Stephen Jay Gould - Two words . . .

[deadpool 52]

. . . come on!

[Fires of History]

Deadpool52,

I love the guy. How do you mean '...come on'? Because he died? He rocked, and was one of the best writers on evolutionary theory ever.

And? :)

[deadpool 52]

Because usually I am the only one who read any of his books, and it seems that I was almost as unlucky in this case.

A man with great theories, a true scientist.
What of his did you read?

[Fires of History]

Wow, let me think....

I own Wonderful Life and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. What else...I've read I Have Landed: The Beginning of Natural History (I think that's the right full name). And virtually any essay I can find with his name on it. One of the favorite essays I read by him was "What does the dreaded 'E' word mean anyway?" I like Gould because he was the writer during my university years that best explained evolution, for me anyway. We read a packet of essays by him in my human biology class, and since then it's all sort of just clicked in my head.

I did see a documentary type film with him arguing against creationism, that would have been about 1998. The creationists there were either sweating or crying, I couldn't tell :)

For the record though I do find his writing very intense, or whatever the right word is. He knows so very well what he's talking about that anyone reading him must really stop and digest what he's saying, especially his books. Mostly because of his extensive biological vocabulary and insights. Gould has such an intimate knowledge of virtually every significant element of evolution that he can be hard to read. But all the better in the end.

Oh, yeah, he had such....:(

[deadpool 52]

It is a damn shame he died so soon.

I have not read that much of his, but my favorite being, The Mismeasure of Man.

The man wrote twenty books, three-hundred columns, and one-thousand scientific papers.

Gould is probably best known for his work with Niles Eldridge on the Darwinian variation he termed punctuated equilibrium, in which new species arise swiftly after long peridos of stasis. (Critics in favor of a more gradual and consistent evolutionary history called Gould's viewpoint "evolution by jerks." He fired a salvo back by referring to the critics' stance as "evolution by creeps.")

A truly great man.

[Fires of History]

The Mismeasure of Man? Now that's one I haven't read by him...hold on...opening new window....

Ah, yes, here it is. Right on!

Powell's says this is one of the best arguments against The Bell Curve ever. As such, I'll read this soon. Thanks for the tip Deadpool52!

And, yes, it's is a damn shame he died. I do, however, think that his contributions will be foundational to generations of evolutionary thinkers to come.

And, ah yes, the ol' stop/start argument. I'm not really sure we know enough yet, although I do agree with Gould that a gradual view doesn't explain many cases of extreme divergence discovered in the fossil record. And I agree with Gould in general, yet I think we need a better and more complete view of phylogenetic systematics because an accurate timeline of distribution and divergence of life will make it easier to make that call. I think using isolated examples, or even continental examples, is good- but not final- proof for whether or not evolution experiences accelerated periods. But my hunch is that it does ;)

There's a great quote from Gould on this, I'll find it tonight.

[Fires of History]

Here's that quote:

“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism....Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means ‘in another place’). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare- as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change....What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.” -"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," in The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, pages 182-184.

Other great Gouldisms:

“‘Creation science’ has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage- good teaching- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?” -"Verdict on Creationism"

“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” -"Evolution as Fact and Theory."

“Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principal, be able to envision a set of observations that would render them false. Miracles cannot be judged by this criterion, as Whitcomb and Morris have admitted. But is all creationists writing merely about untestable singularities? Are arguments never made in proper scientific form? Creationists do offer some testable statements, and these are amenable to scientific analysis. Why, then, do I continue to claim that creationism isn't science? Simply because these relatively few statements have been tested and conclusively refuted.” -"Creationism: Genesis vs. Geology"

There's these, and of course everything else he's ever penned ;)

[deadpool 52]

Niice.

He is must read for anyone who puts words together.

Do you have that other quote that started something like "Arrogance, conceitedness, and egotism are all needed. . ." ?
That is a great summary of my views on dividing the world instead of saying, "I am a citizen of the world."

[Fires of History]

Deadpool52,

Sorry, but that quote you mentioned isn't ringing any bells. Let me think that over.

I do, however, have to share a few I have regarding Evolution and Communism, as maybe the people here will see that they do not conflict at all. In fact, they couldn't be more suited for each other.

"Darwinism was welcomed in Communist countries since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had considered The Origin of the Species a scientific justification for their revolutionary ideology. As far as Socialist theorists were concerned, Darwinism had proved that change and progress result only from bitter struggle. They also emphasized its materialist basis of knowledge, which challenged the divine right of the czars." -R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution.

"Aspects of evolutionism are perfectly consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was, and remains, as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists. The sources of value and responsibility are not to be found in a separate mental realm or in an immortal soul, much less in the inspired words of the Bible." -Robert Young

"Fredrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ‘Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.’ " -C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene

"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ‘Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ " -C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene

"Again, Marx wrote to Engels, January 16, 1861, ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to 'teleology' in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.’ " -C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene

"Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Fredrick Engels in which he said: ‘...this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view...’ By defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of these reactionary outfits, and prepared the way for the transformation of the social order." -Cliff Conner