What do you think?
Rate this book
The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals
In The Crucible of Creation , paleontologist Simon Conway Morris describes the marvelous finds of the Burgess Shale--a fantastically rich deposit of bizarre and bewildering Cambrian fossils, located in Western Canada.
Conway Morris is one of the few paleontologists ever to explore the Burgess Shale, having been involved in the dig since 1972, and thus he is an ideal guide to this amazing discovery. Indeed, he provides a complete overview of this remarkable find, ranging from an informative, basic discussion
of the origins of life and animals on earth, to a colorful description of Charles Walcott's discovery of the Burgess Shale and of the painstaking scientific work that went on there (as well as in Burgess collections held at Harvard and the Smithsonian), to an account of similar fossil finds in
Greenland and in China. The heart of the book is an imaginative trip in a time machine, back to the Cambrian seas, where the reader sees first-hand the remarkable diversity of life as it existed then. And perhaps most important, Conway Morris examines the lessons to be learned from the Burgess
Shale, especially as they apply to modern evolutionary thinking. In particular, he critiques the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould, whose best-selling book Wonderful Life drew on Conway Morris's Burgess Shale work. The author takes a fresh look at the evidence and draws quite different conclusions from
Gould on the nature of evolution.
This finely illustrated volume takes the reader to the forefront of paleontology as it provides fresh insights into the nature of evolution and of life on earth.
Conway Morris is one of the few paleontologists ever to explore the Burgess Shale, having been involved in the dig since 1972, and thus he is an ideal guide to this amazing discovery. Indeed, he provides a complete overview of this remarkable find, ranging from an informative, basic discussion
of the origins of life and animals on earth, to a colorful description of Charles Walcott's discovery of the Burgess Shale and of the painstaking scientific work that went on there (as well as in Burgess collections held at Harvard and the Smithsonian), to an account of similar fossil finds in
Greenland and in China. The heart of the book is an imaginative trip in a time machine, back to the Cambrian seas, where the reader sees first-hand the remarkable diversity of life as it existed then. And perhaps most important, Conway Morris examines the lessons to be learned from the Burgess
Shale, especially as they apply to modern evolutionary thinking. In particular, he critiques the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould, whose best-selling book Wonderful Life drew on Conway Morris's Burgess Shale work. The author takes a fresh look at the evidence and draws quite different conclusions from
Gould on the nature of evolution.
This finely illustrated volume takes the reader to the forefront of paleontology as it provides fresh insights into the nature of evolution and of life on earth.
272 pages, Paperback
Published January 13, 2000
5 people are currently reading
500 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 18, 2022
What a long, strange trip it’s been. The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. There is some disputed evidence of life from four billion years back, but firm evidence exists for the simple single cell organisms, the prokaryotes, by 3.5 billion years. Some time between 2.5 and 1.6 billion years ago the eukaryotes arrived, complex single cell life with nuclei and mitochondria. And then, the long wait,one to two billion years passed until the next major leap forward to multi-cellular life.
Even through all those years of climate changes, going from hothouse to snowball earth, with trillions of eukaryotes bumping into each other all the time, it still took between one and two billion years for all the parts to fall into place resulting in stable, self-reproducing multi-cellular life. It must have been a one in a billion billion chance, but it eventually happened, and the evolutionary advantages were so great that once started down that path, complex life never looked back.
The earliest creatures were soft bodied, and fossilized remains are exceedingly rare. Usually it was not the creatures themselves that fossilized, but evidence of their existence, such as burrows. Life was then expanding into a myriad of forms and specializations to fill the available ecological niches. This time is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, but it was an explosion only in terms of geologic time, unfolding over about ten million years By the time it was over most of the current three dozen animal and ten plant phyla were established.
What would one day become the Burgess Shale was a muddy seafloor at the base of a steep underwater cliff. Something, probably an earthquake, caused the side of the cliff to slough off, burying the creatures at the bottom, where they remained for 508 million years until discovered in 1909. They are one of the great treasures of paleontology, with strange and wondrous plant and animal impressions. Some of the critters burrowed in the mud, some crawled across it, and some swam at the bottom, middle, or top of the water column, each trying to survive and reproduce in its specific ecological niche. Even at this early date the basic evolutionary strategies we see today were apparent: predators and prey, sharp jaws against sharp spines, some animals hiding in the mud, some relying on speed or maneuverability. The evolutionary arms race was already in full swing.
This book is best known as a rebuttal to Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life, but it is polite and nuanced in its objections. The author, Conway Morris, originally wrote a rather harsh review of Gould’s book, but in this work he has toned down the criticisms considerably. The creatures in the Burgess Shale were so strange, so unlike both today’s lifeforms and what is known from the fossil record, that Gould saw them as a fantastic array of ancient phyla, most of which went extinct long ago, leaving the modern world with only a small subset of what could have been.
Morris has a different interpretation of the fossils. Based on additional discoveries and new technologies, he believes that most of the Burgess Shale fossils can be fit into one of the existing phyla, and there is no need to posit a vast world of lost animal forms. Since the early fossil record is so spotty, it is difficult to find intermediate forms that clearly establish relationships to today’s phyla, but modern analysis tends to support that. In addition, other fossil beds from around the same time as the Burgess Shale have provided large numbers of well preserved specimens that make the lineage from Cambrian to modern animals clearer.
Morris reminds the reader that Wonderful Life was published in 1989, and Gould died in 2002, so there is no way of telling how he would have interpreted later discoveries and new techniques of analysis. Based on the evidence he had at the time, Gould made reasonable deductions about the fossils he examined.
I enjoyed this book. There is something about contemplating the idea of deep time, of examining creatures from half a billion years ago, including the ancestors of the first vertebrates, and therefore, us. The power of evolution to adapt and change living things to meet their environment is a testament to the power of life, which somehow always finds a way. Who knows how long homo sapiens will be around (possibly not nearly as long as most people think), but far into the future there will be creeping, crawling, running, flying, swimming things out there, and the long dance of DNA and genes will go on with or without us.
Even through all those years of climate changes, going from hothouse to snowball earth, with trillions of eukaryotes bumping into each other all the time, it still took between one and two billion years for all the parts to fall into place resulting in stable, self-reproducing multi-cellular life. It must have been a one in a billion billion chance, but it eventually happened, and the evolutionary advantages were so great that once started down that path, complex life never looked back.
The earliest creatures were soft bodied, and fossilized remains are exceedingly rare. Usually it was not the creatures themselves that fossilized, but evidence of their existence, such as burrows. Life was then expanding into a myriad of forms and specializations to fill the available ecological niches. This time is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, but it was an explosion only in terms of geologic time, unfolding over about ten million years By the time it was over most of the current three dozen animal and ten plant phyla were established.
What would one day become the Burgess Shale was a muddy seafloor at the base of a steep underwater cliff. Something, probably an earthquake, caused the side of the cliff to slough off, burying the creatures at the bottom, where they remained for 508 million years until discovered in 1909. They are one of the great treasures of paleontology, with strange and wondrous plant and animal impressions. Some of the critters burrowed in the mud, some crawled across it, and some swam at the bottom, middle, or top of the water column, each trying to survive and reproduce in its specific ecological niche. Even at this early date the basic evolutionary strategies we see today were apparent: predators and prey, sharp jaws against sharp spines, some animals hiding in the mud, some relying on speed or maneuverability. The evolutionary arms race was already in full swing.
This book is best known as a rebuttal to Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life, but it is polite and nuanced in its objections. The author, Conway Morris, originally wrote a rather harsh review of Gould’s book, but in this work he has toned down the criticisms considerably. The creatures in the Burgess Shale were so strange, so unlike both today’s lifeforms and what is known from the fossil record, that Gould saw them as a fantastic array of ancient phyla, most of which went extinct long ago, leaving the modern world with only a small subset of what could have been.
Morris has a different interpretation of the fossils. Based on additional discoveries and new technologies, he believes that most of the Burgess Shale fossils can be fit into one of the existing phyla, and there is no need to posit a vast world of lost animal forms. Since the early fossil record is so spotty, it is difficult to find intermediate forms that clearly establish relationships to today’s phyla, but modern analysis tends to support that. In addition, other fossil beds from around the same time as the Burgess Shale have provided large numbers of well preserved specimens that make the lineage from Cambrian to modern animals clearer.
Morris reminds the reader that Wonderful Life was published in 1989, and Gould died in 2002, so there is no way of telling how he would have interpreted later discoveries and new techniques of analysis. Based on the evidence he had at the time, Gould made reasonable deductions about the fossils he examined.
I enjoyed this book. There is something about contemplating the idea of deep time, of examining creatures from half a billion years ago, including the ancestors of the first vertebrates, and therefore, us. The power of evolution to adapt and change living things to meet their environment is a testament to the power of life, which somehow always finds a way. Who knows how long homo sapiens will be around (possibly not nearly as long as most people think), but far into the future there will be creeping, crawling, running, flying, swimming things out there, and the long dance of DNA and genes will go on with or without us.
October 4, 2010
I read Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen Gould a couple of years ago and then subsequently read about Conway Morris's "scathing" criticism of it in this book. So, naturally I had to read it at some point.
His criticsm of some points that Gould makes in his book are not scathing. In fact he is respectful and reasonable in his criticism of Gould's more radical theories. And I think he admits that he had the benefit of more research and new discoveries that were not available to Gould when he wrote Wonderful Life. He even overturns some of his own theories presented in this book. If you, for example, check out his "evolving" evolutionary trees for arthropods (e.g. halkeriids) in Wikipedia you will see that he has changed his mind as more evidence has become available.
Both books give the reader a vivid description of the weird and wonderful forms of life that existed in the Cambrian era. But Conway Morris points out that it is likely just the tip of the iceberg of the total array of creatures that existed at that time because of the rare conditions that preserved the creatures living in what became the Burgess Shale.
I particularly enjoyed his use of an imaginary time machine with its detachable submersible to take the reader on a virtual journey back to a barren continent and a Cambrian beach near the submerged wall that is now the Cathderal Escarpment which rises above the muddy depths where we see a bunch of really strange burrowing, crawling and floating or swimming creatures that don't know they are about to be covered and smothered by a mudslide. They probably did not appreciate that but paleontologists today are very grateful.
His criticsm of some points that Gould makes in his book are not scathing. In fact he is respectful and reasonable in his criticism of Gould's more radical theories. And I think he admits that he had the benefit of more research and new discoveries that were not available to Gould when he wrote Wonderful Life. He even overturns some of his own theories presented in this book. If you, for example, check out his "evolving" evolutionary trees for arthropods (e.g. halkeriids) in Wikipedia you will see that he has changed his mind as more evidence has become available.
Both books give the reader a vivid description of the weird and wonderful forms of life that existed in the Cambrian era. But Conway Morris points out that it is likely just the tip of the iceberg of the total array of creatures that existed at that time because of the rare conditions that preserved the creatures living in what became the Burgess Shale.
I particularly enjoyed his use of an imaginary time machine with its detachable submersible to take the reader on a virtual journey back to a barren continent and a Cambrian beach near the submerged wall that is now the Cathderal Escarpment which rises above the muddy depths where we see a bunch of really strange burrowing, crawling and floating or swimming creatures that don't know they are about to be covered and smothered by a mudslide. They probably did not appreciate that but paleontologists today are very grateful.
February 14, 2019
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
Part discussion of the Burgess Shale, part rebuttal of Stephen Jay Gould’s premises in Wonderful Life, this book was a bit of a slog to get through for me. It’s a topic I find fascinating, but something about the style mostly had me snoozing, even when he entertainingly decided to take a turn for the science fictional and imagine a whole dive into the seas at the time of the Cambrian explosion. (That bit was mostly entertaining through being surprising, though also through trying to bring to life the animals that could’ve been seen if that could happen, and how they would have behaved — the most speculative bit of the book, basically.)
I feel like Wonderful Life is probably the more fun to read and the more comprehensive, but it’s still fascinating to read about the point of view of a scientist who has actually worked with the Burgess Shale. Whatever you think of Conway Morris’ style, he’s a scientist Gould respected and an expert in his field.
Part discussion of the Burgess Shale, part rebuttal of Stephen Jay Gould’s premises in Wonderful Life, this book was a bit of a slog to get through for me. It’s a topic I find fascinating, but something about the style mostly had me snoozing, even when he entertainingly decided to take a turn for the science fictional and imagine a whole dive into the seas at the time of the Cambrian explosion. (That bit was mostly entertaining through being surprising, though also through trying to bring to life the animals that could’ve been seen if that could happen, and how they would have behaved — the most speculative bit of the book, basically.)
I feel like Wonderful Life is probably the more fun to read and the more comprehensive, but it’s still fascinating to read about the point of view of a scientist who has actually worked with the Burgess Shale. Whatever you think of Conway Morris’ style, he’s a scientist Gould respected and an expert in his field.
August 15, 2010
The Burgess Shale has many of the best-preserved animal fossils from the Cambrian, and so it has some of the oldest known examples of modern phyla. The author of this book did important work on its fossil worms as a graduate student. The central part of the book gives a reconstruction of what a lot of the animals looked like and how they might have lived. Other chapters summarize the history of Burgess Shale paleontology, describe similar, recently discovered fossil sites in China and Greenland, and polemicize against the conclusions that Stephen Jay Gould draws from the Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life. I haven't read Wonderful Life, but as Conway Morris states the disagreement it seems like more of a matter of emphasis than a matter of fact. In any case, a reader who's totally uninterested in controversy can skip those parts and just read the part about the fossil animals, which is really excellent.
December 25, 2018
This is a book about the Cambrian fossils discovered at the Burgess Shale, turned into an angry rant against Stephen Jay Gould. Overall, the writing about the scientific part is dry, the presentation of the discovery and meaning of the discovery scholarly, and the endless references to Gould become tiring and a trifle unfair.
Update 1, Dec 25, 2018: After the initial review, I found out about an interesting review of the chance (contingency, see Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould) vs. determinism (convergence, see this book), published in Science in November 2018 (one month before my initial review).
Note: because I was really annoyed with the unscientific treatment of Gould, I decided to show a couple of example in my own review, including my naughty pun about the "Cambrian explosion of computing systems". Take these as indicative of what you will find in the book The Crucible of Creation by Simon Conway Morris. You have been (doubly) warned now.
Main positives and negatives:
+++ A book on the Burgess Shale by the star of the team who led the discovery, what could be better? The content about the details of the Burgess Shale fauna is rich and fact-based.
+++ A book responding to Gould's well-written Wonderful Life? Yes, give me (good) scientific debate any day.
+ A warning on how a scientist who is by and large right, scientifically speaking, can reduce the value of the argument due to focus on a mean personal vendetta. Gould was clearly and proveably wrong in his Wonderful Life, so why not stick to facts? For the more argumentative parts of Gould's statements, why not stick to presenting the alternatives and to arguing about them (see detailed point 8 for an example of an argument, about disparity, that could have been won straightforwardly)? Instead, Conway Morris does Gould a big service, and his own cause the opposite, by aggressively and dismissively attacking Gould ad hominem and through other rhetorical tricks.
--- I learned very little, other than that I like the science the author represents, but I thoroughly dislike the biased and aggressive professional side of Simon Conway Morris. Perhaps I got distracted by the rhetorical tricks aimed at Gould.
--- I was very poorly impressed by the author's (missing) knowledge about modern, computer-based processes: "In reality even establishing a cladogram for about thirty species based on the comparison of about a hundred characters may take years of continuous computing. For really large data sets the answer the zoologist would like to obtain might take millions of years!", p. 179. How about parallel and distributed computing, offered now as cloud or grid computing services? How about applications to big data processing? The author cannot be excused, because 1997 was already the time of NOWs, precursors of today's cluster computing, and metacomputing, a precursor of grid computing. I guess the Cambrian explosion of computing systems has escaped Conway Morris...
--- Update 1, Dec 25, 2018: Time to commit to digital paper my thoughts on contingency vs. convergence. Gould proposed the former, Conway Morris the latter. Both propose some facts to support their views, plus some personally biased arguments (for Conway Morris, religion is seemingly the source of personal bias). I had already indicated, in detailed point 7, that this book indicates to me that Conway Morris is against even the thought of an experiment to test contingency. However, such experiments have appeared in the three (two) decades elapsed since Gould's (Conway Morris') book has appeared, and in fact, in 2018, we have even a review of their results [1]. The review covers several studies, including the prominent Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), started by [1]'s co-author Lenski in 1988 and running over 70,000 generations of with Escherichia coli (E.coli). Overall, the review finds evidence that both convergence (deterministic evolution, so towards similar outcomes) and contingency (chance evolution, so with unexpected species emerging from the evolutionary process) appear. In particular, the LTEE project has given us a major surprise around 2003, when, 15 years and circa 33,000 generations into the project, one of the twelve E.coli under study has developed the ability to grow aerobically on citrate, a feat that requires a long string of mutations and thus can be explained by contingency and not by convergence. To conclude: both Gould and Conway Morris should have been less passionate and adamant, and stick to the more cautious scientific statements; in plain English, Conway Morris was both attacking ad hominem and was wrong, Gould was just wrong, but a toned down version that combines the positions of each is now consistent with the latest scientific experiments 0n the topic.
Some details:
OK, now for my own ranting, because I don't believe science deserves the gossipy attitude common in this book and now present in my listed admonishment:
-- The author is busy bashing everyone, and has time to bash his former colleague Derek Briggs (claims his book on the topic is "straightforward" and his illustrations do not always "really do justice to the fossils" (Appendix 1), plus Briggs is guilty because "he makes no real attempt to assess the evolutionary importance and controversies that have grown around the Burgess Shale" (p.vii)), his former supervisor and leader of the team Harry Whittington (his book is also "straightforward", albeit, thankfully, "concise" and "readable" (Appendix 1)).
-- I have taken so many notes of things I dislike:
1/ The book starts with about ten pages explaining why Stephen Jay Gould is, to paraphrase, a Marxist son of the anti-scientific Christ. Formulated first English-strongly, then plainly in an accusatory tone. The problem? The soft sentences do not fit the scientific setting, and some of the hard statements and claims are by now obsolete, such as the potential of non-linear dynamics (chaos theory) to make evolutionary biology a hard science.
2/ p.54: After much more "Gould is just plain wrong... and mean" material, finally some content: "an extraordinary fossil ... This strongly suggested that the Hallucigenia was a scavenger..." Unfortunately, Conway Morris is not a writer of Stephen Jay Gould caliber. The deduction has missing, the argumentation skips explanation, the alternatives to the main hypotheses are often not described.
3/ The text is abundant not in interesting information, but in English-style bashing. For example, p.139, translating the posh English of Conway Morris: (i) "Gould's popular writing" - meaning trivial, for the unwashed masses; (ii) "presented with some verve and flair" - just some, so not even the parts that lead to recognition from the opponent can be fully good, (iii) "serious doubts" - "Gould is full of *hit", and (iv) "any of these three main themes will stand up to critical scrutiny" - "it's b*sh*t and I can prove it!".
4/ Page after page, the repeated referencing to Gould continues. Footnotes are also graced with imprecations. I'm imagining a character from Seinfeld seething between clenched teeth "Newman!" Only this is a presumed respectable scientist...
5/ Plenty of stuff that relates to religious feelings, dropped almost without warning on the page. Turns out the author has argued publicly against intelliD and materialism (good), but also for the compatibility between religion and science (possibly good, depending on your views, but surely a bias in the context of this content-first work of non-fiction). See University of Edinburgh's Gifford Lectures in March 2007, especially Lecture Six on "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation."
6/ The style of writing turns at times to annoying rhetorical tricks. On page 177, the author first drops an accusation ("often acrimonious"), then a bomb ("the real problems... have received rather little attention"), then proposes a postponement ("but first we need to understand..."). Something similar happens on page 2018, but at least on this topic there is no postponement.
7/ On p. 200, we read "I consider the metaphor of rerunning the tape of life to be a rather trivial exercise, worthy of only passing mention."-- Conway Morris just doesn't like the notion of simulation. Or thought experiment. Or, or, or. Sadly, the maverick of the 1970s Burgess Shale team has turned into an ultra-conservative.
8/ Chapter 8 starts with the author calling Gould's hypothesis about disparity (and the whole book) "perhaps exaggerated", with some of the claims "either incorrect or simply uninteresting". Twenty pages later, we see that the author, his colleague during PhD years Derek Briggs, and their students, are in a debate with Mike Foote, Mike Lee, and the ubiquitously opposing Gould; the debate reaches Nature in 1992.
References:
[1] Zachary D. Blount, Richard E. Lenski, and Jonathan B. Losos (2018) Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, Nov 2018, vol. 362 (6415) DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5979
Update 1, Dec 25, 2018: After the initial review, I found out about an interesting review of the chance (contingency, see Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould) vs. determinism (convergence, see this book), published in Science in November 2018 (one month before my initial review).
Note: because I was really annoyed with the unscientific treatment of Gould, I decided to show a couple of example in my own review, including my naughty pun about the "Cambrian explosion of computing systems". Take these as indicative of what you will find in the book The Crucible of Creation by Simon Conway Morris. You have been (doubly) warned now.
Main positives and negatives:
+++ A book on the Burgess Shale by the star of the team who led the discovery, what could be better? The content about the details of the Burgess Shale fauna is rich and fact-based.
+++ A book responding to Gould's well-written Wonderful Life? Yes, give me (good) scientific debate any day.
+ A warning on how a scientist who is by and large right, scientifically speaking, can reduce the value of the argument due to focus on a mean personal vendetta. Gould was clearly and proveably wrong in his Wonderful Life, so why not stick to facts? For the more argumentative parts of Gould's statements, why not stick to presenting the alternatives and to arguing about them (see detailed point 8 for an example of an argument, about disparity, that could have been won straightforwardly)? Instead, Conway Morris does Gould a big service, and his own cause the opposite, by aggressively and dismissively attacking Gould ad hominem and through other rhetorical tricks.
--- I learned very little, other than that I like the science the author represents, but I thoroughly dislike the biased and aggressive professional side of Simon Conway Morris. Perhaps I got distracted by the rhetorical tricks aimed at Gould.
--- I was very poorly impressed by the author's (missing) knowledge about modern, computer-based processes: "In reality even establishing a cladogram for about thirty species based on the comparison of about a hundred characters may take years of continuous computing. For really large data sets the answer the zoologist would like to obtain might take millions of years!", p. 179. How about parallel and distributed computing, offered now as cloud or grid computing services? How about applications to big data processing? The author cannot be excused, because 1997 was already the time of NOWs, precursors of today's cluster computing, and metacomputing, a precursor of grid computing. I guess the Cambrian explosion of computing systems has escaped Conway Morris...
--- Update 1, Dec 25, 2018: Time to commit to digital paper my thoughts on contingency vs. convergence. Gould proposed the former, Conway Morris the latter. Both propose some facts to support their views, plus some personally biased arguments (for Conway Morris, religion is seemingly the source of personal bias). I had already indicated, in detailed point 7, that this book indicates to me that Conway Morris is against even the thought of an experiment to test contingency. However, such experiments have appeared in the three (two) decades elapsed since Gould's (Conway Morris') book has appeared, and in fact, in 2018, we have even a review of their results [1]. The review covers several studies, including the prominent Long-Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), started by [1]'s co-author Lenski in 1988 and running over 70,000 generations of with Escherichia coli (E.coli). Overall, the review finds evidence that both convergence (deterministic evolution, so towards similar outcomes) and contingency (chance evolution, so with unexpected species emerging from the evolutionary process) appear. In particular, the LTEE project has given us a major surprise around 2003, when, 15 years and circa 33,000 generations into the project, one of the twelve E.coli under study has developed the ability to grow aerobically on citrate, a feat that requires a long string of mutations and thus can be explained by contingency and not by convergence. To conclude: both Gould and Conway Morris should have been less passionate and adamant, and stick to the more cautious scientific statements; in plain English, Conway Morris was both attacking ad hominem and was wrong, Gould was just wrong, but a toned down version that combines the positions of each is now consistent with the latest scientific experiments 0n the topic.
Some details:
OK, now for my own ranting, because I don't believe science deserves the gossipy attitude common in this book and now present in my listed admonishment:
-- The author is busy bashing everyone, and has time to bash his former colleague Derek Briggs (claims his book on the topic is "straightforward" and his illustrations do not always "really do justice to the fossils" (Appendix 1), plus Briggs is guilty because "he makes no real attempt to assess the evolutionary importance and controversies that have grown around the Burgess Shale" (p.vii)), his former supervisor and leader of the team Harry Whittington (his book is also "straightforward", albeit, thankfully, "concise" and "readable" (Appendix 1)).
-- I have taken so many notes of things I dislike:
1/ The book starts with about ten pages explaining why Stephen Jay Gould is, to paraphrase, a Marxist son of the anti-scientific Christ. Formulated first English-strongly, then plainly in an accusatory tone. The problem? The soft sentences do not fit the scientific setting, and some of the hard statements and claims are by now obsolete, such as the potential of non-linear dynamics (chaos theory) to make evolutionary biology a hard science.
2/ p.54: After much more "Gould is just plain wrong... and mean" material, finally some content: "an extraordinary fossil ... This strongly suggested that the Hallucigenia was a scavenger..." Unfortunately, Conway Morris is not a writer of Stephen Jay Gould caliber. The deduction has missing, the argumentation skips explanation, the alternatives to the main hypotheses are often not described.
3/ The text is abundant not in interesting information, but in English-style bashing. For example, p.139, translating the posh English of Conway Morris: (i) "Gould's popular writing" - meaning trivial, for the unwashed masses; (ii) "presented with some verve and flair" - just some, so not even the parts that lead to recognition from the opponent can be fully good, (iii) "serious doubts" - "Gould is full of *hit", and (iv) "any of these three main themes will stand up to critical scrutiny" - "it's b*sh*t and I can prove it!".
4/ Page after page, the repeated referencing to Gould continues. Footnotes are also graced with imprecations. I'm imagining a character from Seinfeld seething between clenched teeth "Newman!" Only this is a presumed respectable scientist...
5/ Plenty of stuff that relates to religious feelings, dropped almost without warning on the page. Turns out the author has argued publicly against intelliD and materialism (good), but also for the compatibility between religion and science (possibly good, depending on your views, but surely a bias in the context of this content-first work of non-fiction). See University of Edinburgh's Gifford Lectures in March 2007, especially Lecture Six on "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation."
6/ The style of writing turns at times to annoying rhetorical tricks. On page 177, the author first drops an accusation ("often acrimonious"), then a bomb ("the real problems... have received rather little attention"), then proposes a postponement ("but first we need to understand..."). Something similar happens on page 2018, but at least on this topic there is no postponement.
7/ On p. 200, we read "I consider the metaphor of rerunning the tape of life to be a rather trivial exercise, worthy of only passing mention."-- Conway Morris just doesn't like the notion of simulation. Or thought experiment. Or, or, or. Sadly, the maverick of the 1970s Burgess Shale team has turned into an ultra-conservative.
8/ Chapter 8 starts with the author calling Gould's hypothesis about disparity (and the whole book) "perhaps exaggerated", with some of the claims "either incorrect or simply uninteresting". Twenty pages later, we see that the author, his colleague during PhD years Derek Briggs, and their students, are in a debate with Mike Foote, Mike Lee, and the ubiquitously opposing Gould; the debate reaches Nature in 1992.
References:
[1] Zachary D. Blount, Richard E. Lenski, and Jonathan B. Losos (2018) Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, Nov 2018, vol. 362 (6415) DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5979
September 11, 2025
shoutout anomalacaris man, gotta be one of my fave stem arthropods
September 22, 2011
Not as mezmerizing as Wonderful life, likewise about the scientific study of the Burgess Shale, this offered an update from the mid 1980's to the late 1990's, when Gould's book was written. Indeed, very much has since been learned about early animal life around the Cambrian "explosion". Such as questioning what we mean by the term "explosion" in the first place, and whether such use is appropriate.
Morris definitely has a bone or two to pick with Gould, and as fascinated as I was by theories of Gould, I'm a bit swayed by Morris's argument in front of 15 years of further research and the discovery of two more sites with Burgess Shale-era soft bodied fossil deposits.
Good book, and not to sound simple, but I think it could have been improved with more visual presentation. This would have entailed more comparative anatomy showing how these animals have been regrouped and reinterpretted. I thought that aspect was an uninspired omission from an otherwise strong book.
Morris definitely has a bone or two to pick with Gould, and as fascinated as I was by theories of Gould, I'm a bit swayed by Morris's argument in front of 15 years of further research and the discovery of two more sites with Burgess Shale-era soft bodied fossil deposits.
Good book, and not to sound simple, but I think it could have been improved with more visual presentation. This would have entailed more comparative anatomy showing how these animals have been regrouped and reinterpretted. I thought that aspect was an uninspired omission from an otherwise strong book.
May 31, 2023
Note: if you’re interested in this topic but scared of the length, you can just read Ch. 8 and get 80% of the content. Also this book should definitely be read AFTER reading SJ Gould’s book in the same topic “Wonderful Life”.
It was so cool to be able to read this critique of Gould’s “Wonderful Life” and be able to get two opposing perspectives on the correct interpretations of the Burgess Shale fauna. I think (unprofessionally) that Morris’ critique is a bit too strong and that his absolute refusal to consider any of Gould’s beliefs is a bit of an oversight, especially since many of the underpinnings of this debate are still being developed (phylum classifications of the “weird” burgess fauna, statistics for disparity rates over time, etc). Despite the vitriol, after reading both books I don’t think that either interpretation has to explicitly be wrong and that Gould’s decimation theory can be followed by Morris’ niche-filling convergence prediction. I’m reading Powell’s “Contingency and Convergence” next and am excited to hear more about this debate from another voice.
Overall, I think this book was not as well-developed as “Wonderful Life”; Morris spends seven chapters telling the story of the reconstruction of the Burgess Shale but does not start applying any of this information to his thesis until chapters 8-9. Because I just read the “Wonderful Life” a few weeks ago, I was able to recognize where his points opposed Gould’s, but do not think reader’s understanding of this book should be contingent upon having recently read others. I think he wrote a lot in chapters 1-7 but didn’t have much to say, but had a lot of (absolutely incredible) things to say in chapters 8-9 but didn’t spend enough time developing them. I think this book (though not as developed as Gould’s) was much more accessible for non-scientists as far as writing style goes. However, the writing style featured the most Yoda-esque passive voice-obsession I have ever seen.
It was so cool to be able to read this critique of Gould’s “Wonderful Life” and be able to get two opposing perspectives on the correct interpretations of the Burgess Shale fauna. I think (unprofessionally) that Morris’ critique is a bit too strong and that his absolute refusal to consider any of Gould’s beliefs is a bit of an oversight, especially since many of the underpinnings of this debate are still being developed (phylum classifications of the “weird” burgess fauna, statistics for disparity rates over time, etc). Despite the vitriol, after reading both books I don’t think that either interpretation has to explicitly be wrong and that Gould’s decimation theory can be followed by Morris’ niche-filling convergence prediction. I’m reading Powell’s “Contingency and Convergence” next and am excited to hear more about this debate from another voice.
Overall, I think this book was not as well-developed as “Wonderful Life”; Morris spends seven chapters telling the story of the reconstruction of the Burgess Shale but does not start applying any of this information to his thesis until chapters 8-9. Because I just read the “Wonderful Life” a few weeks ago, I was able to recognize where his points opposed Gould’s, but do not think reader’s understanding of this book should be contingent upon having recently read others. I think he wrote a lot in chapters 1-7 but didn’t have much to say, but had a lot of (absolutely incredible) things to say in chapters 8-9 but didn’t spend enough time developing them. I think this book (though not as developed as Gould’s) was much more accessible for non-scientists as far as writing style goes. However, the writing style featured the most Yoda-esque passive voice-obsession I have ever seen.
December 12, 2020
Anyone who has read Stephen J. Gould's "Wonderful Life" should also read this book by Conway Morris. The two paleontologists write about the same data, the fossils of the Burgess Shale, but come to largely different conclusions. Where Gould argues that many Burgess Shale fossils cannot be placed in one of the presently recognized phyla of the animal kingdom, Conway Morris argues that they do conform to the classification of modern animals. "Replaying the tape of evolution" which according to Gould will provide a different outcome every time due to the predominance of historical contingency, will produce basically the same results according to Conway Morris. However, I found Gould's arguments more solid. For example, the way in which Conway Morris argues that the weird "stilt animal" Hallucigenia could be a primitive arthropod does not convince at all. Conway Morris argues that predatory pressure was a factor promoting diversity of arthropod body plans in the Cambrium, but all this is based on speculation. Although some authors have proposed a synthesis of Gould's and Conway Morris' points of view, I think Gould has the better arguments after all. The consequence is that we should accept that the appearance of humans on this earth was an evolutionary unique event that will not be repeated easily upon replay and maybe not even anywhere else in the universe. I don't find anything disturbing in this view.
February 2, 2019
On reading the introduction, I was worried that it was going to be a dense text dealing with the ideology of science and detailed debates about the technicalities of evolution (which I understand, but it does make heavy reading). Subsequent chapters were much more straightforward however, with a great description of the Burgess Shale fauna and other similar fossil "Lagerstätten".
Part of the book is a rejoinder to the ideas put forward in Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life. As such, the discussion of the fossilised fauna focuses on their similarities to today's animals, casting them in the role of evolutionary antecedents. Morris has access to new evidence that Gould didn't, which backs up his argument, but perhaps he also massages the story to support his (legitimate) views a bit, too.
Nevertheless it's a great read and if you read Gould's interesting viewpoint, it is worth getting this alternative which is softly spoken, but in substance quite scathing of Gould's conclusions.
Part of the book is a rejoinder to the ideas put forward in Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life. As such, the discussion of the fossilised fauna focuses on their similarities to today's animals, casting them in the role of evolutionary antecedents. Morris has access to new evidence that Gould didn't, which backs up his argument, but perhaps he also massages the story to support his (legitimate) views a bit, too.
Nevertheless it's a great read and if you read Gould's interesting viewpoint, it is worth getting this alternative which is softly spoken, but in substance quite scathing of Gould's conclusions.
July 26, 2021
An excellent and detailed overview of the significance (and lack thereof) of the Burgess Shale Lagerstätte. Conway Morris articulates a clear and evidenced rebuttal of Stephan Jay Gould’s ‘Wonderful Life’, arguing primarily on the basis of constrained species morphospace and the phenomenon of evolutionary convergence. It is refreshing to read from the perspective of a respected Christian Evolutionary Palaeobiologist. Whilst all writers on the subject have their own biases, the majority of Conway Morris’ arguments remain well balanced and equally well cited; the book has an extensive list of recommended peer-reviewed literature.
Prior knowledge and interest on the subject of evolutionary palaeobiology is strongly recommended.
Prior knowledge and interest on the subject of evolutionary palaeobiology is strongly recommended.
December 10, 2022
pros:
* good information about the Ediacaran and Cambrian assemblages
* cool diagrams and pictures
* interesting theories about the inevitability of certain biological body plans given natural constraints
cons:
* not particularly well written prose
* odd political and religious detours
* dense in places
* the author presented his original theory of the orientation of hallucigenia and it puzzled me why he ever believed it
* good information about the Ediacaran and Cambrian assemblages
* cool diagrams and pictures
* interesting theories about the inevitability of certain biological body plans given natural constraints
cons:
* not particularly well written prose
* odd political and religious detours
* dense in places
* the author presented his original theory of the orientation of hallucigenia and it puzzled me why he ever believed it
April 3, 2025
This is a great response to Gould's "Wonderful Life". Conway-Morris straigtens out several major issues that Gould's interpretation raises. Most notably, on matters of new phyla and the place of the 'weird wonders' in the evolutionary tree, and matters of contingency and predictability.
November 16, 2020
Great book and very learned, but a bit verbose. Had to leave it 2/3 way through'
September 4, 2023
outstanding. sad i finished it. i didnt want it to end. way better than gould's book.
February 20, 2025
Liked this one better than wonderful life 😮 Well-written, clear points, refutes a lot of Gould’s claims in a thought-provoking and straightforward way, would recommend
August 23, 2016
Were I to read this book again, I would skip the first chapter, which consists of the author musing on the philosophical implications of his ideas on how evolution works, as contrasted with those of Stephen Jay Gould. Aside from the tiresome first chapter, the book is pretty good, particularly in its discussion of how some of the stranger-looking fauna preserved in the Burgess Shale could have given rise to more familiar modern phyla. The text is illustrated with lots of nice photographs of Burgess Shale fossils, as well as some color illustrations of how the animals we know of from these fossils might have looked like in life.
July 22, 2012
An excellent read as a followup to Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould. The burgess shale is surely one of the most interesting and important paleontological sites of modern science. In this book Simon Conway Morris takes us on a journey through some of life's early beginnings and demonstrates just how diverse and alien and wonderful nature and evolution can truly be!
April 25, 2015
A good counterpoint to Gould's "Wonderful Life". Could have used more editing - the writing should be tighter and have a better flow. But it's nice to get a detailed analysis of the fossils - Gould spent too much time belaboring the same conclusions again and again.
September 13, 2011
Extremely interesting history of the evolution of first animals as seen in the Burgess Shale. Conway Morris is one of the leading paleontologists in this field.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews