In this blog post, we explore new perspectives on progress and diversity in evolutionary theory through Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘Full House’, examining how he expanded Darwin’s theory of evolution.
In ‘Full House’, Stephen Jay Gould argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been besieged by misunderstanding and prejudice. Before presenting his own theory on evolution, he dedicates the book’s introduction to dispelling misconceptions about Darwin’s theory. Stephen Jay Gould argues that attempts to define the history of life as progress, aiming to show humans as the pinnacle of evolution, are flawed. He emphasizes that humans are merely a small branch sprouting from the rich tree of life. He points out the error of viewing the evolution of a minority toward open variation as a phenomenon of the entire system, supporting this by discussing why 400 batting average hitters disappeared from Major League Baseball and how bacteria represent a truly great form of life. Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, also seeks to explain misunderstandings about Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He argues that gradual evolution through natural selection—a blind watchmaker incapable of intentional design—is possible. He dismantles the misconception that evolution occurs through a single, massive mutation, asserting instead that evolution is gradual improvement through natural selection. He contends that even complex organs like eyes or bat sonar can fully develop through this process.
After reading both books, I concluded that Stephen Jay Gould was the scholar who understood Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution most profoundly. This is because Richard Dawkins equated the unit of selection with the unit of variation. Mutations occur at the level of a single DNA base, but natural selection does not operate at the level of a single DNA base. This is because three bases must come together to determine a single amino acid, and a single amino acid is generally not a suitable unit for natural selection; the unit must be larger. Regarding his view that gradual, cumulative natural selection occurred, I considered the evolution of the eye and the wing together. Richard Dawkins’ response to the question, ‘What good is 5% of an eye?’ was that it could be used for dim vision. However, this is not a valid answer for the eye when considering the neural processes involved in visual function. Similarly, for wings, intermediate forms transitioning from forelimbs to wings appear unsuitable for either purpose, making their acquisition via natural selection unlikely. The existence of missing links in fossil research—intermediate fossils that have not been found—can also be a weakness in his argument.
So, can we say Stephen Jay Gould fully understood Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution? Let’s compare Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with Stephen Jay Gould’s claims. Charles Darwin believed that clearly defining the meanings of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ is difficult, and that the term ‘lower’ is used to mean less specialized for their respective functions. That is, prokaryotic organisms, which we commonly refer to as lower organisms, are not inherently inferior, but rather have many parts of their systems that are less specialized for their respective functions. Stephen Jay Gould argued that bacteria, an example of a prokaryotic organism, cannot be called inferior. This is because bacteria have existed since the very beginning of life, their diversity is immeasurable, and they live in extreme conditions difficult for us to discover. Furthermore, their numbers exceed those of any other organisms on Earth. Through the example of bacteria, Stephen Jay Gould criticized the notion of considering humans the most advanced life form. He argued that such claims ultimately amount to an error of classifying life forms hierarchically to rationalize human existence, and that the terms ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ are not fundamentally different from Charles Darwin’s assertion that they represent distinctions based on the degree of functional specialization.
Charles Darwin viewed the progress of systems as indicating an increase in ‘specialization for multiple functions’. While defining the term ‘progress of systems’ is difficult, von Baer’s standard of ‘the amount of differentiation in a mature individual’ is the most widely applicable, and Charles Darwin added ‘specialization for multiple functions’ to this. He stated that all organisms have progressed and are progressing as a whole. Stephen Jay Gould’s thoughts on systemic progress can be gleaned from his discussion of the .400 hitter problem. This problem addresses why, despite overall steady improvement in global sports, the rate of improvement has slowed, and why .400 hitters, once common, are no longer found. Gould viewed the .400 batting average as the tail end of the overall batting average’s bell curve. He explained that while the frequency distribution maintains its mean value, the variance symmetrically decreases on both sides, resulting in a smaller standard deviation. He also discovered that despite baseball rules evolving repeatedly to make games more exciting, the decrease in the standard deviation of regular players’ batting averages has been remarkably consistent. Therefore, he argues that as both defense and offense have improved overall, they have converged towards the right wall, representing the limits of human capability. Ultimately, Stephen Jay Gould sought to interpret systemic progress as the expansion and contraction of variation, viewing the expansion of variation as bounded by the right and left walls. This differs from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which posits that systems have progressed and continue to progress. Gould rejects the concept of progress itself, arguing instead that variation—a concept meant to replace progress—itself has limits, creating a point of divergence.
Let us also examine opinions on natural selection. Charles Darwin stated that the standard of perfection attained in nature is the competitor. This implies that natural selection tends to make each organism as perfect, or slightly more perfect, than its fellow inhabitants of the same region, who are its competitors. He further argued that as long as natural selection operates, the perfection of a single organism cannot exist. Stephen Jay Gould fully agreed with Charles Darwin’s argument regarding natural selection in his own book. He further reinforced his position by emphasizing that the mechanism of natural selection itself contained no information about which organisms were superior; organisms were merely fortuitously advantaged in the specific environments that triggered natural selection.
Finally, Charles Darwin emphasized that we merely divide organisms into higher and lower forms from our perspective, and that existing lower organisms are also the fittest survivors. Stephen Jay Gould called it arrogance that most people still regard the birth of humanity as inevitable and place humans at the pinnacle of evolution. By placing human history at the center of Earth’s biological evolution, humans perceive other life forms—single-celled organisms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and so forth—as subordinate beings. Believing themselves to exist above all other life and nature, humans seek to destroy and dominate ecosystems. To such humanity, Stephen Jay Gould urges us to realize that our emergence was an unpredictable accident arising from increased diversity, not an inevitable outcome dictated by evolutionary principles. Through the ‘Full House’ model, he advocates respecting variation and diversity for their own sake. I believe Stephen Jay Gould, while speaking within the same context as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, further developed his argument in his own unique way.
Since Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, numerous scholars have debated the driving forces of evolution, its direction, and its pace. Through this opportunity, I gained insight into the arguments of the two most pivotal figures in evolutionary theory, and I see Stephen Jay Gould’s claims as having developed Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution in a more persuasive manner. I couldn’t shake the feeling that he selectively used only the parts of Charles Darwin’s theory that aligned with his own views to rationalize his position. Furthermore, Stephen Jay Gould emphasized that Plato’s strategy of reducing the whole to a single abstract number and tracking its changes over time only leads to error and confusion. I found it somewhat puzzling that Plato would reduce the whole to a single abstract number. Plato’s Forms are fundamentally qualitative, not quantitative. Abstraction is a mode of thought that strips away particulars and binds only commonalities. Plato’s theory of Forms is not a metaphysics based on abstraction.
