Here’s a review of it by biologist Michael Goldman that appeared in NATURE

http://www.gregbear.com/A55885.....ges/300040

Based on these two quotes, I would say the evidence fits almost perfectly with what Goldschmidt proposes. His interpretation would likely be something along the lines of this: Over the life history of this particular form a ‘systemic mutation’ has occurred, that is, a ‘repatterning’ of the chromosomal material. The net affect of this change is to disturb the rates of reaction within the developmental pattern of poecilioppus. When the inducer for the placenta rises above its threshold value while the embryo is still developing, then the full placenta appears. If it reaches its threshold value later on, then the placenta will be partially formed, and, if very late, then it will not appear at all.” In other words, he would see this as being hormonally based (or through other potent chemicals) and directly related to chemicals manufactured by germ plasm material (Yes, even back in 1940, Goldschmidt already realized the chemical producing power of germ plasm (DNA))

Not having time at the moment to look at the article you cite, let me quickly tell you that Goldschmidt’s view was that macroevolution came about by a shifting in the patterns of the chromosomal material. If this reshifting was on a large scale, then it would be (1) much more difficult for the organism to be viable, but (2)if it did become viable, then we would see organismal change at least at the genus level, if not at the Class level (or higher).

Goldschmidt also implied through this chromosomal view that the “genotype” of most organisms is contained in, using his terms (from the 1940′s), in the germ plasm of living cells. He doesn’t elaborate it much in his famous book of 1940, but this is the impression he gives.

I must say that it has crossed my mind–thinking now in terms of ID–that something along this line may be the actual case of evolution, since one is forced to answer the question as to “where” this added “information” comes from. It simplifies things if, indeed, the “germ plasm” of all living cells contain the information for every type of combination possible, i.e., every life form present. But that does represent an extravagant claim, and so I tend to dismiss it. However, Goldschmidt, being a preeminent geneticist and embryologist, makes me want to reconsider this possibility. If indeed Goldschmidt is correct about germ plasm, then we shouldn’t be surprised by the sudden origin of a placenta in a fish line–the information is there already in the chromosomes, and if they can rearrange themselves into a new–and VIABLE–configuration, then, voilà, a fish with a placenta. (Not having read the article, but along the lines of Goldschmidt, I rather suspect that the “placenta” was induced by some kind of chemical method. [That is, chemical induction of some kind of chromosomal change] I’ll have to go look and see.)

PaV

For those interested in reading and interpreting the primary literature for themselves, here’s the abstract to the actual article in question:

The emergence of drug-resistant bacteria poses a serious threat to human health. In the case of several antibiotics, including those of the quinolone and rifamycin classes, bacteria rapidly acquire resistance through mutation of chromosomal genes during therapy. In this work, we show that preventing induction of the SOS response by interfering with the activity of the protease LexA renders pathogenic Escherichia coli unable to evolve resistance in vivo to ciprofloxacin or rifampicin, important quinolone and rifamycin antibiotics. We show in vitro that LexA cleavage is induced during RecBC-mediated repair of ciprofloxacin-mediated DNA damage and that this results in the derepression of the SOS-regulated polymerases Pol II, Pol IV and Pol V, which collaborate to induce resistance-conferring mutations. Our findings indicate that the inhibition of mutation could serve as a novel therapeutic strategy to combat the evolution of antibiotic resistance.