Dizney Court

Critical Review

Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Speciation and Punctuated Equilibria: An

Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism [3rd draft]. American Museum of Natural History
Research Library. doi:10.5531/sd.paleo.7

In this paper, the authors discuss the problems of viewing taxonomy and
paleoanthropology the same for too long. They point out examples of what could be
wrong with using phyletic gradualism to look at the history of evolution. Not only that,
but they bring up cases against how current popular theories about evolution are dated
and are continuously shaping current anthropologists minds on how to explore our
natural history. The authors also take a look at how theory in general needs to be taken
lightly, and proven wrong or right with every shred of evidence that can be found. They
find problems with statements about lack of our fossil record being good evidence for
the gaps we find in evolution lines in species. The authors suggest trying to look at
macroevolution and speciation through a new lense. They offer punctuated equilibrium
as a way to possible explain certain phenomenon. They do admit it’s not a perfect
answer and do follow up with some ironic statements as to its nature, but overall show
examples of work they apply the theory too.

One of the main points Eldredge and Gould seek to provide evidence for is that
“Many breaks in the fossil record are real.”(p.84). This is mentioned when they state
some of the problems with theory of allopatric. That the breaks are real because
species can rapidly change instead of experience a slow and gradual one. This is just
the introduction as to why these breaks occur, and are not just evident of missing fossil
record.

On the subject of studying theories, Eldredge and Gould site a quote from
Hanson (1970 pp 22-23) “Much recent philosophy of science has been dedicated to
disclosing that a ‘given’ or a ‘pure’ observation language is a myth-eaten fabric of
philosophical fiction. . . In any observation statement the cloven hoof print of theory can
readily be detected.” (p.85). This is an interesting point about how messy the
methodology of science and taxonomy can be.
 Continuing from the previous point, Eldredge and Gould state “Almost all of us
adhere, consciously or unconsciously, to the inductivist methodology. We do not
recognize that all our perceptions and descriptions are made in light of theory.” (p.85). I
think this was very eye opening to the fact that we may not see the exact same thing
when looking at something, and that information could be more interpretive and less
descriptive then we hope.

Here are two quotes that were very strong and what I think are very thought
provoking when put together. Charles Darwin (1859, p.310) said “Why do we not find
the ‘infinitely numerous transitional links’ that would illustrate the slow and steady
operation of natural selection?” (p.87). Eldredge and Gould add from Eaton (1970, p.
23) “We are amused by the absurdity of a claim that we should rejoice in a lack of date
because of the taxonomic convenience thus provided.” (p.90). I feel these are the most
strong arguments that begin to set up the rest of the paper for the audience. This helped
me to begin thinking more about theory and what we normally think being set in stone,
now needing to be questioned.

Eldredge and Gould say “species are distinct at any moment in time, but that
boundaries between forms must blur in temporal extension - a continuous lineage
cannot be broken into objective segments.” (p. 92). This is a good way of putting into
perspective the difficult task that paleoanthropologists have of categorizing the fossils of
past species. For me, it’s a convincing statement in addressing the problems in some of
our taxonomic theories.

Some points Eldredge and Gould make about their view of phyletic gradualism
are “it in itself, an insufficient picture to explain the origin of diversity in the present, or
any past.” (p.97). and “it is tempting to conclude that gradul, progressive morphological
change is an illusion, we recognise that there is little hard evidence to support either
view.” (p.98). They don’t really shut down the theory entirely, they state that “under
phyletic gradualism, the history of life should be one of stately unfolding.” (p. 109). The
illistrait this example by showing a tree with many small limbs branching off it infinitely,
growing in all directions.

To conclude, i’d like to highlight some of Eldredge and Gould’s strong closing
statements with “The answer probably lies in a view of species and individuals as
homeostatic systems - as amazingly well-buffed to resist change and maintain stability
in the face of disturbing influences.” (p.114). “Speculation is a rare and difficult event
that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium.”

My biggest question after this reading is truely, where do we go from here? That
majority of this journal is spent ‘debunking’ popular theories used in paleoanthropology.
Not only that, but deeming theories and observed science a impossibly unbiased thing
of its own. So what should scientists and anthropologists do? What theory should they
use to classify species, and how to we organize them?

Overall, I did find the reading challenging but surprisingly up my ally. I’m currently
a communication major, and I have to study a lot of communication theory. I already
understand theory in itself is hard to study, and know it can be a empirical science.
Because of that, once I understood what i was reading from Eldredge and Gould, I
found it easy to get into it. I also never think this deep into things, and began to feel like
I was in the matrix. So is this theory good or bad? Is that theory the answer? Is science
even real? Because I needed to know so badly it helped me press on reading. I enjoyed
trying to learn a more theory based science then a chemical based one.

I have almost no experience with science, and most of my knowledge of

evolution and taxonomy comes from this class. Because most of this knowledge is
newly learned, I think I was more moldable and open to the idea of my understanding
being changed. I have no deep belief of how humans evolved or evolution in itself,
because I don't feel I am an expert. All I know is I can study hard and learn about
anthropology and evolution, so this journal was more of an expansion to that
experience, instead of a contradiction to it.

My ideas about something have been changed for sure. It really challenged my
view on what we learn in life as being ‘correct’ or ‘set in stone’ so to speak. To look at
everything and really ask why. Why is that correct? Is it proof just because we read it in
school? This journal brings up how certain ways of anthropology being taught and mold
the minds of young anthropologists to view theory the same way and not challenge it.
But maybe we need to find out for ourselves why something works the way it does.

A lot of points were made in this journal, and unfortunately because I don't know
much better I have to agree with every one. Most of this was knew to me, and again
because I don't have much prior knowledge I really thought they did an excellent job of
persuading me.

What i’d like to know more about is how deep this trouble goes? How long can
theory prove theory to be the wrong theory by using theory? I feel like it could become a
rabbit hold of problems but I do find it interesting at where we need to bring in hard
evidence and find a way to make observed science more exact? It blows me away
when an anthropologist can look at half a small bone poking out of a rock and know
exactly what is. I just feel that physical science is a crazy world.
 Because the journal seems to point out some things that are popular and taught
in schools, I’d have to say that is most of my evidence of what conflicts with the author's
positions. THey discuss in this paper how something can be taught the same way for a
long time without being looked into again even if it is wrong. So they targeted some well
known ways we look at evolution, and is what they are seeking to disprove.

This changes my understanding of how a young student can look at anything in

school. Theory has a lot more to do with observed science then I thought, and I never
knew that.

The several questions I have posed so far are important because they trigger
inquiries and curiosity. To learn to seek understanding, and not learn to simply know.
This implies that I may have doubts about my own knowledge and understanding, and
maybe I should try and seek more opportunities to learn, and reach beyond my current
realm of understanding.