Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould

Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History Reviews

• 
  Eric_W

  Note: I wrote this review sometime before Gould's death.
  
  How does one write about a book of essays? Ever Since Darwin is a collection of essays drawn from Natural History magazine for which Gould wrote a monthly column entitled "This View of Life." While not especially easy reading, all the essays provide an intellectual delight that make them well worth the effort. A common thread running through all is the wonder and amazement Gould has for the extraordinary variation and adaptability of nature. One can see in these essays the development of ideas more fully defined in
  Wonderful Life The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History
  
  His examples are most absorbing and occasionally bizarre. He explains how the tiny gall midge reproduces in two ways: either normally from eggs as sexually reproducing flies; or without the aid of a father, i.e., via parthenogenesis, otherwise known as virgin birth. When food is abundant (midges feed primarily on mushrooms) the young grow in the mother's body feeding on her flesh. After she has been consumed they emerge and within two days their own children begin to feed off the parent. This matricide which at first glance might appear somewhat foolish is not just a disgusting freak of nature. As Gould points out, in light of evolutionary theory, the behavior is truly efficient and adaptive. As long as food is plentiful reproduction remains parthenogenetic. As food inevitably becomes scarcer the flies reproduce normally (hate to use the word normal in this context) at which point they can fly and scout out new food sources. "The flightless parthenogenic female stays on the mushroom and feeds. When it exhausts its resources it produces winged descendants to find new mushrooms." This still does not answer the question of why matricide? Gould explains better than I (read the essay entitled "Why should a fly eat its mother?;" but, basically it has to do with adaptability to environments which impose irregular catastrophic mortality (fairly common in nature,) or where food sources are hard to find but abundant when located. The best adaptability is to "reproduce like hell while you have the ephemeral resource, for it will not last long and some of your progeny must survive to find the next one." Whether this lesson should be applied to Man I will not hazard a guess.
  
  Gould recognizes the social and cultural influences of the scientific imagination. Theories, at their best, should free us from our prejudices, at their worst they support the biases of their creators (witness Wolcott and his misinterpretation of the Burgess Shale), illustrated also in the attempts to find parallels between individual development and evolutionary history. (Gould has another book Ontoqeny and Phyloqeny dealing with just this issue which I have not yet read, but will soon?) Gould is very skeptical of biological determinism. (At a recent conference I witnessed E.O. Wilson, author of
  Sociobiology The New Synthesis, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition , a proponent of biological determinism, and Gould argue these points, much to the fascination of the audience.
  Gould argues for biological potentiality.) Biological determinism has become popular in Gould's mind because it allows us to escape responsibility, e.g. the homeless are inevitably thus because they inherited the wrong genes; we can fob off responsibility for war to man's inherent aggressiveness rather than to blame the political structures we have created. Several essays deal with just such issues. Obviously I have not come close to doing justice to this richly diverse and fascinating collection of essays. Read the book, I guarantee you will be fascinated.
• 
  Ahmad Ebaid

  بدأت قراءة الكتاب في طريق العودة من الكلية زهاء الثلاث سنوات، أنهيت حينها المقدمة وأول فصلين، وقررت أنه كتاب عظيم جدا، به ما به من إمتاع تاريخي وسد لثغرات كثيرة في فصول قصة التطور، ثم لم أفتحه مرة أخرى من حينها
  
• 
  Abu Hasan محمد عبيد

  الكتاب عبارة عن ثمانية أبواب أو أبحاث، وكل باب يتكون من عدة فصول
  تناول الباب الأول داروين نفسه والحيثيات التي أحاطت بحياته وأبحاثه وأدت لظهور نظريته
  الباب الثاني تناول تطور الانسان والنظريات والأبحاث المختلفة لهذا الشأن
  الباب الثالث تناول أمثلة لنماذج أو مستحاثات شكلت تحديا لنظرية التطور ومحاولة تفسيرها بما يتلاءم مع النظرية، مثل: الأيل الإرلندي
  الباب الرابع حوى فصولا مختلفة عن الانفجار الكاميرا وما يسمى بالموت العظيم
  الباب الخامس تناول بعض النظريات العلمية الغريبة التي كانت تحاول تفسير الوجود وعمر الأرض ونظريات الخلق، وبعضها بالاعتماد على الكتاب المقدس
  الباب السادس تناول مقاربة طريقة لعلاقة الحجم بالشكل، منطلقا من طريقة تصميم الكنائس ليصل إلى دماغ الانسان وغيره من الفقاريات
  الباب السابع تناول النظريات العنصرية التي حاولت التلبس بلبوس العلم والارتكاز على نظرية التطور
  أما الباب الثامن والأخير فتناول أيضا النظريات العنصرية في تصنيف الأعراق والأجناس بالاضافة لموضوع التوريث
  
• 
  Nathan

  If there's an overarching theme in these fascinating essays it's that scientists (and science) are just as vulnerable to political and social bias as everyone else, and we should be skeptical of claims that the scientific "facts" support a given political or social view.
  
  Unfortunately, in my reading, the author seems concerned with this misuse of science only when it's in support of philosophical ideals that he does not share. While he presents his own view as enlightenedly multifarious, it comes across more as an argument for the other extreme, only from a defensive position. Here's an example:
  
  

  I do not claim that intelligence, however defined, has no genetic basis—I regard it as trivially true, uninteresting, and unimportant that it does.

  
  In a book where there is no detail too small to inspire impassioned debate, a notion suddenly becomes "trivial, uninteresting, and unimportant," the moment it doesn't directly bolster the author's egalitarian social views or may come to an uncomfortable conclusion.
  
  He goes on to claim,
  
  

  Our job is simply to provide the best environmental situation for the realization of valued potential in all individuals.

  
  Our job? As scientists? As human beings? It's unfortunate that an otherwise astute book that cautions against being too eager to derive philosophical conclusions from mere facts contains a smattering of political statements derived from nothing at all. It's as if the author seeks to bolster his well-meaning social ideals, not by finding support for them, but by arguing the fallibility of science proper.
• 
  Daniel Gonçalves

  In this collection of scientific essays, Stephen Jay Gould promises to shine a light on Darwin’s dangerous and revolutionary idea, whilst informing the reader – in a comprehensive and adequate prose – about the new advancements in the field. The writing is lucid and compelling. The subjects are varied and detailed. And while it presents the reader with data and information about the various ideas floating around in the scientific community, it never asserts anything: the reader has to make their own conclusions. After all, that might be the ultimate purpose of a good essayist.
  
  Many people acknowledge Charles Darwin as the most brilliant scientist of all time. In 1859, he proposed a theory that would soon alter the perception of life on planet Earth. Until the 19th century, nobody had a conclusive scientific answer. For all purposes, all species on Earth had been created at a single moment in time by a divine entity. And although there are some who still hold their faith in that specious premise, today it is no longer a plausible idea. In essence, the evidence for evolution is abundant.
  
  More than a hundred years later, a lot of momentous events occurred: scientist discovered genetics, and fossil evidence was unearthed from the ground. There was a lot that Darwin did not know. That did not stop him from devising the most important theory in all biology.
• 
  Clare Bell

  Stephen J. Gould was a treasure of a science writer, who left us far too early, in 2003. Ever since I stumbled across his column in Natural History Magazine, I've been an avid Gould reader. This is his first collection of the Natural History columns, and, although not as brilliant as his later works, contains the promise that emerged in The Panda's Thumb, The Flamingo's Smile, and others. Even so, by itself, it is amazing. Gould's work has definitely shaped my view of evolution and biology. Many times I thought of sending him a copy of my fiction about how a society of sapient large cats might develop, but I waited until too late. He has delighted and enlightened me over the years, and his books have a place of honor on my "keeper" shelf. I re-read them constantly.
• 
  Rana Yamout

  لم تكن كلمة تطور باعتبارها وصفاً لمفهوم داروين في "النسب مع التعديل" ، بل نقلت بالاحرى من العامية . كانت كلمة"تطور" قد اصبحت في زمن داروين كلمة انجليزية شائعة لها معنى مختلف تماماً عن المعنى المتخصص الدي الذي أراده لها "هالر" . فإن "تطور" بالعامية الانجليزية كانت مرتبطة بقوة بمفهوم التقدم وقد استخدم داروبن بالفعل كلمة " تطور" بهذا المعنى العامي . نبذ داروين التطور باعتباره وصفاً لنظريته في النسب مع التعديل لان معناها المتخصص يتناقض مع معتقده ولانه لم يكن يشعر بالارتياح لفكرة التقدم المتأصلة في المعنى العامي الذي لا مفر منه للكلمة.
  ان المسافة الوراثية الصغيرة جداً بين الانسان والشمبانزي في إجراء اكثر التجارب العلمية انصافاً بإثارة الاهتمام ألا وهي تهجين نوعينا وإن على الاقل في جانب منه شمبانزياً ، ربما يكون هذا التكاثر المختلط ممكناً فالمسافات الوراثية التي تفصل بيننا صغيرة جداً . ان النسل الهجين من المؤكد تقريباً ان يكون عقيمًا ، الاختلافات الوراثية بين الانسان والشمبانزي ثانوية ، ولكنها تشمل ما لا يقل عن عشر انعكاسات وانتقال للكروموسومات وسيكون لكل خلية هجينة مجموعة من كروموسومات القردة وعدد مماثل من الكروموسومات البشرية . ان البويضات والخلايا المنوية تنشأ بعملية تسمى الانقسام المنصف ، وفي عملية الانقسام يجب على كل كروموسوم ان يقترن بنظيره ، اي ان كل كروموسوم شمبانزي يجب ان يقترن بنظيره البشري .
  لا يمكن إنكار التأخر باعتباره حدثاً أساسيًا في تطور البشر . اولاً الرئيسيات العليا بصفة عامة متأخرة مقارنة بمعظم الثدييات الاخرى فهي تعيش حياة اطول وانض�� ببطء ويستمر هذا المنحى في جميع مراحل تطور القرود . القردة العليا عادة اكبر وتنضج ببطء اكثر وتعيش اطول من القردة والبروسيمات ، بالطبع وتيرة حياتنا قد تباطئت على نحو اكثر بكثير وفترة الحمل لدى البشر اطول قليلاً فحسب من القردة العليا ولكن اطفالنا يولدون اثقل وزناً، والنضج يتم في وقت لاحق ونعيش مدة اطول يستمر العديد من أنظمتنا في النمو فترة اطول بعد ما تكون الاجهزة المماثلة لدى الرئيسيات العليا الاخرى قد توقفت .مثلاً يكون حجم الدماغ لدى الشمبانزي عند الولادة 40.5% ، ولكن لدى البشر 23% فقط . يصل الشمبانزي والغوريلا الى 70% من حجم الدماغ النهائي في وقت مبكر من السنة الاولى ، والإنسان لا لا يصل الى هذه المسبة حتى وقت مبكر من السنة الثالثة.
  ان خنفساء ميكرومالثوس ، هذه الخنفساء تعيش في الخشب الرطب وتتعذى عليه ، عندما يجف الخشب يتطور لدى الخنفساء شكل جنسي للبحث عن موارد جديدة نشأ عنها مجموعة من التكيفات ، فهي عذرية التكاثر وتتكاثر في مرحلة مبكرة تشريحياً وينشأ الصغار ايضا داخل جسم الام ويلتهمونها في النهاية . وتنتج الامهات ايضاً ثلاث انواع من الصغار الاناث فقط عندما يكون الغذاء وفيراً وذكوراً فقط او ذكوراً وإناثًا عند تضاؤل الموارد .
  ان التكاثر الجنسي الذي يتسم بالكفاءة كان يتطلب خلية حقيقية النواة ذلت كروموسومات منفصلة وان الكائنات المعقدة لا يمكن ان تتطور من دون التنوع الوراثي الذي يوفره التكاثر الجنسي . في ان خلية حقيقية النواة نشأت بعد اكثر من ملياري سنة من نشوء أجدادها من الخلايا بدائية النواة . ان الطحالب بدائية النواة من العصر ما قبل الكامبري قد هيمنت على كل المساحة المتوفرة في ما قد يكون بيئتها .لقد ملأت مرحلة التزايد اللوجارتمي للعصر الكامبري محيطات الارض ومنذ ذلك الحين أنتج التطور تنوعاً لا نهاية له وفق مجموعة محدودة من التصاميم الاساسية . كانت الحياة البحرية غزيرة في تنوعها وبارعة في تكيفها ، لم يكن منذ العصر الكامبري سوى إعادة استخدام المنتجات الاساسية لمرحلة الانفجار الخاصة به .
  منذ حوالي مئتين وخمسة وعشرين مليون عام نفقت في نهاية العصر البرمي نصف فصائل الكائنات البحرية خلال فترة قصيرة من بضعة ملايين من السنين . وكان ضحايا هذا الانقراض الجماعي جميع ما تبقى في الحياة من الكائنات ثلاثية الفصوص ، وجميع الشعاب المرجانية القديمة وجميع الأمونايت رخويات بحرية فقاريةما عدا سلاسة واحدة ، ومعظم الحيوانات الطحلبية وزنبق البحر . يعتبر هذا الموت العظيم الاكثر تأثيراً بين الانقراضات العديدة واسعة النطاق والتي تخللت تطور الحياة خلال ٦٠٠ مليون السنة الماضية ويأتي بعد الانقراض الذي حدث في أواخر العصر الطباشيري منذ سبعين مليون سنة ، اذ دمر 25% من جميع فصائل الحيوانات وأخلى الارض من الحيوانات البرية المهيمنة فيها وهي الديناصورات وأقاربها وبذلك هيأ لهيمنة الثدييات ونشوء الانسان في نهاية المطاف .
  
  ان مسار تطورنا لا يمكن ان يتبعه الا مخلوق له حجم قريب جداً من حجمنا . ان حجمنا قد حدد أنشطتنا وصاغ شكل تطورنا الى حد كبير . ان دماغ الانسان هو الان حوالي ثلاث مرات اكبر من دماغ الاوسترالوبيثيكوس ، ان الدماغ شهد زيادة حقيقية في الحجم لا علاقة لها بمتطلبات الجسم الاكبر حجماً .
  ان للفقاريات ذوات الدم الحار أدمغة اكبر من أقاربها ذوات الدم البارد التي لها حجم الجسم نفسه .
  كان لدى كل من الحيوانات آكلة النبات وآكلة اللحوم زيادة مستمرة في حجم الدماغ اثناء تطورها ، ولكن في كل مرحلة كانت الحيوانات آكلة اللحوم متقدمة دائماً .
  ان تطورنا المبكر انطوى بالفعل على تغير في وضع القامة أسرع من التغير في حجم الدماغ والتحرر الكانل للأيدي لاستخدام ادوات سبق معظم الزيادة التطورية لحجم الدماغ .
  على مدى نصف قرن جمع المؤيدون لنظرية التلخيص أدلة عنصريك كانت جميعها تقول بأن البالغين من الاعراق الادنى كانوا
  بمستوى ذكاء الاطفال البيض .
  
• 
  Anima

  I very much enjoyed reading this collection of unique essays which explores, from a geologists’ point of view, few scientific theories that were popular about 40 years ago. All 33 essays are awesome. Essays number 6 (about 'ladder' vs 'bushes' ) and 9 (about Irish Elk) caught my attention with few things that I've never heard about.
  
  In essay number 6, ‘ Bushes and Ladders in Human Evolution’, Gould rejects the “ladder” representation of the human evolution from 'Australopithecus africanus' to 'Homo sapiens' introducing the “bush metaphor” saying that species did not “morphed” into the next one but rather “overlapped in time”-“In this paradigm, speciation – the formation of new species – occurs by branching off from the ancestral stock, while the ancestors continue on. The details of the process are fuzzy, but proponents argue that it almost always occurs in small, isolated populations … in marginal environments …”
  
  Essay number 9,’ The Misnamed, Mistreated, and Misunderstood Irish Elk’ evolves around the extinct Irish Elk known for its super-sized antlers –about 12 feet across a pair. Some scientists were supporting the idea that the antlers were increasing in size ‘ generation after generation’ and because very big antlers would have impeded eventually the Elk's overall function, the species disappeared. Trying to find out if it there is evidence for the ‘allometric’ correlation, Gould gathered specimens, did the measurements , and discovered that antlers were increasing “about two and a half times faster than the rest of the deer.”
  
  “ In spite of this apparent success, Gould remained dissatisfied. Can we really know that
  the giant antlers offer no selective advantage?, he asks rhetorically. Darwin …speculated that larger antlers might serve a role in sexual selection (“selected” as attractive by the female), rather than as better armament against predators or rivals. Another possibility, Gould suggests, is that they were used against rivals in “ritual combat” rather than literal combat; … In either case, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the antlers drove the size of the deer, rather than vice versa”
  
• 
  James F

  This was the first collection of Gould's articles from Natural History magazine. All the essays have some connection with the theory of evolution, either historically or as exemplifications. I read the book for the first time when it was relatively recent; today, of course, after thirty-five years, the science is somewhat dated, particularly with regard to human evolution. The essays are still fun to read, though, and many of his points are still quite relevant, especially about the misuse of science for political purposes-- it didn't begin with the Bush administration, the Reagan administration, or even the Third Reich.
• 
  Sherif Arafa

  قرأت الطبعة العربية للكتاب من إصدار مشروع كلمة.
  الكتاب يجمع مقالات متفرقة عن التطور.. الجميل فيه أنه يضيف معلومات تضفي تساؤلات جديدة حول آلية التطور.. فهناك مثلا حفريات لأنواع تظهر دون ترتيب تطوري منطقي و ظواهر بيولوجية لا تتبع النسق التطوري يحاول المؤلف تفسيرها.. المشكلة الوحيدة في الكتاب هي أنه كتب في السبعينات, مما يعني ان بعض تساؤلاته ربما أجيب عنها لاحقا في ظل التسارع الرهيب لعجلة البحث العلمي.
  
  لا تقرأ الكتاب باعتباره كتابا عن التطور, بل باعتباره كتابا يقدم لك ثقافة علمية بيولوجية بطريقة شيقة تدعو للتفكير
• 
  Öykü

  Muhteşemdi. Jay Gould'un bilimsel süreçlerin ilerleyişinde şüpheci kalınması gerektiğine dair görüşü çok hoşuma gitti. Bilimin her zaman yeni olguların ortaya çıkışıyla aşamalı olarak ilerlemediğini, bu olguların eskiden bildiğimiz kuramlara uydurulabileceğini, bilimi üreten insanlar olarak hata yapabileceğimizi, önyargılı olabileceğimizi vurgularken aynı zamanda incelikle bunun "tarihin çöplüğüne karışmış" iddiaların yeniden ortaya atılması ile karıştırılmaması gerektiğini vurguluyor. Bunu yaparken sosyal bilimleri yabana atmamasını, aynı zamanda da "doğal" olanın önemli ve sinsi bir politik araç olarak kullanıldığını vurgulaması da ayrıca ufuk açıcıydı. Doğal olanın doğru olan veya amaç güdülen bir şey olmadığını söylemeye çalışmasının da ayrıca Darwin'in daha iyi okunması anlamına geldiğini düşünüyorum, organizmalar bir amaç doğrultusunda ilerlemezler. Geçen yıllarda biri bana "Dawkinsci mi Jay Gouldcu mu" diye sormuştu, o zaman bu konuda pek bir şey bilmiyordum, genin davranışlar üzerindeki "bencil" yönlendirmesinden tamamen farklı bir açıdan yaklaştığı anlaşılıyor, özellikle de kanıtların eksik olduğunu öne sürüyor. Bu tip genellemelerin kaderci olduğunu bile söyleyebiliriz belki de, üstelik engin çeşitlilikle de çelişiyor. Belki de bu iddiaları öğrenegeldiğimiz kültürel kodlarla birleştirerek indirgemeci bir kavrayış geliştiriyoruz. Yine de kültürü evrimsel biyolojiden tamamen bağımsız bir etken olarak değerlendirmek mantıklı mıdır bilemiyorum, öyleyse kültürün nasıl oluştuğu sorusu da ortaya çıkıyor. Yine de hızlı cevaplardan ve ezbere formüllerden kaçınmak gerektiğini düşünüyorum.
  Ağırlık bu tartışmada olsa da bir paleontolog olduğu halde Jay Gould çok enteresan ekolojik olayları ele almış, bir kısmını bilmiyordum bile. Gerçekten çok zevkliydi.
  Zannediyorum moleküler evrim kuramındansa "sıçramalı" bir evrim düşüncesine daha yakın Jay Gould. Ancak proteinler üzerinde "saat gibi işleyen" bir evrim sürecine dair bulgular olduğuna işaret etmiş. Dawkins'in "Kör Saatçi"de bahsettiği bu moleküler saat mi acaba diye düşünüyorum. Bu konuda pek bilgim olmadığı için yalnızca bende merak uyandırdığını söyleyip burada bırakayım.
  Çeviriye gelince, daha iyi olabilirdi. Say yayınevini genellikle beğenirim ama biyoloji yayınlarında (bu kitap özelinde konuşuyorum) Metis'in çevirilerini tercih ederim. Bazı kavramların bu şekilde çevrildiğinden emin değilim. Bunun haricinde "uygarlık" sözcüğünün daha iyi karşıladığını düşündüğüm Almanca "kultur" burada kültür olarak geçiyor mesela. Ya da "bilim adamı" inatla "bilim insanı" yerine kullanılmış. Serinin devamı olan "Pandanın Başparmağı"nı Versus'tan okuyacağım o yüzden çevirmen ya da yayıneviyle ilgili çok kesin bir yargıda bulunmak istemem.
  Biyoloji ile "yakından" ilgilenmeyen herkesin de okuması gereken, keyif alacağı, ufuk açıcı bir kitap olduğunu söyleyebilirim. Birkaç yerde bu kitabının nispeten ön bilgi gerektirdiğine dair yorumlar okudum. Ben son dönemlerde bunu pek ayırt edemiyorum ama muhtemelen üniversiteye başlamadan önce okusaydım bahsi geçen bazı biyolojik olguları şimdiki kadar iyi anlamayabilirdim. O yüzden uyarmakta fayda olabilir. Yine de özellikle sosyal bilimciler için çok keyifli bir okuma olur bence.
• 
  Pam Baddeley

  The first collection of Gould's essays, reprinted from a magazine, and dating back to the 1970s. Although they require careful reading, they are not written in a obtuse or highbrow way but for the general reader with some science knowledge. There are interesting and thought provoking articles ranging from subjects such as Darwin's ordeal aboard The Beagle with a captain who detested him, to racism in science, and the general tendency of science to move by jolts as a new theory is accepted (and old evidence is then perceived to support it) rather than the stately progress of accruing facts that gradually bring about acceptance of a theory. The major example given is that of continental drift, which was proposed decades before it was finally accepted - the stumbling block to its acceptance being the lack of a mechanism which would convince most scientists who dismissed fossil evidence that supported it. The discovery of the ocean trenches where material is drawn down into the earth's interior, plus the fault lines where new material is produced from within, finally led to the idea of continental drift becoming an accepted fact.
  
  Some of the essays deal with controversies of the time and 'new' discoveries in the 1960s/early 1970s. As these may have been overtaken by events and the huge expansion of knowledge around DNA, still in its infancy at the time of writing, and I don't know in detail what might be out of date, I have to rate this at 3 stars only, although it was an entertaining read.
  
  
• 
  عمر الحمادي

  يرىالمؤلف أن التطور يحدث على دفعات تفصل بينهم فترات من الركود، وهو بذلك يختلف مع كثير من علماء التطور مثل "ريتشارد داوكينز" الذين رأوا في التطور عملية مستمرة.
  
  يستحق القراءة
• 
  Jake

  Solid introduction to Gould's perspective on evolution and other issues in modern science. The essays were written in the late 1970s, but they still feel current-- I especially enjoyed his meditations on the Irish Elk, the role of size in evolutionary development, and the shakeup caused by the discovery of plate tectonics in the late 1960s. Towards the end of the book he gets a little hung up on his politics-- as an enlightened highly liberal humanist, he has little time or sympathy for scientists who distort the facts to match their conservative/racist/classist/sexist ideologies. That whole series of essays is praiseworthy and impossible to disagree with, but in the age of Obama, it feels a little bit dated and strident. And after reading ten essays where Gould assails the impact of conservative politics on science, even the most liberal reader has got to wonder: in what ways did Gould's own liberal bent bias his results?
• 
  Fathy Sroor

  من جملة ما قرأت عن التطور:أضع هذا الكتاب في أعلى الكومة،أسلوب سلس و سهل،تدعمه موسوعية جولد التي طالت التاريخ و الهندسة و اللاهوت و السينما و الشعر،مع محتوى علمي دسم في قالب مسلي و ممتع،أعتقد أني سأبحث عن كتاب لجولد يشرح فيه مبادئ التطور لأوصي به كل راغب في التعرف على النظرية للمرة الأولى،أسجل أن أعجابي الأشد تركز على الفصول الأخيرة من الكتاب حيث الحديث عن دور الحجم في تطور الأنسان و كذلك قضايا الحتمية الوراثية.
• 
  Nora Heaphy

  SJG is consistently even smarter, funnier, and more worthy of admiration than I remember. highlights include a brilliant takedown of biological determinism, a case against the necessity of an adaptive/genetic basis for homosexuality in order to support gay rights, and answers to some questions that have really plagued me, such as why do some insect larvae eat their mothers from the inside out? why do cicadas only come out every 17 years? and how does a complex phenotype like mimicry or the vertebrate eye arise if only looking 5% like a poisonous butterfly doesn’t seem adaptive?
• 
  Clara

  Gould es una de esas personas que no debería haber muerto nunca. Por desgracia, se fue pronto, pero nos dejó la mejor divulgación posible, escrita con la calidad y la distinción que solo unos pocos pueden alcanzar. Siempre es un placer volver a él.
• 
  Dany

  "In the conventional model of scientific "progress," we begin in superstitious ignorance and move toward final truth by the successive accumulation of facts. In this smug perspective, the history of science contains little more than anecdotal interest–for it can only chronical past errors and credit the bricklayer for discerning glimpses of final truth. It is as transparent as an old-fashioned melodrama: truth (as we perceive it today) is the only arbiter and the world of past scientists is divided into good guys who were right and bad guys who were wrong."
• 
  Jonathan Hutchings

  We've come a long way from being a sea of algae.
• 
  Erica

  What I love: science and analysis. What I don’t love: cramming a book into 24 hours so that I can finish an essay due the next day that I forgot about (totally my fault). Definitely would’ve enjoyed it more if I actually took the time to digest everything, unfortunately I didn’t have that time and that kind of ruined the experience.
• 
  Reid

  What can I say? Pretty fascinating in parts, it seems dated and alive at the same time. I'm familiar with some of the basics, which probably prevented me from being enthralled, but he is definitely a very good essayist with a broad liberal viewpoint, which I appreciated. I definitely want to read more of his books, I should have read them long ago.
  
  Some personal highlights:
  
  Was strange when he mentioned that plate tectonics was a fairly new theory, within the last 10 years of his writing, in '75 and '76, because although I learned about continental drift, it seemed like no time had passed when I learned of tectonics in school as well. At the time I had no idea it was a new theory.
  
  I knew Darwin was not nearly the first to theorize about evolution, but he was about the only one that didn't rely on an ultimate supernatural force for the mechanism - more than half of the reason he was revolutionary was because of his "uncompromising philosophical materialism." I guess I take that for granted. Which is why I also got a big laugh out of Gould's opening sentence of Chapter 10: "Since man created God in his own image..." I said the same thing in my freshman college class of the politics of underdevelopment. For some reason God came up and I offered an opposing view, saying the very same thing as Gould. It was a conversation stopper.
  
  Most fascinating in a sci fi way was his chapter on size, growth, and the increasing ratio of volume to surface size, and then takes you through the absurdities of some sci fi movies, like the giant ant movie Them and the tiny human movie, what, The Incredible Shrinking Man, and how many of the actions would be impossible. For example, with a human the size of an ant, s/he could not overcome surface adhesion forces, so could never remove an article of clothing; or how the smallest drop of water from a "shower" would likely kill you. Related to evolution, he mentions that a human half our size couldn't wield a weapon with enough force to take down a large animal, since kinetic forces shrink with size as well. His main point being that size is a major aspect of evolution, and there are limitations and advantages with most developments of size, one way or the other. Another example is how insects with exoskeletons (and lobsters and crabs) can afford to molt because the surface adhesion forces are greater than gravity's force on them, keeping the creatures in their shape, whereas if we were to molt, gravity would turn us into puddles of goo.
  
  Something, by name, I hadn't known - the concept of neoteny ("holding youth") - how human evolution has included the retardation or slowing down of "maturation" in the womb, as compared to other primates. Our brain may grow larger due to retaining rapid fetal growth rates, whereas those rates decrease sooner for other primates. Of course, our "soft spot" doesn't fuse until well after birth, and the ends of our digits and long bones are still cartilaginous at birth - that's why baby fingers are so rubbery. One other difference is that other primates "begin" with 5 aligned toes, but later the great toes rotate outward to oppose the other toes - luckily that doesn't happen with us, otherwise we'd be walking like orangutans. Perhaps some of the list he includes isn't neoteny, but just basic different evolution? I don't know. Apparently there have been some professional disagreements with some other parts of this book, but nothing earth shattering for most readers. Some of them are mentioned on his Wiki article.
  
  Another pretty fascinating chapter is on "life history strategies" - how some species, like some cicadas and bamboo have evolved to survive their predators by only reproducing in huge numbers in long primary-numbered years, such as 17 years for some cicadas, and 120 years (!)(ok, doesn't need to be primary) for a certain bamboo! The survival advantage being that no predator or their offspring could possibly align their production numbers to gorge on and wipeout that many offspring at such an "unpredictable" timeframe. (Bamboo and cicadas are apparently very very tasty to a lot of animals!)
  
  This is probably his most basic and "beginner" book, and as such, it's a pretty good intro to one of the best popular science writers to walk the earth. I should mention, too, he's known for criticizing bad science and biased thinking, and he'll often point out our arrogance, folly, and racism, and how even in science the privileged often defend the existing social arrangements. The essays in this book are wide ranging - you're bound to appreciate many of them.
  
  
• 
  Lucas

  Gould is pithy. His understanding is deep enough that he can actually describe evolution to the reader. Not every scientist can move beyond teaching and the constraints of the university. Gould always seemed unbound. He is more similar to Darwin and his coworkers than most students have a right to expect. Reveling in blessed work is enjoyable.
• 
  Leslie Ann

  As a trained biologist, I should be ashamed of waiting this long to read Gould's essays, but better late than never. I appreciated Gould's interpretation of Darwin, his stress on considering the influence of societal and political prejudices on science, and his use of literary and sports metaphors in his prose.
  
  Some memorable quotes:
  

  I am a strong advocate of the general argument that "truth" as preached by scientists often turns out to be no more than prejudice inspired by prevailing social and political beliefs.
  
  [A]t its most exciting, [science] reformulates our view of the world by imposing powerful theories against the ancient, anthropomorphic prejudices that we call intuition.
  
  Why do we wish to fob off responsibility for our violence and sexism upon our genes? The hallmark of humanity is not only our mental capacity but also our mental flexibility. We have made our world and we can change it.
  
  The expression of any trait represents a complex interaction of heredity and environment. Our job is simply to provide the best environmental situation for the realization of valued potential in all individuals.
  
  We live with several unpleasant biological truths, death being the most undeniable and ineluctable. If genetic determinism is true, we will learn to live with it as well. But I reiterate my statement that no evidence exists to support it, that the crude versions of past centuries have been conclusively disproved, and that its continued popularity is a function of social prejudice among those who benefit most from the status quo.
• 
  Victoria

  "But a man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right." Gould's excellent prose and combined essays warn of hubris. Research and conclusions can be tainted by ideology. He reminds us to be aware of our biases and assumptions when crafting studies and interpreting data. Also, a reminder that we are part of the animal kingdom. This collection of essays is well worth your time.
  
  "The hallmark of humanity is not only our mental capacity but also our mental flexibility. We have made our world and we can change it."
• 
  Ken Bishop

  Stephen Jay Gould is my favorite writer in any branch of science. He writes beautifully (loves words) and can explain anthropology to the layperson. Gould is one of the best people to correctly explain Darwin. The majority of writers who try to explain evolution, don't have a clue what they are talking about. If you are interested in this topic read all of his books. Sadly he is no longer with us, but his books live on.
• 
  Aurélien Thomas

  Simply divided, this book makes out of a broad and complex topic (evolutionary science) an entertaining and accessible subject.
  
  Some articles are more interesting than others, an unavoidable imbalance for such a collection but, all in all it's clever, very well written, witty at times and, always relevant.
  
  As this was my first Stephen Jay Gould, I would particularly recommend it to whose not knowing where to start with such a prolific writer.