The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Kindle Edition

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) wrote many other important books, such as Ontogeny and Phylogeny,Ever Since Darwin,The Panda's Thumb,Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes,The Flamingo's Smile,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History,Eight Little Piggies,Dinosaur in a Haystack,The Lying Stones Of Marrakech, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 2002 book, "This book asserts, as its key premise and one long argument, that such an understanding of modern evolutionary theory places the subject... with the central core of Darwinian logic sufficiently intact to maintain continuity as the centerpiece of the entire field, but with enough important changes ... to alter the structure of evolutionary theory into something truly different by expansion, addition, and redefinition. In short, 'The structure of evolutionary theory' combines enough stability for coherence with enough change to keep any keen mind in a perpetual mode of search and challenge." (Pg. 6) Later, he summarizes, "This book presents, as its primary thesis, the notion that (i) Darwinism may be viewed as a platform with a tripod of essential support; (ii) each leg of the tripod now faces a serious reforming critique acting more as an auxiliary than an alternative formulation; and (iii) the three critiques hold strong elements in common, and may lead to a fundamentally revised evolutionary theory with a retained Darwinian core." (Pg. 166)

He reveals, "Far more than most colleagues, I have tended to work alone in my professional life and publication. But for each of the conceptually difficult and intellectually manifold issues of reevaluation of the central logic of the three essentially Darwinian postulates, I desperately needed advice, different skills... from colleagues who complemented my limited expertise with their equally centered specialties and aptitudes... Thus... I worked with Niles Eldredge on punctuated equilibrium..." (Pg. 27) Later, he explains, "I wrote most of our 1972 paper, and I did coin the term punctuated equilibrium---but the basic structure of the theory belongs to Eldredge, with priority established in his 1971 paper." (Pg. 775) Later, he rejects the argument that "I advanced punctuated equilibrium in order to foster a personal political agenda [i.e., Marxism]. I resent this absurd misreading... I said nothing about my political beliefs ... a private matter that I do not choose to discuss in this forum." (Pg. 1018)

He suggests, "the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature." (Pg. 122) He adds, "By interpreting Darwin's radical theory as a response to [William] Paley... based on an importation of the central argument from Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics, I believe that we achieve our best insight into the essential claims of Darwinism and natural selection." (Pg. 124-125) He asks, "Does Darwinism truly require the following extreme formulation: 'Natural selection can only act by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications.' At some level of discontinuity, of course, Darwin's strong statement must prevail... But can we justify Darwin's application of the same claim to single organs? Suppose (as must often happen) that developmental heterochrony produces a major shift in form and function by two or three steps without intermediary stages. The size of these steps may lie outside the 'normal' variation of most populations at most moments, but not beyond the potential of an inherited developmental program." (Pg. 150-151) He wonders, "what conceivable pressure of natural selection could account for gradual stages in the disappearance of a functionless organ---for the loss of function should remove a structure from the domain of selection entirely, and knowledge about an eventually adaptive state could not be invoked to guide an explanation for intermediary stages along such a functionless path." (Pg. 203)

He criticizes Richard Dawkins: "Dawkins's first book says, in no uncertain terms... that genes are exclusive units of selection... and that bodies... cannot play such a role. The second book says that we can view evolution equally well from either the gene's or the organism's point of view, [although] Dawkins still prefers genes... These two positions connote... mutually exclusive, accounts of causality in evolution... I do not know why Dawkins altered his view so radically. But may I suggest that he simply could not... maintain full allegiance to the fallacious argument of strict gene selectionism. Dawkins... ultimately needed to make so many statements from the organism's point of view that he must have begun to wonder whether he could really continue to regard such organismal language a mere convenience, while touting the genic formulation as a unique reality... With such an admission, the selfish gene becomes an impotent meme." (Pg. 641)

He explains, "By 'random'... I only mean to assert the hypothesis of no overall preference for increasing complexity ... a system in which each speciation event has an equal probability of leading either to greater or to lesser complexity from the ancestral design... the overall system (all of life, that is) need not display any overall bias---for just as many individual lineages may become less complex for equally adaptive reasons. In a world where so many parasitic species usually exhibit less complexity than their freeliving ancestors, and where no obvious argument exists for a contrary trend in any equally large guild, why should we target increasing complexity as a favored hypothesis for a general pattern in the history of life?" (Pg. 900)

He argues, "Yes, five percent of a wing offers no conceivable aerodynamic benefit, and could not therefore be formed, or converted into a full wing, under a smooth regime of natural selection FOR FLIGHT. But sequences forged by selection only presuppose continuity in differential reproductive success, not continuity in a single function. Thus, the incipient stages may have performed a different function, for which their 5 percent of a wing imparted benefits. Eventually, the enlarging proto-wing entered the domain of aerodynamic benefit, and the original function changed to the primary utility now exploited by birds. Current function cannot be equated with reasons for historical origin." (Pg. 1223) But he adds, "natural selection cannot act as a magic wand for a immediate construction of any urgent need... a large component of evolvability must be attributed to inherent structural properties of features that ... manifest a capacity for subsequent recruitment (with minimal change) to substantially different and novel functions. The study ... of these formal and structural reasons for evolvability sets an important agenda, now largely unfilled but attracting considerable interest, for evolutionary biology." (Pg. 1228)

He concludes, "This book attempts to expand and alter the premises of Darwinism, in order to build an enlarged and distinctive evolutionary theory that, while remaining within ... Darwinian argument, can also explain a wide range of macroevolutionary phenomena lying outside the explanatory power of extrapolated modes and mechanisms of microevolution... (1) punctuated equilibrium establishes... a general speciational theory of cladal trending... (2) catastrophic mass extinction ... suggests a general theory of faunal coordination far in excess... of what Darwinian microevolutionary assumptions about the independent history of lineages under competitive models of natural selection could possibly generate." (Pg. 1339-1340)

Besides being a highly creative evolutionary theorist, Gould was also a brilliant writer and an engaged "public intellectual." His presence is sorely missed on the scientific and literary scene.

While the general aim of this work appears to have been the final apologia for Stephen Jay Gould's (and Niles Eldridge's)theory of Punctuated Equilibrium and Gould's other work in the field, this large volume can stand on its own as a good reference source for those wanting to understand the history of the development of evolutionary thought over the centuries. No niche seems to have been ignored by the late Harvard conchologist. The detailed critical examination of Ernst Haeckel's Lamarckism is worth a book itself. And, Stephen's humane and compassionate approach to those who don't agree with his views (or even the fundamental views of the consensus of scientists) makes this exploration of the controversy both readable and enjoyable.

Cleary the capstone to Stephen Jay Gould's life and career. While his hundreds of articles in NATURE put him at the same cocktail party with Carl Sagan, this tome puts him at the same party with Charles Darwin. Another reviewer hit it on the head. This book is not as accessible as his other writings. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is intended for the experts in the field of Evolution. It presumes a lot of the reader, background that frankly even with a BS in Zoology, I don't have. At 30 bucks, it's a great value for the money, one of those books you'll keep around and read a chapter or section at a time. I don't think Gould intended to be pedantic, but he was clearly thinking at a level above most of us. A quick excerpt to demonstrate my point. From the bottom of page 152: "The challenge of punctuated equillibrium to natural selection rests upon two entirely different issues of support provided by punctuational geometry for the explanation of cladal trends by differential species success and not by extrapolated anagenesis, and for the high relative frequency of species selection, as opposed to the exclusivity of Darwinian selection on organisms." If you can figure this out, even in context, you can have my Mensa card.

His harshest critics now explain his insight away by (disingenuously) saying it was trivial - "everyone has always really thought/meant that to be true"... This is the true sign of triumph! If you have a couple of years of insomnia ahead, this is the book for you! And if you can actually manage to read it all from cover to cover, you be in very rarified company, because most evolutionary biologists I have met (even the one's who own it) admit they have not managed to read it.