DireStraits

Gould and Dawkins also have very different views of the philosophical and theological implications of Darwinism.

In a nutshell, Dawkins believes that Darwinism supports the notion that God is unnecessary to explain anything in the universe, and Gould doesn't.

ksagnostic

But not always, hence Gould's fascination with the Burgess Shale fossils in WONDERFUL LIFE. More to the point, fossils of, say, snails (Gould's specialty) or trilobites (Eldredge's specialty), are frequently ascribable to pretty specific levels of classification over extensive periods of geological time (because they leave readily identifiable hard parts).

Hmp. Your quotation marks look kind of weird within the message box. Anyway, before I get into defending Gould a little bit, I want to acknowledge that the criticism that Punctuated Equilibrium proposes nothing new is, so far as I can tell as an interested bystander, widespread. However, the idea of longer periods of relative stability and relatively shorter periods of substantial change does suggest a greater relative importance for multiple extinction events verses, say, lots of little reproductive isolation events over time. In that sense, my impression is that punctuated equilibrium has made predictions that have guided some paleontological and geological research, although I do not claim to be qualified to evaluate to what extent this is so. Note: On the original II Evolution Board, there was a frequent poster who called himself the Dire Puppy, who was a paleontologist. Do we have any such animal on this board? It would be interesting to see a working paleontologist's comments on this issue.

With all due respect, what are you talking about? As you noted in an earlier post, Gould is hardly a creationist, but you practically make him sound like one here. Also, I have not seen anything that would constitute from Gould a claim for a new mechanism or rule for speciation, or even the need for such a thing. Punctuated Equilibrium refers to co-existing groups of organisms, and not just to within species or family groups. If the fossil record were to show frequent stability among some organisms and change among others, followed by stability among some of the organisms that changed in the previous period while a new group of organisms changed, that would still be consistent with classical Darwinian evolution or later occuring variations and additions like the Synthetic Theory, but not Punctuated Equilibrium. As I understand it, the fossil record tends to show stability among groups of organisms, followed by changes across groups of organisms (although patterns consistent with changes among some organisms but not others does also exist in the fossil record). In this sense, Punctuated Equilibrium is an added detail (or perhaps more accurately, as you said, a change in emphasis) rather than a new theory. However, to paleontologists this detail/change of emphasis is, I suspect, hardly "banal".

The big thing I take issue with, however, is your dismissal of Punctuated Equlibrium in comparison with Dawkin's Selfish Gene analogy. In all fairness, one can dismiss Dawkin's Selfish Gene as "a breeze in a very small teacup" for much the same grounds that one might dismiss "Punk Eek" (that it really doesn't add much new insight or information). If Ernst Mayer can say "Been there done that" to Gould and Eldredge, he, and certainly E.O. (Sociobiology) Wilson, can say the same thing to Dawkins. And frankly, I think that Dawkin's "selfish gene" analogy has led to some pretty squirrely behavior by some writers who attempt to explain every little behavior an animal does by trying to find its adaptive significance.

Actually, I find both Gould and Dawkins to be very thought proviking while at the same time entertaining writers on the subject of evolution and natural history. Despite what it may appear from what I have written above, I am not really a fan boy for either guy, nor to I dislike Dawkins. However, it just...bugs me to see Gould dismissed as a lightweight in comparison to Dawkins. In comparison to others perhaps, but not to Dawkins.

Just my opinion,

"Ed"

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Quetzal

Well, in the first place, I may have inadvertently led you astray a bit. Gould and Eldridge are NOT complexity scientists. In fact, when they came up with PE, the science of complexity theory hadn't even been invented.

However, there's a lot of similarity. Basically, Gould argues that evolution should be looked at as a system. At the level of population, species, or even (holistically) an individual organism. Each of these organizational levels shows "emergent" properties that (he claims) can not be described by the usual neo-Darwinian synthesis, which he berates as being overly reductionist. Gould sees a species, for example, as a distinct entity with describable properties in its own right, not just a collection of expressed alleles. Furthermore, he looks at a species as something that can as a whole interract with other species in complex ways - ways that cause emergent behaviors, like culture. In addition, he believes that there is an additional mechanism operating at the species level (beyond NS) that causes evolutionary change. In that sense, he is more in step with complexity theorists like Stuart Kauffman (Santa Fe Institute).

The major bone of contention here is that to most biologists neo-Darwinism does seem to explain the properties Gould is so fond of (Dawkin's quite brilliant "selfish genes" concept, memes and demes, etc.) Dawkins also criticizes species sorting (Gould's mechanism) by pointing out that species do not have any significant traits not possessed by the individual members of the species. Complex adaptations are NOT properties of species - they're properties of individuals. The patterns Gould claims to observe at higher organizational levels are merely the aggregate of the properties of the individual phenotypes that make up the species. IOW, the NS concept of marginal fitness applies at all levels, from the gene to the genus. There's no need to postulate any weird, unobservable new mechanism (ex: a species goes extinct because the marginal fitness of each individual member shows poor adaptation. After a certain point where the population is no longer self-sustaining, the species crashes/goes extinct).

Just as an aside, <a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html" target="_blank"> here's </a> an interesting article by Gould's "partner in crime" Niles Eldridge expanding a bit on PE. You might find the other links at the bottom of the page interesting as well.

Peter Soderqvist

TO MORPHO AND KSAGNOSTIC

Soderqvist1: why all this fuss?

Fair use of quote from Richard Dawkins Extended Phenotype revised edition 1999, Chapter 6 pages 112-113: The concept of hierarchy is a general important one. Chemists believe that matter is made of about a hundred different kinds of atoms, interacting with each other by means of their electrons. Atoms are gregarious, forming huge assemblages, which are governed by laws at their own level. Without contradicting the laws of chemistry, therefore, we find it convenient to ignore atoms when we thinking about large lumps of matter. When explaining the workings of motor car we forget atoms and van der Waal 's forces as units of explanation, and prefer to talk of cylinders and sparking plugs. This lesson applies not only to the two levels of atoms and cylinder heads. There is a hierarchy, ranging from fundamental particles below the atomic level up through molecules and crystals to the macroscopic chunks, which our unaided sense organs are built to appreciate.

Page 113 continued: Living matter introduces a whole new set of rungs to the ladder of complexity: Macromolecules folding themselves into their tertiary forms, intracellular membranes and organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems. A similar hierarchy of units embedded in larger units epitomizes the complex artificial products of living things – semiconductor crystals, transistors, integrated circuits, computers and embedded units that can only be understood in terms of "software". At every level the units interact with each other following laws appropriate to that level, laws which are not conveniently reducible to laws at lower levels. This has all been said many times before, and is so obvious as to be almost platitudinous. But one sometimes has to repeat platitudes in order to prove that one's heart is in the right place.

THE BLIND WATCHMAKER Abbreviated version online Chapter 1 - Explaining the very Improbable For those that like '-ism' sorts of names, the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things work is probably 'hierarchical reductionism'. If you read trendy intellectual magazines, you may have noticed that 'reductionism' is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it. To call oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit like admitting to eating babies. But, just as nobody actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against.
We concluded that the behavior of a complicated thing should be explained in terms Of interactions between its component parts, considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy. The physicist's problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws. The biologist's problem is the problem of complexity.
<a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.htm</a>

Fare use of quote from the book, The Blind Watchmaker, penguin issue 1988, Chapter 7 Constructive evolution, Page 217. Most of the properties of an organism that we are equipped to see with our naked eyes are so-called "emergent properties". Even the computer biomorphs, with their nine genes, had emergent properties. In real animals they are produced at the whole-body level by interactions between cells. An organism works as an entire unit, and its genes can be said to have effects on the whole organism, even though each copy of any gene exerts its immediate effect only within its own cell.

Soderqvist1: hydrogen or Oxygen is not water, but molecular interaction between these component parts, will give us an emergent property with name water, the sum is bigger than its components, in a complex system, because a complex system rises emergent properties, which cannot be found somewhere in its individual elements. For instance, a vortex in your bathtub cannot be understood from the knowledge of the properties, of the molecules, which makes up the water! Because interaction between these indefinitely many molecules rises emergent properties (a vortex), which can only be understood on higher level, or order, namely, at the laws of fluid dynamics. Hierarchical reductionism appears to me, as a "marriage" between "reductionism", and "holism"!

Science of Complexity investigates the Origin of Life here!
<a href="http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/people/kauffman/" target="_blank">http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/people/kauffman/ </a>

Soderqvist1: Kauffman 's elaboration is in part quite technically dry; a reader need scholarship in non-linear mathematics, in order to understand this

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Ed

So is it a fact or a theory or both? <a href="http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196explorations.html" target="_blank">This SciAm article</a> is interesting ref PE predictions. Sure, there’s plenty of evidence for it as a fact. But it’s still an observation. PE doesn’t explain anything, it’s something to be explained. And there is no other explanation for it except Darwinian gradualism. Which, to repeat, is not constant speedism. Change can proceed at anything up to the mutation rate, but rarely does; natural selection usually stabilises populations.

Not sure about working, but there’s Ergaster who seems to be palaeontologically inclined, though perhaps only primates and hominids.

Sorry, that needed a paragraph break, didn’t it What I’m saying is:

(1) PE is not a great revelation, it’s an obvious statement about the pattern of the fossil record and, probably, about the pattern of macroevolution (at least, at species-level). But it is explained by RM&NS Darwinian evolution: by population dynamics, based on gene replication. Nothing else is required or proposed.

(2) As for Gould and creationism, whilst it’s harsh, I can find little to argue with in Robert Wright’s <a href="http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm" target="_blank">The Accidental Creationist: why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution</a>. If you can, please let me know what. IIRC, he’s also been taken to task on this by Dennett (I’ll check when I get home ).

Sounds fair. I’ll dig from the strata of my bedside book stack Carroll’s Patterns and Processes and see what he comes up with, vertebrate-wise at least. But as a new factor to consider is exactly how it has been promoted.

Probably not, I suppose. Palaeontologists are always behind the times it seems &lt;ducks swipe from Ergaster &gt; Witness the trouble Sarich and Wilson had getting them to accept even the principle of the molecular clock. It probably has taken them 20 years to come round to the idea that evolution doesn’t have to be steady change . However, to the rest of us it’s a ‘yeah, okay &lt;shrug&gt;’.

Really? Go on then, I’m listening...

Erm, the book’s at home, I’ll get the actual quote tonight, but Dawkins states the absence of new information outright in the intro (or perhaps even preface) to The Selfish Gene, so that’s no surprise, he never claimed anything else. But I strongly dispute that it gives no new insight into biology. It is just as valid as the organism-level one, but gives new insights and ways of looking at problems. (Dawkins’s analogy is with a necker cube)

As evidence, I point out that the gene’s-eye view is pretty key to ethology and socio-biology these days (as you acknowledge below in your ref to Wilson), even filtering through into TV programme narrations (at least BBC ones). No more ‘for the good of the species’ rubbish. And sure...

Actually, Maynard Smith’s game theory work and Hamilton’s stuff was probably more important. So? We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. I don’t recall Dawkins ever claiming it to be anything radically new, just a different (and perhaps revelatory) way to view the same things.

And frankly, I think that Darwin’s "evolution" theory has led to some pretty sinful behavior by some people who allow any behavior by saying it’s in their evolved nature. Look at that Hitler. And Stalin. Both based their evil on the evolution lie.

Also, I accepted this claim at first. But thinking further, a) do you have any examples, and b) ‘adaptive significance’, be it of bodypart or behaviour, is to do with adaptationism, not selfish genes per se. Greedy adaptionism, as it might be called, I suspect Dawkins would rightly castigate... and I also suspect it’s more myth than reality, at least in scientific circles. A good one for the overeager pop science journo though.

Is that it? Selfish genes add no new information (never claimed to) nor worldview (plain wrong, surely), it wasn’t very original (never claimed to be) and has been misused by others (so shoot him). Hmmm. I’ll let you apply that same sentence to Gould and PE yourself.

Back to the original point, what I said about punk eek was “it doesn’t make you see the world differently, what it leaves this reader with is the impression of a light breeze in a very small teacup”. Okay, maybe it has significance for palaeontologists, population geneticists, etc. At the end of the day, it’s hardly a ‘wow!‘ for ordinary readers. Whereas thinking of the sparrows, spiderwebs and weeds in your garden, the habits of bowerbirds and cuckoos, and so on, in terms of competing genes is pretty stunning. It was one of the things that got me into biology. Each to his own, I suppose, but somehow a (probable) pattern of evolution is nowhere near as inspiring as a different way of looking at the thing itself.

Cheers, Oolon

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

bluefugue

I like that animated Necker cube.

bluefugue

I think this is the key point. Dawkins never claimed to be revolutionizing Darwinian theory, whereas Gould and Eldredge did. As a scientist (as opposed to a science-writer), Dawkins may indeed be a lightweight (compared to Meyr, Fisher, etc.), but he never claimed otherwise. And in fact I think he'd be the first to admit he doesn't belong in their august company.

ksagnostic

<strong>Oolon: So is it a fact or a theory or both? This SciAm article is interesting ref PE predictions. Sure, there’s plenty of evidence for it as a fact. But it’s still an observation. PE doesn’t explain anything, it’s something to be explained. And there is no other explanation for it except Darwinian gradualism. Which, to repeat, is not constant speedism. Change can proceed at anything up to the mutation rate, but rarely does; natural selection usually stabilises populations.</strong>

I started to read it, then realized that I'd read it when it first came out. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, however. You seem to think that punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record is just what you would expect with natural selection. While I certainly don't disagree with the observation that PE is not inconsistent with natural selection or other factors brought in through the synthesis with Medelian genetics, I don't see how PE is necessarily predicted by it either. As the article you linked to points out, Darwin hoped that further fossil finds would show a more gradual process. As I am sure you know at least as well as I do, the fossil record is like a a stack of surviving sequenced snapshots from a house fire. Darwin hoped that peleontologists would find more snapshots (Which they have done and continue to do). Gould and Eldredge, two specialists in hard bodied marine creatures for which there were pretty good stacks of snapshots, were still finding a fair number of gaps (although they were still finding transitionals as well). That observation led to PE, and PE does include an explanation. By the way, Morpho, I appreciate your link to the Eldredge article (even if you do seem to be kind of a Dawkins partisan ). I replied to Oolon without going back to my PE source material, but I felt somewhat validated by what I was saying when I read Eldredge's article. Anyway, the explanation part of PE refers to catastrophic mass extinctions. Thus, I would say that from what I can tell PE is a theory that postulates that the primary driving force of evolution, particularly with regards to speciation events across large ecosystems are periodic periods of crisis amidst much longer periods of relative environmental stability (although some evolution of course also occurs during those stable periods as well). Nothing there is inconsistent with the modern synthesis, and PE is an addendum to it rather than a revolutionary reworking of it, but I am not aware of claims to the contrary.

<strong>Oolon, in response to my asking about paleontologists on this board: Not sure about working, but there’s Ergaster who seems to be palaeontologically inclined, though perhaps only primates and hominids. </strong>

Cool. I love primatology. I may be a speech-language pathologist by profession, but I am a primatologist by avocation. As for paleoprimatology, I wrote a fan letter to Elwyn Simon when I was 10. He responded too, but I no longer have his reply .

<strong>(1) PE is not a great revelation, it’s an obvious statement about the pattern of the fossil record and, probably, about the pattern of macroevolution (at least, at species-level). But it is explained by RM&NS Darwinian evolution: by population dynamics, based on gene replication. Nothing else is required or proposed.</strong>

You know, Morpho makes reference to Gould claiming that there is an additional mechanism operating at the species level beyond natural selection. I've read a fair amount of Gould and Eldredge, and I don't ever recall seeing this claim (for example, Gould's frequent analogy of catastrophies as lotteries is NOT an additional mechanism to NS, it is one example of a selective force). I have read speculation by others that environmental stress might increase errors in replication and increases in mutation rate, but I have seen absolutely no comments of this sort from Gould and Eldredge. Quite the opposite, I have seen statements to the effect that that the mechanisms proposed in the Synthetic theory are quite sufficient to explain PE in combination with an increased importance of catastrophic mass extinction events (and the Synthetic Theory proposes addtional speciation mechanisms to NS such as reproductive isolation of small populations). Certainly, the hypothesized effect of mass extinctions on evolution is nothing new to PE, and it works within "RM&NS Darwinian evolution: by population dynamics, based on gene replication", but so what? A greater importance of extinction events in comparison to, say, lots of little reproductive isolation events and occasional beneficial mutations that would be more consistent with gradualism can still be an important contribution if it is bourne out.

<strong>(2) As for Gould and creationism, whilst it’s harsh, I can find little to argue with in Robert Wright’s The Accidental Creationist: why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. If you can, please let me know what. IIRC, he’s also been taken to task on this by Dennett (I’ll check when I get home ).</strong>

Haven't read the Wright article, but I will. As for Dennett, you should know I do not take Daniel Dennett seriously. I haven't read DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA, and to be honest, I probably won't. I thought CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED was pretty much a waste of my time. As I will explain later, I think you are kind of being inconsistent here.

<strong>Oolon in response to my statement of opinion about the importance of Gould and Eldredge's work among paleontologists: Probably not, I suppose. Palaeontologists are always behind the times it seems &lt;ducks swipe from Ergaster &gt; Witness the trouble Sarich and Wilson had getting them to accept even the principle of the molecular clock. It probably has taken them 20 years to come round to the idea that evolution doesn’t have to be steady change . However, to the rest of us it’s a ‘yeah, okay &lt;shrug&gt;’.</strong>

Well, OK but 1) since Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists, I think that the assessment of the relative importance of their work in that field be done by other paleontologists (and even I know that the reviews are hardly all favorable), and 2)I am staying out of the interdisciplinary rivalry (it ain't MY fight, I just like to provide occasional semi-informed commentary ).

<strong>My quote: The big thing I take issue with, however, is your dismissal of Punctuated Equlibrium in comparison with Dawkin's Selfish Gene analogy. In all fairness, one can dismiss Dawkin's Selfish Gene as "a breeze in a very small teacup" for much the same grounds that one might dismiss "Punk Eek" (that it really doesn't add much new insight or information). </strong>

I am snipping most of your reply, not because I don't respect what you wrote, but because I'm not really wanting to go quite that direction. That is, much of what you wrote emphasizes 1) that Dawkins never claimed he was adding new information (BTW, I read THE SELFISH GENE a long time ago, and I still recall him saying that myself, so you don't need to find the quote) and 2) you then defend the importance of what you see in Dawkins' work. That's fine, but that's kind of beside the point. Although it may have looked like it, I was hardly out to dismiss Dawkins. I would ask you to look at the quote of what I said again. I was making a comparative statement. I think it is inconsistent to dismiss Gould and Eldredge's work as "a breeze in a teacup" in comparison with Dawkins. In point of fact, I just entered into PubMed the term "punctuated equilibrium" and got 35 references, not all of them in the field of paleontology. It seems like PE is generating research across a variety of biologically oriented fields. Somewhat more than a "breeze in a teacup", I would say.

<strong>My quote:
And frankly, I think that Dawkin's "selfish gene" analogy has led to some pretty squirrely behavior by some writers who attempt to explain every little behavior an animal does by trying to find its adaptive significance. </strong>

OK, I definitely needed to explain myself better here. I'm not out to pick on Dawkins! In terms of what I am saying about "pretty squirrely behavior", much of it could I suppose also be laid at the door of Sociobiology and Wilson, but I am not blaming Wilson either. I do think it is inconsistent to blame Gould because creationists claim that PE is some sort of ad hoc attempt to "save evolution" by "explaining away" why "there aren't transitional fossils", but then to not blame Dawkins, Wilson, or anyone else for the goofy things that others write about what they said. I don't think any of these guys should be blamed for goofy things said in their name that they aren't saying. For example, I don't think that Bohr or any other quantum physicist should be held responsible for, say, the goofy things Depak Chopra justifies by invoking quantum mechanics.

<strong>And frankly, I think that Darwin’s "evolution" theory has led to some pretty sinful behavior by some people who allow any behavior by saying it’s in their evolved nature. Look at that Hitler. And Stalin. Both based their evil on the evolution lie.</strong>

Uh, don't take it the wrong way, but as that "other" Ed might say... "see above regarding my comments about scientists not be held responsible for the goofy things others draw or claim from their work". But in all fairness, I think I could have been clearer in making my point.

<strong>Also, I accepted this claim at first. But thinking further, a) do you have any examples, and b) ‘adaptive significance’, be it of bodypart or behaviour, is to do with adaptationism, not selfish genes per se. Greedy adaptionism, as it might be called, I suspect Dawkins would rightly castigate... and I also suspect it’s more myth than reality, at least in scientific circles. A good one for the overeager pop science journo though.</strong>

Again, "see above regarding my comments about scientists not being held responsible for the goofy things". Actually, I was largely thinking of "overeager pop science journalists" when I wrote the above (like trying to analyze the "gene's eye" reproductive significance of why some people don't take the shortest route home from work, or refer to memetics to explain it). Frankly, I've seen some pretty odd things claimed in the name of Dawkins on this very board, and even this very thread (and no, I'm not going to name names, I think you can find what I mean).

In fact, in further defense of Dawkins, as I said about him in another thread, I think he is often intentionally provocative, and will intentionally exaggerate to make a point. He will also engage in pages of speculation. But in all fairness, HE ALMOST ALWAYS TELLS YOU when he is doing this. The problem is, people take Dawkins more seriously on some things than he does himself.

<strong>Is that it? Selfish genes add no new information (never claimed to) nor worldview (plain wrong, surely), it wasn’t very original (never claimed to be) and has been misused by others (so shoot him). Hmmm. I’ll let you apply that same sentence to Gould and PE yourself.</strong>

Uh, right, that was my point. Either we shoot everybody or we let 'em all go!

<strong>Back to the original point, what I said about punk eek was “it doesn’t make you see the world differently, what it leaves this reader with is the impression of a light breeze in a very small teacup”. Okay, maybe it has significance for palaeontologists, population geneticists, etc. At the end of the day, it’s hardly a ‘wow!‘ for ordinary readers. Whereas thinking of the sparrows, spiderwebs and weeds in your garden, the habits of bowerbirds and cuckoos, and so on, in terms of competing genes is pretty stunning. It was one of the things that got me into biology. Each to his own, I suppose, but somehow a (probable) pattern of evolution is nowhere near as inspiring as a different way of looking at the thing itself.</strong>

Actually, I've found Gould's writing on PE related topics to be pretty thought provoking and awe inspiring, particularly when thinking about the history of life. As for Dawkins, I can say the same thing (and I read THE SELFISH GENE a long time ago). However, Dawkins work is interesting as a perspective. In the habits of bowerbirds, however, I'd also want to read other perspectives (such as, for example, Donald Griffin's).

Well, I was afraid of this. I took way too long on this...will probably bow out for awhile. I suspect this whole discussion, if we really got down to it, comes down to a disagreement that is about as big as a "breeze in a teacup". Also, it's late, so if any of this doesn't make sense, I really didn't take the time to edit properly.

Regards,

"Ed"

Oolon Colluphid

No problem Ed. I don't particularly want to denigrate Gould, and since you're not similarly after Dawkins... All this may just come down to a transatlantic difference of perspective. Dawkins is much more of a figure here than Gould, who conversely is huge in the States.

The way it seems to this slightly knowledgeable English reader is that Gould has an enormous ego, and wants to make his mark with new ideas, even somewhat iffy ones, trying 'something big' to be remembered for... and keeps pushing even when he's been shown the perhaps more parsimonious answers (I'm thinking here of his, to me, reprehensible '5% of a wing' I mentioned above). This could well be misrepresentation, however, or how his supporters have gone on to use the ideas. This side of reading more of his stuff, in light of what you've said, I'll go a little easier on him!

Ref Dennett, if you want to see 'the other side', I do really urge you to read DDI though. (Of course, most of it's not about such 'sides' anyway!) I've not yet gotten around to Conciousness Explained, so can't comment on that, but DDI is a pretty important book, whether one agrees with him or not.

Cheers, Oolon

Quetzal

Hi ksagnostic!

WRT species sorting. Although both Gould and Eldridge subscribe to it, IMO Eldridge has done the best job of describing the idea. If you haven't read Eldridge's 1995 book, "Reinventing Darwin", it's well worth a look.

Eldridge spends a couple of chapters expanding on the famous 1972 PE paper. He defines species sorting defines "species sorting" (also called "species selection") as "differential speciation or extinction of species within a larger group".

From what I gather, the idea is some lineages speciate at a higher rate than others, and some species are more prone to extinction than others. This explains the gaps in the fossil record that led up to the PE theory. Species sorting does not replace natural selection in the formation of anatomical or behavioral adaptations of species (the neo-Darwinian synthesis). However, it determines which adaptations survive.

There are a lot of things about PE that I like (including epistasis and habitat tracking, etc). However, I think the emphasis on allopatric speciation (while denying or at least minimizing sympatric speciation) may be in error. Also, I think the case for "no gradual changes" has not been made (or rather, stasis has been over-emphasized). Finally, at least to me (and I may simply be misunderstanding what Eldridge wrote - not an unusual state of affairs) I'm not sure that species sorting can apply to multiple adaptations within a species (i.e., what happens if there's more than one adaptation in play at the same time?). How does species sorting explain marginal fitness of multiple alleles?

Basically, since (at least in topical discussions) it appears you have to be on one side or the other, I guess that puts me into the Dawkins, et al camp.