What do you think?
Rate this book
How the Leopard Changed Its Spots : The Evolution of Complexity
Do genes explain life? Can advances in evolutionary and molecular biology account for what we look like, how we behave, and why we die? In this powerful intervention into current biological thinking, Brian Goodwin argues that such genetic reductionism has important limits.
Drawing on the sciences of complexity, the author shows how an understanding of the self-organizing patterns of networks is necessary for making sense of nature. Genes are important, but only as part of a process constrained by environment, physical laws, and the universal tendencies of complex adaptive systems. In a new preface for this edition, Goodwin reflects on the advances in both genetics and the sciences of complexity since the book's original publication.
Drawing on the sciences of complexity, the author shows how an understanding of the self-organizing patterns of networks is necessary for making sense of nature. Genes are important, but only as part of a process constrained by environment, physical laws, and the universal tendencies of complex adaptive systems. In a new preface for this edition, Goodwin reflects on the advances in both genetics and the sciences of complexity since the book's original publication.
275 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 19, 2016
I have to admit that I skipped the last two chapters. I wanted to read this, because I'm a sucker for books that deal with pattern formation in nature, and there was certainly some interesting content along those lines to be had. However, the author seems to have been influenced by postmodern critical theory, which I find both boring and irrelevant. When he wasn't talking in grandiose ways about how horribly wrong Darwinism is, he manages to make some interesting points about how structures are formed. But when he started talking about what he viewed as the bigger picture, he lost my interest.
April 9, 2024
Pleasantly surprised by how cool and interesting this was, getting into the weeds on how life actually, physically happens, slicing through the gordian knot of the but-how-would-the-eye-evolve issue. Kinda went off the rails in the last chapter though; not that the content was bad, per se, excepting perhaps the psychoanalysis bit, but seemed to come completely out of nowhere and have little to do with the rest of the book, bringing it probably closer to a 3.5.
August 30, 2010
If you're into evolutionary biology it's a good read. But beware of the beginning and end. First he talks about algae-which is, I'm afraid to say, horribly boring (and this is coming from me, a guy who has an algae herbarium)-and in the end he goes on and on about a "bold new science". It's the meat in between that makes it worth-the point he makes is evolution has fixed parameters within which to work. It can't make a form that isn't already plausible at the biochemistry level. So the hand of a bat/human/whale/cat are all similar not only due to a shared ancestor, but also because these are the only possible forms given the biochemical nature of the organisms.
April 3, 2019
evolutionary biology is a obviously a fascinating topic in its own right, but what really gets people excited is all the name-calling that evolutionary biologists so dearly love to partake in. in how the leopard changed its spots goodwin is out to get the 'reductionists' and the 'neo-darwinists' whom he believes have not only missed the forest for the trees but have also missed the trees as well by seeing them only as vehicles for genes.
his primary problem with mainstream evolutionists is a philosophical one. he does not believe that they are wrong necessarily but that they are framing problems in a way that obscures potential solutions.
goodwin advocates a return to an organism-centric study of evolution and devotes much of the book to knocking the idea that the genome is the complete build-your-own-organism instruction guide some geneticists would have you believe it is. more complicated factors are at play in the form of emergent behaviours that are responsible for many changes during morphogenesis that are not themselves technically encoded in genetic material.
the author argues his case well with particularly good analogies that reflect his background in mathematics and "harder" biology. i found myself agreeing with the author more often than not, though chapter 7 is definitely a little odd (as other reviewers have pointed out).
his primary problem with mainstream evolutionists is a philosophical one. he does not believe that they are wrong necessarily but that they are framing problems in a way that obscures potential solutions.
goodwin advocates a return to an organism-centric study of evolution and devotes much of the book to knocking the idea that the genome is the complete build-your-own-organism instruction guide some geneticists would have you believe it is. more complicated factors are at play in the form of emergent behaviours that are responsible for many changes during morphogenesis that are not themselves technically encoded in genetic material.
the author argues his case well with particularly good analogies that reflect his background in mathematics and "harder" biology. i found myself agreeing with the author more often than not, though chapter 7 is definitely a little odd (as other reviewers have pointed out).
January 17, 2016
The first 6 chapters were really interesting and I read with a pencil in hand to underline the parts I wanted to transcribe to my notebook. Not only were the ideas well presented and examples frequently used, but also the writing style made it easy to read while retaining a high quality. Also the idea was quite new to me, despite my biology degree. Really great Book. However, the final chapter was so bad that I can't give it 5 stars. In it he tries to link his ideas to culture and humans and ethics and this is unneccessary and done badly. He has nothing to say in linking his idea and so quotes at length from various books looking at the social implications of being a moral human and how this supposedly links to his ideA. Far fetched and boring.
Read the first 6 chapters they are fantastic and I recommend to anyone, but do yourself a favour and skip the final chapter!
Read the first 6 chapters they are fantastic and I recommend to anyone, but do yourself a favour and skip the final chapter!
February 15, 2024
Much silliness just in the first few pages. This is a poorly argued, nearly incoherent book. Most of what he writes about the science is wrong, and the little that is right is not useful.
Right away there are strong indications that Goodwin will lean on rhetoric, where clever writing and biased characterisation of existing positions might carry more weight than solid argument. It's not the first indication, but when Goodwin writes that D'Arcy Thompson "re-establishes the organism as the dynamic vehicle of biological emergence" ... "re-establishes" only makes sense here when attempting to make D'Arcy Thompson be a rhetorical contribution to the timeline of Goodwin's narrative, because it does not fit the historical context around D'Arcy Thompson's work. We also learn that Goodwin will show how, with this book, "values enter fundamentally into the appreciation of the nature of life and biology". Oh good we were lacking that, looking forward to Chapter 7./s
At the bottom of page 2 we learn that "[t]he proposals I am going to make about biology in this book are somewhat similar to this shift of perspective from a geocentric to a heliocentric view of the planetary system." Oh is that all? Not off to a good start. I've just read quite a bit of Dawkins, Gould, and Medawar. Strong egos all, and not always right, yet Goodwin’s ego is off the charts. Recalls to mind Per Bak's hubris. I think he mentioned Goodwin and, reviewing my timelines, that seems to have been my inspiration to seek this book out.
I may regret it. If I continue to pull things apart I'll spend more time writing than reading, so I'll put the writing on hold and you can assume that the preceding applies to the remainder. I'll be fair to Goodwin if the book deserves it but that assessment will come after I've finished. Not saying Goodwin may not have good ideas, but using rhetoric rather than argument really annoys me.
In the middle of Chapter 5 and it's the same, pretty much. Predictably, phyllotaxis and Fibonacci make their appearances. The basic Acetabularia issue he brings up -- 'why does it keep making whorls that it discards before maturity?' -- is seen again and again in evolutionary biology and is neither unanswerable nor uninteresting in any Darwinian context. One might similarly ask, why does a sapling produce branches and leaves that are dropped off before reaching adult size? There are other ways to see it for Acetabularia, for example, the development of the cap might be destabilised if the whorls are not produced, particularly considering that development is already decoupled from the rhizoidal nucleus. It's a silly point. All the reasons why these whorls are maintained, things that Goodwin says are outside Darwinian evolution and only explainable or even interesting when considered as part of his new concepts -- are in truth profoundly interesting to evolutionary developmental biologists. He also humbly compares himself to Goethe because he too cares about the whole organism.
One quote: "At one stroke Darwin thus transformed biology from a rational science that sought intrinsic principles of biological order, such as Geoffroy's Principle of Connections in morphology, into an historical science in which virtually any form is possible and the only principle is survival through adaptive modification." I have no idea what he's on about here.Evolutionary biology is all historical, including everything that Goodwin values. No life that exists is free from its history, no matter its form. That's another tenet of Darwinian biology: every organism has a history, and that history matters fundamentally for explaining what we see before us.
Another quote: "Darwinian biology has no principles that can explain why a structure such as the tetrapod limb arises and is so robust in its basic form." Darwinian biology -- again, a fundamentally historical science -- tells us these arose from the fins of bony fish. Is it the only way of living? No! Many other leg counts exist amongst arthropods. Why do insects have six legs? Is there something fundamental about six legs? Arachnids think not, and the crustaceans would like to comment. Darwinian biology also has principles telling us why bats and birds have only two legs, why whales have front flippers, why snakes have no limbs but some have rudimentary rear leg bones, and so on. Again, I have no idea what he's on about. This is what I meant at the start about leaning on rhetoric. Just because he writes as if it's a true characterisation, that doesn't make it so. Darwinian biologists also use mechanics and physics and biochemistry and engineering and biophysics to understand biological structures. Mechanics tells us why bones are hollow, biochemistry and evolutionary history both tell us why DNA stores genetic information, not proteins, and so on.
Again: "This is why biologists often invoke genes as the repository of all developmental information, the ultimate source of all the instructions for the development of the embryo. But this doesn't work either, because genes can only respond to their immediate biochemical environment in a cell. They don't know where they are in a tissue unless something tells them. So we come back to the morphogenetic field as the source of spatial information." Does Goodwin actually believe that these excitable media that allow for the setting up of morphogenetic fields are somehow outside the influence of genes? He must understand that these are "ultimately" created by the developmental process and used by the developmental process. They don't arise spontaneously, they are created by genes and gene products.
In a way, developmental genes create a wave pool and then surf the results. There's been a lot of evolutionary tinkering; the wave pool didn't just arise spontaneously, and developmental genes can't surf just any excitable medium. Change environmental constituents (like calcium concentrations he wrote about earlier) and development may not be able to proceed. The wave pool can be reconstituted: first to plan the body, later to plan the limb. Flexible, and useful -- viz the diversity! -- but also a constraint on development -- viz the similarities! No Darwinian difficulty; only arguable if Darwinian biology is mischaracterised. Multiple evolutions of limbs from the same structures at different times are *not* equivalent because they arose within different lineages at different points in history. The pieces involved are embedded in different times and places, so the "clay" used for evolution is different. Similarities may be deep and profound, but there will be differences, at least historically, and that matters too. In what ways did two different systems end up produce similar results? Darwinians ask that kind of question all the time.
OK, on p140 Goodwin summarises this part of his argument as: "generative principles provide a better foundation for understanding structure than do historical lineages." My issue with Goodwin's argument is that he falsely characterises this choice as an either/or. That is how he has been employing rhetoric, which is good at overemphasising binary choices. *Both* matter in Darwinian biology, fundamentally, obvious from the first edition of Origin. Darwin didn't cut off 'comparative' and replace it with 'history', he said "and". His flowers books are *filled* with comparative functional morphology interpreted within an evolutionary context: "and" "and" "and".
I won't argue with Goodwin any longer because this is just silly. I will just try to finish the book.
Sorry. Beginning of Chapter 6, exploring the fitness landscapes metaphor, Goodwin writes that the Amazon rainforest developed on poor soil, that striving to overcome the poor soil is what has created the diversity. No, no no no nononononono. It's the other way around. The chapter continues with quantum states of matter and flirting with vitalism and ... "Species of organism are therefore natural kinds, not historical individuals as they are in Darwinism. The members of a species express a particular nature." And he continues that adaptations do not explain species. Such a boring, deliberately wrongheaded statement. Flipped through the rest of Chapters 6 and 7.
Right away there are strong indications that Goodwin will lean on rhetoric, where clever writing and biased characterisation of existing positions might carry more weight than solid argument. It's not the first indication, but when Goodwin writes that D'Arcy Thompson "re-establishes the organism as the dynamic vehicle of biological emergence" ... "re-establishes" only makes sense here when attempting to make D'Arcy Thompson be a rhetorical contribution to the timeline of Goodwin's narrative, because it does not fit the historical context around D'Arcy Thompson's work. We also learn that Goodwin will show how, with this book, "values enter fundamentally into the appreciation of the nature of life and biology". Oh good we were lacking that, looking forward to Chapter 7./s
At the bottom of page 2 we learn that "[t]he proposals I am going to make about biology in this book are somewhat similar to this shift of perspective from a geocentric to a heliocentric view of the planetary system." Oh is that all? Not off to a good start. I've just read quite a bit of Dawkins, Gould, and Medawar. Strong egos all, and not always right, yet Goodwin’s ego is off the charts. Recalls to mind Per Bak's hubris. I think he mentioned Goodwin and, reviewing my timelines, that seems to have been my inspiration to seek this book out.
I may regret it. If I continue to pull things apart I'll spend more time writing than reading, so I'll put the writing on hold and you can assume that the preceding applies to the remainder. I'll be fair to Goodwin if the book deserves it but that assessment will come after I've finished. Not saying Goodwin may not have good ideas, but using rhetoric rather than argument really annoys me.
In the middle of Chapter 5 and it's the same, pretty much. Predictably, phyllotaxis and Fibonacci make their appearances. The basic Acetabularia issue he brings up -- 'why does it keep making whorls that it discards before maturity?' -- is seen again and again in evolutionary biology and is neither unanswerable nor uninteresting in any Darwinian context. One might similarly ask, why does a sapling produce branches and leaves that are dropped off before reaching adult size? There are other ways to see it for Acetabularia, for example, the development of the cap might be destabilised if the whorls are not produced, particularly considering that development is already decoupled from the rhizoidal nucleus. It's a silly point. All the reasons why these whorls are maintained, things that Goodwin says are outside Darwinian evolution and only explainable or even interesting when considered as part of his new concepts -- are in truth profoundly interesting to evolutionary developmental biologists. He also humbly compares himself to Goethe because he too cares about the whole organism.
One quote: "At one stroke Darwin thus transformed biology from a rational science that sought intrinsic principles of biological order, such as Geoffroy's Principle of Connections in morphology, into an historical science in which virtually any form is possible and the only principle is survival through adaptive modification." I have no idea what he's on about here.Evolutionary biology is all historical, including everything that Goodwin values. No life that exists is free from its history, no matter its form. That's another tenet of Darwinian biology: every organism has a history, and that history matters fundamentally for explaining what we see before us.
Another quote: "Darwinian biology has no principles that can explain why a structure such as the tetrapod limb arises and is so robust in its basic form." Darwinian biology -- again, a fundamentally historical science -- tells us these arose from the fins of bony fish. Is it the only way of living? No! Many other leg counts exist amongst arthropods. Why do insects have six legs? Is there something fundamental about six legs? Arachnids think not, and the crustaceans would like to comment. Darwinian biology also has principles telling us why bats and birds have only two legs, why whales have front flippers, why snakes have no limbs but some have rudimentary rear leg bones, and so on. Again, I have no idea what he's on about. This is what I meant at the start about leaning on rhetoric. Just because he writes as if it's a true characterisation, that doesn't make it so. Darwinian biologists also use mechanics and physics and biochemistry and engineering and biophysics to understand biological structures. Mechanics tells us why bones are hollow, biochemistry and evolutionary history both tell us why DNA stores genetic information, not proteins, and so on.
Again: "This is why biologists often invoke genes as the repository of all developmental information, the ultimate source of all the instructions for the development of the embryo. But this doesn't work either, because genes can only respond to their immediate biochemical environment in a cell. They don't know where they are in a tissue unless something tells them. So we come back to the morphogenetic field as the source of spatial information." Does Goodwin actually believe that these excitable media that allow for the setting up of morphogenetic fields are somehow outside the influence of genes? He must understand that these are "ultimately" created by the developmental process and used by the developmental process. They don't arise spontaneously, they are created by genes and gene products.
In a way, developmental genes create a wave pool and then surf the results. There's been a lot of evolutionary tinkering; the wave pool didn't just arise spontaneously, and developmental genes can't surf just any excitable medium. Change environmental constituents (like calcium concentrations he wrote about earlier) and development may not be able to proceed. The wave pool can be reconstituted: first to plan the body, later to plan the limb. Flexible, and useful -- viz the diversity! -- but also a constraint on development -- viz the similarities! No Darwinian difficulty; only arguable if Darwinian biology is mischaracterised. Multiple evolutions of limbs from the same structures at different times are *not* equivalent because they arose within different lineages at different points in history. The pieces involved are embedded in different times and places, so the "clay" used for evolution is different. Similarities may be deep and profound, but there will be differences, at least historically, and that matters too. In what ways did two different systems end up produce similar results? Darwinians ask that kind of question all the time.
OK, on p140 Goodwin summarises this part of his argument as: "generative principles provide a better foundation for understanding structure than do historical lineages." My issue with Goodwin's argument is that he falsely characterises this choice as an either/or. That is how he has been employing rhetoric, which is good at overemphasising binary choices. *Both* matter in Darwinian biology, fundamentally, obvious from the first edition of Origin. Darwin didn't cut off 'comparative' and replace it with 'history', he said "and". His flowers books are *filled* with comparative functional morphology interpreted within an evolutionary context: "and" "and" "and".
I won't argue with Goodwin any longer because this is just silly. I will just try to finish the book.
Sorry. Beginning of Chapter 6, exploring the fitness landscapes metaphor, Goodwin writes that the Amazon rainforest developed on poor soil, that striving to overcome the poor soil is what has created the diversity. No, no no no nononononono. It's the other way around. The chapter continues with quantum states of matter and flirting with vitalism and ... "Species of organism are therefore natural kinds, not historical individuals as they are in Darwinism. The members of a species express a particular nature." And he continues that adaptations do not explain species. Such a boring, deliberately wrongheaded statement. Flipped through the rest of Chapters 6 and 7.
August 12, 2022
La Biología es una ciencia apasionante que ha influenciado permanentemente mi vida. En ella, La Teoría de la Evolución es el santo grial de las teorías, tanto que un afamado biólogo (Dobzhansky) dijo una vez que: "Nada tiene sentido en biología si no es a la luz de la evolución". Sin embargo, a algunos biólogos se les puede olvidar la gran cantidad de matices que tiene esta teoría, estamos seguros de tan pocas cosas sobre ella que algunos científicos defienden que no es una teoría consolidada. Solo estamos seguros de que los organismos cambian (evolucionan) y ya está, las discusiones sobre cuáles son los motores principales del cambio son acaloradas y constantes (te sorprendería la cantidad de biólogos que cuestionan la Selección Natural). Goodwin hace en este libro unas duras críticas a la visión predominante de la evolución como lucha por la supervivencia, y la visión neodarwinista abanderada por Dawkings de los organismos como almacenes de genes. En este libro encontrarás un compendio de todas las razones por las cuáles debemos volver al entendimiendo de la biología como una ciencia de organismos y abandonar el reduccionismo genético.
No es un libro para empezar a leer sobre evolución porque es una lectura contestataria, las referencias al paradigma predominante son constantes y todos los argumentos y razonamientos se construyen en base a las flaquezas del neodarwinismo. No se puede disfrutar lo suficiente sin una noción básica de la evolución ya asentada. Si ya tienes esos fundamentos, este libro te desvelará las flaquezas que tal vez nunca viste y reformulará tu visión de la evolución y la biología.
No es un libro para empezar a leer sobre evolución porque es una lectura contestataria, las referencias al paradigma predominante son constantes y todos los argumentos y razonamientos se construyen en base a las flaquezas del neodarwinismo. No se puede disfrutar lo suficiente sin una noción básica de la evolución ya asentada. Si ya tienes esos fundamentos, este libro te desvelará las flaquezas que tal vez nunca viste y reformulará tu visión de la evolución y la biología.
December 9, 2018
There was some cool stuff in this book, particularly in the middle section in which the author discusses the self-generating nature of the development of animal limbs and plant leafing patterns, and I think I will re-read that section at some point to fully absorb all of the material. But the last chapter was very strange, and didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. It was essentially a manifesto to revert back to traditional ways to interact with nature which seemed to come out of nowhere.
November 23, 2021
I've read it some years ago, back when I was in the University, this book has it's pros and cons.
Pros:
It is a holistic approach to what an organism is, enphaiszing on other factor as how morphogenesis arises, that are valid and interesting.
Cons:
It is in some statements somewhat inconsistent, redundant and tautologic.
Pros:
It is a holistic approach to what an organism is, enphaiszing on other factor as how morphogenesis arises, that are valid and interesting.
Cons:
It is in some statements somewhat inconsistent, redundant and tautologic.
May 3, 2012
I gave it four stars because I am sympathetic to the author's view of life and evolution, and I get that he is trying to make a point against Darwinism being too much a prisoner of the culture that, um, evolved it. He describes it as a "sin/redemption" point of view, which I found interesting, as I always tend to view it as a product of early 19th century British laissez-faire capitalism and imperialism. Oh, I'm an evolutionist--just not a Dick Dawkins Darwinist.
That said, I thought the last chapter should have been deleted, perhaps turned into another book. I could sense he was trying to tie everything together and make some grand unified neo-morality. But it just came across as old-time baby-boomer Third World good-Western World bad blahblah.
Are we really supposed to base the economy of 7 billion people on what the Hunza tribe of Pakistan does? Get real. And what has that to do with, you know, morphogenetic fields and stuff like that, which is why I picked up the book.
I haven't, of course, read all Goodwin's secondary sources, but I was dismayed to see him referencing Stephen Jay Gould regarding the Burgess Shale. I'm sure that would make Simon Conway Morris puke his guts out.
By the way, I've seen references that imply Goodwin's ideas support those of Rupert Sheldrake, or that confuse Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance with Goodwin's discussion of morphogenetic fields. But Goodwin clearly states Sheldrake's non-physical postulated fields have nothing to do with the spatial organizing activities he is discussing.
The core of the book, and why I rated it highly, is Goodwin's discussion of the problems in the large-scale aspects of evolution from a Darwinian viewpoint, the problem of emergent order, the origin of novel structures in organisms, the definition of biological reality. I, too, take an organocentric view rather than a genocentric, agreeing that "organisms cannot be reduced to the properties of their genes, and must be understood as dynamic systems with distinctive properties that characterize the living state."
I found the core chapters a quick and interesting read. I would recommend not even bothering to read the last chapter.
That said, I thought the last chapter should have been deleted, perhaps turned into another book. I could sense he was trying to tie everything together and make some grand unified neo-morality. But it just came across as old-time baby-boomer Third World good-Western World bad blahblah.
Are we really supposed to base the economy of 7 billion people on what the Hunza tribe of Pakistan does? Get real. And what has that to do with, you know, morphogenetic fields and stuff like that, which is why I picked up the book.
I haven't, of course, read all Goodwin's secondary sources, but I was dismayed to see him referencing Stephen Jay Gould regarding the Burgess Shale. I'm sure that would make Simon Conway Morris puke his guts out.
By the way, I've seen references that imply Goodwin's ideas support those of Rupert Sheldrake, or that confuse Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance with Goodwin's discussion of morphogenetic fields. But Goodwin clearly states Sheldrake's non-physical postulated fields have nothing to do with the spatial organizing activities he is discussing.
The core of the book, and why I rated it highly, is Goodwin's discussion of the problems in the large-scale aspects of evolution from a Darwinian viewpoint, the problem of emergent order, the origin of novel structures in organisms, the definition of biological reality. I, too, take an organocentric view rather than a genocentric, agreeing that "organisms cannot be reduced to the properties of their genes, and must be understood as dynamic systems with distinctive properties that characterize the living state."
I found the core chapters a quick and interesting read. I would recommend not even bothering to read the last chapter.
August 26, 2008
Very cool book, though probably would have been better as a long essay with some good figures rather than a whole book. If you are curious how the hell evolution/genetics leads to so many bizarre biological forms, this is for you. Basically he explains (in a long-winded yet convincing fashion), that forms (such as spirals) and complexity are inherent in matter and physics itself such that evolution didn't necessarily 'create' these complex biological forms through selection from a vast reservoir of mostly not-so-complex forms, but rather that the complex forms are really the only options that evolution had. Good stuff.
October 3, 2015
Biology is the "leopard" of the book's title. Brian Goodwin urges biology to shift its focus from a "genocentric" to an "organocentric" perspective (p. 3). The ideas he develops "are very much in the Goethean spirit" (p. 123). Goethe believed in a science of intrinsically dynamic wholes: "the whole plant, the whole organism, or the whole circle of colours in his theory of colour" (p. 123). I very much enjoyed reading the book!
August 4, 2010
An outstanding look at complexity theory and it's influence on or manifestation within our world.
Have fun.
Have fun.
Read
March 31, 2018This book can be split surprisingly neatly into two parts: the first regarding the spontaneous generation of order and form in complex, dynamical systems - the second regarding the honestly strenous philosophical connections that accompany the science, and how they force us to re-evaluate mankind's relationship with nature.
I found the first part - the science chapters - incredibly interesting. In fact, in some ways, they have transformed how I perceived the relationship between genes and organism form; the notion of genes acting as input parameters in a dynamical system is a fascinating concept. I also sympathized with Goodwin's criticisms of the oftentimes historical nature of evolutionary explanations ('it is this way because it's always been this way') and what he perceives as the over-emphasis of function in determining phenotype.
The second - more philosophical - part should have either been scaled back enormously or deleted entirely. It appears like a completely separate book - and it drags like hell. I do sympathise with his criticisms of reductionism, but when stated repeatedly in vague, grandiose terms for the better part of 60 pages, they make one wonder what value they add to the book at all.
I found the first part - the science chapters - incredibly interesting. In fact, in some ways, they have transformed how I perceived the relationship between genes and organism form; the notion of genes acting as input parameters in a dynamical system is a fascinating concept. I also sympathized with Goodwin's criticisms of the oftentimes historical nature of evolutionary explanations ('it is this way because it's always been this way') and what he perceives as the over-emphasis of function in determining phenotype.
The second - more philosophical - part should have either been scaled back enormously or deleted entirely. It appears like a completely separate book - and it drags like hell. I do sympathise with his criticisms of reductionism, but when stated repeatedly in vague, grandiose terms for the better part of 60 pages, they make one wonder what value they add to the book at all.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews