Sepkoski David
Department of History, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Boltzmanstraße 22, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
J Hist Biol. 2019 Dec;52(4):687-703. doi: 10.1007/s10739-018-9537-8.
In the received view of the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, paleontology was given a prominent role in evolutionary biology thanks to the significant influence of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson on both the institutional and conceptual development of the Synthesis. Simpson's 1944 Tempo and Mode in Evolution is considered a classic of Synthesis-era biology, and Simpson often remarked on the influence of other major Synthesis figures - such as Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky - on his developing thought. Why, then, did paleontologists of the 1970s and 1980s - Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, David M. Raup, Steven Stanley, and others - so frequently complain that paleontology remained marginalized within evolutionary biology? This essay considers three linked questions: first, were paleontologists genuinely welcomed into the Synthetic project during its initial stages? Second, was the initial promise of the role for paleontology realized during the decades between 1950 and 1980, when the Synthesis supposedly "hardened" to an "orthodoxy"? And third, did the period of organized dissent and opposition to this orthodoxy by paleontologists during the 1970s and 1980s bring about a long-delayed completion to the Modern Synthesis, or rather does it highlight the wider failure of any such unified Darwinian evolutionary consensus?
在关于现代进化综合理论史的传统观点中,古生物学在进化生物学中占据显著地位,这要归功于古生物学家乔治·盖洛德·辛普森对综合理论在制度和概念发展方面的重大影响。辛普森1944年出版的《进化的节奏与模式》被视为综合理论时代生物学的经典之作,辛普森也经常提及其他综合理论的主要人物——如恩斯特·迈尔和西奥多修斯·杜布赞斯基——对他思想发展的影响。那么,为什么20世纪70年代和80年代的古生物学家——斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德、尼尔·埃尔德雷奇、大卫·M·劳普、史蒂文·斯坦利等人——经常抱怨古生物学在进化生物学中仍处于边缘地位呢?本文思考三个相互关联的问题:第一,在综合理论项目的初始阶段,古生物学家真的受到欢迎吗?第二,在1950年至1980年这几十年间,当综合理论据称“固化”为一种“正统观念”时,古生物学最初所承诺的角色是否得以实现?第三,20世纪70年代和80年代古生物学家对这种正统观念进行有组织的异议和反对的时期,是否带来了现代综合理论姗姗来迟的完善,还是恰恰凸显了任何此类统一的达尔文进化共识更广泛的失败?