Rating: 
Summary: 530 million years ago...
Review: 530 million years ago something happened that would change the way scientists would look at evolution and it would take the humor, knowledge and artistic skill of Stephen Jay Gould to explain WHY it changed the way they look at evolution and WHY we should all care.
Mr. Gould takes evolution and shows how it worked in the ancient sea and why it seemed to change how it works now. Mr. Gould is an honest writer, brave enough to say that what he says might be proven wrong later on, but is willing to dive right in anyway. He is willing to get his hands messy while trying to work out the paleontological puzzle of the Burgess Shale and he takes us along, we go together during every step, we watch scientists overcome every barrier and we are able to judge the results that we saw built right before our eyes, piece by piece.
Great read.
Rating:
Summary: Strange World.......
Review: A difficult book but still accessible. Gould presents his thesis that the evolution of life on earth developed by luck. Gould uses the word contingency. Luck means that on top of the creative processes of evolution, such as Natural Selection, major selections, random events play a crucial role.His device is the fauna of the Burgess Shale, animals from just after the Cambrian explosion, half a billion years ago. Wonderful Life gives us the story of the reevaluation of the Burgess fauna that revealed them to be animals utterly different from anything alive today. Gould gives a fascinating biography of Charles D. Walcott, administrator extraordinaire, who discovered the Burgess Shale, and classified all its animals into existing phyla. Gould uses the image of a shoehorn to stress that these classifications were forced. Gould then introduces us to the three men who re-evaluated the fauna: Harry Whittington, Derek Briggs, and Simon Conway-Morris. They return to the Burgess fauna with a suspicion that these animals might not be correctly identified after all. Gould describes their work in detail, letting Whittington, Briggs, and Conway-Morris show us how very different these creatures are. Gould's point is that though the Burgess animals were exquisitely adapted to their environment, most of them left no descendant and, more importantly, the surviving creatures did NOT seem better adapted than their now dead counterparts. The lesson is that the fittest died too and that surviving lineages made it because they were just plain lucky. Survival of the luckiest. To underscore his point, Gould uses the plot of Frank Capra's movie "It's a Wonderful Life": what would happen if we started again, if this or that event in the history of life on earth was different? His conclusion is that we probably wouldn't be here. I read Wonderful Life for the first time in 1992. One of the rewards was that I was reading science as it was happening. If today we read Darwin, we can still converse with his thought and still appreciate the works, but we can never experience the thrill of reading the Origin of Species right off the press. Some of the facts in WL have been disproven already, but most of the book's conclusions are still being debated. Gould is often condemned by his peers. Even Derek Briggs and Simon Conway-Morris, two of the heroes of WL, severely criticize his work. Is Gould right? Are we all just lucky to be here? Few professional evolutionists feel comfortable with Gould's conclusion. Time will tell.
Rating: 
Summary: an eye opener!
Review: Careful, this book is gonna shake some of your most entrenched beliefs on evolution and life. It is an eye opener indeed, and it turned my scheme of things upside down in a minute. An in a great and enjoyable manner as well. Through the Burgess Shale, a rock formation containing thousands of ancient fossils, Gould argues that history does not have a destiny, that it is not linear, in synthesis, that humanity did not have to have happened. History could have gone any other way, and any little disturbance in time could have the greatest of effects a million years down the line. It is history by contingency or randomness, rather than a simple-complex thing. He gets a bit heavy on the paleontoligical detail, thats why i give it 4 instead of the 5 stars it deserves.
Rating:
Summary: Demystifying Science and Myth!
Review: Each new Gould book is eagerly awaited by an ever increasing general readership, for he is one of the very few practicing scientists who is also able to write popularly about science. His latest volume is not another collection of essays (although several short pieces on this subject have already appeared) but is, instead, a close look at one of the earliest and strangest collections of fossils known today. The Burgess Shale fauna (a group of animals living together) existed about 530 million years ago in what is now the Canadian Rockies but was then a shallow sea. The Burgess environment preserved soft-bodied animals without shells as well as shelled forms, and most of them do not fit into any of the major phyla known today or in the intervening ages. Gould describes these animals and the paleontologists who have studied them in a historical narrative, examining why the early students tried to classify these unique animals as varieties of known life and how three modern researchers discerned the organisms' distinctiveness. Gould goes one step further to argue that the Burgess fauna are symbolic of the nature of evolutionary "chance": If, instead of the ancestors of vertebrates and mollusks, some of the stranger Burgess species had been successful, the whole history of life on earth would have been strikingly different, and we would not have been here to observe it, nor to read this literate view of science. Highly recommended for all readers
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but seriously flawed
Review: Gould does a nice job of presenting the Burgess Shale and its place in paleonotological history, but his interpretation of the meaning of the shale and its contents has little support today. Gould's thesis- really, the thesis of Harry Whittington and some of his contemporaries- was that the unique organisms found in the shale represented a multitude of dead ends; potential phyla of the Cambrian era that could have, but did not, evolve into modern organisms. Gould and his predecessors cited the many mysterious fauna of the shale, such as Hallucigenia, as evidence of this notion.
But as the flora and fauna of the Burgess Shale were further examined, it became clear that waht were thought to be uniqie species actually were related to many contemporary organisms. Hallucigenia, it turned out, was being looked at upside down, and was probably a relative of the modern velvet worm. And so as well for many other "unique" phyla.
Gould is no longer around to defend his veiws, but many still cling to the idea of the Cambrian as the time of great experimentation by nature, influenced, no doubt, by Gould. Amateurs are particularly prone to this sort of fallacious argument-by-authority. Nonetheless, few if any paleontologists still subscribe to this notion, and readers should be aware that it is possible to read and enjoy "Wonderful Life" without accepting all of Gould's ideas as presented.
Rating:
Summary: utterly superb - yet again
Review: Gould never ceases to astound me with his talents. Not only does he have fascinating insights into science, but each of his books is a literary event of exceptional clarity, with elegant yet distinctively quirky prose and humor. Reading his books, I think, is like drinking truly fine wine, each sip to savor and each vintage subtly different. This book covers a revolution that Gould argues was hidden from the public, that is, the complete reinterpretation of the Burgess Shale, which is the most important Cambrian fossil bed ever to have been found. In my reading, there were two fundamental ideas Gould wanted to get across: 1) that, with explosions of new forms of life that follow grand extinctions or leaps in evolutionary development, there is actually more rather than less diversity in basic forms; 2) this fact flatly contradicts our assumptions that life "progresses" by becoming ever more complex (and to some, evolutionarily superior, culminating in man). What Gould says is that, if you rewound the tape of life through all the contingencies that led to homo sapiens, it is more likely than not that we would never have existed. He would, in other words, remove us from the inevitability of occupying the apex of life's hierarchy. For anyone familiar with Gould's essays, which I believe rank as works of genius in the genre of science popularization, will recognize these themes. What sets this book apart is his systematic, highly technical argument from the evidence of the re-interpretation. Much of the revolution depends on the numbers of joints in fossil legs, rendering them different than all the insect species that evolved from different ancestors, and other minutiae that Gould describes with peerless elegance. As such, I believe, he has succeeded in producing that most difficult of books: hard science for specialists that is also intended for the interested (and persistent) lay reader. This is a true virtuoso performance that is an incredible pleasure to read. As always, the persona he presents in the book is wonderfully companionable and open-minded. As a reporter of science, I was surprised to learn that Gould was disdained by many of his colleagues at Harvard and the wider Cambridge area as having fallen behind the more mathematical and progressist-evolutionary approaches that have taken over the field of paleontology and biology. As I understood it - and this does not fully do justice to the objections of these scholars to Gould - they seemed to feel that he was wrong when he argued that many attributes did not have meaning or evolutionary significance and hence all should not be treated as such (i.e. catalogued ad infinitum in a scholastic manner that ignores certain assumptions). Instead, in my reading, Gould argued that, when catastrophic changes in the environment killed off huge numbers of species, the traits that allowed some to survive were usually evolved for other reasons and were perhaps redundant or useless at the time of the event. This book makes the most detailed case for Gould's position on these issues. I happen to believe that Gould is correct and that the vogue may one day shift back in his direction, i.e. become less determinist. Warmly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Even Gould Can Be Wrong
Review: I gave this book 3 stars because it is well written, if a bit ornate; the reader is really left with a sense of awe and wonder at the wonderfulness of Life. At least I know I was. I didn't give it more than 3 stars because, scientifically speaking, it stinks. It is by far Goulds worst book. I would recommend people to read this book, but when you do, try to remember that the taxonomic rank of phylum, contrary to what Gould claims, lacks a definition; that a 'fundamental body plan' is a wholly arbitrary after-the-fact construction; that neither the rank of phylum or 'fundamental body plans' has any whatsoever evolutionary significance; and that no-one knows why or how the animals of Burgess Shale went extinct. But on to the book. It is, on the surface, about some remarkable fossils found at a place called Burgess Shale. Gould spends a substantial part of the book expounding how the psychosocial background of the original discoverer, C. Walcott, led him ("preconditioned" is the word Gould uses) to Get It All Wrong when he classified ("shoehorned") the fossils in known phyla, whereas the zeitgeist of the late 20th century allows a group of whacky new researchers to Get It All Right and see that they belong to previously unknown phyla. One is then treated to a nice exposé of some really interesting fossils, and there's not much to say about them except that most have since the book was published been re-evaluated, and are today classified as velvet worms, arthropods or annelids (still as interesting, but less enigmatic - and ironically much like Walcott first "shoehorned" them). Why, Gould asks, did essentially all modern phyla arise in a short period in the cambrian, as well as, allegedly, a large number of phyla which today are extinct, when no new phyla have arisen in the subsequent 550 million years? And the extinct phyla, they seem complex and 'seaworthy' enough - surely which phylum lived and which went extinct must have been purely decided by chance? Surely, if we re-played evolution, the world today would be very different? There are two errors in that line of reasoning. Firstly the most pervasive: the reification of the taxonomic rank of Phylum and of the concept of 'body plan'. Gould in this book equals the taxonomic rank of Phylum to the concept of 'fundamental body plan': one body plan = one phylum. This is a bit backwards - the rank of phylum is arbitrary and lacks a definition, but is historically (but not always) afforded the most inclusive groups of animals between which interrelationship is unclear. The concept of 'bauplan' or 'fundamental body plan'is similarly wholly arbitrary - a body plan is a collection of traits deemed characteristic for the group, and can be created for any group, regardless of inclusivity: you take a group of species, such as a phylum, determine what is characteristic for the group, and voilá, there's the fundamental body plan. What does this mean? That neither the rank of phylum nor the concept of 'bauplan'/'fundamental body plan' has any evolutionary significance - and yet this is what Gould bases his argumentation on in this book. The second error is a logical one, and is that _even if_ Opabinia, Anomalocaris and the others had represented "new" phyla, and _even if_ phylum had been the same as "fundamental body plan", and _even if_ that had meant something from an evolutionary point of view, this isn't support for Goulds view that evolution is stochastic, driven by chance extinctions rather than adaptation. All we know is that Burgess Shale organisms went extinct - we do not know why. For all we know these organisms were outcompeted, and would be outcompeted again and again if we 're-played' the history of Earth. The support Gould thinks they give his pet theory isn't there. So, to sum things up - in this book Gould uses psychosocial arguments to dismiss the science of Walcott and support that of Simon Conway Morris; misunderstands what a phylum is; misunderstands what a "fundamental body plan" is; bases his reasoning on misidentified fossils; and draws conclusions which aren't supported by the supplied evidence. But he does it in a really enthusing way. There's no denying it's a good read. Simon Conway Morris, the chief "hero" in this book, has since done his best to distance himself from Gould - to the point that he tends to deem it necessary to explain what a phylum is in his articles, and has written the Gould-critical book "Crucibles of creation" (which isn't that great either).
Rating:
Summary: An Outstanding Book, I Guess
Review: I very much enjoyed this book, for the most part. It is very much accessible to those outside the field of paleobiology, and interesting to boot. However, I found Mr. Gould's conclusions on human nature and destiny, conclusions drawn from the work done by Harry Whittington, to be rather depressing. He concludes that humans are basically pointless; there is no destiny other than a `drunken stumble'. Oh well, as a book it was a great read, made me think, and look for other stuff along these lines to read. I read it, I enjoyed it, and felt a bit better educated when I was though - what more could you ask for?
Rating:
Summary: Probably One of My Favorite Books
Review: This book is almost like a mystery novel, unveiling the increased understanding of and rediscovery of the originally misinterpreted Cambrian fossils of the Burgess Shale. In keeping with the scientific tradition, Stephen Jay Gould has been flamed in recent years due to disagreements with his scientific theories. And, Hallucigenia is portrayed upside-down. The original, mysterious creature remains, for me, more magical than the carefully-reconstructed and better-understood velvet worm. This book is also one of John Fowles' favorites; if you've read Fowles' work, you know that he is profoundly interested in natural history, and that fossils play a large part in books like The French Lieutenant's Woman. He's a lucky man: he was able to hold and directly observe the Burgess Shale fossils. Scientific arguments aside, Wonderful Life is one of my favorite books because of the breathtaking magic of the Burgess Shale animals. Stephen Jay Gould uses words like "mysterious" and "awe-inspiring" to describe these creatures that others have compared to "aliens." These many hundreds of millions of years ago, life was different; Opabinia had five eyes. Wiwaxia looked like a miniature hydrofoil porcupine. Original Hallucigenia was a mysterious . . . well . . . alien. If you are not familiar with the Burgess Shale animals (most people do know the Cambrian fossil trilobites - these make trilobites look "normal"), then you have a treat in store. It's hard to criticize the fossils' original discoverer, Walcott, because what would any of us make of these animals? "Lace crabs" and the mouth of Anomalocaris was a "jellyfish." Some jellyfish! Ow! Gould advances arguments about evolution and the development of life that have prompted great argument; you can read his version in this book. No matter what you believe, or truths that have since been revealed, such as turning Hallucigenia right-side-up, there is no denying Gould's marvelous writing, the compelling story, and the wonderful, wonderful animals in Wonderful Life.
Rating:
Summary: 500 Million Year Old Shale Gives Great Insights
Review: This book is an excellent and fascinating introduction to paleontology - the study of ancient creatures through the study of their fossils. This is not a dull book by any stretch of the imagination. After reading you will want to learn more about the subject. What differentiates an average scientist to someone that can make a truly new and important discovery is the ability to sees that small variations from the expected. That is looking at raw experimental data experimental a great scientist can see how the observations do not fit theoretical expectations, and they can only be explained by revisions to existing theories. Sometimes these can be dramatic as in the case of radiation from a body or nuclear effects that had inconsistencies that could only be explained with new theories such as quantum mechanics in modern physics. This book is similar but it applies to the theory of evolution and paleontology. Early theories of evolution were based on a "cone" of evolution that explained increased diversification with time. That concept also fits in with certain religious theories. This book explains how that idea was debunked by a very lengthy and detailed study of The Burgess Shale - located in the Canadian Rockies- that had an explosion of diversity all in a short time span about 500 (plus) million years ago. These complicated little creatures have been frozen in time, captured in the shale complete with much detail. The study indicates that the number of "body plans" or what the scientists call "disparity" was more diverse at an earlier time which contradicts the idea of increased diversity with time in evolution. Instead scientists think that there is an early "decimation" of the species to give us more species with fewer "body plans" at a later date. Initially the observations were incorrectly around made and left unchallenged for about 60 years. More recently they were re-discovered after very detailed studies of the shale and new interpretations and conclusions were made. This is a very unusual and interesting book with many illustrations and comments and insights. Once you read it you will have a grasp of modern paleontology and will want to learn more. Jack in Toronto
| 
