Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

Gould’s replay revisited

  • Derek D. TurnerEmail author


This paper develops a critical response to John Beatty’s recent (2006) engagement with Stephen Jay Gould’s claim that evolutionary history is contingent. Beatty identifies two senses of contingency in Gould’s work: an unpredictability sense and a causal dependence sense. He denies that Gould associates contingency with stochastic phenomena, such as drift. In reply to Beatty, this paper develops two main claims. The first is an interpretive claim: Gould really thinks of contingency has having to do with stochastic effects at the level of macroevolution, and in particular with unbiased species sorting. This notion of contingency as macro-level stochasticity incorporates both the causal dependence and the unpredictability senses of contingency. The second claim is more substantive: Recent attempts by other scientists to put Gould’s claim to the test fail to engage with the hypothesis that species sorting sometimes resembles a lottery. Gould’s claim that random sorting is a significant macroevolutionary phenomenon remains an intriguing and largely untested live hypothesis about evolution.


Burgess shale Chance Contingency Gould History Macroevolution 



I’m grateful for the helpful feedback on this article from audiences at Florida State University, The University of New Hampshire, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Many people have helped me along the way, including Michael Baumgartner, Delphine Chapuis-Schmitz, Richard Dawid, Val Dusek, Mehmet Elgin, Simon Feldman, Rob Inkpen, Yoichi Ishida, Nick Jones, Andrew Margenot, John Norton, Michael Ruse, David Sepkoski, Ed Slowik, Kim Sterelny, and an anonymous referee for this journal. My early work on this project was supported by a fellowship from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Philosophy of Science.


  1. Beatty J (1995) The evolutionary contingency thesis. In: Wolters G, Lennox J (eds) Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 45–81Google Scholar
  2. Beatty J (1997) Why do biologists argue like they do? Philos Sci 64(4 supp):S432–S443Google Scholar
  3. Beatty J (2006) Replaying life’s tape. J Philos 103(7):336–362Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Menahem Y (1997) Historical contingency. Ratio 10:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandon R (1997) Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philos Sci 64(4):S444–S457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brysse K (2008) From weird wonders to stem lineages: the second reclassification of the Burgess shale fauna. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 39:298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway Morris S (2003) Life’s solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elgin M (2006) There may be strict empirical laws in biology, after all. Biol Philos 21(1):119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallie WB (1959) Explanations in history and the genetic sciences. In: Gardiner P (ed) Theories of history. The Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallie WB (1964) Philosophy and the historical understanding. Schocken, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful life: the Burgess shale and the nature of history. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould SJ (1993) Eight little piggies: reflections in natural history. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc Roy Soc B205:581–598Google Scholar
  15. Gould SJ, Woodruff DS (1990) History as a cause of area effects: an illustration from Cerion on Great Inagua, Bahamas. Br J Linnean Soc 40:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huss J (2009) The shape of evolution: the MBL model and clade shape. In: Ruse M, Sepkoski D (eds) The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 326–345Google Scholar
  17. Lenski RE, Travisano M (1994) Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91:6808–6814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Losos JB, Jackman TR, Larson A, de Queiroz K, Rodriguez-Schettino L (1998) Contignency and determinism in replicated adaptive radiations of island lizards. Science 279:2115–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacLaurin J, Sterelny K (2008) What is biodiversity? University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  20. McShea DW (1994) Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution 48(6):1747–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mellor DH (2005) Probability: a philosophical introduction. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Millstein R (2000) Chance and macroevolution. Philos Sci 67(4):603–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell S (2003) Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raup DM, Gould SJ (1974) Stochastic simulation and the evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Syst Zool 23:305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raup DM, Gould SJ, Schopf TJM, Simberloff D (1973) Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. J Geol 81:525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sepkoski D (2005) Stephen Jay Gould, Jack Sepkoski, and the ‘Quantitative Revolution’ in American Paleobiology. J Hist Biol 38(2):209–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sepkoski D (2009a) The emergence of paleobiology. In: Ruse M, Sepkoski D (eds) The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 15–42Google Scholar
  29. Sepkoski D (2009b) ‘Radical’ or ‘Conservative’? The origin and early reception of punctuated equilibrium. In: Ruse M, Sepkoski D (eds) The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 301–325Google Scholar
  30. Sober E (1997) Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philos Sci 64(4):S458–S467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sterelny K (2005) Another view of life. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sterelny K, Griffiths P (1999) Sex and death: an introduction to the philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Travisano M, Mongold JA, Bennett AF, Lenski RE (1995) Experimental tests of the roles of adaptation, chance, and history in evolution. Science 267(5194):87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner DD (2009) How much can we know about the causes of evolutionary trends? Biol Philos 24:341–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vrba E (1984) Evolutionary pattern and process in the sister-group Alcelaphini-Aepycerotini (Mammalie: Bovidae). In: Eldredge N, Stanley S (eds) Living fossils. Springer, New York, pp 62–79Google Scholar
  36. Vrba E (1987) Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene-recent mammal clades. Evol Ecol 1:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vrba E, Gould SJ (1986) The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12(2):217–228Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Connecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA

Personalised recommendations