What do you think?
Rate this book
Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards? (Prometheus Prize) by Elliott Sober
Is it accurate to label Darwin's theory "the theory of evolution by natural selection," given that the concept of common ancestry is at least as central to Darwin's theory? Did Darwin reject the idea that group selection causes characteristics to evolve that are good for the group though bad for the individual? How does Darwin's discussion of God in The Origin of Species square with the common view that he is the champion of methodological naturalism? These are just some of the intriguing questions raised in this volume of interconnected philosophical essays on Darwin. The author's approach is informed by modern issues in evolutionary biology, but is sensitive to the ways in which Darwin's outlook differed from that of many biologists today. The main topics that are the focus of the book-common ancestry, group selection, sex ratio, and naturalism-have rarely been discussed in their connection with Darwin in such penetrating detail. Author Professor Sober is the 2008 winner of the Prometheus Prize. This biennial award, established in 2006 through the American Philosophical Association, is designed "to honor a distinguished philosopher in recognition of his or her lifetime contribution to expanding the frontiers of research in philosophy and science." This insightful collection of essays will be of interest to philosophers, biologists, and laypersons seeking a deeper understanding of one of the most influential scientific theories ever propounded.
- GenresSciencePhilosophy
Paperback
First published December 1, 2010
5 people are currently reading
65 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 3, 2016
Goodness, I wanted to like this book so much but I ended up having a lot of mixed feelings about it. Elliot Sober's Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards? begins with a provocative idea implied in the books's title. The question is raised because although the book begins with the theory of natural selection, another important concept there right at the heart of the book is the brute fact that all living creatures share a common ancestry. Chronologically, in Darwin's Origin of Species, natural selection comes first and then common ancestry follows.
Unfortunately, I think the big idea gets lost in Sober's work. It looked like the big idea was going to be this. Although Darwin presented natural selection first and then moved to common ancestry, it might just have been that Darwin was building toward the more important idea of common ancestry. But this idea gets brought up and then dropped, it seems.
If pursued, all kinds of interesting avenues could have been brought up. For one, the idea of genus and species is in many respects an artificial taxonomical structure. We're talking about one kind of life in a variety of forms. Sure, there are important reasons for wanting to classify species but at some point the knit-picking part about tracing the movement from one species into another is fruitless since a species is just about anything you want to call it. From a God's-eye view there was a smooth transition all along, and any new 'species' could have been differentiated from its immediate ancestor. Only when we look at the diversity of life and the huge gaps in the fossil record does that process seem less smooth and the differentiation of life as less likely to have come from a common ancestor (even though that isn't true).
Something Sober is interested in in this book is whether natural selection works at the level of the individual or the group. That is, are certain traits favoured only because they benefit the individual or the group? Mainstream biology has it that it's an organism's genes in particular and their competition with other genes that give rise to the diversity of traits. Sober disagrees, arguing that there are certain cases where those models don't explain the emergence of certain sorts of group behaviours. If my money were on anything, it would be on the mainstream view, not the group selection view, but what do I know?
Another problem it seems to me that Sober isn't considering is that natural selection is very unlikely to be the only mechanism that would generate the diversity of life and diversity of traits. Others would be genetic mutations, which are freak. (Incidentally, a genetic mutation is likely to have given rise to language in humans.) There are also other constraints of mathematical, physical, and biological laws. No need to reduce all instances of evolution down to instances of natural selection, whether at the individual level or the group.
Unfortunately, I think the big idea gets lost in Sober's work. It looked like the big idea was going to be this. Although Darwin presented natural selection first and then moved to common ancestry, it might just have been that Darwin was building toward the more important idea of common ancestry. But this idea gets brought up and then dropped, it seems.
If pursued, all kinds of interesting avenues could have been brought up. For one, the idea of genus and species is in many respects an artificial taxonomical structure. We're talking about one kind of life in a variety of forms. Sure, there are important reasons for wanting to classify species but at some point the knit-picking part about tracing the movement from one species into another is fruitless since a species is just about anything you want to call it. From a God's-eye view there was a smooth transition all along, and any new 'species' could have been differentiated from its immediate ancestor. Only when we look at the diversity of life and the huge gaps in the fossil record does that process seem less smooth and the differentiation of life as less likely to have come from a common ancestor (even though that isn't true).
Something Sober is interested in in this book is whether natural selection works at the level of the individual or the group. That is, are certain traits favoured only because they benefit the individual or the group? Mainstream biology has it that it's an organism's genes in particular and their competition with other genes that give rise to the diversity of traits. Sober disagrees, arguing that there are certain cases where those models don't explain the emergence of certain sorts of group behaviours. If my money were on anything, it would be on the mainstream view, not the group selection view, but what do I know?
Another problem it seems to me that Sober isn't considering is that natural selection is very unlikely to be the only mechanism that would generate the diversity of life and diversity of traits. Others would be genetic mutations, which are freak. (Incidentally, a genetic mutation is likely to have given rise to language in humans.) There are also other constraints of mathematical, physical, and biological laws. No need to reduce all instances of evolution down to instances of natural selection, whether at the individual level or the group.
August 6, 2021
A brilliant discussion, essentially a series of lectures, on the philosophy and historical development of the ideas of Darwin. I do warn the casual reader, who may get something from it nonetheless, that Sober (a world-renowned professor based at my own University) presumes that the reader has a grounding in the mathematics of evolutionary biology. This is not popular science, but for the serious professional or post-bachelor’s-level student of biology and/or the philosophy of science.
June 27, 2014
Not really a book about Darwin, not really a book of Darwin scholarship, but that stuff can be a little dry sometimes. This book gives you answers to basic questions about contemporary evolutionary theory, and uses Darwin and some other bits from the history of biology as a foil. If you're familiar with Sober's work, this will go fast, because he's regurgitating a bit--though by this time he's kind of perfected his own approach to these sorts of questions.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews