Score!

[iesika]

I am, like, such a nerd. Mwahaha.  



I stole this from caerfree.

I  really am a giant enormous nerd. I bought a book today about the intellectual "feud" between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins and their conflicting variations on evolutionary theory. Because, before the book was published, I thought "wow, someone should really write a book about the intellectual "feud" between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins and their conflicting variations on evolutionary theory." Seriously. And not long after, I found out it was being written, and I jumped up and down and squealed. 

So, if anyone has any thoughts on Punctuated Equilibrium, I'm all rip-roaring ready for a good intellectual debate!

Comments

[wood-rabbit.livejournal.com]

Cool - I had never seen that book - I will have to read it. Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Gould directly - mostly, I just know what Dawkins has to say about him (or rather, his theories!). If Dawkins' analysis of Gould is accurate, I must say I agree with him, but I'd like to hear it from the "other horse's" mouth before I offer up a final judgment - just to make sure that I really understand it correctly. But if I have it right, I think that Gould is really arguing against a caricature of evolutionary theory: that the type gradualism that he argues against isn't really what evolutionists believe in, it's an extreme distortion of commonly accepted evolutionary theory. I'd be happy to chat about it again after I read the book, though! :)

[iesika.livejournal.com]

Oh, you should really read some Gould. I'm madly in love with him and cried when he died. (this is not to say that I do not also adore Dawkins, though I think he is a bit pugnacious for a scientist). I especially recommend his essay collections.

The basic idea of his theory of punctuated equilibrium is that variation builds up in populations during times of low evolutionary pressure, and that major evolutionary changes occur when major stresses reduce the amount of diversity in the population. He certainly doesn't argue that there are not general evolutionary trends in a population, like resistance to disease, or increase in competitiveness, that happen over time.

Gould is principally a paleobiologist with a focus on invertebrates. When he talks about punctuated equilibrium, he's talking about a very broad evolutionary scale. On that level, you have a cycle. There are long periods of relative stability and slow environmental change that result in a gradual increase in genetic diversity. Then, that period is cut short by an extinction event, like the end-Permian or the K-T boundary, which wipes out everyone who can't handle that particular situation. Those who do survive rapidly differentiate into the newly available niches left empty by their cousins who didn't make it. Once all the available niches are filled, evolution slows to a more sedate pace.

Or, the evolution of a particular characteristic, or access to a new habitat, may open up niches in a similar way (the first creatures to make it to land, for example, evolved to fill all the available niches in a very short time - or take the classic example of Darwin's Finches, which would have evolved and differentiated rapidly on first arrival to the Galapagos, then settled in to a more sedate pace of competition and adaptation).

It's the old Gradualism vs Catastrophism arguments all over again. In geology, where the argument first played out, we've since come to accept that the Earth is affected by both long-term, slow-acting forces and rapid, violent events. I don't see why the same can't be true of biology.

Dawkins is a great scientist and an excellent author (The Ancestors' Tale is one of my all time favorite books), but I see him as a bit of a Don Quixote, battling windmills - he likes to have something to argue against. The primatologist Frans De Waal says something in one of his books (The Ape and the Sushi Master, I think) about how, for some reason, each generation of intellectuals seems to want to murder its parents in some weird Oedipal display. He may even mention Dawkins by name (or perhaps I just made the connection on my own). It's definitely a trend I've noticed more since reading his eloquent description of the phenomenon.

[iesika.livejournal.com]

It amuses me, for some reason, that both LJ and Word fail at spell-checking science-y things. Word wanted me to tell you that "Gould is principally a pale biologist."

[wood-rabbit.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[wood-rabbit.livejournal.com]

Cool - now I'm really interested. Like I said, I've read only Dawkins' analysis of Gould, so it seems only fair to read what Gould has to say before I judge it - and what you have said makes him sound like not so much of a goof as Dawkins suggests.

". . . the Earth is affected by both long-term, slow-acting forces and rapid, violent events. I don't see why the same can't be true of biology." No kidding. Based on what you have said about Gould, it seems that the "opposing" sides of this argument are probably actually quite compatible. I'm really excited now about this book, and thank you for the other recs as well.