<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Darwin credo reaffirmed
Review:
Mayr belongs to the select company who devised, in the Forties, the reconciliation of Darwinism to Mendelian genetics called Neo-Darwinism. One monument to this synthesis is the University of Chicago Centenary volumes published in 1959, where leading lights exalted the vindication of Darwin's theory. In the intervening decades enormous advances in all the sciences bearing on evolution have been made. Does Neo-Darwinism survive? Mayr believes that it does. To establish this improbable case, he begins his effort with a characterization of Darwin's achievement in terms compatible with what he takes to be the current state of evolutionary theory.
A fundamental historical component of the Darwinist credo is that the publication of the Origin marks an abrupt break, styled the Darwinian Revolution, in European thought, not merely in science but across the board, starting with religion and theology. Mayr's proposed characterization of this transformation is specified by four claims.
Claim 1. Darwin >refuted the belief in the individual creation of each species, establishing in its place the concept that all of life descended from a common ancestor<. The wording mirrors Darwin's claim that at the time he published Origin, he knew of no naturalist who disbelieved in special creation. There was an outcry against this historical perversity, including objections from the true originator of natural selection theory (Patrick Matthew, in 1832), and the Oxford mathematics professor (Baden Powell) who from 1835 published philosophical essays defending naturalistic evolution against special creation. By 1850 the concept of naturalistic evolution including the origin of the human species had thoroughly penetrated theology, literature, polite conversation, and even the working class. Darwin was the late-comer whose disciples stole the credit on his behalf.
Claim 2. Mayr states that >Victorian notions of progress and perfectability were seriously undermined by Darwin's demonstration that evolution ...does not necessarily lead to progress...< He produces not a single contemporary witness to this sense of Darwin's meaning. The facts are that the Origin equated adaptation with >improvement< (non-improvers are displaced). The book owed its celebrity in large measure to its scientific >proof< of the nearly universal belief in progress. Indeed the French translation of the Origin bore the title, De l'Origine des especes, ou Des Lois du progress chez les etres organizes. In her Introduction, translator Clemence-August Royer stated that >the doctrine of Darwin is the rational revelation of progress, pitting itself in its logical antagonism with the irrational revelation of the fall<. She related the survival of the fittest theory of organic change to the theory of change developed by free market economics. The same notion was promoted in England by Herbert Spencer. Darwin never repudiated these, for Mayr, gross misunderstandings. Why not? Perhaps because these views were his own.
Claim 3. Darwin pioneered a new concept of science based on >concepts of probability, change, and uniqueness< as against the then dominant methodology based on physical laws and determinism. Oh dear! Darwin's comments on high level methodological issues are sparse. They are also conventional. Far from challenging the Newtonian model, he was anxious to bathe his theory in its prestige, especially after he was directly challenged (and thoroughly intimidated) by Briton's leading physicist, Lord Kelvin. Darwin didn't quantify because he had no head for maths. His one attempt, intended to relate species diversification to geographic distribution, was a flop, from which he was rescued by his friend John Lubbock. He was oblivious to advances in statistical demography, despite their direct relevance to his theory. The quantification of inheritance data was carried out by Mendel in his experimental work on peas and by Francis Galton in his writings on inheritance, whose sophisticated mathematical analysis Darwin admitted he could not follow. The struggle for existence did not figure in Mendel's theory, which was the first statement of the laws of evolutionary stasis. The development of electromagnetism and statistical mechanics owed nothing to the Great Mind.
Claim 4. Darwin was >the first person to work out a sound theory of classification, one which is still adopted by the majority of taxonomists<. Crikey! Darwin's theory of classification amounts to little more than the proposal that it be based on evolutionary descent. The proposal was made by pre-Origin evolutionists and sketches of plausible lines of descent, including the pithacoid origin of our species, were readily available. The first edition of the Origin presented but one descent scenario-of whales from bears-but it attracted such ridicule that Darwin withdrew it in the second printing. His few subsequent proposals of descent, eg, the origin of mammals and of the human species, reiterated proposals made by others. The first attempt at an evolutionary phylogeny stems from Darwin's ardent discipline, Ernst Haeckel, which he based on the >biogenic law< (long since abandoned). Systematics has undergone profound change since 1959, first through Willi Hennig's reconceptualization of classification as cladistics, and then the elaboration of cladism by molecular analysis. (When Mayr wrote this book, his own earlier contributions to systematics had been superseded). To suggest a connection of this development with Darwin's modest contribution is to genuflect before the Holy Father.
These criticisms address statements made in but two pages of the text. The remainder of the book is of like character: Mayr pays no mind to the recent outpouring of history/philosophy of science literature that has placed Darwin in context. Thanks to these advances in historical knowledge, we now know that his original contributions were few, that his errors and oversights were many, and that he and his True Believer disciples relentlessly campaigned to promote the Cult of Evolution, whose dogmatism sometimes retarded or distorted the growth of evolutionary science. This book is a living fossil.
Rating: 
Summary: A great history, not an argument
Review: As an introductory work in the history of science, this book offers an excellent overview. Mayr was a pre-eminent evolutionary biologist and one of the authors of the "evolutionary synthesis" of the 1940's. This book is an excellent and succinct history of the development of the theories of common descent and natural selection among the biological community from the early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century.I recommend it for the novice, however. For those interested in a more thorough examination of the sociological, and not just biological, history of Darwinian theory, I would suggest Bowler's "Evolution", which is commonly assigned in post-Newton history of science survey classes. As a biologist, Mayr tends to view the history of evolutionary thought, to which he contributed so much, in a triumphantilist manner, which is out of step with most scholarly historiography on the subject. As a biologist, one can hardly blame him. As a historian, he should know better. I would also note that he gives short shrift at the end of the book to all the recent developments in evolutionary research. For instance, he barely mentions the "rediscovery" of the power of sexual selection in the 1970's and 1980's, an idea originally proposed by Darwin himself, and which dominates so much contemporary research. That brings me to my second point. While an excellent brief history, this book is not a detailed argument describing all the current evidence and thoughts on natural selection, as the title somewhat implies. For that, one should turn to any of Mayr's several other works.
Rating: 
Summary: Darwin & The Old Earth Creationists
Review: Creationists have claimed that geology has conspired to support evolution. This book just shows how ridiculous that claim really is. Geologists tossed out the idea of "Flood Geology" long before Darwin arrived on the scene. The idea of an old Earth was developed independently of Darwin. Also interesting is that Darwin was well respected among his fellow scientists, even though they did not initially accept his idea of evolution. His work on the Beagle was considered important, and it alone was sufficent to establish Darwin's scientific reputation. He was already famous (in his day) before his landmark work. Many scientists in Darwin's time were old earth creationists. In time, many of them were persuaded by the mass of evidence that Darwin had collected, although it would be a long time before natural selection was accepted as the mechanism. So, it is possible to not accept natural evolution and still accept the idea of common descent. Creationists try to argue that evolution is a package deal, that if one idea is out of place or not quite right, then the whole thing should be tossed out. This notion is just wrong, and reading this book will help the reader understand why. In general, creationists exploit the public's poor understanding of the scientific method. While one fact can be enough to completely toss out a theory, what often happens is that old theories get revised to accomdate the new facts. Successful, powerful theories (like Darwins) tend to evolve.
Rating:
Summary: Darwin & The Old Earth Creationists
Review: Creationists have claimed that geology has conspired to support evolution. This book just shows how ridiculous that claim really is. Geologists tossed out the idea of "Flood Geology" long before Darwin arrived on the scene. The idea of an old Earth was developed independently of Darwin. Also interesting is that Darwin was well respected among his fellow scientists, even though they did not initially accept his idea of evolution. His work on the Beagle was considered important, and it alone was sufficent to establish Darwin's scientific reputation. He was already famous (in his day) before his landmark work. Many scientists in Darwin's time were old earth creationists. In time, many of them were persuaded by the mass of evidence that Darwin had collected, although it would be a long time before natural selection was accepted as the mechanism. So, it is possible to not accept natural evolution and still accept the idea of common descent. Creationists try to argue that evolution is a package deal, that if one idea is out of place or not quite right, then the whole thing should be tossed out. This notion is just wrong, and reading this book will help the reader understand why. In general, creationists exploit the public's poor understanding of the scientific method. While one fact can be enough to completely toss out a theory, what often happens is that old theories get revised to accomdate the new facts. Successful, powerful theories (like Darwins) tend to evolve.
Rating:
Summary: NOT REALLY AN ARGUMENT
Review: I bought this book as a brief introduction to SJ Gould's opus "A History of Evolutionary Theory." I have no idea how well it will prepare me because I have not yet tackled that tome. Let me say a few things what this book is not about: 1) It is not an argument in any real sense of the term, at least the book does not give us a glimpse of the passions in the scientific community in the mid-19th Cen. Mayr's style is more descriptive. He describes the current thinking in Darwin's time and the, mostly philosophical, rational debates that Darwin's ideas were immersed. 2) There is no real background of description of the people around Darwin except to enumerate their thoughts in contrast or in support to him. We get some good background of Darwin's personal life when it is relevant to an idea, but this slender volume is about the battle of ideas, but at least in Mayr's work, the passion largely omited. 3) The work deals with Evolution and how Darwin and others around him reached rational scientific conclusions on certain ideas. It is testament to the intrinsic simplicity of the idea (its relative ease to being proved wrong -- yet was not) that motivated the personalities around him Darwin until Evolution became the firmanent for the scientific understanding of the origin of species and the rise of genetic theory. 4) The books lacks most of the later day varients of Darwinism, there is little about Gould's punctuated equilibrium or Dawkins' selfish genes. The reason is that these ideas compliment the theory and do not challenge any major central idea of the descent of man or the evolution of species --- all understood and accepted by the scientific community by about 1900. 5) This not a book about the "debate" between creationism and science. This is a serious scientific, philosphic study and those topics such as teleos and the saltation (spontaneous creation) theory of the origin of species are only discussed in relationship they had on the scientific mind of the 19th Century. By the 20th Cen. such ideas had been relegated to the fringe and off the scientific plate of ideas. A true testament to the brilliance of Darwin. The reading style, while not like Gould or Matt Ridley, is pleasant but the emphasis on the philosophic underpinnings of Darwin means that the debate does not deal with any empirical issues. He is intersted in Argument and the history of the Scientifc Argument. I gave the book an overall 3 because although I realise that Mayr is one of the best minds in the area of the history of evolution theory I found the book losing my interest at points. How it prepares me for Gould's Opus Major I will only know when I have the guts to tackle the whole 1800 pages of it.....
Rating:
Summary: You must understand the title to not be disappointed
Review: The title "One Long Arguement", it is a reference to part of Darwin's introductory description to The Origin of Species (appearing within Origin itself). This book is not about arguing with Creationists (Thank God ;). I suspect the above reviewers were misled to the point that they felt rating stars must be subtracted. Don't be fooled by title bashers. This is an excellent history and theory primer for the novice and a nice knowledge gap filler for those well-read in the science of evolution and biology.
Rating:
Summary: You must understand the title to not be disappointed
Review: The title "One Long Arguement", it is a reference to part of Darwin's introductory description to The Origin of Species (appearing within Origin itself). This book is not about arguing with Creationists (Thank God ;). I suspect the above reviewers were misled to the point that they felt rating stars must be subtracted. Don't be fooled by title bashers. This is an excellent history and theory primer for the novice and a nice knowledge gap filler for those well-read in the science of evolution and biology.
Rating: 
Summary: Darwin is still being interpreted - in spite of the title
Review: The title of One Long Argument can be a bit misleading, as an earlier reviewer mentioned - it is in reference to Darwin's Origin of Species, and Mayr really does not make an argument himself; the book, nonetheless is interesting, if a bit dry. Mayr begins by picking apart Darwin's evolutionary theories (its not one single theory, but actually 5 inter-dependent theories that relate to evolution as a system), before addressing its impact on the scientific community up until the mid - 1970's. Yes, Darwin is still being scrutinized, and not just by the religious set. I found the book a bit dry and difficult to keep my attention. Far too little is discussed about the thinkers before Darwin, and too much is spent on the scientific debate the 50 years after Origins was published. I would have preferred Mayr exploring the implications and impact of the discovery of DNA and microbiology on modifications of natural selection, specicies variation and adaptation instead. Therefore I can only give it 4 stars. In my opinion, a far better book on a related subject is Loren Eisley's Darwin's Century.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps the best discussion of Darwinism yet
Review: This is definitely THE book to give friends, students and even enemies who are interested in the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost architects of our understanding of the ecological nature of evolution draws on his immense scholarship to bring us a highly readable text on the many facets of Darwinism. I have given this book to graduate and undergraduate students, we have fought over it in seminars, and in general it holds a premier place in the library pf anyone with a genuine interest in understanding one of the key elements of modern biology.
<< 1 >>
|
