I've been reading Stephen Jay Gould's final book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". For all the book's impressive bulk, the central argument is straightforward.
The modern interpretation of Darwin's theory (steady, continuous, and incremental evolution filtered by the agent of natural selection) has vanquished the theories that came before it (saltation, orthogenesis, Lamarkism, etc) but some key questions linger. For example, fossils often show species staying unchanged, in evolutionary stasis, for millions of years. Fossils also show the sudden appearance of new species. Are these counter-examples to the principle of evolutionary gradualism artefacts of a woefully incomplete fossil record, or is something else going on? Gould calls that something else "punctuated equilibrium", and "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" is an extended argument for his theory and its implications.
One of the implications is that evolution occurs at multiple conceptual levels. In the 1940s scientists reached a consensus about the mechanism of evolution, grandly called "The Synthesis" because it brought together thinking about genetics, systematics and populations. The Synthesis insists that natural selection acts on individual organisms, and in so doing alters the distribution of genes in the larger population, increasing the proportion of advantageous gene combinations. Gould argues that pressure to evolve comes not only from the relative reproductive success of individuals, but is also felt by local groups, entire species, and even groups of species.
Gould has an axe to grind with the biologists who forged The Synthesis. While he agrees with the vital essence of the theory, he believes The Synthesis shut down legitimate discussion of levels of selection other than the individual. He demonstrates that concerns about the locus of evolution have been around for as long as scientists have been thinking about the subject. Before Darwin and the discovery of genetics, evolutionary theorists were discussing much that was later shown to be hooey. Gould believes that in their excitement at discovering a compelling mechanistic explanation for evolution, the Synthesists swept aside not just now-disprovable claims such as inheritance of acquired traits, but also legitimate and long-standing questions about the rate of evolution and the targets of selection.
I've been reading "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" in chunks of one or two chapters, taking breaks between to read other books. I've reached the point where Gould has set out the background to his argument: pre-Darwinian theories of evolution, Darwin's impact, and The Synthesis. It was a good time to take a break, and I decided to read something from one of the main contributors to The Synthesis, Ernst Mayr.
Ernst Mayr was an extraordinary scientist of stunning longevity. He wrote "What Evolution Is" in his 90s, and he died a few years later, in 2005, at the age of 100. He was a great ornithologist and field researcher, and his contributions to evolutionary biology and The Synthesis were foundational.
In places "What Evolutions Is" is a sloppy book. Ideas are repeated, sometimes in the very next paragraph. At one point Mayr says he will describe seven factors, then lists eight. That's frustrating, but by no means a fatal problem. I was more concerned with the sometimes dismissive and condescending tone. I was reading with my ears open to evidence of what Gould calls the "hardening" of The Synthesis around a single dogmatic point-of-view, and there was plenty of evidence to be found. Mayr was a bone fide great man of science, and had earned the right to thunder out his views, but I found his attitude to Gould's concerns confusing and inconsistent. Early in the book Mayr describes punctuated equilibrium as "an ephemeral dispute". Ouch! But when Mayr discusses peripatric speciation - an idea of Mayr's that contributed directly to the theory of punctuated equilibrium - he brings up many of the same concerns Gould addresses, but labels them as difficult problems for further investigation.
I came away from "What Evolution Is" feeling that Mayr and Gould were actually on the same page, but Mayr - for reasons of his own - didn't want to admit it. Mayr was much too good a scientist to deny the controversy, and he had some legitimate reservations with specific aspects of the punctuated equilibrium theory. Perhaps Mayr thought Gould was attacking deeper into the essence of The Synthesis than Gould actually was. Or maybe Mayr thought parts of punctuated equilibrium were rubbish, and therefore wasn't willing to take the theory seriously.
"What Evolution Is" is not, however, a book about a specific theory of macroevolution. It's a broad treatment of the whole of modern evolutionary theory from a great scientist. If you only read one book about evolution in your life, "What Evolution Is" might be a great choice. If, like me, you've read many and intend reading many more, it's still a good read, but you can detect some narrowness in the point-of-view, and a tendency to lecture and pronounce.