Customer Reviews

The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book begins with a rather difficult glossary, then goes on to confront the reader with sentences that have opening clauses such as "Embedded in Spenglerian cyclicity..." The book does lighten up after a while (or perhaps the reader simply becomes accustomed to the style), but at the very least it seems fair to say that Morris doesn't underestimate the intellect of his readers. He has written an interesting book about the Burgess Shale that reviews familiar facts and adds some illuminating new material.

Morris's prose does get out of hand from time to time, making dark hints or arch asides with no explication, leaving the reader thinking "and exactly what would THAT be?" (A case in point is his footnote reference to "the poisonous ideas of such individuals as Derrida." Huh? Deconstructionism is relevant to paleobiology? Spare me an explanation of THAT.)

Still, most of the book is coherent and informative - particularly if you give up on reading the footnotes and stick with the main text.

The book does annoy in its relentless disparaging of Steven J. Gould, not because Morris dares to disagree with the role of punctuated equilibrium and (more importantly) contingency, but because of his condescending and not altogether consistent dismissal of the larger implications that flow from Gould's ideas. In the first chapter, Morris tells us that Gould's "arid manifesto" is "unequivocal. The likelihood of Man evolving on any other planet is extraordinarily unlikely." This is a philosophical criticism because Morris doesn't like what he thinks Gould implies by this. Since Morris never plainly explains, it is hard to be sure, but evidently he feels that Gould's view says that the human race has no larger meaning and needn't take any responsibility for things because we're just a chance, and highly unlikely, event.

Personally, I never took that message from anything written by Gould (he's one of the most engagingly literate humanists I read) but Morris certainly has the credentials to form a knowledgeable opinion otherwise. What annoys is that Morris closes his book with a somewhat intellectually messy essay noting that it is at least statistically possible that humans are unique and therefore we have a special responsibility to our planet. Let me get this straight: if GOULD says humanity is a unique, wondrous event, then Gould is the proponent of some evil, nihilistic philosophy. But if MORRIS says we're unique, it is cause for celebration, humility, and stewardship. Oh well - at least Morris compels you to think, even if you wish his own thoughts were a bit clearer.

Morris, one of two contemporary specialists on the Burgess Shale, has produced an exceedingly well-written survey of the Burgess shale fauna and their meaning for evolutionary biology. The book is loaded with scores of B/W photos, 4 color drawings, a 13-page glossary of terms for the uninitiated, an imaginative underwater excursis with time-travelling paleontologists to the middle Cambrian, and a chapter on developmental evolutionary genetics (wherein he argues that many Burgess forms *are* related to contemporary forms). Stephen Jay Gould's view of the significance of the Burgess Shale is that the bizarre life-forms seen then demonstrate the historical contingency of evolution--rewind the tape and let it play out again, and things would turn out differently (a la Jimmy Stewart's "Wonderful Life"). Morris's thesis is that Gould's tape-player metaphor is misleading, overemphasizing contingency at the cost of ignoring the powerful role played by ecology . One need only consider the evolution of convergent traits in insular life-forms (e.g., Australian marsupial cat-like predators) to get the point. (I should point out that I am suspicious of monolithic theories from either pole of the necessity-chance spectrum.) I find it unfortunate that Gould never discussed Bradley Efron's Bootstrap, a technique used widely in evolutionary and population genetics, or cellular automata, a la Stuart Kauffman, which give rise to the same recurrent patterns with astonishing regularity.) Morris is an adaptationist senstive to the power of ecology to shape evolution, who sees Burgess forms not as deviant freaks that accidentally went extinct but as ancestral to contemporary animals. As usual, there is likely to be truth to both positions; indeed, in some ways, their different views turn on different understandings of probability. For anyone with more than a passing interest in evolutionary biology and paleontology, who finds Gould's incessant digressions distracting, or wonders about the hypertrophy of contingency, this book should not be missed.

In a very interesting book, on a fascinating and inspiring topic, one of the key figures is making his ideas public, and does not convince.
Simon Conway Morris tries to undermine or oppose the views of S.J. Gould, and while he might scientifically be the most likely person to succeed in such a feat, he utterly fails to do so.
Conway Morris is very hostile to the views presented in Gould's "wonderful life", which were largely based upon his OWN earlier view, and does little justice to the man who brought him under the public (although by no means scientific, a task in which he succeeded extremely well on his own merit) spotlights.
Conway Morris's arguments are based upon 3 major arguments: that of convergence, that of cladistics, and that of disparity.
The first one is undoubtedly true, but trivial. Convergence can and will occur, but as it can be brought up by taxa belonging to extant groups, it has no bearing on the shape of the tree of life. Gould made no claim that ecological niches will not be filled - just that they will be filled later in evolution by more closely related taxa.
The second argument is irrelevant and misleading. Again, Gould does not claim all the Burgess shale's weird wonders arose separately - quite on the contrary, but he does claim they arose early on the tree of life. Every life form can be fitted on a dendrogram, so the fact you can put Opabinia and Sidenyia on the same tree, is irrelevant to the argument presented.
So we are basically left with the third argument. Throughout the book Conway Morris is claiming to have refuted the arguments of "Wonderful life", and as his own arguments are weak you are constantly waiting for him to pull the smoking gun. This appears not before about 15 pages from the end, and one is startled to see all of Conway Morris's argument relies on just one study - Foote's 1990 study of disparity in Burgess-shale and later trilobites. The conclusions arising from this analysis are in no way the clear cut evidence Conway Morris wants them to be: the debate is on between scientists as to their validity and implications, and more importantly - they do not even directly bear on the question of disparity between HIGHER taxonomic units (e.g. Phyla): the major issue at hand.
Thus Conway Morris's book fails to convince. It does however a fascinating story, and the most updated one today, of the wonderful story about animal origins. Conway Morris is modest in his claims to knowledge, and fully acknowledges what he don't know, or not sure of (this goes to facts, not arguments) and noble in his efforts to relate his story to recent conservation issues. All in all I'd read his book for the most updated info on the animals, and "Wonderful life" for the best philosophy of science

...based on the Burgess shale fauna. If you liked "Wonderful Life" then this is a book for you. Conway Morris is at his best describing the animals of the Burgess shale and similar sites around the world, in particular the newer interpretations that have occurred since Wonderful Life was published.

Conway Morris takes a diametrically opposite view to S.J. Gould on the implications of the Burgess shale - perhaps mainly due to the Religious and political views he expresses strongly in this book. Perhaps this antagonism forces Conway Morris into adopting the extreme view that "while contingency exists it is unimportant." Here his arguments are at their weakest, and are far from convincing. The chapter on quantitative measurements of disparity and convergence is fascinating (the book is almost worth getting for this alone - I wish it were longer). It is clear that the data is not yet of sufficient quality to quantify the degree both random events and more conventional evolutionary pressures constrain the history of life, but that it may soon be.

Add this book to your collection alongside Wonderful Life!

This is a book you would expect from an Englishman: lucid, logical, and insightful. For the interested, it isn't all that difficult to read. Actually, it's fun compared to S. J. Gould's excellent, but far more difficult, Wonderful Life.

Conway Morris is also very persuasive in how much prominence "contingency" (randomness) in biological evolution deserves. Against Gould, Conway Morris finds it unremarkable and discusses how evolution by natural selection is more coherent and predictable than Gould would have one believe. CM also shows that the facts just do not support Gould's contention that anatomic forms are more impoverished today compared to the welter of body forms that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion.

In sum, this is a fun, well-written book for the lay crowd that enjoys palentology, the Paleozoic Era, and a glimpse at the issues debated in the academic arena.

Morris presents an excellent overview of the history of the discovery and subsequent work on the Burgess Shale, as well as ideas about the the life and times of early metazoan life. I am glad to see that not everyone agrees with Gould's interpretations of early life -- not that I disagree with Gould, it's just that it's healthy to have multiple informed opinions about the rise of animal diversity. I found the photographs and figures of Burgess Shale and Burgess Shale-like faunas to be top-notch, as are the discussions of other fossil bearing formations that are of the same vintage as the Burgess Shale. This book is a good read for anyone interested in the Cambrian explosion, though I have to admit that the mental imagery of the time-travelling submersible didn't hit the mark for me. Still, this book is well worth one's time.

I started this book with high hopes but found it consistently disappointing and annoying. He comtinually comes up with sentences that are so imprecise as to be meaningless. For example (page 205) ' It is my opinion that human history can make no sense unless evil doings are recognized for what they are, and that they are bearable only if somehow they may be redeemed'

Then in debating convergence he argues that whales are inevitable in the sense that life will inevitably produce a 'fast ocean going animal that sieves sea water for food' True, but it is surely not logical to deduce from that the inevitability of homo sapiens. One could argue the inevitability of 'something like an ape' ie 4 limbs, 2 for standing 2 for grasping, upright stance, omnivore etc. Sure, but not such a specific and unusual creature as man. Especially recognising that the features which give us uniqueness have emerged so recently in geological time. Surely something so inevitable and important would not have waited three and a half million years just to enjoy 50,000 years of existence.

The key characteristics of man in this context are intelligence and consciousness. If it is argued that convergence inevitably leads to the emergence of man (with these characteristics) then why do they not emerge (with similar inevitably) in some or all of the other phylla. Having heard his arguments I am afraid I side with Gould on this particular topic ie we could have lots of re-runs but still not lead to that fortunate (or unfortunate!) outcome labeled 'homo sapiens'.

Having read and loved Professor Gould's book, Wonderful Life, I have always wanted to read and learn more about the Cambrian fauna.This book was just what I was looking for. It provides information about other organisms from other Cambrian fossil localities and ties these into the Burgess Shale story. I appreciate the way Conway-Morris brings the organisms to life in his time-travel scenario. And the photographs of the fossils are beautiful! Obviously a great deal of care went into taking these unretouched photos. His disagreements with Gould are also illuminating and add depth to the book, providing another way of looking at these organisms. Conway-Morris's account of how Wiwaxia and the halkieriids tie together the Annelids, the Mollusca and the Brachiopods is particularly fascinating.

I think some of the reviews make far too much about the author's comments about Stephen Jay Gould. That these two disagree about certain things is just fine with me and if it gets a little personal at times, so what? Consider that just a little spice in the dish. What is wonderful about this book is its concise expression of ideas and concepts and its use of apt illustrations to help us understand the points it makes. Simon Conway Morris obviously cares very deeply about the subject of the book and his skillful writing helps us catch some of that fervor. Whether you end up believe Dr Gould or Dr Conway Morris or make up some other conclusion isn't really the point. You will be better off having read this book (as well as Gould and other authors). This book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the implications of the Burgess Shale and what we believe we are learning from it and other sites. There are many valuable concepts discussed in this book and valuable references to other reading so you can take your investigations as deep as you care to go. If you read this book I believe you will enjoy it and learn from it.

About 90% of this book can be said to be "fascinating", if only because it deals with a fascinating subject, the creatures of the Burgess Shale. The author, Simon Conway Morris, is one of the authors of the scientific descriptions of many of these animals. That alone should make this book of some value. And it does have a value of sorts, but one that is spoiled by a sometimes odd writing style, hints of design and religion, and a needless and constant poking at Stephen Jay Gould, the famous late professor of paleontology at Harvard University. Oddly enough, it was Gould who made Morris famous in his book "Wonderful Life". Morris returns the favor with backhanded slaps at Gould's view on how life would turn out if the "tape" of life were re-run again. Gould thinks everything would be different; Morris thinks convergence would play a major role to make things all closely similar. While it is clear that Morris disagrees with Gould, Morris' argument is not convincing and sometimes seems like mere meanness. I think Gould wins. Nice pictures, though.