The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

Rating:
Summary: So confused as to be not worth bothering with
Review: Sadly, Stephen Jay Gould died only two months after his 1433 pages book The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (henceforth, TSET) was published. Surprisingly, TSET is NOT about the structure of evolutionary theory, and it is NOT a portrayal of the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead it is about The Structure of Gould's Evolutionary Theory. So even the title of this book is confused. (Below I will show that the content of the book is extremely confused.) Gould claims TSET to be part of a Hegelian dialectic, in which Darwinism has become the thesis, with "Gouldism" (my word) as antithesis, and, of course, a synthesis waiting to be born in the future. Obviously, Gould believes that he is Darwin II. Like Marx's Das Kapital, the TSET does not end. And, like Marx, Gould uses "outpouring, masquerading as a single sentence." One searches in vain for a clearly expressed sentence. Several "Gouldisms" are impossible to understand. An example: "autapomorphy". And, like Marx, he does rely too heavily upon rhetoric.

In TSET Gould picks his history: "Sociobiology" doesn't appear in the index. The revolutionary theory of "Evolutionary psychology" emerges briefly. Robert Trivers is ignored although reciprocal altruism is mentioned (unattributed). William D. Hamilton is largely ignored. E. O. Wilson is ignored. No Haeckel. No Spencer. No Mayr. No Dobzhansky. No Simpson. No ... Selective argumentation characterizes most of TSET. An example: Richard Dawkins devastingly critical analogy for the gradualist-punctuationalist debate is unmentioned.

Unbelievable but true: Gould claims that it is impossible to speak meaningfully about the effect of a single gene. But, undoubtedly, Mendel did speak meaningfully about the effect of a single gene. Moreover: No matter how complex the interactions, the substitution of one allele for another must have a mean arithmetic effect on fitness. In turn fitness will convey differential evolutionary advantage upon different alleles. Again, Gould is absolutely wrong.

Punctuated equilibrium isn't the revolutionary approach that Gould claims. Obviously, there have been periods of relative "stasis" (stasis = no evolutionary change) punctuated by relatively rapid changes, because environments change irregularly and unevenly. However, even rapid evolutionary change involved tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years and when they occurred, ordinary natural selection was responsible! Gradualism does not deny that catastrophes sometimes happen. But after catastrophes, ordinary natural selection takes up where it left off. Clearly, the "theory of punctuated equilibria" is not a scientific revolution. Gould has been pushing against an open door, says David P. Barash.

Gould falsely claims that the "subject of stasis had never been subjected to quantitative empirical study ..." In fact, there had been numerous quantitative studies of evolutionary stasis in many taxa.

Gould claims that selection does not at all occur at the gene level! He even speaks of gene selection in the past tense, as though it has been disproved! How can genes NOT be a unit of selection? In fact, genes are THE unit of selection. Richard Dawkins, Robert Trivers, William D. Hamilton, and George C. Williams emphasize selection at the gene level, because genes, unlike individuals, groups, and species, are persistent "replicators", which selection can maintain, promote, or extinguish over time. But, of course, even arch-reductionists acknowledge that selection operates at many different levels simultaneously. Again, it is much ado about nothing.

We all know that natural selection is not the only mechanism of genetic change, but undoubtedly it's by far the most important mechanism. But Gould makes it appear as though natural selection has been dethroned! And the path-breaking works of John Endler and numerous other scientists about natural selection are totally ignored!

Gould argues that evolution has almost nothing to do with human behavior. Gould is so eager to beat his own drums that objectivity is lost altogether, says David P. Barash. (By the way, Barash is a leftist.) Another possible explanation is that Gould simply had an unidentified mental syndrome. No wonder that John Maynard Smith concluded that Gould's views are "so confused as to be not worth bothering with."

Gould describes a conspiracy: a "hardening" of adaptationism. This is seductive rhetoric. Instead of "hardening" he should say "consolidation" or "consensus" or "shared recognition of explanations that work." The Structure of Evolutionary Theory will additionally damage Gould's reputation. Einstein had his Einstein syndrome (a language syndrome), I think S. J. Gould had his Gould syndrome (a thinking/learning syndrome). Why not?

Rating:
Summary: Long, but . . .
Review: This is a long book, no doubt about it. And it gets pretty technical. But it is NOT badly written. Folks who have written here and elsewhere that it is are only admitting to having TV-era attention spans or small vocabularies.

The title may, in fact be a bit misleading: this is not an even-handed, fully-attributed tour through the current state of Darwinian theory, this is more or less Gould's take on Darwinism.

Someone mentioned derisively that Gould thinks he's Darwin II, and that's certainly one way of looking at the book. BUT, with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with playing Darwin II. Darwin was just a man. He wasn't even the smartest man to ever walk the planet. And his ideas, contra the frothy-mouthed cheerleading of people like Daniel Dennett, do not represent utterly new, world-dissolving truths.

Check out Loren Eisley. Darwin's accomplishment was to bring together and sytematize a lot of ideas that had been floating around before he wrote (E. Darwin, Malthus, Adam Smith, Mandeville, etc.) along with some new ideas of his own. This doesn't make him God, or even a god.

Anybody can set themselves up as Darwin II, the question is, how well does he do it? Gould pulls it off reasonably well. He probably isn't right about some things (who could write on a topic this broad and not be wrong here and there?), but he has good points to make that aren't particularly well-appreciated amongst the more rabid adaptionsists.

Rating:
Summary: Gould's Magnum Opus
Review: This is a really fantastic book, that essentially sets out to revise and update the theoretical basis of evolution beyond the strict Darwinian model. But it isn't just a matter of nitpicking exceptions, instead, Gould shows how the expanded view of evolutionary theory could solve the oldest question of them all: how does macroevolution occur. Gould ties together a number of different themes, including (of course) punctuated equilibrium and the roles of structural constraints in shaping evolution. He manages to integrate classical paleontological approaches with recent advances in evo-devo, one of the only books that does this as far as I can tell. Definately necessary reading for anyone interested in evolution.

However, the book is extremely long, and it didn't have to be. For one thing, the first introductory chapter is really rambling and kind of pointless, with lots of incredibly abstract ideas about the nature of theories in general, etc. I almost stopped reading it early on, thinking "this is a just bunch of philosophy B.S., not real science" but I kept going and I'm glad I did. Once you get past the introduction, and get to the meat of the book, its much much better. Although I have to say, the whole book could have benefited from a little selective cutting. I'm sure we're all very impressed that Gould knows how to use phrases like "ceteris paribus" and "sensu latu" but for those of us who don't go around speaking dead languages, this is just a silly distraction. But on the other hand Gould's style of writing is interesting to read and a little bit different, so even if it is extra verbose and confusing, the effect is artistic, like a Pynchon novel, and once one gets used to it, it's quite enjoyable. Another reason the book is so long is a huge section on history of evolutionary theory, similar to the historical part of "ontogeny and phylogeny", but in both cases there is a point to the history, it isn't just for the sake of history, but for the sake of understanding the modern debate, that these old debates are discussed. Do not skip this part!

I absolutely recommend this book to anyone with a basic background in biology. It would help to read it in conjunction with one or more books on evo-devo. Ontogeny and Phylogeny is also required reading before you start this book. Also, one needs a big block of time. It is dense enough that it has to be read fairly continuously, if one were to read a little, then put it down for a while, it would be easy to lose the thread of the discussion.