Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest Paperback – June 25, 2003

If you have read Dawkins and Gould you will find this brief book valuable. It puts the 30-year debate between them in context. He says "the heat of this exchange is puzzling [f]or Dawkins and Gould agree on much that matters." This is important, because their supporters (Daniel Dennett is a powerful supporter of Dawkins) and opponents of evolutionary theory may exaggerate the significance of their specific and esoteric theoretical differences. This new edition (2007) takes into account Gould's massive "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" and more recent writings of Dawkins. Gould famously faulted other evolutionists for extreme 'adaptationism" -- which he ridiculed as "Panglossian." Even brilliant scientists can magnify small differences into causes for intellectual combat. Excellent bibliography.

Intresting and clear. May be a little biased towards author's preferences, but overall a great book. The book was delivered on time, I find it expensive for the actual condition that the book is, but it is the newest 2007 edition, overall very good service.

Published in 2001 this little book does a nice job explaining the fundamental arguments between the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins -- two extraordinary (and influential) contemporary scholars on evolution. Each has their followers. Dawkins emphasizes natural selection's gradually accumulated change leading toward more adaptive organisms; Gould focuses instead on "punctuated equilibrium," long periods of little change periodically goosed by cataclysm, followed by a "weeding out" of the less fit. Gradual change, he says, is canceled out to a large extent, but the fluctuations in the environment. Much of the selection, he says, takes place at the group or species level, rather than the level of gene or worse, the "meme" which has seduced the gullible to think evolution affects behavior. Gould was not one to mince words, apparently.

There is much more of interest in this well crafted booklet. Their actual views have been presented in simplistic form, which only confuses the discussion. Some of their real disagreements had subsided by the time the book was written. Yet there remains several clear divisions not only on the way natural selection works but on science, and religion (which Dawkins despises) and evolutionary psychology (which Gould despised). It's quite an interesting read. The differences are clearer in this book than I have found elsewhere, and the author seems balanced though admits in the end to being swayed more toward Dawkins.

This probably isn't a book one should pick up before The Selfish Gene and at least some familiarity with the Gould/Dawkins debate. Gould's work is mostly published in journals so somewhat less accessible to the casual reader. Sterelny also provides a very nice point-by-point recap in the final chapter and a useful section that recommends and comments on further readings for every topic.

Good analysis of the debate, though it is a bit repetitive at times though. I recommend it, especially if you want an overview of a debate of how evolution has been occurring over the past millennia

This is the most engaging book on evolution I've read since reading The Selfish Gene nearly twenty years ago. The author's grasp of theoretical fine points is impressive, his writing style is crisp, his anecdotes numerous.

Author Kim Sterelny has also written books such as The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique,Thought in a Hostile World: The Evolution of Human Cognition,Cooperation and Its Evolution,Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology, etc.

He states in the first chapter of this 2001 book, “[Richard] Dawkins and [Stephen Jay] Gould have clashed heatedly on the nature of evolution… Dawkins and Gould are representatives of different intellectual and national traditions in evolutionary biology… So it is tempting to suppose that the passion of these exchanges reflects nothing deeper than competition for the same patch of limelight, magnified by different historical and disciplinary perspectives. I think that suspicion would be misplaced, and it’s my aim in this book to explain why. Despite real and important points of agreement, their clash is of two very different perspectives on evolutionary biology. (Pg. 6-7)

He adds, “Dawkins is a whole-hearted son of the Enlightenment. We should embrace the scientific description of ourselves and our world, for it is true… beautiful, and complete. It leaves nothing out. Gould, on the contrary, does not think that science is complete. The humanities, history and even religion offer insight into the realm of value---of how we ought to live---independent of any possible scientific discovery… he has often written of social influences on scientific views… In short, Dawkins, but not Gould, thinks of science as a unique standard-bearer of enlightenment and rationality.” (Pg. 13-14)

He points out, “for Dawkins, the history of life is a history of a mostly invisible war between gene lineages. The beautiful biological mechanisms that we see on so many natural history documentaries are the visible products of that war. They are its weapons. For rival gene alliances are engaged in a perpetual arms race… Gould sees the living world very differently. Life today is fabulously diverse. But many forms of life that used to dominate their environment are no longer with us… much of his professional life concerns extinction… Extinction, and its causes, is one of Gould’s fundamental concerns. Dawkins is impressed by the power of selection to build adaptations. Gould is equally struck by conservative aspect of the history of life… Moreover, Gould has a different conception of the mechanism of evolution… Gould places less weight on selection than does Dawkins… He is very skeptical of gene selection…” (Pg. 9-12)

He places their views in contrast on specific issues: “So far then, a stand-off. Cumulative selection is fundamental to evolution. But that alone does not establish that the fundamental agents in evolution are gene lineages, and the skeptics are right to say so. But equally, Dawkins is right to resist the attempt to hang the albatross of genetic determinism around his neck.” (Pg. 31) “Outlaw genes and extended phenotype genes cannot readily be incorporated within a view of evolution that sees selection as acting on individual organisms. Here Dawkins’ view of evolution seems to be doing better than that of Gould.” (Pg. 41) “Moreover, there remain many important debatable issues about species selection. But on these issues, the divisions between Dawkins and Gould are less sharp than they once were.” (Pg. 53)

He summarizes, “For Dawkins, the central problem of evolutionary biology is the explanation of adaptive complexity. That is not Gould’s conception of the field. He has spent a large fraction of his paleontological career arguing for the existence of large-scale patterns in the history of life, patterns not explained by natural selection. So a further disagreement concerns the existence and importance of these patterns.” (Pg. 62)

He points out, “As Gould sees it, though diversity has increased, disparity has radically shrunk since the Cambrian. Animal life was at its most disparate at the peak of that explosion… Why was the Cambrian so rich in diversity, and why was the disparity generated so rapidly, and then lost? Gould rather doubts that selection has much to do either with the early burst of disparity or with the roster of loss and survival. Perhaps most pressingly of all: why has there been so little disparity generated since the Cambrian?... the history of animal life since the Cambrian has bene strikingly conservative. No new plans have been invented; no old ones has been massively modified. If Gould is right about the basic pattern of history, he is surely right in thinking we are faced by a mystery.” (Pg. 99-102)

He observes, “Dawkins and his allies really do have a different conception of evolution from that embraced by [Niles] Eldredge, [Richard] Lewontin and other collaborators of Gould. But those differences do not explain the undercurrent of hostility this debate has generated… No doubt some of that hostility has a banal psychological explanation… But I doubt whether this is the whole story. Dawkins and Gould mostly argue about issues internal to evolutionary theory. But they have very different attitudes to science itself. Dawkins is an old-fashioned science worshipper. (Here I line up with him, not Gould.)… Gould’s take on the status of science is much more ambiguous. For one thing, he thinks some important questions are outside science’s scope. He defends this idea in his recent work on the relationship between science and religion. On this issue, Dawkins’ views are simple. He is an atheist… Gould, by contrast, seems to think theism is irrelevant to religion.” (Pg. 124)

He states, “with respect to Gould’s ideas about high-level selection… the Dawkins-Gould divide is less sharp than it once was. For it has become clear that gene selectionism is compatible with both group selection and species selection. My bet is that Gould is right, both in thinking that mass extinctions have played a fundamental role in shaping the tree of life, and in thinking mass extinction regimes filter species in virtue of features of the species themselves, not just properties of the organisms that compose the species.” (Pg. 138-139)

He concludes, “My own views are much closer to those of Dawkins than they are to Gould. In particular, I think Dawkins is right about microevolution: about evolutionary change within local populations. But macroevolution is not just microevolution scaled up. Gould’s paleontological perspective offers real insights into mass extinction and its consequences, and, perhaps, the nature of species and speciation. So, Dawkins is right about evolution on local scales, but maybe Gould is right about the relationship between events on a local scale, and those on the vast scale of paleontological time.” (Pg. 140)

This is an interesting comparison and contrast between the views of these two men. While Sterelny’s opinions are his own---and we are not obligated to share them---this book will interest many of those studying evolutionary theory.