Gould

I

Inquisitor

Registered Senior Member
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record—if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms—that is, viable, functioning organisms—between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases?"

The Return of Hopeful Monsters, by Stephen Jay Gould

Any comments?
 
Gould's theory, which i believe is called, punctuated equilibrium, makes perfect sense to me. I haven't really heard the arguments against it though. I don't see how a dramatic change, like an ice age, massive volcano, or whatnot, that wipes out all the members of a species except the ones that have certain differences that would allow them to survive would not lead to an evolutionary leap in that species.

Of course, one of the reasons I'm a fan of Gould in general is because I have no background in this area, and he wrote a lot that was easily accesible to laymen like myself.
 
I think enough people have pointed out that eyes/jaws/wings are too complex to have sprung into being fully formed, especially multiple times. There's modern animals with much less functional eyes/jaws/wings that have managed to survive quite some time. The arguments he uses are probably the worst possible because the counter arguments nearly as old as the species themselves.
 
na ja...see the discussion on 'evolution:time for a change'. From a developmental perspective there is no theoretical problem explaining fast evolution. Ot the evolution of complex structures.
 
I can't tell from the quote how Gould is trying to distinguish what he calls "preadaptative changes" from his own "spandrels". On another topic, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is viable, but perhaps not necessary. We won't really be able to tell until we have a lot more fossil evidence.
 
Originally posted by James R
I can't tell from the quote how Gould is trying to distinguish what he calls "preadaptative changes" from his own "spandrels". On another topic, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is viable, but perhaps not necessary. We won't really be able to tell until we have a lot more fossil evidence.
Click to expand...

rapid change is part of the nature of developmental processes, and therefore I doubt that we need more fossil evidence. We require a better integration of development and evolution.

Development allows for fast change partly because development is a hierarchical system. And these kind of systems possess common properties that are independent of the specific content of the system. This modularity of hierarchical systems make them prone to fast evolution... well faster than similar complex systems that are non-hierarchical.

source: largely based on 'evolutionary developmental biology' by Brian K. Hall.
 
Gould seems to be restating Spencer (and parts of Darwin) with added politics. Not impressed, here. It's clear that evolution did not occur in what is conventionally considered to be a Darwinian manner, but it's also clear that Darwin didn't consider his own system to be as absolute as most people make it out to be today. Therefore, I submit that changes in environment - especially those brought on by the organism in question - stimulate the greatest evolution, and this is in part responsible for the differing rates of change over the years.
 
rolling in his grave

is Gould by putting him in the same sentence as Spencer. For Gould's views on Spencerism, see The Mismeasure of Man.
 
That's why they started calling names instead of debating? (I guess this is why "Internet people" have a bad reputation in the real world.)
 
what should they debate?

that your opinion that races exist doesn't correspond with the scientific views in population biology that they don't. What is the point?
 
Science is composed of theories, and all of them should be debated as necessary.

---

Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."

Are there differences in the research concentrations of these two groups of experts? Yes, most decidedly there are. As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
 
Well, I see this thread taking a nasty turn. There are so many political/social ramifications to any discussion of Gould and his positions.
I first read the first "The Mismeasure Of Man" back in the 80's when I was a graduate student. I thought that it was great. I was a big fan of Gould. I would go to the library at the university each month and read his column "This View Of Life" in the Journal "Natural History". My perception of him was a very articulate, unbiased scientist.
Concerning Punctuated Equilibrium, it seemed to me that it was just a fleshing out of George Gaylord Simpson's Quantum Evolution idea, and I wondered why it seemed that Gould and Eldredge didn't seem to give Simpson any credit. Perhaps they did and I just missed that.
But, back to Gould and "The Mismeasure Of Man" and such. I later learned that Gould, and also Lewontin and Rose and I think Eldredge, was a Marxist. But, not just an armchair Marxist, but a very politically active True Believer type. He was a member of the group or groups that disrupted a scientific convention or two. One member of this group poured a pitcher of ice water over E. O. Wilson's head at the speaker's podium somewhere.
And then I came across some reviews, by people in the field, of his latest printing of "The Mismeasure Of Man". All that I have encountered have been very negative. Arthur Jensen, a long time idea opponent of Gould, wrote a scathing review. Of course, one must consider the source, but Jensen (who I have never heard of being called dishonest) writes that Gould basically must have made up some of the stories about the techniques used by some of the early psychometricians. I don't know for sure. I recommend that anyone interested in this debate should read Gould's book and the reviews for themself.
I continue to be interested in Gould, and I would appreciate any links anyone can provide about this. I do believe that, in the history of science, Gould will probably eventually be recognized as something of a charlatan. There just seems to me to be a lot of evidence that he was less than objective, and would use in his books only that evidence that supported his positions, positions that melded real well with his Marxist ideas. I've read articles, and quotes from him, that I believe to be very intellectually dishonest, and some that are downright non-scientific.

The problem, I believe, is that this debate cannot be rationally discussed at this time. Anyone who believes that Gould was wrong about so much is almost automatically believed to be a Nazi. And then some guy like Craig here provides evidence from a Nazi site, further confirming that belief in the minds of many. Any evidence for an argument against Gould and that school of thought could just as easily have been accessed from some other source.

I'd appreciate reading any reasoned responses. I don't intend to get into the "Does Race Exist" etc. arguments as there is generally a whole lot of heat in those debates but very little light.
 
I think you identified why those debates fail: some views are taboo, thus only "Nazis" pursue them. If this taboo is lifted, meaningful debate can occur.

Gould may have claimed to be a Marxist, but he sure didn't mind making money by preaching to the converted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top