11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting reading, but few real answers., March 7, 2001
This review is from: Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (Hardcover)
Whenever one reads a book of neo-Darwinism (Eldredge calls it ultra-Darwinism) the mechanisms are mostly well explained, if not always convincing to everybody. In this sense "Punctuated Equilibrium" has been a frustrating theory, in that we are never told exactly how it works. Few of us have seen the original papers of Gould and Eldredge, and Gould's copious range of books since rarely detail his most famous idea.
I hoped then, that 'Reinventing Darwin' would give the story first hand. However, while this book gives an inside story of the politics of the 'high table', and some conflicts within modern science, there are no real mechanisms. Eldredge mentions that habitat tracking can account for stasis, by organisms migrating with latitude creep in a benign environment, rather than staying in the same latitude and adapting. (If this alone explains stasis, you read it here first!). Eldredge also provides arguments for observed evolution not following the theoretical mechanisms of neo-Darwinism for large changes, or how he explains it. But one is left wondering if punctuated equilibrium is still an observational hypothesis about the pattern of life, that nobody, including its originators, can explain how it works.
Eldredge ends on a hopeful note; that 'naturalist' and 'reductionist' scientist should try to understand each other. But the problem might be deeper than that. In my own book (The Theory of Options: A New Theory of the Evolution of Human Behavior) I suggest that 'reductionist' math might simply be incomplete, in that upwards from about 100k reproductions a second effect of gene copy kicks in, not covered in the existing equations. I might be wrong on this, but this another lesson from the punctuated equilibrium experience. At the end of the rainbow of a new theory of evolution lies not a pot of gold, but a challenge to demonstrate the mechanisms. Until someone can answer that challenge, there will still be divisions at the high table.
I would encourage people to read this book, just do not expect too many answers from it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Insider's View of Academic Posturing, May 20, 2000
By A Customer
This review is from: Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (Hardcover)
I really enjoyed this book, even though I don't see the importance of the debate. Each side (the scientists who study genes vs. the scientists who study fossils) has their own area of expertise, and within that area, their conclusions appear to be totally supported by the own evidence. The solution, I believe, will be found on the genetics side, as they discover exactly how a small "mutation" changes primitive organisms. Our genome is so huge, and tangled with billions of years of false starts and dead ends, that mutations in our genomes don't produce new species, the way similar mutations did in the Cambrian. I suspect this book is actually aimed at those who don't accept evolution, to show that all the available evidence has been examined "under a microscope," and that reputable scientists aren't afraid to present both sides of an issue in a single work. Contrast this with the Creationists, who feel free to present any theory, or possible interpretation of a piece of evidence, without evaluating it for credibility.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A View from the Trenches, April 22, 2003
This review is from: Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (Hardcover)
In 'Reinventing Darwin', Niles Eldredge presents the view of a different side of the issues presented by what he calls 'Ultra-Darwinists', the likes of Richard Dawkins and Maynard Smith. As such, it raises an important contribution to our understanding of natural history, and is essential for anyone interested in current debates inside of Neodarwinism.
Perhaps the most striking thing about 'Reinventing Darwin', is how little attention Eldredge pays to the design of actual animal bodies and behaviors. Richard Dawkins's books, for example, are filled with explanation of various complex and semi-designed things - such as altruism in 'The Selfish Gene'. 'The Blind Watchmaker' is entirely devoted to the question of how things like wings, eyes and legs are formed by natural selection.
Eldredge, on the other hand, is hardly ever interested in these issues. He does make a halfhearted attack on the 'Panglossian' kind, which is associated with Gould, but Eldredge had little to do with the paper about the Arches of San Marino. Eldredge readily concedes that the great majority of animal features are formed by natural selection (p.48).
So what is the focus of Eldredge book, and the main line of critique of the Ultra-Darwinists? The answer is the larger patterns of natural history. Eldredge believes that the history of life is not just the principles of natural selection extrapolated. Rather, Eldredge believes that in the large scale, there are different principles that govern life, additions to simple natural selection.
Eldredge is most convincing when he discusses the importance of species as players in evolution. Eldredge points out that within species, different groups ('demes') can evolve differences from the main group, but that species are normally one reproductive entity, and that thus small differences get merged back into the species average. Thus only when a distinct reproductive body is formed (usually by geographical separation from the main group), evolution can create a new species.
This form of higher level evolution seems logical and natural. However, Eldredge arguments about higher level selection (species selection) is not very clear, convincing, or forcefully argued. The best of what Eldredge does promote is Elizabeth Vrba's theory, that species often exist in a more general archetype and in unique, specialized species. Vrba found out that there is a higher level of specification from those specialized species than the more general group. Eldredge argues that this is because the more specialized species, when moving to a different environment, face stronger evolutionary pressure. This he called 'Species Sorting', and this (as opposed to the argument that there is competition between various animal species and Taxas), I find easy to accept. I do wish that Eldredge would elaborate on empirical ways to verify his conclusion. Indeed, the book as a whole could benefit from more attention to how the differences between Ultra-Darwinists and Naturalists can be tested empirically.
Finally, Eldredge turns his attention to ecosystem and to Richard Dawkins concept of selfish genes. Eldredge argues that Ultra-Darwinists have turned natural selection from a passive to an active player. In Dawkins's scheme, natural selection shapes gene so that they will influence the environment. So that there are genes 'for' beaver dams and for reading. Eldredge puts against this a model in which the environment effects the genes via natural selection, and the genes effect the environment via the organism.
To me, this a distinction without a difference, although Eldredge thinks that it betrays a great conceptual failure of Ultra-Darwinism. He tries to illustrate this with the example of human sociobiology. Eldredge does prove that the selfish gene perspective is not enough to explain human behavior, but this is beside the point. Eldredge readily concedes that few Ultra-Darwinists are hard core genetic determinists (p.212). How is that possible? Because, as Dawkins discusses in 'The Selfish Gene' and elsewhere, humans, alone from all animals, have culture. Thus, if Eldredge wishes to attack the 'Selfish Gene' theory, he should pick a different target.
I have not, perhaps, been as kind to this book in this review as I meant to be. Whether or not I agree with specific conclusions by Eldredge, this remains a well written, well argued, and fascinating book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
