His name is Gunter Wagner. He is an evolutionary biologist at Yale. He is not to be confused with Andreas Wagner, an evolutionary biologist located in Europe, I believe. (Though both are critical of the classical neo-Darwinian synthesis.)
Here was the post, from the Bayesian thread, which unintentionally led to this pointless discussion about books and articles:
EddieEdward RobinsonReligious Studies and Natural Theology
How did this turn into a discussion on the competence of Futuyma? I made no personal or professional attack on Futuyma. In fact, I’m predisposed to like Futuyma, because he reads lots of books on evolutionary theory. Most of the people here appear to have read nothing but articles on it.
Further, since people here are saying that the new wave of evolutionary biologists, whose concerns have been raised at the Royal Society meeting, at Altenberg, and in other places (see the Third Way group), are making a big fuss about a bunch of stuff that is already known to evolutionary theory, here is a statement BY FUTUYMA about one of the Altenberg group, Gunter P. Wagner:
“Wagner’s contributions to the conceptual growth of developmental evolutionary biology are unrivalled. Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation shows the sweep of his creative and rigorous thinking. This is one of the most exciting books in evolutionary biology I have read in a long time.” —Douglas J. Futuyma, coeditor of The Princeton Guide to Evolution
Note the words “unrivalled,” “creative,” “rigorous.” Are these the words of Discovery? Of Answers in Genesis? No, they are the words of Futuyma!
Which of the guys posting here as “experts” on evolution have had their writings on evolution called “unrivalled” or “creative” or “rigorous” by Futuyma? Yet Wagner’s book arises out of the same set of concerns about evolutionary theory that drove the Altenberg meeting.