Talk:Lynn Margulis

What was Lynn Margulis' childhood like? How many siblings did she have?

I think it should be noted that Margulis isn't an anti-materialist, like some seem to think. She even defend the idea that "life" is a too vitalistic word and should be remplaced by "living matters" to put emphasis on the fact that life is organized matters.

---

Any relation to Norman Margulis ? (see Cellular Automata Machines book by Tommaso Toffoli and Norman Margulis (1987) ) --DavidCary 00:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All over the 'pedia

Is it just me, or does Lynn have references all over the Wikipedia? I respect that she may have some nice ideas, but every little article that she might have something to do with has a paragraph on her. This is exceptional treatment, I've not seen it elsewhere in the Wikipedia. 24.76.141.237 23:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is "too much", inappropriate material about her here and there -- but more likely there is TOO LITTLE information about others! Wikipedia should actually be at least 10-100 times bigger. Add some information! 69.87.200.157 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Her" theory?

This article implies very strongly the endosymbiotic theory was completely Margulis's idea, that it was novel and revolutionary. The article on endosymbiotic theory seems to disagree. The quote from Dawkins also seems to be intentionally taken out of context to change what it refers to. My reading of the linked quote is that Dawkins admires Margulis for sticking up for an unpopular theory, not for coming up with it. I'll let this sit for a while in hope of some comments, but if I don't see anything soon, I'll go in and do some rewriting. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with these observations. Looking at Talk:Endosymbiotic theory, it seems that page once had a similar tone to this one, but was fixed up (with appropriate credit given to the Russian guy who initially proposed the theory). On this page, I particularly don't care for the line:

She was criticized as a radical and her scientific work was rejected by mainstream biology for many years. Her work has more recently received widespread support and acclaim.

There are a lot of reasons why biologists might have not accepted the endosymbiotic theory, other than that they were a bunch of closed-minded idiots (which is what the above text implies). I'll see if there are any changes to make this page more neutral, but if not, I'll come back and remove the more egregiously false claims. --Saforrest 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whose idea it was initially (science is full of refined ideas taken from others and backed up by more proof, and the last person to make the point best gets the credit), the fact is that Lynn Margulis is associated with the theory nowadays - and no one else is. Furthermore, she was the first microbiologist to formulate the theory coherently, have microbiological evidence to support it, tie it in with Mendelian genetics and Darwinism, and put it out there as a 'competitor' to Neodarwinist theories of that time. I fixed the entire Research part up to reflect this. --Scyfer 13:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dawkins doesn't have any qualms with Margulis taking credit for the theory. The quote isn't taken out of context; Dawkins disagreed with her theory for decades - until genetic evidence actually showed that she was right (and that mitochondrial genomes _were_ distinct). He's gruffly conceding a defeat and congratulating her for holding out so long in the face of MANY of them (Dawkins and Gould and Lewontin and all the other neodarwinists, who also fight amongst themselves to see whose theory is right (and none of them are incompatible with each other by the way)) criticizing her ideas. --Scyfer 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Childhood

She grew up in Chicago, where her parents were usually quarrelling and she had to do most everything for herself. While growing up she had 3 sisters and then later, after she was married with kids of her own she had, I think, 4 siblings (3 1/2 brothers and a 1/2 sister) from her father's side.

Journals

Anybody know of any good journal articles about both her and the endosymbiotic theory? cheers

Acquiring Genomes

Rewriting my earlier statement. I feel that the section on endosymbiosis could be dealt with more clearly if the quotes were moved to the correct location (further down) and her ideas were presented with mentions of where/when they have been presented. For example, her theories on organelles should be separated from her theories on genetic recombination in bacteria. Ladlergo Dec 22, 2005

Dissident

"We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No." — Amazon review of Harvey Bialy's Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS 198.59.188.232 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edit

I've removed the reference to an honorary degree she received from Bates College. It seems some overly enthusiastic Bates alum has been adding such references to articles about everyone who has been so honored in recent years. It would be one thing to include the degree in a list of other honors, but mentioning that degree alone detracts from the article and interrupts its flow. It also doesn't do much for Bates, since the school seems to have played no other role in her life beyond giving her the honorary degree. Bates has enough accomplishments worth being proud of and doesn't need such lame boosterism.

i don't know how to edit wikipedia, can someone fix this mess here:

"Although it draws heavily on symbiosis ideas first put forward in the mid-19th century scientists as well as the early 20th century work she iz a bitch Wallin|Wallin]] (1920), Margulis's endosymbiotic theory formulation is the first to rely on direct microbiological observations (as opposed to paleontological or zoological observations which were previously the norm for new works in evolutionary biology)."

the sentence is a mess and why is "she iz a bitch" inserted?

thanks

Blackskimmer 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Blackskimmer

thanks for fixin it! long live lynn margulis.

RAS or RANS ?

The link for "Russian Academy for Natural Sciences" leads to the "Russian Academy of Sciences", which is a completely different thing. RAS is an authoritative scientific body, while RANS is a latter-day refuge for lots of "alternative scientists", i.e. cranks. This question should be clarified. --85.141.216.77 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for AIDS dissident

I've removed the info on Margulis being an AIDS dissident, based on a lack of reliable sources. The item was sourced to an Amazon.com book review (?!?!) and a few comments in the "responses" section of blogs. These clearly fail Wikipedia's guidelines for attribution, as anyone could log in to Amazon.com or post responses on a blog claiming to be Lynn Margulis. As this is a living person, we should be especially circumspect. The item could be reinserted if reliable sources can be found. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's her words, MastCell. She wrote the review, and the owner of the blog has PERSONALLY CONFIRMED THIS. YOu can't censor information just because you don't like it. CALL HER UP ON THE PHONE OR EMAIL HER IF YOU WANT TO CALL HER BLUFF. 68.35.72.13 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)