The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

Gould’s masterpiece. He literally fought off cancer until he finished this book and died a few months after its publication. Gould’s argument in the book, he claims, is one single argument despite its length. This is true. He covers the entire history of evolution focusing on “natural selection”. Since his work (with Niles Eldredge) on punctuated equilibria and his most popular paper (with Richard Lewontin) on the spandrels of San Marco Gould had moved away from the hard view that all traits must have evolved through natural selection. That’s what his focus is in this book. And, aware that his cancer was catching up to him, Gould knew this would be his last work ever.

With "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (SoET), The late Stephen J. Gould offers readers a comprehensive revision of Darwinian thought. His revision disagrees with the current orthodoxy, known as the Modern Synthesis, though adherents of each view call themselves Darwinists. In SoET, Gould identifies three defining features of Natural Selection: agency, efficiency, and scope. To survive the revision, Darwinism's tripod (Gould's image) must keep all of its three legs; amputation of any one would topple the whole structure. By agency, orthodox Darwinism argues for evolution happening exclusively at the organismic level. Ultimately it is individuals who survive and breed, or die. It is this or that particular being who will outlive its siblings long enough to have children. Groups, species, and populations, for Darwinism, don't do anything.By efficiency, Darwinism argues that from many random variations, only those variations that help the organism do something better (see more clearly, run faster, etc.) will be transmitted. Features appear because they are useful to the organism, because they have a function that contributes to the living being's survival and progeny. By scope, Darwinism argues that Natural Selection operating on individual organisms can explain the entire history of life on earth, and that no further process needs to be introduced into the theory. Natural Selection would be a complete theory.Having presented the image of the tripod, Gould continues with an exegesis of Darwin's Origin of Species. The first part of the book develops a history of evolutionary thought, presenting and rehabilitating many discredited formalist thinkers, such Geoffroy St-Hilaire and Hugo DeVries. The first part ends with a description of the Modern Synthesis (current orthodoxy). Then, in the second part, we are given a revised evolutionary theory, much of which was in fact developed by Gould and his colleagues Niles Eldredge and Elisabeth Vrba (to both of whom the book is dedicated). The book describes Gould's and Eldredge's own theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE): that often and in most cases (though not all) in between long stretches of nothing-happening (equilibrium, or stasis) evolution happens quickly (punctuation). Gould also presents the concept of constraints as positive forces, and shows them as channels of direction aiding flow. He contrasts this positive interpretation with the usual negative one of constraints restricting movement. Gould uses this with his earlier rehabilitation of formalist thinkers, to present historical and structural constraints as creative forces of evolution that operate independently from Natural Selection (i.e. orthogonally or sideways rather than with or against). Throughout the second part, Gould revises each leg of the tripod. Following Gould, Natural Selection does not explain all of history (the scope leg) e.g. it fails to explain lineages that don't change. Immediate usefulness (the functional leg) is o

This is a really fantastic book, that essentially sets out to revise and update the theoretical basis of evolution beyond the strict Darwinian model. But it isn't just a matter of nitpicking exceptions, instead, Gould shows how the expanded view of evolutionary theory could solve the oldest question of them all: how does macroevolution occur. Gould ties together a number of different themes, including (of course) punctuated equilibrium and the roles of structural constraints in shaping evolution. He manages to integrate classical paleontological approaches with recent advances in evo-devo, one of the only books that does this as far as I can tell. Definately necessary reading for anyone interested in evolution.However, the book is extremely long, and it didn't have to be. For one thing, the first introductory chapter is really rambling and kind of pointless, with lots of incredibly abstract ideas about the nature of theories in general, etc. I almost stopped reading it early on, thinking "this is a just bunch of philosophy B.S., not real science" but I kept going and I'm glad I did. Once you get past the introduction, and get to the meat of the book, its much much better. Although I have to say, the whole book could have benefited from a little selective cutting. I'm sure we're all very impressed that Gould knows how to use phrases like "ceteris paribus" and "sensu latu" but for those of us who don't go around speaking dead languages, this is just a silly distraction. But on the other hand Gould's style of writing is interesting to read and a little bit different, so even if it is extra verbose and confusing, the effect is artistic, like a Pynchon novel, and once one gets used to it, it's quite enjoyable. Another reason the book is so long is a huge section on history of evolutionary theory, similar to the historical part of "ontogeny and phylogeny", but in both cases there is a point to the history, it isn't just for the sake of history, but for the sake of understanding the modern debate, that these old debates are discussed. Do not skip this part!I absolutely recommend this book to anyone with a basic background in biology. It would help to read it in conjunction with one or more books on evo-devo. Ontogeny and Phylogeny is also required reading before you start this book. Also, one needs a big block of time. It is dense enough that it has to be read fairly continuously, if one were to read a little, then put it down for a while, it would be easy to lose the thread of the discussion.

A lifetime of clear and concise thinking comes to full fruition in Stephen Gould's "Structure Of Evolutionary Theory", a work which masters the intricacy and vast scale of biological evolution with a prose that would be the envy of the harshest english composition teacher. Indeed, in an age of literarily skilled scientific giants such as Edward Wilson and Richard Dawkins, to name but two, Gould has succeeded in giving his readers a book which will go down in the history of scholarship as one of the truly clarifying perspectives on a theory that has consistently proven itself to be the only unifying principle of life on earth.While some readers might be intimidated by the sheer massiveness of this book, as well as by Gould's extensive use of technically oriented terminology, they will ultimately be rewarded in their struggle by coming away with a sure-footed understanding of why Darwin's essential theory has stood the test of time and survived to reap the status that all theories aspire to: the ability to consistently explain and predict phenomena, which is the defining trait of any theory's true power. While it may be that many will still dispute Gould's "puncuated equilibria" explanation of speciation, as compared to the school of gradualism, that should not be taken as a sign of any real chink in the armor of basic Darwinism, but rather a sign that the study of evolution is still healthy and vibrant with respect to the intellectually arguable nuance and tempo by which genetic mutation and natural selection produced past and present life. Gould's book highlights this debate and succeeds in throwing into high relief the cutting edge of both contemporary arguments and the burgeoning empirical research used to bolster or temper them. Whether you buy into his specific interpretations of it or not, the fullness of your understanding of the body of evolutionary knowledge will benefit greatly by a cover to cover reading of his book.In conclusion I would say that both the scientific community and the reading public owe a debt of gratitude to a figure such as Gould who, after having played a significant role in reviving the essay as a form of written communication, has done an equally excellent job with respect to tackling its polar opposite with an enormous 1400 page treatise that is sure to entice, entertain, and help educate the next generation of critical thinkers.

Most of the prior reviewers both critical and otherwise work hard to read into Gould their preconceptions of both Evolution and Gould, and ignore what Gould actually says. Folks outside the debate should be forwarned that: 1 - some Creationists and Intelligent Designers (same thing; whatever happened to thou shalt not lie) have tried to claim Gould for their own... misquoting and quoting him out of context, etc. 2 - At the opposite end, some strict selection only folks (Dawkins & Dennett) have never accepted that some stochastic processes are stochastic or that Puctuated Equilibrium is a better description for what the fossil record tells us. The third issue was Gould's opposition to sociobiology and strict reductionism, and the Nature vs. Nurture debazte... which has gotten jumbled up with early socialist leanings coming out of the 1960s civil rights and anti-war movement, and put him into conflict with both strict everything is genetics folks and political conservatives. There is also some personality and jealosy issues in these latter critiques of Gould, insofar as a generation of young Biologist grew up reading Gould and he has done well as a relative media star, made some money, and come to represent "evolution" in the mind of the public and press. My take, for what is is worth... Punc. Eq. as stated by current proonents is correct, he was 1/2 wrong in the Burgess Shale debate, Nature/Nurture is turning out to be more complicated then either the tabla rosa folks (Kamin, Rose, Lewontin) or strict geneticist/sociobiologists ever imagined (and since it is driven by pharceutical companies is poorly researched)... etc. Bottomline, read the actual book, and be aware of the background debates to which it is a reply.Finally, of course this is a big big book and is obviously a different sort of read than the collections of Natural History essays. To complain about that is to miss the point.