my view is these ideas have been discussed since the 60's, with increasing sophistication (and alot of rediscovery of the exact same results) , so most of this is marketing (especially by journalists like s mazur, i gather). (they even really go back to the early 1900's with lotka and d'arcy thompson). i think it is true that most standard evolutionary biologists did not explicitly mention them (even people liker S J Gould who may be closest in theory), and many might even deny them (eg dawkins, george williams) but they are actually implicit in the 'neodarwinian synthesis' (i.e. wright and fisher ).
i think this situation does permit building careers and 'schools' based in part on ignoring alot of literature. (economics is a very similar case).
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Louis Proyect <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Louis Proyect <[log in to unmask]>