THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Stephen Jay Gould does a superb job of showing Mayr where the depiction really counts facets. I was impressed enough to change my opinion of the man but I suspect his own version tends to cause him to slant his interpretation slightly more against creationist than confronting panbiogeography directly in the counter run. Suffice it to say, I suspect similarly that Fuytuma failed to do the framework justice (simply refer to his squamate clades for being up to date) by simply refering to equilibrium dynamics.I will not say for ceratin as I think I have only read the book's essence and not its form. I have never understood why PLATO was all people thought of essentially and this book shows one that one never had to make this association to begin with. I am not sure I am ready for any DOUBLE on timbres however. This should be standard knowledge for all graduating biology majors.The relation to intelligent design interesting it may eventually be found to focus only on the "over" part of offspring math;:: but for the moment, let/me only say that& on page 987 where Gould cites creationists GISH, PARKER and BLISS as 'distorting' PE(puntuated equilibrium) I think this is really Provine's investigation of 'if Fisher "distorted" Wright'. Provine concluded in the negative and Gould may have felt free to use the same enunication against his own pet peeve. I assert in line with Gould (no matter the long argument that I think Mayr is off on very significantly in this regard) however contrarily is that the depiction pictured IS NOT a "creationist" fault but due to a lack Gould addresses as to Falconerism Foundation Neologisms of *compassing* therm contact and mere contact. I am not prepared to elaborate at this time. I think perversions are of the essence. I wish only Gould had made more of an attempt to USE panbiogeography to show if the framework can be replaced by a deductive biogeography and not simply strike cladistic logic against a baraminc correlative. Fuytuma may never "get" this. The structuralism need not head in directly Derrida's name. I had not seen the Galton polygon before but reading Wolfram prepared me for this.Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling in title

I'm not going to claim I've already read Gould's masterwork. It seems strange that such an unwieldy document should come from a writer whose best work was done in the format of short essays. Gould demostrated economy as well as ingenuity in such works as 'The Panda's Thumb,' and therein lay his appeal.There's certainly plenty of reason to pay tribute to Gould. Time might have dulled the edge of novelty that 'punctuated equilibrium' once enjoyed, but I still give Gould (and Eldredge) a lot of credit for what still stands as a brilliant recalibration of our basic expectations concerning evolutionary theory. His assertion that the rate of evolutionary change is not constant was nothing new, but he backed it up with evidence from his paleontological research. The fossils do point to stasis within populations, and are unlikely to document the speciation events that occur in the geological blink of an eye. Therefore, the gaps in the fossil record are exactly where we should find them.Unfortunately, Gould attempted at various times to overstate the importance of PE. Many have analyzed the inadequacy of his claims that PE is itself a mechanism of evolutionary change, and his insistence that PE somehow ran counter to Darwinism is groundless.Gould spent the rest of his career jealously guarding his status as America's house evolutionist, despite his ill-conceived attempts to downplay Darwinian concepts. He (and Lewontin) put forth the 'spandrel' concept, which claimed that certain features merely constituted by-products of natural selection and thus were not adaptations. He dismissed criticism of his rather weak idea as owing to the specter of 'Darwinian fundamentalism.' Later on he became enamored of the concept of 'contingency,' which was so inconsequential it was politely ignored.Gould's caricatures of his opponents showed his desperation. He never tired of criticizing 'gradualists,' perhaps trying to convince himself that such theorists actually exist. More telling were his attacks on the 'reductionists' and 'panadaptationists' who extended Darwinian natural selection to the genetic level. In the last decade, research into intergenomial conflict and imprinting has produced a wealth of evidence confirming the existence of selfish-gene effects, but I'm not aware that Gould ever acknowledged this.I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has read Gould's last work, or from others who want to share their perspectives on the man's career.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-27-2003]

I am going to take some time with responding and so I limit my self to a glance at your post MH and some not re-looked commentary out of the first paragraph.I have traveled to South Carolina for 2w vacation and in route it was indeed the thumb essay that brought some one else's random assement of Gould. So you are probably dead on on singled that out. GOOD. But even Stephen explains IN TEXTU how he cut his teeth (or my paraphrase) on the cascading of issues an essay can address and I doubt NOT that this gave him a somewhat unique correspondence that we only get etc via e-mails from which to organize the writing that is actually MORE about TIME CHANGE than the fixed time of material change in the space of biological reproduction. I dont doubt that Gould focusing on TIMES of Changing was able to garner for paleontology more theoretical space that was not be used in the past but the real issue will be if the theory amounts to more than nothing once the continuum that his discontinuum speaks become more pronouncable. So leaving the rest of your thoughts on the man for another time. I leave you with my own "out" as to need to know an answer to this question "Are topological cell collectives cell death toxin-antidote modules CHANGED genetically?" I have folded an evolutionary theorists' "bread or butter" THREE TIMES in this question
and yet sans Gould the answer need not imply the any change (whether in time across space by matter form made) MUST make evolution=biological change. It need not.I will go thru your post line for line next just to show lack of bias but you could also be priveledge to understand that the contract I had for work as a College Scholar @CU ASSUMED LEVELS of ORGANIZATION to which I was trying to investigate if there was any truth to "downward" causation across said levels which if the heirarchical expansion (WHICH IS NOT PE sensu stricto) of selection is intellectually viable (I will begin to express reservations about his reliance on German over Italian work etc) then CAUSATION T R U M PS CORRELATIONS under selection any revolution. Thats all for now. Best Brad. (hint- Gould did not use friction/resistence explicitly).

There's certainly plenty of reason to pay tribute to Gould. Time might have dulled the edge of novelty that 'punctuated equilibrium' once enjoyed, but I still give Gould (and Eldredge) a lot of credit for what still stands as a brilliant recalibration of our basic expectations concerning evolutionary theory. His assertion that the rate of evolutionary change is not constant was nothing new, but he backed it up with evidence from his paleontological research. The fossils do point to stasis within populations, and are unlikely to document the speciation events that occur in the geological blink of an eye. Therefore, the gaps in the fossil record are exactly where we should find them.
----the above is paragraph two, the second MrHambre wrote after attempting otherwise elsewhere--------------------------------------I do NOT find this "reason" instead I find an inability to follow the following post of John Grehan to a fruition that simply isnt the opinion of any one poster:Subject: SCIENCE/CREATION DEBATE
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000828073347.00957a40@vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>>The one time I got suckered into a creationist/evolutionist debate (I was
>young and foolish),>Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.I would agree with the sentiment here in that reducing the issue to debate
is to
obscure the issue itself. With "debate" the dialogue is about convincing an
audience based on the ability to present a sufficiently "convincing" rhetoric.
If feel that much of the way evolution is taught and presented is a form
of rhetoric that contributes to the debate mentality at the expense of
presenting
evolution as a scientific research program with certain methodological
principles
that lead to the discovery of new facts.(But I liked the rhetoric Lammers presented)John GrehanThe following SERIES sequentially dismisses and would preclude Gould’s CriticisM of D’Arcy Thompson (in hope of bringing E. Mayr around, a lost cause I would have said to say something perhaps still too parochial) if true in the use case that metallurgy is heriable across the kingdoms as replication is prima facie via DNA —&-- NOT METALOORGANICALLY;
i) The electrotonic states exists and is thrown into sorts during biological change.
ii) ii) Nordenstrom’s 80s’ ‘biologically closed electric circuits open means for nonadaptive and adaptive traits to be exchanged by tolerance to electrotonic external variables during life.
iii) iii)Adaptive oversight (Fisher etc) is lessened within taxogeny as a clade shows fitness for the non-imaginary representation of electrotonic functions via Wright’s shifting balance theory.
iv) iv)Bipolar axes (prevelant in physico-chemistry sensu stricto) are grouped by adaptations of nOt closed circuits by variance in the ability to mould degrees of malleable metal dependent on direct cause of morphology due to rule of Faraday that electrons seek seeking outside topology
v) CODA- the evolution contribution (to allometry-stratigraphy if correlations) of topobiology to molecular embryology may be wholly via cell collective metallurgic tools vs machines and the economics of Smith biology but a wash in c/e debated useless wordings is.Furthermore John Grehan’s crticism of Gould (and Croizat’s) can still be thusly upheld even though HE DOES NOT SIDE WITH CREATIONISMPun Eq still *enjoys* novelty"" for me despite the ignorance of the general biological community of Croizat's work and his newer conceptual devices in the large tome may even be transcribable into use values not dependent a priori on large time frames for the cladistic link is far, very far from containing any assertion like the dependence of natural selection on the continuum hypothesis ( a possibility...) You are going to go on to criticise some of Gould's notions and yet site a "recalibration" and thusly I only find SOCIOLOGICAL justification (thought you could persuade me otherwise...) as I have never found a thinker as good as Gould who puts in useless ornaments...As for your THIRD sentence in this paragraph I doubt it is true but I have not done my homework on topics outside my interest to assert that declartively. I can hint and guess if you also peek and poke etc...But you are sort of opaque to use "speciation" event for vicariance vs chance dispersal when NOT being specific as to the common or not common topography while a geographic utility may NOT (necesarily be out of your mind...) You seem to be thinking that PE can not PREDICT these "gaps" you appear to accept (which may not but I need more input...) and yet if morphology directS metal shape in living constitutions the station on earth that DIVIDES two kinds could posses variable LINEAR momentum that make such predicions on the assumption of the Earth as a sphere or approximation not impossible to imagine as it is to pay tribute to Ceaser when it was not him to whom the contribution actually was being made. This is not a twist for it may indeed be an answer of genesis. It is an unfortunate angle that some liguistic tradition of parallel e-c is being attempted with net techology for I fully expect globalization with China to change all of this evc that was when it will be no T.The rest later.

It took me this long to get back to Hambre, and thanks for quoting me below the line, I do appreciate it!!, for I had to be clear in my mind how I would seperate BIOLOGY and c/e for any every or all creation. The rest of my c/e (but not necessarily my interest in doing more biology) comments on Gould will likely (as far as I know) come down to showing the the three tripod legs Gould introduced in this book that Cantor's argument of progressive FINITE removal the original element in an infinite set can be retained as SO obtained to detain Gould's belief that per concept (he did not do justice to Croizat's conceptual textualization for instance even though he claimed to have read PANbioGeoGraPHY in graduate school.) Page 1277 "The key to an inclusive accounting lies inthe general notion of USABLE features (for promoting longterm diversification and succes) now UNUSED." Gould has the notion that geneic selection wihout a vechicle can only be an account.I will use what procedure Frege objected to with respect to a set but this will be a set of Mendel signs not any pure math set any math guy simulates. The proceess in passing this argument sub is to claim that any set (of Mendel 2Aa?) was a set generated by successive addition of elements from an ORIGINAL element in such a way (this is the point of interpretation) that, by proceeding backwards by successive removal of elements from a finite set (current empirics in the evolution of dominance), it will be possible to return to the orignal element (forms of the offspring ordered and or statitical realtions of their naming and necessity). Frege objected to Cantor that this was psychological and not ever spirtual but in that I can at least help society out if not also by advancing biology by removing the acrimony of c/e talk as Gould spurned on in this book I need only use this unused disscuion in bioloigcal change to remove finite enumeration by Mendel symbol by reciprocal cross Gould's claim the concept of cross-level effects will remand a taxonomy in affect. I say this effects but does not affect benefits were in the one sentence last before I quoted he wrote "the crucial subject of evolvability requires a taxonomy for its numerous modes, and their strength and distributions"I have my own subjective way and in high school I took an special extra chemistry class to detail the reactions THAT MIGHT be involved under something I wrote for physics class and has given me access to a deeper understanding of cross-level effects than Gould is willing to extrapolate geologically allometrically. You can ask my brother. He wrote a "novel" about this "gravitational wave theory of the mind" in terms of FBI utilizing it in an IT content context. And As I told you my ontological confidence that I gained by not going to the Bronx School of Science and alwuays thinking my science learning was inferior got me locked up when I told the bronx kid profs at CU what I only kept a secrect in Hunterdon. But we care not about someone's (auto)biography until usually after they die. It is true Gould has and had in his first paper on evolution as he claimed thought UP to the same "level" that I have only in the late 70s I went further than he did stop thinking about it in the early 70s. That is a guess about all of the rest but shall he and we all rest in peace. We do not (so far).

I have just finished reading the first three chapters of The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. So far I recommend it.Chapter 1, though, is pretty unreadable. It is meant to be an abstract, I think, but Gould was writing this book as he was dying; I think that this chapter might have been the last one he wrote, and he tried to get too much into it. It certainly could have used a lot of editing. If it weren't for the fact that he says everything three or four times I would have no idea of what he is trying to say. The first 24 pages give a decent description of what Gould is trying to accomplish with the book, but if anyone tries to read this chapter and quits when it becomes impenetrable, then I would say that you aren't missing anything.Fortunately, the next two chapters were a joy to read. It isn't like his essays, but Gould is writing a more serious, technical book. These two chapters are about history, so they are easily accessible.Chapter two is the one really, really recommend. Some time ago, I wrote a post attempting to give a bare bones description of the theory of evolution. This chapter pretty much does the same, but the bones are much less bare. This chapter pretty much describes the most important aspects of the theory of natural selection and puts it into historical context, including contrasting it with previous and subsequent theories of evolution. Some people might find his organizational scheme a bit idiosyncratic, but that is because the book as a whole is a defence of a particular thesis. I think the organization makes the explanation of Darwin's theory more easily understood.Personally, even if you don't want to read the entire book (and don't particularly like his thesis), I still recommend checking this book out of the library just to read this second chapter. Like I said, it is probably the best brief description of the theory of evolution I have ever read, describing the theory of natural selection in terms of the alternative theories and attempted criticisms. I think even creationists will benefit from reading it -- the chapter does a good job in explaining what exactly the theory of evolution is.The third chapter would be of more interest to those who are interested in the history of science or the "biography of ideas". I enjoyed it, and, again, if someone is interested in the early formulations of evolutionary theory, this is a good source.But it is chapter two that I am pushing.

I have probably read all of it through twice and some parts up to or over 5 times. This is a very important contribution towards making evolution one long argument for biology. Gould clearly wishes his work to be a part of the thinking daily activity of all interested in biological form-making and translation in space. I suspect that some English readers can be turned off more than non-English speakers because he really does have a motive to turn the current heterodoxic thoughts into everydaybiological names. His tying down of biogeography to Darwin's specific musings is a turn off for me.(See an alternative on the Galapagoes Island by John Grehan:
Page not found - Buffalo Museum of Science)
He is accounting for the scholarly and popular interest in Darwin himself to lift his thesis beyond the lack of evidence in the Devonian rocks here in Ithaca but to bank only on his association with Eldgredge is one, I think British readers can notice the slant over, however. I may be wrong. Someday they will let me know.In Chapter 2, Gould had printed(The Structure of Evolutionary Theory page 100);

quote:

---

By contrast, Darwin’s chief quarrel with creationism resides not so much in its proveable falseness, but in its backrupt status as an intellectual argument - for a claim of creation teaches us nothing at all, but only states (in words that some people consider exhalted) that a particular creature or feature exists, a fact established well enough by a simple glance:

---

You are correct that Stephen has his own axe to grind, but because he chose to cite Darwin at “utility or final cause” he does not leave any room for the creationist to respond. It seems to me that he is trying to keep the comment that Bill Clinton made to him on an airplane about bad old creationists active. I doubt that Hillary would have any idea of how to “pull out now” of the difference Gould brought up. GW while rough with respect to creationism before Intelligent Design simply could not pull into the problem either leaving the difficulty of USING the difference of creation and evolution in its currency to the states.You see Stephen’s particular philosophy that depends wholly on the a posteriori truths of relative frequency leaves his criticism against creationists wholly in the difference of the two kinds of logical “ors” placing his own ideas towards Darwin’s use of “final cause” and preventing somekinds of utilization of evolutionary theory. This is just as poorly constructed for a future as Intelligent Design is when it does not produce data. So SJ characterizes Lamarck’s idea as a central force with hardenable side adaptive branching yet he NEVER says how topology universally and across the board contrains the clumps of morphospace. That is left tinkering. If one supposes that there *may* be laws of growth and apodictic laws of physics and chemistry that directly fashion or could so fashion by artificial selections in conservation areas then not only can the formalism of such displace the language used by Gould to situate French insights but even current ones about cell death may so be used in the sequal with some purpose that is beyond even that utilty.So for instance if Gladsyhev is correct and the Yale Man can do the work that currently only works it’s magic in human form but is rather of a kind to move Gould’s left wall further to the left . then indeed the place of future creationism IS NOT in selection in nature(no matter the image) but selection in the future and English writers of the statistical packages to do this synthesis will have a field day when not also a walk in the park. Gould was too bound by creationist attacks on his own thesis to realize the broader situation of creation and evolution. He was surviving in an academic environment that took reality to be not beauty but statistical regularity of a high order.So it is one thing to notice that Genesis Creationism seems “false” to many but it another to say that it IS “bankrupt” because on his own conceptual presentation the USE becomes excluded no matter how heterodox hoxology and any other changes IN BIOLOGY become(order is not free).Gould is looking ONLY at patterns in nature and not at where current technology meets biology here. He is not trying to imagine DNA computers integrated with flesh
Yahoo
, Panbiogeography
http://axiompanbiog.com/default.aspx
, evolutionarily informed artificial selections in conservation biology
http://aexion.org/ecosystemengineering.aspx
or a non-Malthusian economics able to use Global Economics to change the relation of biotechnology and technobiology.
http://aexion.org/default.aspx
My own visioning of form-making has gone well beyond that Gould cites Darwin with observing and Stephen rather than seeing the central stem for the plant only thought he recognized MORE ANANTOMY in Cambrian creatures than students of higher organisms may be willing to grant to the same knife. Utility and final purpose are not the same. Edited by Brad McFall, : 3lettersEdited by Brad McFall, : "only" "situate" "so" another letter...

Hi, Brad.I'm still only in the more historical parts of the book, which are very interesting. I'll keep you comments in mind, though, as I continue.

Great, but please try to keep in thought the difference between concept and intuition that Gould set up as a biological “icon” but that I find rather as a parallel computer one.

quote:

---

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory p16-17

---

See on the net the same of mine:
http://aexion.org/implement.aspx
I set up a thread on EvC to investigate a different image of the “logic” that IS contained by a “circle” rather than “tripod.”http://EvC Forum: Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distance -->EvC Forum: Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distanceGould sets up this visualization of architecture with content (which he will use in the non-historical chapters when he comes to “bricks vs columns”) in part citing Hull 88 but also notice (thumbnail above and below) that Hull in the same writing gave the kind of support to Panbiogeography that sets IT (“tracks and nodes of life not genes, species and habitats”) apart from that view held by either “the” British Museum or “the” AMNH.

quote:

---

"The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" and "Panbiogeography"

---

I discuss Panbiogeography at
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
but the land has already "sunk" where Gould positioned "Kant" or 'changed name' (Hillary Clinton said there is no "higher ground" only common ground. This is false even when not political).

I finished the first part of Structure a couple of days ago. As I mentioned, this is mostly on the history of the theory of evolution, in particular, on the various alternatives to Darwinian evolution. It has been a very good read, but I am partial to good history of science.The structure of the historical exposition is, as I think I have mentioned, based on Gould's thesis in the second half (offering an extension of Darwinian evolution). However, if nothing else it does give some structure to the historical alternatives in a way that does give insight into just what Darwinian theory is and what makes the standard theory of evolution important. But this is what good history is going to do.I will mention that I have only started reading the second part. I mention it because Chapter 8, "Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection", is relevant to a current thread debating (supposedly) whether the individual selected is the organism or the gene. Reading that thread I get the impression that the argument is one of semantics rather than substance; indeed, in the first section, "The Evolutionary Theory of Individuality", Gould, in order to set up a theory of selection at the species level (which I haven't yet got to) asks and answers the question of just what is the definition of individual in regards as the agent of selection, something I noticed that none of the participants of the aforementioned thread have done.Then, in the next section, "The Evolutionary Definition of Selective Agency and the Fallacy of Selfish Genes", Gould explains why he dismisses the notion of genes as individuals in regards to selection. I will say that so far I'm still not convinced that the issue is nothing more than semantics or philosophy, but this is as far as I have gotten so far, and I'm sure that Gould will explain why this is an issue that is scientifically relevant, that is either explain what empirical evidence there is to choose one over the other, or what a research program designed around one or the other view points will look like and why it would be fruitful.One last thing: think that Gould was a little harsher on Dawkins that he needed to be, but then Dawkins' criticisms of Gould in The Blind Watchmaker was rather gratuitious. Such are professional rivalries.

I was a bit surprised that Gould did try to establish the difference based on individuality PHILOSOHPICALLY by paying some service to the debates by Hull, Sober, Kitcher, etc but it seems that any 21st century perspective MUST deal with the late 20th century incursion of philosphers of biology.There may indeed be a better historical sense of the individual than the one Gould defended but because he is going to go to bat for the evolutionary individual no matter the level ( where plurification obtains(notice the problem for "space" as 'where' sustains for a level of organization despite his "narration") )and he seems to me to simply be asking if this is going to qualify theory to canvas for a new name or simply be in filiation with the past ( he notes as you must have read in the early parts that simple chair holding and teaching continuity past the wall is not what qualifies for him) the only way to counter his position is by making a determined judgment throughout the history of biology he covers in terms of Bayesian, non-Bayesian and Frequentist declinations. I suspect the words in English do not allow nor justify such a writing. But that is only a guess.If for instance the gene vs the organism was FIRST resolved before a general notion of mulitple units of selection were current THEN there may be a less philosophical, discursive, way, about the discussion but in that case it probably would have to be conceded by reductionists that their marriage with technology and a future based on past science success (gene, atom) is deservedly deflunct such that ALL THEY will ever accomplish is table making (quarks as explained by Glashow etc) and not something that will ever again have the whole science (my idea that the periodic table of elements may be an actual infinity instead) apart from a philosophy of science on their individual personal horizons, individually. I do not see this happening. Moduluous'preferred position in the thread on selection used the notion of "phenotype" in a way that prevents dissection in this regard. It is like Americans loving all things British during the 60s invasion of the Bettles etc or a convoluted thread on genetics of multiple traits per lineage.The greatest achivement of Gould's book as far as I can see is to make a clear distinction of selection at the gene level, the individual organism level and the species level. He inclusions at various places on topics of the evolutionary synthesis are tactful tactics. I had always rejected the notion of species selection before issues of biogeography were resolved or implict but Gould succeeds at informing my own subjectivity on just what the claim amounts to(later to be expanded) while the Philosopher of Science, Richard Boyd, who spoke to me of species selection in numerous coffe shops around Ithaca, AFTER, he asked me, if what we were talking about was evolution or not, and I affirmed, COULD NOT.Gould sustains sufficient paternity to past thoughts in evolutionary biology for me, while Dawkins, for instance, pushes the envelope too far into our contemporary world that I can not form anything but a negative discipline with regard to the building either he or Gould may be proposed to lay the difference from the final proximate cause of, while with Gould for exemplar I can reuse the language for my own purposes but sound and conception are a comingled aspect of RD's perception and Richard amalgamates where rather he should not try to seperate. This is why Gould's position on "book keeping" is MORE than semantics. There is the tiresone problem of using emergence here however (this is perhaps why Rupert Sheldrake thought that SJ was "boring"). Thus I can also not follow Gould "all the way".It is a different economics for the relation of the ecological moment to the geological time scale that is lacking and this was lacking for Hoot Mon in the aforementioned thread as well.

Hi, Brad.Some good points.

quote:

---

The greatest achivement of Gould's book as far as I can see is to make a clear distinction of selection at the gene level, the individual organism level and the species level.

---

Yes, I, too, didn't really see much difference beyond semantics in these concepts; Gould does make it clear why it might be important to designate these situations as real (or potentially real) phenomena rather than just as different viewpoints of the same thing.I'm still not yet sure that the difference between "gene selection" and "organism selection" is more than semantics, but the increasing connection between "gene selection" and irrationality is beginning to decide the case for me.But the point about "emergent properties" is an important one -- I can now see how, perhaps, "species selection" might be a useful concept. Although that can only be determined by biologists, not me sitting in the local coffee shop.

I wonder if species selection can be recognized without "emergence". For me that requires a certain amount of philosophical reflexion that I have not paid to the subject. No doubt, at some time I will have to be pointed back to this possibility. For now, on EvC, I still have to respond to Straggler and Gould's difference of Williams and Dawkins and I wonder if Bernd is coming back this year...

Well, I finally finished this book. Overall, I liked it. I would recommend it to anyone wanting to read a more technical treatise on evolution, especially one that pushes the envelope.The part I like best is the first part, which is about the history of the theory of evolution. One thing Gould does is put Darwin's theory in the context of accepted natural history of its time. Extremely interesting, as Gould usually is on this subject.But he also recounts the history of the major challenges to Darwin's theories, focusing on those that were somewhat "prescient" (although usually for the wrong reasons), superficially similar to more scientific challenges to the Modern Synthesis that would be made at the end of the 20th century.Then he goes on with a couple of chapters on Punctuated Equilibrium. Since Gould is one of the founders of this theory, it is no surprise that he would explain it pretty well. There is actually a lot more to PE than I previously thought.Finally, he devotes a couple of chapters to evo-devo, and how this is resurrecting some of the structuralist challenges to the Modern Synthesis. Although I found the overall points very interesting, I wasn't overly impressed with his writing here. Maybe this was being written toward the end of his life (and he didn't have time to do a better job on it), or maybe it is because it is outside his expertise as a paleontologist. But he does manage to make his points.Anyway, I finally finished it, and now I can go on to other things. (I'm reading a science fiction anthology that is better than I thought it would be -- it's been a long time since I read anything that made science fiction fun!)Added by edit:
I should repeat that one should avoid the first chapter. It is pretty impenetrable. Or, at least try to read the first dozen or two pages of the first chapter, but you can bail once it gets impossible to read. The rest of the book is not like this!Also, the tripod analogy for the different parts of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is interesting, but I don't think it played as much a part in the organization of the book as Gould thought it did.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

My beef with Gould is over his treatment of D'Arcy Thompson towards the end of the book.As a post I am composing is not quite ready for being on-line, I submit a quote below and have uploaded the outline to my website
at
http://aexion.org/product.aspx
under
"documents/cantorized.doc"

quote:

---

Gould thinking that the modern discussion of proximate and ultimate can be equated to that of final an efficient causes of Tompson reasoned that Thompson was arguing for direct physical imposition rather than an expanded notion of mathematical use in biology that can be read out of Cantor. Perhaps Tompson had taken Kant’s use of antiquity to heart and realized that only Aristotle’s titles remained. Thompson’s use of surface/volume ratio if updated with Brownian motion vs gravity per surface need to speak to direct imposition but to different ordertypes of matter and form per physical materials. Thompson use of the two ciricles and two lines simply are mathematical not physical. The step to a use of themath THEN needs to be made.

---

I do however understand fully why he usd the "tripod". I think this remains because he did not fully embrace modern technology and relied on words themselves to do all his work. Indeed I was perplexed by the first chapter at first but after reading how he dealt with spandrels later it all made architectonic if not architectural sense. What seems lacking to me is the possiblity that relations across scales of allometry *may* be fractal. He denies this outright and I think his use of saltation hinges thus on this scientific assertion. Hearing (ICR's "Science Scripture and Salvation" this week) how creationists are interpreting Punc Eq as having taken over a place where to them there is NO evidence (?is stasis data or not?), I think that will either be Gould's legacy or noterioty. I think he spent too much time on bashing creationism than building his case, but then again this book is about the persistence of the heterodox rather than the silence in the orthodox.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.