Friday, September 27, 2013
This Is The Only Real Blog In Existence
Sorry, could not come up with a better name for the first entry. Thus begins the beauty of the Structure of Evolutionary Theory book group! Unfortunately, I could not get anyone else to agree to dedicate themselves to such a long book, so this group consists of only me. But do not fret! I will play the part of a schizophrenic reader, having impassioned discussions with myself! I sense that this is going to be awesome. Let the fun begin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since this is my first week really doing this, I will only cover the first 50 pages, but in the following weeks I will pick up the pace (since my friends are trying to read The Chosen in the same time I read this exquisite 1400-paged tome). The first 50 pages cover a little more than the first half of the first chapter. Gould sets up the prime premise of his entire work: is the Modern Synthesis fundamentally Darwinian in content or has it evolved (no pun intended) into something different enough from the formulations of On the Origin of Species to be reasonably called "neo-Darwinian?" He sides with the latter opinion as many evolutionary biologists have (even as early as Hugh Falconer, the same man Gould uses to demonstrate the absolute epitome of Gould's notion). However, Gould claims, unlike many evolutionary biologists, that the modern understanding of Mendelian genetics and smaller mechanisms like genetic drift are not his reasons for this distinction and, possibly, would not even be enough to validate such a stark discrimination if they stood alone. Instead, he puts forth three of his own revisions as being indicative of this transition. The first, hierarchical selectionism, is at odds with Darwin's favor for a single-locus selection (his pillar of agency). The second revision, Stephen Jay Gould's most famous contribution of punctuated equilibrium is not necessarily consistent with Darwin's idea of phyletic gradualism (efficacy). The last of his revisions regards structuralism s a replacement for strict Darwinian functionalism. This is effectively the set up for the first fifty pages.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I must disagree with your overly simplistic summation of the first fifty pages. I would say (as long as we are only talking about the first fifty pages, which are, by the way, packed with several eloquently presented arguments) that this idea of the three prongs of Darwinian logic and Gould's revisions was really the climax, but not necessarily the heart of the first two thirds of the first chapter. He opens with a discussion of a correspondence between Hugh Falconer and Charles Darwin after explaining why Darwin cared so much about the opinion of this man. Falconer wrote in a paper that would be published in 1863 that he accepted Darwinian evolution, but that Darwin should not be surprised if much of what he wrote is proven false and a similar field built on the same "foundation." Darwin, in response, acknowledged that much of what he wrote in On the Origin of Species would likely be exposed as inaccurate, but that he expected that the "framework" would remain standing. This alleged triviality of terms effectively led to the 1400-page argument that Gould published in 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. This, then, bleeds into the literary climax that you mentioned, the three revisions of the agency, efficacy, and scope. I will skip over discussing the climax since you already spoke of it. After that, he starts to back up these allegations and talks of how Darwin's Zeitgeist was ready for evolutionary thought. The first fifty pages ends just in time for a thirty page summary of every chapter in the book.
ReplyDeleteAlas, the time has come for 200 pages to be completed. Of course, mostly as a result of the massiveness of this tome, I have been reading at a faster pace so as to keep up with the percentile (200 pages is only 14 percent of my book whereas it is just above 90 percent for my friend). THIS BOOK ROCKS. I am a BIG Richard Dawkins fan, but I would gladly saturate myself in all the information in this book before I would delve into a stack of Dawkinsian masterpieces. I only make that comparison because I am currently reading about Weismannian "germinal selection," which, at first glance appears to be overwhelmingly similar to Dawkinsian genic selectionism while in actuality being much more reminiscent of Gouldian hierarchical selectionism.
ReplyDeleteFundamentally, I am the exact opposite. Though I am a big S.J. Gould fan, Richard Dawkins is my hero. And as for Gould's intended (and ultimately fallacious) exegesis of Dawkins theory of the Selfish Gene, Gould completely misses the mark. He tries to explain how selection is actually relevant at all ecological levels, but with the comfort of Dawkinsian selective reduction (the breakdown of all selection to the most fundamental barrier, a concept towards which Darwin proved throughout his life) we can put the weight of selectionism at the bottom of the selective pyramid without having to apply the Darwinian syllogism to all hierarchies thus creating a model of ecological complexity. Niles Eldredge opened Unfinished Synthesis with the thesis that "Evolution is a complex affair," but evolution's simplicity is actually its hallmark, not its pipe dream.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just have to supplement my last comment by saying that I believe that Dawkins main cognitive difference from Gould is his simplistic approach. Though Gould and other paleontologists will propound an antithesis, the elegant simplicity of the syllogistic core of evolution (to use Gould's own term) will win out in the end.
ReplyDeleteSorry for not posting on the site. I’ve just been typing the posts into my computer as I read. Here they all are in one go.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow that we have succeeded on completing the first 200 hundred pages, it is time that we proceed to the next section. Until page 250, we are still working on chapter 3, “The Seeds of Hierarchy”. I suspect that these pages (I speak of those between 200 and 400) will be the subject of the liveliest debate until we reach the absolute apex of the Dawkins v. Gould controversy: chapter 8. You see, these pages begin benignly enough with a discussion of the history of Weismannian “Germinal Selection.” Weismann’s theories on Germinal Selection are, frankly, overtly similar to the Dawkinsian “Selfish Gene” described in his now famous volume, The Selfish Gene. While not directly stating his belief that there is a distinct inequality separating Dawkins’s selfish Gene with Weismann’s ideas on germinal selection, for any reader that understands the almost atmospheric animosity between Gould and Dawkins, you can feel a very long debate brewing. These opinions will be stated quite stridently in chapter 8 where we will also find the wordiest insult ever written, let alone inside of a 1400-page evolutionary biology tome. In effect, the argument proceeds as follows: Weismann was not reducing Darwinian organismal selection to the genic locus; he was expanding selectionism to include more levels on the hierarchy, thus establishing a sort of rudimentary theory of hierarchical selectionism. This preserves Gould and Eldredge’s originality in this respect while also enabling Gould to argue that one of the most intellectual evolutionary biologists in history was supportive of this notion. Such a blend of the best of both worlds has never and will never be so effectively and eloquently presented.
ReplyDeleteIn case you have not previously deduced this fact, I am totally supportive of Gould on this topic. Although we have our disagreements throughout his career (most notably on his logical failure with NOMA), I feel he has really nailed it right on the mark with this one. I know, maybe I am jumping the gun by realizing this debate before Gould has actually announced his position, but I can feel it approaching. Funny that it feels like it is coming up so fast when it is still 300 pages away. Such is the elegance of Gould’s writing.
You and I agree on one thing: you ARE jumping the gun to bring up this argument.
ReplyDeleteBut like Pandora’s box, once opened, you cannot simply close it.
I know that, logically, Gould’s argument seems very clear, but practically speaking, it is obvious that selection happens only at one level, though this single level selection creates an illusion that makes it practically feasible to OBSERVE evolution at all levels. For instance, genes compete and the organisms that possess the auspicious genes that have competed well will thrive. Genes compose the success or “fitness” of the organism. The organism is just the phenotypic manifestation of the genotype. If the genotype is unsuccessful, the organism will die. All the important aspects of evolution occur at the most reduced level. Darwin, unaware of Mendelian genetics, supposed this was the organism and was able to argue this point successfully due to this practical illusion that is a result of gene competition. Weismann realized that it could be further reduced and then incepted germinal selection as such. Dawkins popularized the theory with the publication of The Selfish Gene in 1976. That is the story of how we discovered how selection truly happens. Unfortunately, we have Gould, a genius in many respects, who has jumped in and attempted to complicate the matter. In stark contrast to the worldview many paleontologists have taken, evolution is elegantly simple and should not be made unintelligible with the plethora of asterisks and caveats that Gould has sought to include.
When will you strict Dawkinsians come to terms with the necessary complexity that is evolution? I understand that there is a very palatable appeal that comes with the simplicity in Darwin’s ideas, but as research continues, we are finding innumerable branches that diverge off this basic argument. I mean, is it really even possible to get simpler than this? “As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.” Therein lies the whole scope of Darwinian evolution including phyletic gradualism (evolutionary uniformitarianism). However, Darwin only ever intended this to be the base of a much larger scope of research. He even expressed this sentiment in the letters to Hugh Falconer quoted in the first chapter of the book we are now reading. Had he understood Mendelian genetics, he would have realized the hierarchical basis of evolution just as Weismann and Gould have.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that this alleged complexity is all just theoretical pretenses. It is akin to saying that, although 2+2=4, it is necessary to propound a theory that covers the situations where this is a false statement! It is logically unnecessary, but Gould sets up a question mathematically similar to stating that x(2+2)=4x and, by attempting to rationally consider an unfathomably large value of x, successfully argues that these two values cannot be equated. However, now that we have reduced the question to one that we can rationally consider, we see that regardless of the value of x, x(2+2) will always equal 4x. He claims that, though it may seem that genic selectionism can be extrapolated to cover all levels of the hierarchy, this is not actually the case and that, even if each locus only accrues small amounts of irreducible selection, this will amount to endlessly vast amounts by extrapolation through time. At one moment, he denies extrapolations place in reality only to follow that with an argument founded on extrapolation of “infinitesimally small” evolution that will ultimately amount to notable changes at all levels of the hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteGould’s arguments are as fascinating and thought provoking as they are entirely unnecessary.
If you are keeping up with the reading, you will have noted that we are now out of chapter three and have moved onto the opening pages of chapter 4, Internalism and Laws of Form. As a result of this, I would like to set forth the motion to postpone the remainder of this argument for the chapter 8 readings. However, in the spirit of the arguments that have been so prevalent over these last pages, I would like to announce my unpopular opinion regarding what Gould will be discussing next. For the first few pages of chapter 4, Gould talks about the history of William Paley and evolution. Now, Paley is a well-renowned religious philosopher and would have loved to have done away with Darwinism in full. Perhaps my Dawkins-loving friend will have noted that I previously made a brief mention about my disagreement with the logic behind NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria, one of Gould’s most popular theories. Personally I detest it, though it is an interesting tool to use. If ever pestered by anti-evolutionists that refuse to accept evolution over their religion, it is very effective to make mention to this theory which effectively rules religion as a non-factor in evolutionary biology while still preserving the dignity of both parties. He does this by alleging that they belong to two separate logical domains called magisteria (singular magisterium). This completely separates religion and science. While this is a good way for a religious zealot interested in science to provisionally reconcile these two fields, there are obvious logical failures. If science and religion are not at odds, how did God stop the Earth from rotating around the sun as stated in Joshua 10:12 without having our planetary residence suffer major physical repercussions (i.e. Earth would fly out of orbit)? If science and religion are not at odds, how can we reconcile the clear inconsistency between the law of conservation of mass and Christ’s uncanny tendency to gather up more food than he started with after feeding crowds of thousands? The magisteria occupied by religion and science are clearly overlapping and I believe the high predictive power of the scientific method gives it more weight than religion. This is why I have come to disagree with Gould in this one issue: whereas I take up an atheistic (or agnostic at best) philosophy, he tended towards the belief in a God and therefore attempted to reconcile this belief logically.
ReplyDeleteDue to my debater’s reticence, I am going to assume he is not going to weigh in on this topic.
ReplyDeleteSo, as my colleague’s previous post may suggest (if one is following along and understands the branch off which his tangent shoots), we are entering in on the discussion regarding pre-Darwinian theories on the emergence of correlations between structure and function. In his discussion on William Paley, the derived conclusion of which I am disinclined to oppose, he misses Gould’s core point, at least superficially so. Gould divides the earliest correlative theories into two methods of praising a deity: praising His hand in design and glorifying His elegantly organized hierarchy in taxonomy. Moving on from the useless theistic theories, Gould discusses Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire’s structuralist theory. This explains the idea of divinely created “archetypes.” In a sense, this preserved the integration of theism in evolutionary theories, but I believe Geoffroy’s inclusion of God in this theory was as reduced as he could feasibly fathom. As long as he was constrained by the religious Zeitgeist of the first half of the 19th century, he could not logically exclude God from this process. Moreover, he needed a sort of grand impetus with which he could use to theorize how all of life was sparked. By reducing all vertebrates to a single created archetype that would then evolve using a poorly thought out process akin to some manner of embryological equivalent to Richard Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster,” Geoffroy could minimize God’s presence in his scientific theory and thus get off my figurative “scientific freeway” as close to true agnosticism as they came in those days. Truly, his theory was ingenious. Nobody would match this thought process until Darwin.
ReplyDeleteThat summary was honestly superb. I do not know whether you just had not read the last 4 pages of the reading assignment at the time or just decidedly ignored the implications for our mutual propensity for argumentation, but the time has come to discuss one of the most iffy aspects of Gouldian thought: the acceptance of saltationism. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise to many of us that Gould favors theories of saltation, as he essentially sought to validate his central theme of punctuated equilibrium which is, in effect, radically rapid gradualism that could very feasibly occur on a more than regular basis. Though they differ mechanistically, consequentially, they are effectively identical: results appear quickly. The main difference is, punctuated equilibrium is logical whereas strict saltationism can be very easily equated with belief in miracles. However, I contend that it is actually a case study in probability. The fossil record seems to suggest that punctuated equilibrium is not an uncommon road for speciation. The same cannot be said for saltation. There is no real way to observe any real difference between the two, but to suggest that a macromutational transition would be so immediately successful is undoubtedly a stretch. However, these macromutations must crop up, but their highly debilitating nature would quickly weed these “freaks” out. But in the event that this macromutation is beneficial, even if this probability is vanishingly small, the “hopeful monster” would quickly rise to success. Even conceding that the likelihood of such an extreme mutation being auspicious is one to one hundred trillion, there would have to be these occurrences at a handful of points throughout the history of life. Ultimately, I think that Gould’s incredibly logical thinking has won out again.
ReplyDelete