What do you think?
Rate this book
Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory by Niles Eldredge
An insider's provocative account of one of the most contentious debates in science today When Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, two of the world's leading evolutionary theorists, proposed a bold new theory of evolution--the theory of "punctuated equilibria"--they stood the standard interpretation of Darwin on its head. They also ignited a furious debate about the true nature of evolution. On the one side are the geneticists. They contend that evolution proceeds slowly but surely, driven by competition among organisms to transmit their genes from generation to generation. On the other are the paleontologists, like Eldredge and Gould, who show in the fossil record that in fact evolution proceeds only sporadically. Long periods of no change--equilibria--are "punctuated" by episodes of rapid evolutionary activity. According to the paleontologists, this pattern shows that evolution is driven far more by environmental forces than by genetic competition. How can the prevailing views on evolution be so different? In Reinventing Darwin, Niles Eldredge offers a spirited account of the dispute and an impressive case for the paleontologists' side of the story. With the mastery that only a leading contributor to the debate can provide, he charts the course of theory from Darwin's day to the present and explores the fundamental mysteries and crucial questions that underlie the current quarrels. Is evolution fired by a gentle and persistent motor and fueled by the survival instincts of "selfish genes"? Or does it proceed in fits and starts, as the fossil record seems to show? What is the role of environmental changes such as habitat destruction and of cataclysmic events like meteor impacts? Are most species inherently stable, changing only very little until they succumb to extinction? Or are species highly adaptable, changing all the time? Eldredge sorts through the major findings and interpretations and presents a lively introduction to the leading edge of evolutionary theory today. Reinventing Darwin offers a rare insider's view of the sometimes contentious, but always stimulating work of scientific inquiry. PRAISE FOR NILES ELDREDGE'S PREVIOUS BOOKS The Miner's Unraveling the Mysteries of Extinction "The Miner's Canary rings with integrity. The author takes care to present opposing views. Some readers, indeed, might view Mr. Eldredge as a little too self-effacing; he is, after all, one of the world's leading experts in his field."--The New York Times Book Review The Evolution and Extinction of Species ." . . an important and informative book. It is also delightfully idiosyncratic. This is no scholarly treatise defending academic argument. It is an essay for everyone interested in the story of earthly life."--The Christian Science Monitor Life Episodes from the Story of the Fossil Record "This is Earth history on a grand scale; those who enjoy the works of Stephen Jay Gould will appreciate Life Pulse."--Publishers Weekly
- GenresScienceBiologyNonfiction
Hardcover
First published April 17, 1995
2 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
About the author
Niles Eldredge
50 books26 followersNiles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972.
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of anthropology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology, a position from which he recently retired. He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites: a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species.
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Eldredge enjoys playing jazz trumpet and is an avid collector of 19th century cornets. He shares his home in Ridgewood, New Jersey with his wife and more than 500 cornets. He also has two sons, two daughters-in-law, and five grandchildren.
Eldredge possesses a chart of the historical development of cornets (the musical instruments), which he uses as a comparison with that of the development of trilobites. The differences between them are meant to highlight the failures of intelligent design by comparing a system that is definitely designed, with a system that is not designed.
Eldredge began his undergraduate studies in Latin at Columbia University. Before completing his degree he switched to the study of anthropology under Norman D. Newell. It was at this time that his work at the American Museum of Natural History began, under the combined Columbia University-American Museum graduate studies program.
Eldredge graduated summa cum laude from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1965, and enrolled in the university's doctoral program while continuing his research at the museum. He completed his PhD in 1969.
In 1969, Eldredge became a curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, and subsequently a curator in the Invertebrate Paleontology section of Paleontology, a position from which he recently retired. He was also an Adjunct Professor at the City University of New York. His specialty was the evolution of mid-Paleozoic Phacopida trilobites: a group of extinct arthropods that lived between 543 and 245 million years ago.
Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibria in 1972. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement to evolutionary theory. It describes patterns of descent taking place in "fits and starts" separated by long periods of stability.
Eldredge went on to develop a hierarchical vision of evolutionary and ecological systems. Around this time, he became focused on the rapid destruction of many of the world's habitats and species.
Throughout his career, he has used repeated patterns in the history of life to refine ideas on how the evolutionary process actually works. Eldredge is proponent of the importance of environment in explaining the patterns in evolution.
Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior.
He has published more than 160 scientific articles, books, and reviews, including Reinventing Darwin, an examination of current controversies in evolutionary biology, and Dominion, a consideration of the ecological and evolutionary past, present, and future of Homo sapiens.
Eldredge enjoys playing jazz trumpet and is an avid collector of 19th century cornets. He shares his home in Ridgewood, New Jersey with his wife and more than 500 cornets. He also has two sons, two daughters-in-law, and five grandchildren.
Eldredge possesses a chart of the historical development of cornets (the musical instruments), which he uses as a comparison with that of the development of trilobites. The differences between them are meant to highlight the failures of intelligent design by comparing a system that is definitely designed, with a system that is not designed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 18, 2017
The most prominent phrase in this book by far is “we naturalists”, which I think demonstrates pretty well the ideological stance of the author. Niles Eldredge begins by setting the scene: the “naturalists”, people like himself and Stephen Jay Gould, vs the “ultra-Darwinists”, like Dawkins. The naturalists have a more nuanced view of natural selection, while the ultra-Darwinists think selection occurs on genes and genes alone (according to Eldredge). This book is a debate about the fine details of natural selection, not about whether it happens: “Darwin demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that natural selection is an ineluctable law of nature” (p.12), “No one doubts that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is correct” (back cover) — so if you’re in any doubt about evolution itself, this won’t convince you.
I don’t know whether science has sorted out a lot of this dichotomy yet, or whether you don’t see it at BSc level, or if the structure of the Open University is such that you happen to get exposed to both views, but I didn’t think of the debate in these starkly delineated terms at all. I’ve been taught principles espoused by both sides, in a kind of synthesis. Of course, it probably also helps that I’m coming in from outside, but either way, I see value in both sides of the debate.
Eldredge manages to be reasonably even-handed, despite the “we naturalists” refrain, and sets forward a good case for species sorting, punctuated equilibria, stasis, etc. Even though my training leans toward the genetics end of things, because I find the biochemistry fascinating and ecosystems less so, I can’t think of anything I vehemently disagreed with, except that refrain of “we naturalists” — which started to come across as needlessly divisive, given that plenty of people sit somewhere in between.
Of course, this is from 1995, so it’s not the most up-to-date text; to me, it was kind of interesting because it fossilised attitudes at the point Eldredge was writing. I don’t think anything in it was new, surprising or controversial to me. The style was rather dry and repetitive (we get it, we get it, “you naturalists” are not denying natural selection); I’m told Gould was a better prose stylist, so that’s probably where I’ll turn next.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
I don’t know whether science has sorted out a lot of this dichotomy yet, or whether you don’t see it at BSc level, or if the structure of the Open University is such that you happen to get exposed to both views, but I didn’t think of the debate in these starkly delineated terms at all. I’ve been taught principles espoused by both sides, in a kind of synthesis. Of course, it probably also helps that I’m coming in from outside, but either way, I see value in both sides of the debate.
Eldredge manages to be reasonably even-handed, despite the “we naturalists” refrain, and sets forward a good case for species sorting, punctuated equilibria, stasis, etc. Even though my training leans toward the genetics end of things, because I find the biochemistry fascinating and ecosystems less so, I can’t think of anything I vehemently disagreed with, except that refrain of “we naturalists” — which started to come across as needlessly divisive, given that plenty of people sit somewhere in between.
Of course, this is from 1995, so it’s not the most up-to-date text; to me, it was kind of interesting because it fossilised attitudes at the point Eldredge was writing. I don’t think anything in it was new, surprising or controversial to me. The style was rather dry and repetitive (we get it, we get it, “you naturalists” are not denying natural selection); I’m told Gould was a better prose stylist, so that’s probably where I’ll turn next.
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
April 4, 2015
It is one of the best books that paints a relatively unbiased history of the debate between the hardcore Darwinians and Naturalists (the author, a Paleontologist and fellow naturalists) in an unique way.
October 1, 2024
An Important Manifesto on Where Evolutionary Theory Should Be
Published originally in 1995, “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at The High Table of Evolutionary Theory”, remains an important manifesto as to where evolutionary theory should be, written by someone destined to be remembered as among our most important evolutionary biologists of our time, invertebrate paleontologist Niles Eldredge, currently curator emeritus in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Paleontology, though when the book was published, Eldredge was a curator in the museum’s Department of Invertebrates. This is a book that may not be well received by those accustomed to “traditional” Neo-Darwinian thinking of the kind advocated for decades from the likes of George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith, Richard Dawkins, and more recently, Jerry Coyne, who Eldredge regards as “ultra-Darwinists” or “ultra-Darwinians”, who see evolutionary change strictly speaking from within the perspective of an organism’s genes. This view stands in sharp contrast with those who Eldredge describes as “naturalists” – systematists, ecologists and paleontologists – who take a broader – some might say – grander view of evolution that takes into account the nature of evolutionary change, and the likelihood that species, and the ecosystems they inhabit, remain relatively unchanged throughout their existence. One might disagree with Eldredge’s assessment of current challenges to Neo-Darwinism, but to dismiss his well-argued, eloquent, reasoning is a task that anyone who wishes to remain objective, should refuse to take, especially what he says here remains relevant two decades later to current evolutionary biology.
Eldredge’s description of the “Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory” is a not so subtle rebuke to evolutionary geneticist John Maynard Smith’s dismissal of his, Stephen Jay Gould’s and other paleontologists’ insistence that paleontological data has much relevance towards understanding evolutionary change, demonstrating how important – perhaps too important – theoretical evolutionary biological thought has been denominated for decades from those like Maynard Smith, and Richard Dawkins, advocating for a reductionist view of evolutionary theory described best within the pages of Dawkins’ popular, widely influential, “The Selfish Gene”. A view which contends that important evolutionary change can be measured only within the context of evolutionary genetics, without acknowledging major contributions from systematic biology, ecology, and especially paleontology, or rather, as it is more commonly referred to currently, paleobiology.
There are seven major chapters in “Reinventing Darwin”, with the first, a historical overview as to how The Modern Synthesis emerged from Darwin’s thinking and the advent of population genetics, and a second on the nature of adaptation and natural selection, followed by two that discuss the nature of punctuated equilibria – the evolutionary mode first described by Eldredge in an early 1971 paper, that would be the precursor to the notable one on “Punctuated Equilibrium” co-authored by Eldredge and his life-long friend Stephen Jay Gould a year later. These are chapters that delve into the issue as to whether we should view species as discrete entities that have their respective births and deaths, as implied initially by the work of pioneering 20th Century evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and perhaps most noteworthy for this book, George Gaylord Simpson. Chapter Five which describes macroevolution and species sorting may be viewed by some as the book’s weakest, only insofar as some may not be persuaded that there is indeed a difference between Species Selection – as proposed by another invertebrate paleontologist, Steven M. Stanley, several years after the Eldredge and Gould paper – and what Eldredge and his colleague vertebrate paleontologist Elisabeth Vrba would contend is species sorting. Chapter Six is an examination of real world biological complexity, with Eldredge making a key point that we need to distinguish between genealogical and ecological hierarchies, with the former, consistent with looking at the reproductive success of organisms, and the latter, a discussion of the economics of species coexisting within ecosystems that have little to do with evolution from an “ultra-Darwinist” perspective. Chapter Seven is a terse condemnation of sociobiology and explores briefly why sex really matters in evolution. Finally, at the very end, Eldredge sums up his encounters with ultra-Darwinists and why their views matter to an extent in considering the direction that evolutionary theory should proceed in the future, as well as noting how mistaken much of their thinking remains in the ongoing “Great Debate”.
Published originally in 1995, “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at The High Table of Evolutionary Theory”, remains an important manifesto as to where evolutionary theory should be, written by someone destined to be remembered as among our most important evolutionary biologists of our time, invertebrate paleontologist Niles Eldredge, currently curator emeritus in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Paleontology, though when the book was published, Eldredge was a curator in the museum’s Department of Invertebrates. This is a book that may not be well received by those accustomed to “traditional” Neo-Darwinian thinking of the kind advocated for decades from the likes of George C. Williams, John Maynard Smith, Richard Dawkins, and more recently, Jerry Coyne, who Eldredge regards as “ultra-Darwinists” or “ultra-Darwinians”, who see evolutionary change strictly speaking from within the perspective of an organism’s genes. This view stands in sharp contrast with those who Eldredge describes as “naturalists” – systematists, ecologists and paleontologists – who take a broader – some might say – grander view of evolution that takes into account the nature of evolutionary change, and the likelihood that species, and the ecosystems they inhabit, remain relatively unchanged throughout their existence. One might disagree with Eldredge’s assessment of current challenges to Neo-Darwinism, but to dismiss his well-argued, eloquent, reasoning is a task that anyone who wishes to remain objective, should refuse to take, especially what he says here remains relevant two decades later to current evolutionary biology.
Eldredge’s description of the “Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory” is a not so subtle rebuke to evolutionary geneticist John Maynard Smith’s dismissal of his, Stephen Jay Gould’s and other paleontologists’ insistence that paleontological data has much relevance towards understanding evolutionary change, demonstrating how important – perhaps too important – theoretical evolutionary biological thought has been denominated for decades from those like Maynard Smith, and Richard Dawkins, advocating for a reductionist view of evolutionary theory described best within the pages of Dawkins’ popular, widely influential, “The Selfish Gene”. A view which contends that important evolutionary change can be measured only within the context of evolutionary genetics, without acknowledging major contributions from systematic biology, ecology, and especially paleontology, or rather, as it is more commonly referred to currently, paleobiology.
There are seven major chapters in “Reinventing Darwin”, with the first, a historical overview as to how The Modern Synthesis emerged from Darwin’s thinking and the advent of population genetics, and a second on the nature of adaptation and natural selection, followed by two that discuss the nature of punctuated equilibria – the evolutionary mode first described by Eldredge in an early 1971 paper, that would be the precursor to the notable one on “Punctuated Equilibrium” co-authored by Eldredge and his life-long friend Stephen Jay Gould a year later. These are chapters that delve into the issue as to whether we should view species as discrete entities that have their respective births and deaths, as implied initially by the work of pioneering 20th Century evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and perhaps most noteworthy for this book, George Gaylord Simpson. Chapter Five which describes macroevolution and species sorting may be viewed by some as the book’s weakest, only insofar as some may not be persuaded that there is indeed a difference between Species Selection – as proposed by another invertebrate paleontologist, Steven M. Stanley, several years after the Eldredge and Gould paper – and what Eldredge and his colleague vertebrate paleontologist Elisabeth Vrba would contend is species sorting. Chapter Six is an examination of real world biological complexity, with Eldredge making a key point that we need to distinguish between genealogical and ecological hierarchies, with the former, consistent with looking at the reproductive success of organisms, and the latter, a discussion of the economics of species coexisting within ecosystems that have little to do with evolution from an “ultra-Darwinist” perspective. Chapter Seven is a terse condemnation of sociobiology and explores briefly why sex really matters in evolution. Finally, at the very end, Eldredge sums up his encounters with ultra-Darwinists and why their views matter to an extent in considering the direction that evolutionary theory should proceed in the future, as well as noting how mistaken much of their thinking remains in the ongoing “Great Debate”.
August 24, 2009
Published in 1999, more arguments concerning Puncuated Equilibria.
March 29, 2016
Always going to struggle to like this being a gene selectionist. However, his argument are made much more poorly than Gould's for example.
August 6, 2011
Best and clearest thing I've read on the Darwin Wars so far.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews