John Maynard Smith

Quoted message said:

I am sad to have to announce the death yesterday of John
Maynard Smith at his home in Lewes, England. John Maynard
Smith (his surname was Maynard Smith) was regarded by many
as the leading evolutionary biologist in the world. He and
W. D. Hamilton were the leaders in applying evolutionary
thinking to animal behavior and reproductive strategy. He
was 84 years old, and had been ill with mesothelioma for
some time, but was working actively on molecular evolution
of tuberculosis bacteria up to the end. He had recently
published a book (with David Harper) on "Animal Signals",
updating his classic work applying game theory to
behavioral interactions.

Others will have much to say on his impact on
evolutionary biology. I just want to note his personal
good cheer and kindliness, his accessibility, his
unpretentiousness and his readiness to admit what he did
not know. He cared deeply about explaining evolutionary
theory in clear and simple terms not only to researchers,
but to students and to the public. He exercised a
leadership which will be missed.

[moderator's note: May I just add that JMS asked two
quite pungent questions of me after a talk at the
Ecological Society meetings a decade or so back, and was
kind enough to talk with me for a half hour afterward --
me, an anonymous graduate student. I can only echo Joe's
remarks. - JAH]

I spent a lovely three hours chatting to him a couple of
years back - he was a funny, gracious and witty
conversationalist. I am very sad to hear this.

--
John Wilkins [email hidden]
wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.auOpen ↗ "Men mark it when they hit, but do
not mark it when they miss"
- Francis
Bacon

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

He cared deeply about explaining evolutionary theory in
clear and simple terms not only to researchers, but to
students and to the public.

As a member of the public thirty years ago, I was very
fortunate that the first book on evolution that I happened,
in my ignorance, to pick up and read, was Maynard Smith's
"The Theory of Evolution". Later, I came to appreciate the
clever partisanship of Gould and Dawkins, the incisive
brilliance of Williams and Hamilton, the clever ideas of
Trivers, and the doggedness of Margulis. But these authors
are advocates, making a case. Maynard Smith always struck me
as more like a judge, reviewing the evidence.

Clarity can be achieved, with practice, in advocacy. And a
judicious temperment can be learned or assumed. But the
combination of clarity and judiciousness is very rare.
Maynard Smith alone, in this field, seems to have routinely
achieved it.

It was from Maynard Smith that I first learned the meanings
of "adaptation", the significance of Weismann, and the
nature of chromosome rearrangements. I learned from him that
the adaptationist program need not be Panglossian and that
complex models of genes and culture can conceal more than
they reveal. I learned that game theory can be applied in
biology, but that it will have to be a slightly different
theory from that used in economics. I learned about

enigma, and that the major transitions are not yet
understood.

He will indeed be missed, by the public as well as by the
professional community.

[email hidden] (Jim Menegay) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

He cared deeply about explaining evolutionary theory in
clear and simple terms not only to researchers, but to
students and to the public.

As a member of the public thirty years ago, I was very
fortunate that the first book on evolution that I
happened, in my ignorance, to pick up and read, was
Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution". Later, I came
to appreciate the clever partisanship of Gould and
Dawkins, the incisive brilliance of Williams and Hamilton,
the clever ideas of Trivers, and the doggedness of
Margulis. But these authors are advocates, making a case.
Maynard Smith always struck me as more like a judge,
reviewing the evidence.

Clarity can be achieved, with practice, in advocacy. And a
judicious temperment can be learned or assumed. But the
combination of clarity and judiciousness is very rare.
Maynard Smith alone, in this field, seems to have
routinely achieved it.

It was from Maynard Smith that I first learned the
meanings of "adaptation", the significance of Weismann,
and the nature of chromosome rearrangements. I learned
from him that the adaptationist program need not be
Panglossian and that complex models of genes and culture
can conceal more than they reveal. I learned that game
theory can be applied in biology, but that it will have to
be a slightly different theory from that used in
economics. I learned about

Quoted message said:

enigma, and that the major transitions are not yet
understood.

He will indeed be missed, by the public as well as by the
professional community.

This is very sad news indeed. Just a short while ago i read
Ullica Sergestrale's book on sociobiology and from what I
read, John Maynard Smith seems to have been about the only
one who lived up the the scientific ideal of never ever
drawing political or ideological reasoning into his science.

"Joachim Dagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

John Maynard Smith seems to have been about the only one
who lived up the the scientific ideal of never ever
drawing political or ideological reasoning into his
science.

He was a Communist, but you would never guess from reading
his textbooks on population genetics.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Malcolm said:

"Joachim Dagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

John Maynard Smith seems to have been about the only one
who lived up the the scientific ideal of never ever
drawing political or ideological reasoning into his
science.

He was a Communist, but you would never guess from reading
his textbooks on population genetics.

Perhaps you'd "never guess" it because he left the British
Communist Party in 1956. A mere 48 years ago.

--
Joe Felsenstein [email hidden]
Department of Genome Sciences and Department of
Biology, University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle,
WA 98195-7730 USA

Quoted message said:

JF:- Perhaps you'd "never guess" it because he left the
British Communist Party

in

Quoted message said:

1956. A mere 48 years ago.

WA:- Which of course brings to mind one of Winston
Churchill's most famous (and disputed) quotes: "If a man
is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has
no brain.'

JE:- So, what is distorting evolutionary theory in 2004, its
"brain" or its "heart"? What a thing to suggest!
Evolutionary theory has never been distorted by political
considerations, has it? Surely the diabolical history of its
misuse by everybody from Spencer to Dawkins is just a
distorted version of history put about by "kooks"?

Is the adolescent "heart" of Neo Darwinism still enthralled
with communist ideals of group selection forcing organism
fitness altruism or does a mature head now rule it, AGAIN
forcing organism fitness altruism but this time using
Hamilton's _selfish_ genes? Amazing isn't it! Both the head
and the heart focus entirely on altruistic acts by Darwinian
individuals when such an act constitutes an exact point of
refutation for Darwinism: the only testable theory of
evolution we have, even in 2004, which by the way remains
refutable but non refuted.

Not a single organism fitness altruistic act has ever been
verified within nature (I am sure somebody will trot out,
yet again, Isopteran eusocials), but no matter, lets all
pretend that it has been because misused models developed by
a more "mature" conservative head allowed it. Not even a non
ambiguous definition of organism fitness altruism exists
within Neo Darwinism simply because Neo Darwinists exclude a
Darwinian time frame for calculating it. Surely such a naive
event is just impossible? Believe it or not, this has been
the case for over 50 years within gene centric Neo
Darwinism. If these people ran your business they would have
bankrupted you years ago but don't worry, they are only
teaching your children.

Without a _total_ fitness for each selectee it remains
_impossible_ to tell if _any_ cost constitutes an altruistic
give away or a selfish investment. However, as long as you
are not investing your own money why worry about the
difference?

Heads the heart wins, tails the head loses. Anybody like to
bet on heads? Can we conclude from all this that mankind has
no head at all? When is the penny going to drop? When will
Neo Darwinism conclude that good old boys of "selfishness"
verses "altruism" is just a gigantic political red herring?
Organism fitness mutualism is the focus of evolutionary
theory, not the political game of the selfless reds Vs the
selfish blues when, oh, by the way, both red and blue demand
altruistic acts from their respective clients.

Today's bow tie conservatives are just yesterday's long hair
hippies: they live only for the moment because "everything
is relative". Everything is not relative and nature has
provided living forms with a Darwinian time frame to realise
a MUTUAL investment gain for a cost. Neither the adolescent
group selectionists or the matured Hamiltonians included
this time frame so neither have a hope in hell of separating
a mutual investment gain from an altruistic loss! No matter,
the never ending quest for the golden fleece of organism
fitness altruism demanded by the political masters of both
the left and the right (who hand out the grants) continues.
The REAL cost? Organism fitness _mutualism_. But....who
gives a damm about...THAT!

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher Posting from
Edinburgh U.K.

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

Wirt Atmar said:

Joe writes about John Maynard Smith:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you'd "never guess" it because he left the
British Communist Party in 1956. A mere 48 years ago.

Which of course brings to mind one of Winston Churchill's
most famous (and disputed) quotes:

"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has
no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is
40, he has no brain.'

Wirt Atmar

Also ascribed to Russell, Shaw and, of course, Wilde.

[moderator's note: Of course, I said it first. - JAH]
--
John Wilkins [email hidden]
wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.auOpen ↗ "Men mark it when they hit, but do
not mark it when they miss"
- Francis
Bacon

[email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Wirt Atmar said:

Joe writes about John Maynard Smith:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you'd "never guess" it because he left the
British Communist Party in 1956. A mere 48 years ago.

Which of course brings to mind one of Winston
Churchill's most famous (and disputed) quotes:

"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he
has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he
is 40, he has no brain.'

Wirt Atmar

Also ascribed to Russell, Shaw and, of course, Wilde.

[moderator's note: Of course, I said it first. - JAH]

I did not nee to guess, because Sergestrale is good enough
an author to provide this information (except for Josh's
famous quote:-) and I knew anyway. What was new to me was
the imression that (unlike Lewontin, Gould etc.) Maynard
Smith never let any of this into his science. By the way, I
thought this thread was in order to commemorate John Maynard
Smith, not to get muddlehearted gibber from John Edser?

[email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Wirt Atmar said:

Joe writes about John Maynard Smith:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you'd "never guess" it because he left the
British Communist Party in 1956. A mere 48 years ago.

Which of course brings to mind one of Winston Churchill's
most famous (and disputed) quotes:

"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has
no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is
40, he has no brain.'

Wirt Atmar

Also ascribed to Russell, Shaw and, of course, Wilde.

[moderator's note: Of course, I said it first. - JAH]

And which of course also has a solid adaptationist
explanation - Larry Moran (if you are reading this)
STOP HERE :-)

At age 20, most of us are relatively impoverished and would
love to share the wealth of those who have more. At age 40,
most of us (at least in the middle class) have managed to
accumulate a modicum of property and would like to protect
it from the upstarts. Was this true among hunter- gatherers?

I would guess that the tendency towards increasing
conservatism with age would still exist, if not for worldy
possessions at least in a decreased willingness to take
risks - anyone who survived to age 40 probably already had
children and would have more interest in staying alive to
protect that "investment".

Yours,

Bill Morse

P.S. While I have not yet gotten around to reading any of
John Maynard Smith's books directly, I would be hard
pressed to name any significant book on evolution
written after the 60's that did not include a reference
to his work. He will be sorely missed.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joachim Dagg said:

What was new to me was the imression that (unlike
Lewontin, Gould etc.) Maynard Smith never let any of this
into his science.

Those interested in how his early Marxism may or may not
have influenced his work, and how he felt about the
connections others tried to make between their political world-
views and biology, should read what Maynard Smith himself
said about this.

His essay "Molecules are not enough", chapter 5, pages 30-38
in his collection

Hall, New York, 1989) is a review of Lewontin and Levins's
"The Dialectical Biologist". It has much to say on these
subjects and is, characteristically, generous in tone. It is
a reprint of a book review first published in the London
Review of Books in February, 1986.

--
Joe Felsenstein [email hidden]
Department of Genome Sciences and Department of
Biology, University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle,
WA 98195-7730 USA

[email hidden] (Joachim Dagg) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

What was new to me was the imression that (unlike
Lewontin, Gould etc.) Maynard Smith never let any of this
into his science.

In a strict sense, that's not correct. For example, the
bourgois strategy in evolutionary game theory.