“If I had to summarize the essence of Darwinism in a single concept, I would emphasize the directing power of selection. Genetic variation is raw material; it is “random” in the sense that mutations do not arise preferentially directed toward the production of advantageous traits. Adaptation is the result of natural selection, acting relentlessly across generations to accumulate favored variation through the differential success of fitter individuals in producing more surviving offspring.” (pg 59-60)
This is the 7thish book by Stephen Jay Gould I have read, but the first since I have renewed my most recent commitment to writing about the books I read (on this blog). As such, I feel like I should fill you in. Stephen Jay Gould is an evolutionary biologist who, for many years, wrote syndicated essays for Natural History magazine. Although he did write several “conventional books” (e.g. Full House was excellent), it’s more accurate to call the 7ish “books” which I have read “anthologies.”
Gould’s essays unpretentious and approachable-Maybe even extraordinarily so compared to most writing which is so inextricably “science writing”-And in multiple different ways. For instance, in addition to presenting scientific topics in easily understood prose, Gould presents scientific topics with enthusiasm and joy. There is emotion in the writing-A “sense of wonder” which I find contagious. Furthermore, he writes well-An inescapably subjective claim, but a defensible one. His essays are well-researched, his use of quotations is almost always apt, rarely disposable, and his talent for witty analogy and anecdote is tremendous.
This particular book, An Urchin in the Storm, is especially “up my alley.” (This alley I’ve been in lately, wherein I read literary criticism.) It is comprised of essays of the “book review” variety. To give you a taste of Gould’s wit, consider this passage from the introduction to the book, wherein he considers the role of book reviewer: “I picture several reviewers of my own books as passing a long future lodged between Brutus and Judas in the jaws of Satan” (pg 9). Yet, Gould is not out to make or ruin reputations (in most cases…). The reviews in this anthology are consistent with his ouevre. Each book is just a starting point for his essays; he might just as well employ a quotation, or relate an anecdote.
In addition to “a writer whom I quite enjoy,” I consider Gould to be a forceful Evolutionary Theory Watchdog, or something of the sort. But something more, too. Not only does he start barking when he becomes aware of a threat to (the integrity of) evolutionary theory; he “takes care of it,” too. He is the both the citizen who dials 911 and municipal machinery which puts out the fire, makes the arrest, retrieves the cat from the tree, etc. Except in the usual case, the corrective action is identifying a fallacy an illuminating the truth which has been obscured by it. “No critique is so damning,” Gould says, “as the sequential removal of examples, one after the other” (pg 32). Thus does he removal example after example of misapplication of Darwinian theory in the course of his writing.
For example, one fallacy which I have become familiar with through Gould is that wherein existence of a current trait or behavior indicates it is a favorable adaptation-i.e. “The equation of current utility with historical origin” (pg 48). Gould tells us, “The mechanic’s seal of current approval does not imply past construction for contemporary usage” (pg 34). Later, “Historical origin and current functions are different properties of biological traits” (pg 112). For example, pandas no longer eat meat, now they eat bamboo; they’ve adapted to eating bamboo because they are better off that way. But Gould asserts “Meaningful adaptation must be defined as actively evolved design for local circumstance, not mean muddling through with inherited features poorly suit to current needs” (pg 23). While it is true pandas are “getting by” (eating bamboo), the panda’s physiology is in fact minimally adapted-60% of the panda’s day is spent eating, and they defecate profusely because they cannot digest so much of the plant matter (leaves and stems) (pg 21-22). At this point in time it cannot be said that eating bamboo is “good” for pandas. They are surviving, yes, but not thriving.
Another common fallacy: The one wherein many Darwinism theories are grafted onto behaviors, or cultures. This is common in theories of sociobiology, social determinism, or biological determinism (more or less the same things, different names). For example, consider the theory which purport a certain species is altruistic in such a way so as to ensure its survival. Interesting, but this cannot be so. I’ll invoke the introductory paragraph to this essay and elaborate: Unless the altruism were so specific that it amounted to trait which made some part of the species more likely to survive in a local environment than other parts of the species, and the former had greater differential success in reproduction than the latter, it cannot be said that an adaptation occurred through natural selection. As Gould says, “In Darwin’s world, the calculus of success is simple-winners pass more copies of their own genes to future generations, nothing else” (pg 30). Any ascription of a personality trait or behavior to Darwinism merits some scrutiny.
To elaborate, consider what precisely, practically, does what “altruism” mean in this case? Behavior is not necessarily, intrinsically, genetic; But Darwinism is a genetic theory. Think about that-Should a genetic theory be applied to something which is not intrinsically genetic? Later, Gould says “Behavior that works need not have a specific genetic background,” (pg 35). (Behavior that “works”-Added quotation marks-Would be my edit.) How about an example from Gould?
“Yes, some birds teach songs to their offspring, and songs may alter by cultural tradition over generations-but major change in the basic structure of animal societies requires genetic modification” (pg 69).
(More on the challenge of applying Darwinian theory to character traits later.)
Let’s jump fallacies. Far more harmful (and unscientific) than the assertion that altruism is a “sort-of-adaptation” are some of the arguments* advanced in the field** of biological determinism. Eugenics, for instance, wherein (in short) the notion of encouraging and discouraging the breeding character traits is discussed. Of course, “discouraging” is not nearly a strong enough verb. Whatever the verb, I’ll float “genocide,” means of doing that verb included, among many other things, force-sterilization of individuals whose IQs measured low-And/or locking them up in a sanitarium.
{ * Should have said “racist arguments”; ** should have said “quasi-field.” }
(As an aside, a previous iteration of last paragraph’s topic sentence went:
“Far more harmful (and unscientific) than the assertion that altruism is a ‘sort-of-adaptation,” baked into the genes via natural selection, are some of the (racist) arguments advanced in the (quasi-)field of biological determinism.”
I noticed, reading that sentence, I have latched onto using parenthesis in order to contain snark in texts which I do not wish to be snarky. Whether effectively or not. But it is a bit much, no?)
I need to “hold my horses” here, not pretend I’m too much of an expert, not write with too much ignorant passion-
-But consider: Someone who simply was not formally educated, in such and such way, could be deemed a “moron” or “imbecile” (both were once clinical terms), then locked up in a sanitarium. I shouldn’t need a quotation to qualify the tone of this paragraph; still, Gould says, “Biological determinism has limited the lives of millions by misidentifying their socioeconomic disadvantages as inborn deficiencies” (pg 148). In another essay, “We cannot usefully reduce the human behavioral repertoire to a series of unitary traits and hope to reconstruct the totality by analyzing the adaptive purpose of each individual item” (pg 119). He’s getting at: You cannot breed away “unintelligence,” whatever that means. Similarly, you cannot breed away “thieves,” or more generally, “criminals,” whatever those words mean.
Do you see where I’m going? Such things cannot be reduce to single genes, maybe not even single genetic patterns. Such things cannot even be reduced to absolute definitions? For example, is a dishonest businessman a thief? Sure, some. Bernie Madoff probably comes to mind. But what about Wall Street executives who invent unsustainable investment products? What about retailers who push high-margin products harder than equivalent low-margin products? What about waiters/waitresses who asks if you’d like a salad without telling you the salad does not come with your entree, then surprises you with the bill?
Apply the same sort of logic to “intelligence.” Who would you say is not intelligent? Why.
Such are some of the more thought-provoking themes in Urchin, including essays which would not properly be bucketed with “essays about popular fallacies in Darwinism.” For example, thoughtful and nuanced essays on (books about) scientists like Barbara McClintock (geneticist) and Ernest Everett Just (biologist).
There are many accessible “takeaways” from a book like Urchin. But if you take only one away, let it be the introductory paragraph of this essay: A succinct description of natural selection-Which after reading Urchin, if not after reading this essay, you will agree is easily distorted by layman and scientist alike.