Since It is very difficult for me to discern any meaning from the text, I can't comment on the substance (if any). I don't think it is unreasonable of me to be sceptical about whether there is any substance...
...Actually, I thought that was what you were getting at. That you were quoting the passage in order to make fun of the style. I wanted to get in on the fun. Oops, my mistake. Bill Bartlett
------------
I wasn't quoting these passages for their apparent obscurity. Yes, it was very dense. It was also vague, impressionistic, and philosophical. Gould's point was to give a general summary so that the reader had some idea of what was going to be developed and where that would likely go. I quoted it because it was brief, quickly covered a large variety of topics, and I actually admired its extreme condensation. I realized of course that it was unlike just about any scientific writing I've ever read. I admire Gould's balls for writing that way. I even wonder a little at his sense of humor which might have been: hell I'll be dead, so I won't have to listen to all the whining about it.
Anyway. What is Darwinian logic? Darwinian logic is essentially micro-evolution. That is, natural selection is exercised on the individual organism, not on a species. That variations between individuals within a species are either rewarded in the sense of successfully reproduced or are not rewarded by selectively not reproducing and that the sum of the adaptive effects of these selective pressures produces incremental and evolutionary change. The classic example is the variety of beak shapes among fitches who populated different islands in the Galapagos and sought different food sources. (I think this accurate, but I am writing from memory.) So the variation in their beaks was adaptive change brought about by natural selection. Those shapes that best suited the food source were retained, but the food sources varied, hence the differences in beak shape.
There are a variety of implications that follow. For example, physical isolation over prolonged periods becomes the classical explanation for species diversification. The source of variation among individuals is random mutations which are then culled by selection, in effect tailoring them to be adaptive. Incremental changes over large quantities of time account for gross differences. And finally that natural selection among individuals accounts for all evolutionary diversity and variation that we see.
In contrast, first Gould proposes that selection operates on several different levels simultaneously and selection is not necessarily restricted to individual organisms. Second that instead of incremental change, there are long periods of stasis, interrupted by shorter periods of great change (punctuated equilibrium). Third, that there are more processes involved in generating changes than just random mutations and at least some of these processes are essentially interactive. And, that because selection effects different levels beyond the individual, it also works on different time scales. And lastly that all of these revisions interact together as an ensemble in which no particular one is more important than the others.
So the problem with reading those passages of Gould is that most of this has to be on your mind in the first place in order for any of it to make sense.
I am not a scientist or specialist. My father-in-law was a botanist who studied the co-evolution of plants and pollenators, I used to work for a biophysicist studying plant growth and hormone changes under variations of light and gravity (direction), and have read a great deal out of interest. And I have enough bio-science textbooks around to consult, if I get lost.
In general, reading is considered a relatively minor skill. In my opinion, reading is not a minor skill. It only appears to be, since most reading material is pretty minor stuff. Most people, including me, expect to understand immediately what is written as long as there are no formulas or really bizarre words in use. It is not a common experience to read something as dense and technical as those four paragraphs. When I came across them, I was buzzing along at a usual rate and suddenly slowed down to a crawl as if I had just hit a mud slick. Wheels are spinning and there is no forward movement. Damn, what was that? So I re-read them several times to follow as much as I could, get my orientation corrected, and study the passages and think on them.
All of this relates to another thread from a couple of weeks ago, in which Kelley asked what about Gould and Kuhn. I don't know yet. I went back re-read about three quarters of Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions, and I'll plug away at Gould.
So, I don't blame you for tossing your head, what th bloody f** is this jerk on about? On the other hand, it ain't an op-ed piece either.
Chuck Grimes