service Provided)
14:30-15:10
Joan Roughgarden (Stanford University)
Darwin and Ecology
15:10-15:50
Gene Cittadino (New York University)
Reflections on Darwin and Ecology: The History of a Tenuous Relationship
15:50-16:30
Gregory Cooper (Washington and Lee University)
The Darwinian Character of Evolutionary Ecology
16:40-17:40
Keynote Address: James Moore (University of Cambridge)
Darwin’s Progress and the Problem of Slavery
18:00-19:30
Special Presentation
Re: Design: A Dramatisation of the Correspondence between Charles Darwin and Asa Gray (Produced by the Menagerie Theatre Company)
Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species is independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.
Canadian Tourism Federation Welcome Video from Canadian Tourism Federation on Vimeo.
This is another one of those times when there's no "molecule" that provides a clue to a Nobel Laureate. 1. Similar arguments apply to genes that make functional RNAs and not proteins.
2. Over the course of several billion years of evolution it is unusual to see more than 30% sequence similarity between homologous genes. I realize that this is a somewhat circular argument but it's still a good one.
3. There are lots of other regions of the genome where mutations can be detrimental. I don't mean to imply that only protein encoding regions can be affected by mutations. Collectively, these other regions don't make up more than a few percent of our genome and they can tolerate many mutations [Genomes & Junk DNA]
This is another one of those times when there's no "molecule" that provides a clue to a Nobel Laureate. 
Humans have always had a urge to cover their heads with various forms of headgear. There must be a hat gene in our genomes and it probably evolved in the human lineage after it split from chimpanzees. Chimps don't wear hats.
Bill Maher has attempted to clarify his position on vaccination [Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having]. His blog is a lot like his TV show. It's a confusing, rambling, attempt at justifying an indefensible position using (attempted) humor, sarcasm and anecdote as a substitute for rationalism.I'm just trying to represent an under-reported medical point of view in this country, I'm not telling a specific pregnant lady what to do. With unlimited air time, I would have, for example, added to my discussion with Dr. Bill Frist on October 2 that, yes, any flu or health challenge can be dangerous when you're pregnant, and if your immune system is already compromised by, for example, eating a typical American diet, then a flu shot can make sense. But someone needs to be representing the point of view that says the preferred way to handle flus is to have a strong immune system to begin with, and getting lots of vaccines might not be the best way to accomplish that over the long haul.
Now, sometimes its OK to fuck with nature -- I believe "intelligent design" is often anything but intelligent; that "God's perfect universe" is actually full of fuck ups and design flaws, like cleft lips and Down Syndrome -- so correcting nature is sometimes the right thing to do. And then, sometimes its not. For me, the flu shot is in the "not" category.
In addition, my audience is bright, they wouldn't refuse a flu shot because they heard me talk about it, but if they looked into the subject a little more, how is that a bad thing? If they went to the CDC Web site and saw what's in the vaccine -- the formaldehyde, the insect repellent, the mercury -- shouldn't they at least get to have the information for themselves?
Instead of setting up this straw man of me not understanding germs or viruses, let's have a real debate about how much we should use vaccines and antibiotics. Of course it's good that we have them in our arsenal, but isn't the real skeptic the one who asks if these powerful but toxic methods do harm to what actually is a a very good defensive system, the one you were born with?
Also, I have never said there was a medical conspiracy. In fact, when Howard Dean asked me that, my response was "I wouldn't call it a conspiracy." Any more than there's a conspiracy for the Pentagon budget to be obscenely bloated and operated largely for the corporate welfare of defense contractors. If these are conspiracies, they're mostly legal ones that happen in plain sight. (Good time here to plug the hostess' book, Pigs At the Trough, it's all in there!) I have, in fact, used the phrase "medical-pharmaceutical-food industry" complex in comparing it to Eisenhower's famous depiction of a "military-industrial complex."
I believe in science and I believe in studies to determine the truth. I also believe Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon was correct when he said recently on MSNBC: "If you've got a checkbook in this town, you can get just about any set of facts you want." So if I remind you of a conspiracy theorist, you sometimes remind me of Britney Spears when she said "we should just do whatever the president says to do, and not ask questions and just support him." The medical community can be brutal on dissent, which would hold more weight if I thought this was a terribly healthy country, which it isn't. Health care is one sixth of our economy, and we spend way more on it than any other nation. The elephant in the room of the health care debate is that we are going to have a high health care bill every year no matter what law they pass because we're sick -- we need a lot of drugs and services.This last quotation is the most revealing of all. Bill Maher listens to his naturopath doctor and feels competent to distinguish the truth when his quack doctor disagrees with evidence-based medicine (e.g. "Western" medicine).
Am I a conspiracy theorist if I suggest that since the network's nightly news broadcasts are sponsored almost entirely by prescription drug ads, that you might have to hold your breath a long time before you hear the alternative point of view to using pharmaceuticals to cure all our ailments?
Is it conspiracy theory to believe that American medicine too much treats symptoms and not root causes of disease? I always ask my friends when they go to the doctor for something, "Did your doctor ask you what you eat?" The answer is almost always 'no,' and a lot can be cured with diet and a healthier lifestyle. (And a lot can't. I also understand the role of genetics and generations of artificial selection). But Americans don't want to hear that, so doctors don't push it. It's easier and more profitable to write a prescription for Lipitor. They're not bad people, and at the end of the day, you can't make someone eat right. I like and respect all the M.D.s I've had over the years, and for the record, I have a naturopath doctor and I have a Western doctor. I would make an analogy to Republicans and Democrats: in both politics and health, I don't commit to either party because I'm on the side of the truth, whoever has it. In both cases, I'm an Independent.
[Hat Tip and Thank-you to esaul]
Ms Sandwalk just got an iPhone. She's thrilled by all the things it can do and I'm happy for her. However, most of the things an iPhone does are not important to me. I already have a camera and I'm not interested in iTunes. My Samsung flip phone works just fine, thank-you very much.
