Initial commitHEADmain

1 files changed, 1601 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/76278-0.txt b/76278-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c638db3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/76278-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1601 @@
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76278 ***
+
+Transcriber’s Note:
+
+Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
+this_. Those in bold are surrounded by tildes, ~like this~. Footnotes
+were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end of the
+book. Obsolete and alternative spellings were not unchanged. Seven
+misspelled words were corrected.
+
+
+
+
+                    TEN CENT POCKET SERIES NO. 321
+                     Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
+
+                             A History of
+                              Evolution
+
+                         Carroll Lane Fenton
+
+
+                       HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
+                            GIRARD, KANSAS
+
+
+
+
+                           Copyright, 1922
+                       Haldeman-Julius Company
+
+
+
+
+_There is but thing greater than to search after the natural laws
+which govern our universe--that is to discover them._
+
+
+
+
+                               FOREWORD
+
+
+Nothing can be more nearly a truism than the statement that
+everything in the known universe is the product of some sort of
+evolution. At the same time, there is hardly a doctrine in the
+civilized world that has aroused more enthusiasm, interest, and
+enmity, than the doctrine of organic evolution. And yet I have found,
+to my great surprise, that few of us are accustomed to thinking of
+that doctrine itself as a product of a long process of evolution,
+covering more than twenty-six centuries. We are all too apt to think
+of the doctrine of organic evolution as beginning with Darwin and
+ending with Huxley and Haeckel; as a matter of fact, it began (so
+far as we can tell) with Thales, and shall not end so long as human
+beings inhabit this planet.
+
+It is with the idea of presenting, in a condensed form, the
+essentials of this “evolution of evolution” that I have prepared
+this book. It is neither detailed nor technical; it does not assume
+to be a complete history of the subject under consideration. But
+it does give a convenient, readable account of the most important
+stages in that history, and at the same time a slight glimpse of the
+major characters who made it possible. This latter, unfortunately, is
+difficult for two reasons. The space of this booklet is limited, and
+only brief sketches can be given, where they can be given at all.
+But more important than that is the lack of material. No scientist
+has been a Shakespeare, to be written about by Goethe and Frank
+Harris, nor yet a Cromwell, to receive the attention of Carlyle.
+And yet the personality and fortunes of a scientist are just as
+important in judging his place in the world as are those of a poet
+or statesman. Without knowing that Lamarck was poor and blind we
+cannot properly view his efforts; without realizing that Cuvier was
+spoiled, wealthy, and of a “ruling class,” we cannot understand his
+bitter contempt for an honest, capable worker who was founding one
+of the greatest conceptions of all human thought. And so, while we
+are considering the ideas that go to make up this evolution, let us
+remember that those ideas were worked out by _men_, not by erratic,
+thinking machines which popular magazines proclaim to the world as
+representations of its scientists.
+
+                                                    C. L. F.
+
+
+
+
+                              CHAPTER I.
+
+                     EVOLUTION AMONG THE GREEKS.
+
+
+The earliest known books on natural history, and particularly on
+zoology, the science of animals, were those written by the ancient
+Greeks. We are certain that still more ancient volumes once existed,
+for the Greek writers commonly referred to “the ancients,” very much
+as authors of today refer to the Greeks. But who these ancients were,
+where they lived, and what they wrote, we have no means of knowing;
+for all practical purposes the study of animal life may be considered
+to have originated in Greece during the seventh century before the
+Christian era.
+
+Never, perhaps, has a talented people been so advantageously situated
+with relation to a stimulating environment as were the Greeks.
+All about them was a sea teeming with low and primitive forms of
+life, stimulating them to the observation of nature. Their earliest
+philosophies were philosophies of nature, of the beginnings and
+causes of the universe and its inhabitants. Of course, as has been
+pointed out by various students of philosophy, the Greeks did not
+follow truly scientific methods of thought; they aimed directly at
+a theory without stopping to search for a mass of facts to suggest
+and support it. Neither, for that matter, can they justly be called
+scientists or naturalists; rather, they were poets and philosophers,
+and their evident failures to understand the problems which they
+attacked are quite to be expected. As has been said, they sought the
+theory before they searched for the fact, and having attained it they
+interpreted all facts in the light of the theory. And if that was
+wrong--as it very often was--the whole thing was wrong, because only
+the theory was studied and no one knew anything about the mistake.
+
+But with all their superstitions and erroneous ideas, the Greeks
+possessed an overpowering curiosity regarding the multitudinous
+natural objects which they saw about them. Thales, an Ionian
+astronomer who lived from 624-548 B. C. was the first, so far as
+we know, to substitute a natural explanation of “creation” for
+the prehistoric myths. He believed that water was the fundamental
+substance from which all things come, and because of which they
+exist. Thus the idea of the marine origin of life, held today by many
+prominent biologists, is found to be extremely ancient. Of course,
+had Thales lived in a land-locked country instead of one surrounded
+by a warm, highly populated sea, his ideas might well have been
+different. Thus we must, at the very outset, attribute to environment
+as well as to intellect the reliability of an important Greek idea.
+
+Anaximander (611-547), another astronomer, was the first important
+Greek evolutionist. He believed that the earth first existed in
+a fluid state. From its slow drying up were produced all living
+creatures, the first being man. These water-dwelling humans appeared
+as fishes in the sea, and came out upon the land only when they
+had so far developed that they were able to live in the air. The
+capsule-like case which enclosed their bodies then burst, freeing
+them and allowing them to reproduce their kind upon the continents.
+In his ideas of the origin of life Anaximander was the pioneer of
+“Abiogenesis,” teaching that eels, frogs, and other aquatic creatures
+were directly produced from lifeless matter.
+
+Anaximander’s pupil, Anaximenes, departed radically from the
+teachings of Thales. He thought that air, not water, was the cause
+of all things, yet he held that in the beginning all creatures were
+formed from a primordial slime of earth and water. Another pupil of
+Anaximander, Xenophanes (576-480), made himself famous by discovering
+the true nature of fossils. Before his time, and indeed, for
+thousands of years afterward, fossils were held to be accidents, or
+natural growths, or creations of a devil, or of a god who delighted
+in puzzling his earthly children. Xenophanes rightly interpreted
+them to be the remains of animals, and from this concluded that seas
+formerly covered what is now dry land.
+
+Empedocles, (495-435) taught what is probably the first clearly
+formulated theory of evolution. He supposed that many parts of
+animals, such as heads, legs, necks, eyes, ears, and so on, were
+formed separately, and were kept apart by the mysterious forces
+of hate. But love of part for part finally overcame the baser
+passion, and the various sections came together to form bodies. The
+combinations, unfortunately, were entirely accidental, and did not
+always result in satisfactory creatures. One body, for example, might
+possess several heads and no legs; another might have an abundance
+of arms and legs, but be without a head. These monstrosities were
+unable to keep themselves alive, and so perished, leaving the world
+to the bodies that had come together in proper combinations. Thus
+Empedocles, more than two thousand years before the first zoologist
+framed and taught a theory of organic evolution that seemed to
+offer anything worth while, conceived one of the most important of
+evolutionary principles--that of natural selection.
+
+But by far the most striking figure among the early Greek
+philosophers who gave their attention to natural history was
+Aristotle, (384-322). He lived more than three hundred years
+before the Christian era, and was a pupil of Plato and a
+teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote upon a wide variety of
+subjects--politics, rhetoric, metaphysics, psychology, philosophy,
+and natural history--and published several hundred works, most of
+which have been lost. It is true that Aristotle’s books are full of
+errors, and if the philosopher were to be judged by the standards of
+twentieth century science he would not appear very important. But it
+must be remembered that he was a pioneer who, by the force of his own
+ability created the serious study of natural history. The workers who
+had preceded him had discovered relatively little; their works were
+mostly speculations and vague hypotheses. As Aristotle himself says,
+“I found no basis prepared; no models to copy.... Mine is the first
+step, and therefore a small one, though worked out with much thought
+and hard labor. It must be looked at as a first step and judged with
+indulgence. You, my readers, or hearers of my lectures, if you think
+I have done as much as can be fairly required for an initiatory
+start, as compared with more advanced departments of theory, will
+acknowledge what I have achieved and pardon what I have left for
+others to accomplish.”
+
+In his two books, “Physics” and “Natural History of Animals” are
+set forth Aristotle’s views on nature, and his remarkably accurate
+observations of both plants and animals. He distinguished about five
+hundred species of mammals, birds, and fishes, besides showing an
+extensive knowledge of corals and their allies, sponges, squids, and
+other marine animals. He understood the adaptation of animals and
+their parts to the needs placed upon them, and was familiar with the
+commoner principles of heredity. He considered life to be a function
+of the animal or plant exhibiting it, and not a separate entity,
+given out by some divine power, or mysterious force. Aristotle
+devised a hereditary chain, extending from the simplest animals of
+which he had knowledge to the highest, man. This chain was a very
+direct affair, not at all resembling the modern “evolutionary tree”
+in its various ramifications and irregularities. And yet, despite
+its deficiencies, this chain was the best conception of animal
+development and descent to be produced in more than twenty centuries.
+
+Unfortunately, Aristotle saw nothing of value in the crude survival
+suggestion of Empedocles. He believed that there was a purpose, a
+continued striving after beauty, in all the variations of plants
+and animals, and allowed nothing whatever to what we, for lack of
+better knowledge, call “chance variation.” He did, however, restate
+Empedocles’ position in modern, scientific language in order that he
+might refute it the more ably. He argues strongly for his conception
+of purpose in evolution, saying, “It is argued that where all things
+happened as if they were made for some purpose, being aptly united
+by chance, these were preserved, but such as were not aptly made,
+these were lost and still perish.” He then makes reference to the way
+which Empedocles used this conception to explain the non-existence
+of the mythical monsters of olden time, states again that nothing
+is produced by chance, and closes with the statement, “There is,
+therefore, a purpose in things which are produced by, and exist from,
+Nature.”
+
+Aristotle was far and away ahead of any other evolutionist of ancient
+times; indeed, had he turned his genius to the clarification and
+support of the survival hypothesis, instead of combating it, he might
+have been properly considered as the “Greek prophet of Darwinism.”
+His teachings were opposed by the philosopher Epicurus, who lived
+from 341 to 270 and was one of the most prominent figures of ancient
+rationalism. Epicurus did not believe in anything supernatural; he
+maintained that everything could be explained on a purely natural
+and mechanical basis. He excluded teleology, the doctrine of a
+conscious plan or purpose in evolution and nature from any place in
+true philosophy, thus taking an important stand in a struggle not yet
+settled. Unfortunately, Epicurus did not take the trouble to explain
+what his postulated natural causes were, or how they behaved. The
+agnostic may well say, with Elliot, that the organic world _seems_
+to be teleologically organized merely because it cannot be organized
+otherwise, but he must stand ready to show grounds for his statement.
+
+After Epicurus we must pass from Greece to Rome. T. Lucretius Carus
+(99-55), more commonly known as Lucretius, revived the teachings of
+ancient Greek philosophers and united them with those of Epicurus,
+whose doctrines he made famous in the long poem, “De Rerum Natura.”
+Lucretius maintained a purely mechanical, rationalistic view of
+nature, but ignored the valuable work of Aristotle. He revived
+Empedocles’ hypothesis of survival, but confined its application
+to the mythical monsters of past ages--centaurs, chimeras, and so
+on. He believed in the spontaneous generation of life, speaking of
+mounds arising, “from which people sprang forth, for they had been
+nourished within.” “In an analogous manner,” says he, “these young
+earth-children were nourished by springs of milk.”
+
+Thus we see that Lucretius, although an excellent poet, was neither a
+good evolutionist nor a first-rate philosopher. In his abandonment of
+Aristotle he discarded the only phase of Greek thought which had come
+near to true conceptions of evolution, and in expounding the doctrine
+of spontaneous generation, he fostered an idea that was to prove of
+almost infinite harm to the evolution idea.
+
+There was no one to carry on the work. Greece was no longer a great
+nation; her “philosophers” were mostly second-rate tutors. Rome
+produced no naturalists of note, Pliny, the greatest, being of
+small capacity for reliable observation. The Greeks had done much;
+they had asked questions and insofar as they were able, had given
+answers. They left the world face to face with the problem of natural
+causation, and their ideas endured as a basis for the work of future
+scientists and philosophers.
+
+
+                    THE GREEK PERIODS[1]
+
+  GENERAL CONCEPTION         DIVISIONS OF THE SCHOOLS
+      OF NATURE:
+
+    ~Mythological~           The prehistoric traditions.
+
+                         I. ~The Three Earliest Schools.~
+                             The Ionians: Thales (624-548),
+  FIRST PERIOD:              Anaximander (611-547), Anaximenes
+                             (588-524), Diogenes (440- ).
+
+  ~Naturalistic~             The Pythagoreans (580-430).
+                             The Eleatics. Xenophanes (576-480),
+                             Parmenides (544- ).
+
+                        II. ~The Physicists.~
+  ~Materialistic~            Heraclitus (535-475), Empedocles
+      (Early)                (495-435), Democritus (450- ),
+                             Anaxagoras (500-428).
+
+  SECOND PERIOD:             Socrates (470-399), Plato (427-347).
+
+  ~Teleological~             Aristotle (384-322).
+
+                             The Post-Aristotelians, (so-called
+                             Peripatetics), including Theophrastus,
+                             Preaxagoras, Herophilus, and others.
+
+  THIRD PERIOD:          A.  I. ~The Stoics.~
+                            II. ~The Epicureans.~
+                                   Epicurus (341-270).
+
+  ~Materialistic~          III. ~The Sceptics.~
+      (Late)             B.  I. ~Eclecticism.~
+                                   Galen (131-201 A. D.).
+
+
+
+
+                             CHAPTER II.
+
+                 FROM THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS TO KANT.
+
+
+Inasmuch as almost the entire learning of Europe for several
+centuries was under the protection and rule of the church, it is
+important that we examine in some detail the fate of evolution at the
+hands of that organization.
+
+The early church drew its teachings on the origin and development
+of life from two sources--the Book of Genesis, and the philosophies
+of Plato and Aristotle. The early Christian Fathers, or at least
+the more prominent of them, were very broad-minded in their
+interpretations of the “revelations” of the Bible. In the fourth
+century, Gregory of Nyassa began a natural interpretation of Genesis
+that was completed in that century, and the one following, by
+Augustine. Despite the plain statements of the direct, or “special”
+creation of all living things, to be found in Genesis, Augustine
+promulgated a very different doctrine. He believed that all
+development took place according to powers incorporated in matter
+by the Creator. Even the body of man himself fitted into this plan,
+and was therefore a product of divinely originated, but naturally
+accomplished development. Thus Augustine, as Moore says, “distinctly
+rejected Special Creation in favor of a doctrine which, without any
+violence to language, we may call a theory of Evolution.”
+
+It is particularly interesting to note, in these days when prominent
+men go about denouncing the doctrine of organic evolution as
+foul, repulsive, and contrary to the will of God, that the early
+churchmen were not troubled by such narrowness. Augustine not only
+gave up the orthodox statement of special creation; he modified the
+conception of time. To him the “days” of Genesis did not mean days
+of astronomy; they meant long and indeterminable periods of time.
+And it is particularly interesting to find him rebuking those who,
+ignorant of the principles underlying nature, seek to explain things
+according to the letter of the scriptures. “It is very disgraceful
+and mischievous,” says he, “that a Christian speaking of such matters
+as being according to the Christian Scriptures should be heard by an
+unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever, perceiving him
+to be as wide from the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain
+himself from laughing.”
+
+Augustine was followed by some of the later church authorities,
+most notably Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the latter part of the
+thirteenth century. He did not add to the evolution idea, but rather
+expounded the ideas of Augustine. His importance was due to his high
+rank as a church authority, not to any ideas which he produced.
+
+During the period between Augustine and Aquinas, however, science
+almost died out in Europe, and leadership in philosophy went into
+the hands of the Arabs. Between 813 and 833 the works of Aristotle
+were translated into Arabic, and they form the basis of the natural
+philosophies of the Arabians. Avicenna (980-1037) probably held
+a naturalistic theory of evolution, and is known to have been
+fundamentally modern in his conceptions of geology. During the tenth
+century scientific books were imported into Spain in considerable
+numbers, and the Spanish scientific movement culminated in the works
+of Avempace and Abubacer (Abn-Badja and Ibn-Tophail). The former held
+that there were strong relationships between men, animals, plants,
+and minerals, which made them into a closely united whole. Abubacer,
+a poet, believed in the spontaneous generation of life, and sketched
+in a highly imaginative fashion the development of human thought and
+civilization.
+
+But the reactionary trend of church thought during the dark ages
+finally attacked and conquered Arabic progress. In 1209 the Church
+Provincial Council of Paris forbade the study of Arabic writers,
+and even declared against the reading of Aristotle’s “Natural
+Philosophy.” During the middle ages the progress backward was carried
+to an even greater degree. Men no longer cared to think, or to
+discover things; they preferred to be told what they should believe.
+This attitude was encouraged by the authorities of the church,
+who represented power, and who depended for their easy existence
+upon the servility of the people at large. Obedience to authority
+in intellectual as well as in political affairs was demanded of
+everyone, and by almost everyone was rendered as a matter of course.
+Those who by chance made real discoveries, and found that they
+contradicted the established authorities, either refused to believe
+their own senses, or else feared to publish their information because
+of the almost certain prosecution that would follow. To believe
+blindly, without analysis or question, was considered right and
+proper; to seek knowledge for oneself was a crime that the medieval
+church, and her governmental allies, stood ever ready to punish.
+
+But the autocratic enforcement of antiquated dogma, and the serf-like
+submission to authority, could not go on forever. A revolution came,
+even within the ranks of the theologians themselves. Giordano Bruno
+(1548-1600) revived the teachings of Aristotle, and combined them
+with theories, and combined them with ideas secured by omnivorous
+reading of Greek, Arabic, and Oriental writings. He undoubtedly had
+some conception of evolution, compares the intelligence of man and
+various of the lower animals, and recognizes a physical relationship
+between them. In geology he was essentially modern, arguing against
+the six thousand years of Bible chronology, and maintaining that
+conditions of his day were the same, fundamentally, as those during
+ancient periods of the earth’s history--a doctrine which he probably
+borrowed from the Arabian, Avicenna.
+
+Before considering others of the philosophers who became, during the
+sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the sponsors of the evolution
+idea, we may well pause to glance at the general state of learning
+throughout Europe at the beginning of that period. Just as any idea
+is a product of the men who advocate it, so is its development
+dependant upon the state of culture in the regions where it is being
+fostered. We must, therefore, consider the outstanding features of
+that environment in order to understand the true significance of the
+progress made along the line in which we are principally interested.
+
+Universities in Europe were founded at the beginning of the twelfth
+century, following those established by the Arabs[2]. Oxford, the
+most noted university of England, was founded about a century later.
+For a long time after this, authority still held almost unchallenged
+sway. Naturalists were mainly compilers, repeating what had been
+said and done before them, and carefully avoiding anything new. But
+in the first half of the sixteenth century there sprang up, in the
+Italian university town of Padua, an important school of anatomy. In
+1619 Harvey, an English physiologist, discovered[3] the circulation
+of blood, and applied the method of experimental study in zoology.
+This one piece of work was of far more importance than all of his
+contributions to physiology--of which he is usually considered the
+real founder--for it gave to scientists the one almost infallible
+method of securing information. In the latter half of the seventeenth
+century the study of microscopic organisms was begun, and the
+foundations of a logical classification of animals was laid by Ray.
+
+It was during these two centuries of progress that the basis of our
+modern methods of evolutionary investigation was laid. Oddly enough,
+this was done, not by the naturalists of the time, but by the natural
+philosophers, such as Bacon and Leibnitz. They found their source
+of inspiration in the Greek literature, especially the writings of
+Aristotle, incorporating material offered by the leading naturalists
+of their times. Probably their biggest contribution was in giving
+a proper direction to evolutionary research; they saw clearly that
+the important thing was not what had taken place among animals, but
+what changes and variations were going on under the very eyes of the
+investigators. By establishing the fact that evolution was nothing
+more than individual variations on a stupendously large scale,
+they brought variation into prominence and laid the foundation for
+Darwin’s final triumph.
+
+The second great achievement of the philosophers was their proof
+of the principle of natural causation. From Bacon, the earliest,
+to Kant, one of the last of these workers, this principle was the
+object of continued study and enthusiasm. Each of them believed that
+the world, and in fact, the universe was governed by natural causes
+instead of by the constant interference of a man-like Creator. Of
+course, this attitude was hailed as the rankest heterodoxy, and was
+under the ban of the church. Nevertheless, it prevailed, and has
+stood as a pillar of all natural philosophy of the present day.
+
+Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the first of the natural philosophers
+of later-day Europe. He was familiar with the Greek science, but
+revolted strongly against the authority given it. So radical was his
+attitude that he went to wholly unjustifiable lengths in attacking
+the Greeks, calling them “children ... prone to talking and incapable
+of generation.” This enmity may partly explain Bacon’s failure to put
+into practice the excellent ideas which he voiced in his epigrams,
+maxims, and aphorisms. He did, it is true, suggest the means whereby
+the natural causes of which he wrote might be discovered, but he did
+little investigation himself. Bacon was too near the reactionarism
+of the middle ages to consistently practice the inductive method of
+study, and as a result his work was not of lasting value.
+
+The rebellion of Bacon in England was followed by that of Descartes
+in France, and Leibnitz in Germany. The latter philosopher did
+much to revive the teachings of Aristotle, likening the series of
+animals to a chain, each form representing a link. This conception,
+while good enough in Aristotle’s time, was out of date when revived
+by Leibnitz, and did much to hamper a true interpretation of the
+evolutionary sequence. As we shall see more than once in this study,
+scientific ideas are not like statues or paintings, things of
+permanent and immutable value. An idea that was good, and valuable,
+a hundred years ago may be neither today, and its revival would work
+distinct harm to knowledge. The “faddism” against which enemies of
+science complain is neither harmful nor iniquitous. An idea should
+be used to its utmost as long as it represents the height of our
+knowledge; then, when it has been replaced by new information which
+is an outgrowth of itself, should be relegated to the museum of
+scientific antiquities. An ancient, worn-out idea is just as harmful
+in science as it is in politics; the sooner it is done away with, the
+better for all concerned.
+
+One of the most important, and at the same time, most puzzling, of
+the German natural philosophers was Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804). When
+thirty-one years of age Kant published a book entitled, “The General
+History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens,” in which he attempted
+to harmonize the mechanical and teleological views of nature. He
+considered nature as being under the guidance of exclusively natural
+causes, a very advanced position when compared with the teological
+conceptions of other Germans. But in his critical work, “The
+Teological Faculty of Judgment,” published in 1790, he abandoned his
+progressive views on causation, dividing nature into the ‘inorganic,’
+in which natural causes hold good, and the ‘organic,’ in which the
+teleological principle prevails. He called to the support of this
+conception the discoveries of the then new science of paleontology,
+saying that the student of fossils must of necessity admit the
+existence of a careful, purposive organization throughout both the
+plant and animal kingdoms. That this assertion was unfounded is
+shown by the fact that not a few modern paleontologists are strong
+defenders of rationalism and the mechanistic conception of all life
+activities.
+
+But in spite of the fact that Kant was so awed by the immensity of
+the problem of organic evolution that he declared it impossible of
+solution, he nevertheless declared himself in favor of the careful
+study of all evidence bearing upon it. In a most striking passage,
+quoted by Schultze and Osborn[4], he says:
+
+“It is desirable to examine the great domain of organized beings
+by means of a methodical comparative anatomy, or order to discover
+whether we may not find in them something resembling a system, and
+that too in connection with their mode of generation, so that we may
+not be compelled to stope short with a mere consideration of forms as
+they are ... and need not despair of gaining a full insight into this
+department of nature. The agreement of so many kinds of animals in a
+certain common plan of structure, which seems to be visible not only
+in their skeletons, but also in the arrangement of the other parts
+... gives us a ray of hope, though feeble, that here perhaps some
+results may be obtained by the application of the principle of the
+mechanism of Nature, without which, in fact, no science can exist.
+This analogy of forms strengthens the supposition that they have an
+actual blood relationship, due to derivation from a common parent;
+a supposition which is arrived at by observation of the graduated
+approximation of one class of animals to another.” He goes on to
+say that there is an unbroken chain extending from man to the lowest
+animals, from animals to plants, and from plants to the inorganic
+matter of which the earth is composed. And yet the man who, in 1790,
+could give so clear an outline of the basic facts of evolution, was
+unable to believe that the sequence which he perceived would ever be
+understood! For in another passage he says:
+
+“It is quite certain that we cannot become sufficiently acquainted
+with organized creatures and their hidden potentialities by aid of
+purely mechanical natural principles, much less can we explain them;
+and this is so certain, that we may boldly assert that it is absurd
+for man even to conceive such an idea, or to hope that a Newton
+may one day arise to make even the production of a blade of grass
+comprehensible, according to natural laws ordained by no intention;
+such an insight we must absolutely deny to man[5].”
+
+Perhaps the production of a blade of grass is not yet thoroughly
+comprehensible to us, but certainly the essential steps leading to
+that production are now well known. Even at the time Kant wrote there
+lived a man who did much to render the explanation possible, and
+another who, though disbelieving in evolution of any sort, perfected
+the means by which evolutionists were to arrange and label the
+members of the animal and plant kingdoms in order to make the study
+of them orderly and comprehensible. The great philosopher’s passion
+for accuracy, although an unusual and most creditable character in an
+age noted for its loose thought and wild speculation, prevented him
+from seeing the great significance of his own work. When man is able
+to comprehend a problem, and to state it in clear, accurate language,
+the solution of that problem is almost assured. The final triumph may
+be years, or even centuries away, but its eventual coming need hardly
+be questioned.
+
+
+
+
+                             CHAPTER III.
+
+                    EVOLUTION AND THE SPECULATORS.
+
+
+Henry Fairfield Osborn, noted evolutionist and paleontologist,
+divides the evolutionists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
+into three groups--the natural philosophers, the speculative writers,
+and the great naturalists.
+
+The speculative writers were a heterogenous group of men, partly
+philosophers, partly naturalists, and partly of various other
+professions. They were, in the main, untrained in accurate,
+inductive, scientific investigation, and depended upon the Greeks
+for most of their theory. They differed from the philosophers, some
+of whom we have already studied, in that their ideas were boldly
+advanced without any support of observation, or the slightest regard
+for scientific methods. Some of them were, for their day, immensely
+popular writers, and their trashy books, filled with myriads of
+impossible “facts,” undoubtedly did a great deal to block the
+progress of true evolutionary studies. Just as the public today does
+not distinguish between the would-be orator who talks of the “facts”
+of natural selection, and the true evolutionist, and ridicules both,
+so the public the eighteenth century linked the speculators with the
+sincere, hard-working naturalists, and declared the ideas of both to
+be foolish and blasphemous.
+
+One of the most amusing of the speculators was Claude Duret, mayor
+of a small French town. In his “Histoire Admirable des Plantes,”
+published in 1609, he described and illustrated a tree which he said
+was rare in France, but “frequently observed in Scotland[6].” From
+this tree, as pictured by the mayor, leaves are falling; on one side
+they reach water, and are slowly transformed into fishes; upon the
+other they strike dry land and change themselves into birds. Fathers
+Bonnami and Kircher were lovers of the same kind of natural history;
+the latter describes orchids which give birth to birds and tiny men.
+Other writers of the time described and figured such creatures as
+centaurs, sea-serpents, ship-swallowing devil-fish, unicorns, and so
+on, solemnly assuring the readers that they had seen, and sometimes
+even killed these creatures[7]. And all of this nonsense was greedily
+read and believed by people who refused to admit that one species
+might, in the course of thousands of years, change into something
+distinguishably different from the original form! One wonders if
+there has been a greater paradox in the world than a public which
+denied the existence of links between one species and another, yet
+believed in centaurs which were half man and half horse. Is it any
+wonder that, amid such an environment, science was almost stifled,
+and philosophy was largely a matter of deduction and imagination?
+
+
+
+
+                             CHAPTER IV.
+
+                 EVOLUTION AND THE GREAT NATURALISTS.
+
+
+One of the outstanding figures of zoology, and for that matter, of
+all natural science is Carl von Linne, more commonly known as Carolus
+Linnaeus[8]. For many years naturalists had been struggling to
+establish a satisfactory system of naming and arranging the various
+forms of animals, plants and fossils, but without very definite
+or satisfactory results. Linnaeus devised a very simple method of
+naming organisms--one that is followed almost without modification
+even today. He chose Latin and ancient Greek as the languages in
+which the names should be cast, primarily because both of them were
+more or less familiar to all students of his day, and neither was an
+important language of modern times. The name itself was in two parts,
+one denoting the particular species, the other the group to which
+that species belonged. Thus the common chipping sparrow is _Spizella
+socialis_, just as a man is William Jones, or James Thompson. The
+only difference is that in Linnaeus’ system of naming, the family
+name comes first; if the same plan were used in human names William
+Jones would become Jones William. This may sound awkward, but as a
+matter of fact it is extremely convenient, just as in a directory or
+telephone book it is convenient to have the family name given first.
+
+In the early editions of Linnaeus’ great work, the “Systema Naturae”
+(System of Nature), published from 1735 to 1751, the great naturalist
+stated specifically that he believed in the absolute fixity of
+species from the time of their creation, according to the literal
+interpretation of Genesis. But Linnaeus was too close a student
+to hold this idea for long, and in his edition of 1762 we find
+him expressing the opinion that many new species arose from the
+interbreeding of those originally created. However, he maintained
+that only species originated in this manner, and attributed the more
+general resemblances of animals and plants to similarities of form
+implanted by the Creator. Plainly, therefore, Linnaeus was at heart
+a believer in special creation in a very slightly restricted sense,
+and was by no means as progressive in this respect as the old Greek
+philosopher Aristotle.
+
+Foremost among the contemporaries of Linnaeus was George Buffon,
+(1707-1788), the Frenchman whom Osborn has called the “naturalist
+founder of the modern applied form of the evolutionary theory.”
+During his early work Buffon held essentially the same views as his
+contemporary, Linnaeus, stating that the species of animals were
+separated by a gap which could not be bridged, and that everywhere
+were evidences of “the Creator, dictating his simple but beautiful
+laws and impressing upon each species its immutable characters.”
+
+As early as 1755, however, Buffon found that his studies in
+comparative anatomy placed many difficulties in the way of these
+“simple but beautiful laws” and “immutable characters.” He calls
+attention to the fact that the pig is plainly the “compound of
+other animals,” possessing many parts for which it has no use, and
+concludes that “Nature is far from subjecting herself to final causes
+in the formation of her creatures,” and that by continually searching
+for such causes men “deprive philosophy of its true character, and
+misrepresent its object, which consists in the knowledge of the
+‘how’ of things.” In 1761 he acknowledged a belief in the frequent
+modification of species, but believed that some animals were much
+more subject to variation than others. He understood the struggle
+for existence, with its consequent elimination of the species least
+capable of living under unfavorable circumstances, and stated it very
+clearly.
+
+One of the most interesting portions of Buffon’s evolutionary
+philosophy was his belief that external conditions could directly
+modify the structure of animals and plants, and that these
+modifications were hereditary. This was, in essence, the theory of
+transmission of acquired characters--a theory which was to be greatly
+elaborated by one of Buffon’s successors, and which was to cause
+trouble among evolutionists for many decades. Buffon applied it
+particularly to the animals of the western hemisphere, showing how
+they were changed by climate, food, etc., so that eventually animals
+coming from the eastern hemisphere to the western[9] would become
+new species. In this connection he emphasizes the fact, also pointed
+out by Kant, that man must study the changes taking place in his own
+period in order to understand those which have been accomplished in
+the past, and might be accomplished in the future.
+
+Even at the time when he believed most thoroughly in evolution and
+variation, Buffon was troubled by the Bible account of creation,
+and wavered between the two. Some time after 1766 he abandoned his
+advanced stand on evolution, and concluded that species were neither
+static nor changeable, but instead that “specific types could assume
+a great variety of forms[10],” and that no definite assertions might
+be made regarding the origin of any particular animal or plant.
+
+One cannot but wonder what was the cause for Buffon’s confusion
+and changes of attitude. From special creationist to radical
+evolutionist, and then to conservative occupying a position halfway
+between was a remarkable mental evolution to be covered in the space
+of less than sixty years. What was the cause of it?
+
+The answer to this question is not a difficult one. Buffon was a
+pioneer, and not an overly courageous one. He was staggered by the
+immensity of the problem which he was trying to solve, and at the
+same time, fettered by the orthodox ideas of his day. And back of
+those ideas, as Buffon well knew, there was power--power of the
+church, of society, and of the scientific world. And neither the
+church, society, nor science was ready to accept the doctrine of
+descent, of organic evolution. Linnaeus, as we have seen, was easily
+the greatest and most influential zoologist of his day, and was at
+the same time a strong anti-evolutionist. His influence was so great
+that Buffon could hardly have escaped it, and this probably added to
+the difficulties of the vacillating evolutionist.
+
+And so, when we considered the difficulties under which Buffon
+worked, we are not surprised that he found it hard to discover what
+his ideas on evolution should finally be. He was evidently no hero,
+willing to become a martyr for science, nor yet a dogmatist, willing
+to lay his own ideas down as law. Instead of ridiculing him for
+his indecision, therefore, we should sympathize with him because
+of his difficulties. Probably few of us would say or write very
+revolutionary things if we were loaded down with half-shed orthodoxy,
+and threatened by social and scientific ostracism in case we made a
+departure from the well beaten path.
+
+The next important figure in evolution is Erasmus Darwin, grandfather
+of the great Charles Darwin. He was a country physician, a poet, and
+a very accurate naturalist, but unfortunately buried his ideas in
+volumes of verse and of combined medicine and philosophy. He believed
+in the spontaneous origin of the lower animals, but maintained that
+all of the higher forms were products of natural reproduction. The
+transition from water-to-land-dwelling animals he illustrated, not by
+fanciful creations, but by the classic example of the development of
+the frog, which begins life as a legless tadpole, and ends it as an
+animal incapable of breathing under water.
+
+To man Dr. Darwin gave much attention, devoting a whole canto to
+the human hand--“The hand, first gift of Heaven!”--and outlining
+the development of man’s various faculties. Farther on he describes
+the struggle for existence in lines which remind one of Tennyson’s
+description of nature, except that they lack Tennyson’s inevitable
+syrupiness. Evidently, however, Darwin fails to connect this struggle
+with its obvious result, the survival of the fittest.
+
+Dr. Darwin’s theory of evolution differed from that of Buffon
+in at least one important respect. Nowhere does he stress the
+direct influence of environment in the production of variations;
+on the contrary, he maintained that modifications spring from the
+reactions of the organism. In this he clearly stated the theory
+which is generally known as Lamarck’s version of the theory of the
+transmission of acquired characters. In fact, he carried his ideas
+much farther than did Lamarck, attributing to plants the attribute
+of sendibility, and supposed their evolution to be due to their own
+efforts toward the development of certain characters. Adaptations,
+which Aristotle had believed to be caused by a definite plan, Dr.
+Darwin interpreted in a purely naturalistic manner. The Creator
+had, at the beginning, endowed organisms with the power to change
+and develop, and that power was handed down from one generation
+to another until it was possessed by every animal and plant. This
+power was the cause of all variation, adaptation, and evolution, and
+there was no further divine interference. Dr. Darwin did not see any
+great, all-encompassing plan of improvement, such as is postulated
+by the teleologists of today; to him everything was the logical and
+necessary outcome of the original powers of living things. In this,
+as we shall see, he believed essentially as do modern evolutionists
+who do not see in the laws of the universe any necessity for
+abandoning religion, but who at the same time do not believe in a
+highly personal god who, as one theologian expressed it recently,
+“works out His divine will through the processes of evolution.”
+
+Dr. Darwin was author of two other distinctly modern ideas, among the
+most important of his entire work. The first of these is that all
+living things are descended from a single original living mass, or
+“filament”--that every living thing on the earth is related to every
+other living thing. The second is that the process of evolution is
+almost inconceivably slow, and that millions upon millions of years
+have been necessary for it. The first idea, while quite conceivably
+true, can never be proved definitely, but the second has been
+demonstrated over and over again. Just how many millions we shall
+allow is, of course, undetermined; some authorities demand sixty;
+others say that eight hundred is a figure none too large. In this
+series of books the larger figure is adopted, not because we are
+certain that it is right, but because it seems to fit more closely
+with the facts of evolution than do the smaller ones. How fully Dr.
+Darwin was a prophet of modern scientific chronology we are just
+beginning to recognize.
+
+The leadership in evolution, which for a time had gone to England,
+was soon given back to France. The new champion of the theory
+was Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), one of the most pathetic
+figures in the entire history of zoology. He was a brilliant man,
+and a skilled zoologist, but because he was courageous, blind,
+and desperately poor, he suffered little less than martyrdom
+throughout much of his life, and was given but scant attention by his
+contemporaries. Baron Cuvier, rich, talented, and a member of the
+elite of the nation, dominated French zoology. He was a desperate
+reactionary, holding out for a literal acceptance of the Bible
+account of special creation, and ridiculed not only the theories of
+Lamarck, but the whole conception of evolution. For years he blocked
+the progress along all lines but his own restricted field of anatomy,
+and waged bitter warfare on anyone who dared to oppose him. And so
+the blind Lamarck lived in poverty and obscurity, neglected by both
+scientists and those who knew nothing of zoology. And through this he
+stood faithfully by the ideas which he believed but was too poor and
+unknown to defend.
+
+Lamarck first held to the old teaching that species were fixed, and
+could neither change nor be changed. But as he learned more his views
+changed, and in 1809 he published a book stating his interpretation
+of evolution. One of his principal ideas was that the effects of the
+use or disuse of any part of the body may be passed on from parent
+to children until they finally become parts of the animal’s make-up.
+It is well known that an arm that is never used becomes weak; that a
+muscle which is constantly at work becomes strong and large. Lamarck
+supposed that this increase or decrease in size could be inherited,
+and thus races with short, thin arms, or heavy powerful muscles
+could be developed. This is the “theory of inheritance of acquired
+characteristics” again, first formulated by Erasmus Darwin. Just
+how much there is to this theory no one has been able to say; some
+believe it to be worthless while others, particularly those who study
+fossil animals, think that it possesses a certain amount of truth.
+
+Lamarck was, as we have said, a conscientious scientist, and made use
+of his own accurate observations insofar as this was possible. But
+when he became blind, dictating his books to his daughter in order
+to get them written, observation was clearly out of the question. In
+its stead the great naturalist was forced to rely upon the reports
+of other observers, and those reports were none too reliable. The
+obvious weakness of some of his second-hand facts reacted very
+unfavorably upon the whole work of Lamarck, and gave his opponents
+abundant weapons for their attacks upon his opinions.
+
+But in spite of these handicaps, Lamarck did a very important work.
+He not only stated his own position very clearly, marshalling such
+facts as were at his disposal to its support; he devised a branching
+system of animal descent which approximated the modern “evolutionary
+tree” and represented far more truly than did the Aristotelian chain
+the true state of things. He argued strongly and clearly against
+the fallacious doctrine of special creations and numerous geologic
+catastrophes which, supposedly, annihilated all of the life on earth
+at the particular times of their occurrence and made a long series of
+new creations necessary.
+
+Perhaps the greatest of all Lamarck’s achievements was his clear
+statements of the problems of evolution. As one writer has said,
+he asked every one of the big, important questions which later
+evolutionists have had to answer, and by the clear phrasing of his
+questions, made the answers thereto the more easy.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+In all France there was only one man who was willing to champion
+this blind naturalist in his stand for evolution. Geoffrey
+St.-Hilaire was at first a follower of Buffon, but he later became
+convinced of the value of Lamarck’s work, and even went so far in
+his belief as to champion Lamarck in a public debate with the great
+Cuvier. Despite the fact that the debate brought a certain fame to
+St.-Hilaire, he was judged the loser, and the affair was hailed as
+a great and conclusive victory for those who upheld the theory of
+special creation.
+
+Although St.-Hilaire believed in the truth of organic evolution, he
+did not wholly agree with Lamarck. He supposed that environment--that
+is, surrounding conditions--determined the changes that took place
+in animals, and preceded some of the most modern of evolutionists by
+teaching that one species might arise suddenly from an earlier one,
+without any intermediate forms. As a result of these sudden changes,
+it was, said St.-Hilaire, often unnecessary to produce the “missing
+links” over which adverse critics made such a to-do. It was also
+unnecessary to show why variations would not be wiped out before they
+were firmly established. According to his hypothesis, each new form
+was complete, and no amount of normal interbreeding with other forms
+would produce fertile hybrids between the two.
+
+We now come to one of the most interesting, and most remarkable of
+evolutionists. Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) was an anatomist,
+a philosopher, and a great poet, and thus brought to the problem of
+organic evolution a breadth of vision equalled by but few of the
+workers who preceded him. As Osborn states:
+
+“The brilliant early achievements of Goethe in science afford another
+illustration of the union of imagination and powers of observation
+as the essential characteristics of the naturalist. When he took his
+journey into Italy, and the poetic instinct began to predominate over
+the scientific, science lost a disciple who would have ranked among
+the very highest, if not the highest. Of this time Goethe says: ‘I
+have abandoned my master Loder for my friend Schiller, and Linnaeus
+for Shakespeare.’ Yet Goethe, in the midst of poetry, never lost his
+passion for scientific studies. He seems to have felt instinctively
+that what contemporary science needed was not only observation, but
+generalization.”[11]
+
+Goethe derived much of his inspiration from Buffon and the German
+natural philosophers. Unfortunately he never discovered the works of
+Lamarck, although he anticipated that scientist in some of his work
+with plants. There can be little doubt that, had Goethe discovered
+the “Philosophie Zoologique,” he would have accepted its principal
+doctrine, and would have proclaimed them with a vigor that would
+have overcome even the antagonism of Cuvier. As it was, he confined
+his theory to the idea of the “unity of type,” making it the chief
+basis for his conception of evolution. In his own words, this theory
+enabled him to “assert, without hesitation, that all the more perfect
+organic natures, such as fishes, amphibious animals, birds, mammals,
+and man at the head of the list, were all formed upon one original
+type, which varies only more or less in parts which are none the less
+permanent, and which still daily changes and modifies its form by
+propagation.”
+
+Akin to Goethe, in some respects, was Gottfried Treviranus
+(1776-1837), a German naturalist who was a contemporary of
+St.-Hilaire, Goethe, and Lamarck. Like the German natural
+philosophers, he considered life as the result of chemical and
+mechanical processes, and protested whole-heartedly against purely
+speculative work, calling it “dreams and visions.” At the same time,
+he complained that most of botany and zoology was made up of dry
+registers of names and that the work of many naturalists consisted
+of the “spirit killing ... reading and writing of compilations.”
+Treviranus believed that it was quite within the abilities of man
+to discover the basic philosophy of nature, largely by the use of
+working hypotheses as a means of aiding the investigator in attaining
+the actual facts.
+
+In view of Treviranus’ modern stand on the study of animal life,
+and the interpretation of ascertained facts, we might well expect
+him to show an equal modernity in his conception of evolution. But
+in this we are to be disappointed. As soon as he departed from his
+principles of biology, and attempted to apply those principles to
+the development of animal life, Treviranus became victim to those
+same “dreams and visions” against which he protested so strongly.
+He depended very largely upon the work of Buffon, and believed that
+modification of form was due entirely to environment. He revived
+the ancient doctrine of spontaneous generation of living things, or
+abiogenesis, stating his belief very clearly.
+
+All of this shows that Treviranus, although an ardent believer
+in evolution, added very little to the idea. In his ideas of the
+factors of evolution he did not advance beyond Buffon; in his ideas
+of descent he was less clear and accurate than his contemporary,
+Lamarck. But in his more general work, particularly in defining
+and organizing the science of biology, he rendered great service
+to future zoologists and evolutionists. And such service, slight
+though it was, was of value. During the early part of the nineteenth
+century the doctrine of evolution needed all the support that could
+be given it, and even a mistaken scientist was a valuable defender of
+a struggling cause.
+
+Thus for more than two thousand years the theory of organic evolution
+had been growing. Philosophers, country doctors, poets, and
+naturalists had contributed their share to its volume, its character,
+and its support. But as yet it was little more than an idea in the
+rough, waiting for some one to refine it, to put it into clear and
+unmistakable language, and to back it up by evidence secured directly
+from studies made on living animals and plants. It might have been
+compared to a piece of ---- waiting for someone to forge it into a
+key--a key that would open the doors of conventional thought and
+old-fashioned restriction, and thereby give an insight into life and
+life’s history that would revolutionize human thought, and help in a
+better understanding between man and man, and man and beast.
+
+
+
+
+                              CHAPTER V.
+
+                 DARWIN AND THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION
+
+
+The outstanding figure of the entire history of evolution is Charles
+Darwin. Whether or not he deserves all of the prominence that has
+been given him is a question--a question that probably must be
+answered in the negative. We are very apt to lionize the victor while
+we ignore those who made the victory possible, whether it be won in
+science, politics, or warfare. Among certain circles today there is
+an undeniable tendency to over-praise Darwin; to talk and think as
+though he were the first and the last truly great evolutionist. It is
+becoming with Darwin as Harris found it with Shakespeare: “He is like
+the Old-Man-of-the-Sea on the shoulders of our youth; he has become
+an obsession to the critic, a weapon to the pedant, a nuisance to the
+man of genius.” If we substitute ‘popularizer’ for ‘critic,’ Harris’
+sentence will apply to Darwin without further modification. There is
+a popular misconception that a great and successful scientist must of
+necessity be a man of great genius; nothing of the sort is true. Take
+the average “authority” away from his specialty, and he is a very
+commonplace individual; take him with it, and he is often little more
+than a remarkably durable and precise human machine.
+
+Neither biographers nor critics have shown us any good reasons
+for considering Charles Darwin an exceptionally great man. He was
+a highly successful scientist, but at the same time he was aided
+to success by the condition of science during the eighteenth and
+nineteenth centuries, and his personal fortune. In this connection
+it will be worth our while to examine the opinions of Carlyle, as
+reported by Frank Harris. The two were discussing notables of the
+century, and Harris brought up the name of Darwin. Carlyle described
+the two brothers as “solid, healthy[12] men, not greatly gifted,
+but honest and careful and hardworking ...” and speaking of a
+conversation with Charles Darwin after his return from the “Beagle”
+voyage, said: “I saw in him then qualities I had hardly done justice
+to before: a patient clear-mindedness, fairness too, and, above all,
+an allegiance to facts, just as facts, which was most pathetic to me;
+it was so instinctive, determined, even desperate, a sort of belief
+in its way, an English belief, that the facts must lead you right if
+you only followed them honestly, a poor, groping, blind faith--all
+that seems possible to us in these days of flatulent unbelief and
+piggish unconcern for everything except swill and straw.”[13]
+
+We need not, like Carlyle, abuse this “allegiance to facts”; it
+is the foundation-stone of all reliable scientific work, and the
+scientist who abandons it is sure to bring disaster to himself and
+his work. And yet, to maintain that fact-hunting is, of necessity, a
+mark of genius is absurd.
+
+It is largely the qualities that prevent us from ranking Darwin as
+a genius that establish his eminence as a research scientist. He is
+great not for his ideas, for they had been worked out before him,
+but for the clearness with which he stated his conclusions, and the
+wealth of proof which he brought to their defence. The earliest
+evolutionists tried to solve their problems by deduction, making the
+theory first, and searching for the facts afterward. Darwin’s method
+was just the opposite. As he himself says, he searched for fact
+after fact, at the same time straining to keep all thought of theory
+from his mind. Finally, when he had ascertained how things actually
+were, and had arranged his information, he set forth to formulate a
+theory that might accord fully with what he knew to be the truth.
+He took the ancient, indefinite idea of evolution and welded it into
+an organized theory, and armed it with an array of facts that made
+it irresistible. While some of Darwin’s beliefs have failed to show
+the importance he assigned them, and others of them are very probably
+errors, there are few indeed who seriously, from the standpoint of
+science, care to question the conception that all living things have
+developed from earlier living things of simpler or more primitive
+character. His careful, painstaking work gained for his ideas a world
+wide acceptance among thinking men, and made Charles Darwin one of
+the greatest figures in the history of science.
+
+The story of Darwin’s life is a story of long, careful study and
+preparation, of rapid publication of his discoveries when he set out
+to write them, and finally of triumph over those who opposed him. He
+was born on the twelfth of February, 1809, the same day that brought
+the world Abraham Lincoln. Someone has said that on that day the
+world’s greatest liberators were born--in America the one who would
+free the bodies of men from bondage; in England the man who would
+free their minds from a no less real slavery to custom, power, and
+worn-out dogma.
+
+When he was sixteen years old, Darwin went to Edinburgh to study
+medicine. But he was already a rebel against dryness and dead
+academic thought, and wrote home that the lectures in anatomy were
+quite as dry as was the lecturer himself. After two years of
+medicine he gave up his work at Edinburgh, and went to Cambridge to
+become a preacher. But while studying for the ministry the young
+Darwin spent a great deal of his time with nature, and acquired
+something of a reputation as a naturalist. When, in 1831, he was
+offered the chance to make a five years’ trip around the world as
+naturalist on the exploring ship “Beagle” he did not delay long in
+accepting. The things seen, and the facts learned on that long voyage
+probably had more to do with making Darwin a great naturalist than
+any other single phase of his life. On his return to England the
+young man set about writing up the results of his studies while on
+his trip, and put into this book most of the arguments which he had
+to give in favor of evolution. In 1856 he sent this report to Sir
+Joseph Hooker, then the leading authority on plants in England, and
+finally in 1859 published his great book, “The Origin of Species.”
+This was the first concise statement of a theory of evolution, backed
+up by actual evidence, and it created a furore both in Europe and
+America. Some scientists eagerly took up with Darwin’s ideas, seeing
+in them the explanation of facts that they had long been unable to
+understand. Others, lacking in breadth of knowledge, or unwilling
+to give up old beliefs, fought bitterly against evolution. The
+controversy involved not only scientists, but the churchmen, and was
+a leading feature in newspapers, magazines, and books. “The Origin
+of Species” ran into many editions, and was translated into several
+languages. Darwin found himself a center of interest for the world,
+and his theory a cause of heated argument for all who cared to talk
+or write about it.
+
+How revolutionary Darwin’s work was, and how unwillingly he himself
+came to the conclusion that organic evolution was an undeniable
+truth, it is hard for us to understand. For most of us, some at
+least, of the essential facts of evolution are every-day knowledge;
+we look upon the anti-evolutionist as a strange anachronism--a
+hang-over from a past age. But in Darwin’s day conditions were very
+different. Thus we find him, in a letter written in 1844 to the great
+botanist Hooker, saying:
+
+“I have been ... engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know
+no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so
+struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and
+with the character of the American fossil mammifers[14], etc., that
+I determined to collect, blindly, every sort of fact, which could
+bear in any way on what are species.... At last, gleams of light
+have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion
+that I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing
+a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense[15]
+of a ‘tendency to progression,’ ‘adaptations from the slow willing
+of animals’, etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely
+different from his; though the means of change are wholly so.” This
+last statement, as we shall see by reference to the “Origin of
+Species” was not wholly true.
+
+Another glimpse at the state of affairs in 1859 and the immediately
+succeeding years may be found in Darwin’s anxiety to convince Hooker,
+Lyell, and Huxley that species were variable and changeable, and his
+rejoicing when Huxley wrote out his very guarded acceptance of the
+Darwinian version of organic evolution. We find it hard to conceive
+of Huxley, the “warhorse of Darwinism” reluctantly agreeing to most
+of Darwin’s points, but at the same time voicing strong objections
+to others. And yet these very objections of Huxley’s, made in 1859,
+were in 1921 paraded before an audience at one of the country’s
+most famous universities as evidence against the truth of organic
+evolution!
+
+In France, even more than in England, the “Origin of Species”
+was held in disapproval. A translation of the book was offered
+to a noted publisher of Paris, and was unceremoniously refused.
+The country which had praised Cuvier, and ridiculed Lamarck and
+St.-Hilaire was not going to receive willingly the contributions
+of an iconoclastic Englishman. We are not surprised to find Darwin
+depressed by the European reception of his theories, and writing to
+Huxley: “Do you know of any good and speculative foreigners to whom
+it would be worth while to send my book?”
+
+But what was this “new” theory of evolution that so aroused the
+world? What were its characteristics, and how did if differ from
+the theories of Aristotle, Kant, Buffon, and Charles Darwin’s own
+grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin?
+
+The theory of evolution set forth in the “Origin of Species”
+contained three principal factors: (1) the constant variation of
+animals and plants, (2) the struggle for existence, and (3) the
+natural selection of those organisms which possess variations which
+are of value to them in their attempt to keep alive.
+
+The idea of variation was based upon simple observation. Dr.
+Herbert Walter has said that “variation is the most constant thing
+in nature,” and paradoxical as that may seem, it is nevertheless
+true. No man looks exactly like another man, no tree exactly like
+another tree, no shell exactly like another shell. The Japanese
+artists appreciate this variation, and make use of their knowledge in
+painting, which is one of the reasons why their art is not readily
+appreciated by the occidental who is much inclined to “lump” things.
+No Japanese artist would think of painting two dogs, or two streams,
+or two houses that resembled each other in every respect, for he
+knows that every thing in the universe, whether it be alive or dead,
+organic or inorganic, differs from every other thing in the universe.
+Sometimes the difference is easily seen, as that between a shark
+and a goldfish, or a Negro and a Scandinavian or Teuton. At others
+it is almost indistinguishable, and can be discovered only by the
+most accurate micrometer, or the most precise chemical analysis. But
+always the difference exists, the variation is present, and this fact
+is the basis for Darwin’s belief in the inborn necessity for all
+living things to vary.
+
+The second factor, that of a struggle for existence, was suggested
+to Darwin by a reading of Malthus’ classic paper on population.
+All creatures normally tend to increase in numbers. Mating fish
+produce millions of eggs in a season; chickens rear nestfulls of
+young; rabbits and guinea-pigs produce litter after litter of young
+from the matings of two parents--everywhere, both in nature and in
+domestication, living things seem to be on the increase. And yet
+we have no evidence that (excluding the rather doubtful influence
+of man) there are more animals on earth today than there were half
+a million years ago; the probabilities are that there are fewer.
+Clearly, therefore, some process is at work which prevents the
+seeming increase from taking place.
+
+In order to understand something of the complexity of this process,
+let us select a specific example. Among marine animals, the
+oysters are remarkable for the immense numbers of eggs which they
+produce--the average for the American oyster is probably about
+16,000,000. If all the progeny of a single oyster were to live
+and reproduce, and their progeny were to do likewise, and so on
+until there were great-great-grandchildren, the total number of
+oysters that were descendants of the original pair would be about
+66,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and their shells would
+make a mass eight times as great as the earth.
+
+Now it is quite obvious that the earth cannot hold, and cover with
+water, a mass of oyster shells eight times as great as itself; the
+oceans, if they were spread evenly over the surface (which they never
+were, and never can be), would accommodate but a few of the great
+horde. Neither do those same oceans contain enough food to satisfy,
+or begin to satisfy, the needs of these theoretical descendants of a
+single oyster. Clearly, therefore, space and food alone are enough to
+prevent the undue multiplication of creatures upon the earth.
+
+But there are factors other than space and food which aid in
+accomplishing the result. There are water conditions, animal enemies
+such as the starfish, and a host of other means by which the
+population of oysters is kept down. And even if it were to increase
+greatly, the numbers of starfish would at the same time increase,
+and simultaneously set about decreasing the numbers of the oysters,
+which decrease would in turn cut down the numbers of the starfish,
+and so on. Thus we see that the maximum abundance of an organism
+is arbitrarily set by the conditions under which that organism
+lives. It may attain the limit set for it, but beyond that it may go
+only temporarily. Then the surplus dies from starvation, crowding,
+animal and plant enemies, and a thousand other of the factors which
+constantly work in the constant warfare of nature, the never-ending
+“struggle for existence.”
+
+The third factor of Darwinian evolution, that of natural selection,
+is based upon the other two. Darwin supposed that the individuals of
+a species, or variety, exhibited variations for two reasons: because
+it was part of their very nature to do so, and because the conditions
+of their environment forced them. In the course of this constant
+change there would, of necessity, be some modifications that were
+of value to their possessors, while others would appear which were
+of more or less definite harm. In the course of the struggle for
+existence, those creatures which possessed helpful variations would
+naturally possess a certain advantage over those which lacked it or
+which exhibited variations which were of harmful nature. Thus in a
+cold, snowy climate, that animal which developed a white coat would
+be much safer from detection than his companions which might have
+fur of a dark hue, either in approaching his prey, or in escaping
+his pursuers. The ultimate outcome of this would be that the white
+animal would populate the region, while his colored brethren would
+soon become extinct. The same principle, Darwin thought, applied to
+mental advantages; the more skillful mind triumphed over the less;
+the quick-witted animal lived at the expense of the clumsy-witted
+one. Throughout the earth, those animals most capable of living
+lived, brought forth young, and thus perpetuated their capabilities,
+both mental and physical. This process quite plainly helped in the
+development of man, and in his progress, but singularly enough,
+within his ranks today it does not operate. Great mental capacity is
+not today the most important survival factor among humanity. As the
+archeologist Keith has pointed out a great philosopher or artist may
+lead a life of misery, want, and despair, and leave no descendants,
+while a thoughtless, happy Burman will live out his days believing
+that the earth is flat and Buddha an all-powerful god, but will leave
+behind him a large and rapidly multiplying family.
+
+During the years just prior to the appearance of the “Origin,” Darwin
+had an almost complete confidence in the power of natural selection
+to account for all the phenomena of evolution. Even in the year
+when that work appeared, he wrote Lyell: “Grant a simple archetypal
+creature, like the Mud-fish or Lepidosiren, with five senses and some
+vestige of mind, and _I believe Natural Selection will account for
+the production of every vertebrate animal_.” In publication, however,
+he was more cautious, saying, “I am convinced that Natural Selection
+has been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification.”
+
+From his extreme position on the effective ability of natural
+selection to seize upon a variation and so foster it that a new
+species would appear, Darwin slowly but not unwillingly receded.
+Ten years after the first publication of the Darwinian theory[16],
+he admitted that variations might not have been so supremely
+important as he supposed; in 1878 he believed in the direct action
+of environment in producing variations, as did Buffon; in 1880
+he adopted Lamarck’s theory of the use and disuse of parts. In
+1881, in the “Descent of Man,” Darwin lays much stress upon sexual
+selection, the idea that members of one sex rendered themselves
+particularly attractive in order to capture the attentions of their
+would-be mates. This, however, is really a subdivision of the natural
+selection idea--in the general reliability of which the famous
+evolutionist still believed.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+As we have said, in the estimate of Darwin’s general environment,
+the world of the middle nineteenth century did not welcome the new
+prophet of natural law in the natural world. Many scientists accepted
+Darwinism, or at least, the principle of evolution, without reserve;
+others made reservations; most of the “intelligentsia” declared it
+to be without the slightest element of truth. The public in general,
+and especially the church, clung to the old, valueless doctrine of
+a multitude of special creations by an omnipotent deity, apparently
+forgetting that the greatest of the church fathers, Aquinas and
+Augustine, had been prominent evolutionists in their day. There arose
+about Darwin’s theories a storm of argument that lasted for many
+years, and involved scientists, theologians, philosophers, and laymen
+throughout the world.
+
+Darwin, although an excellent and self-confident scientist, was
+modest, retiring, and greatly hampered by ill-health contracted
+during his “Beagle” voyage. He was forced to leave the work of
+publicly defending his theories to other men, the most noted of whom
+was Thomas Henry Huxley, the “Bulldog of Evolution.” Huxley was an
+accomplished scientist, a powerful speaker, and one of the finest of
+European writers of science for the every-day man. He wrote, taught,
+and lectured in defense of the evolution theory; after a long,
+hard day at the university, he would spend the evening lecturing
+before crowds of workingmen from London’s factories, telling them
+how one species came from another, and how a single-celled creature
+developed into a complex animal with hundreds of millions of cells
+in its body, at the same time reconstructing during its growth the
+entire evolutionary history of its kind. It was largely because of
+the lectures and magazine articles of this tireless scientist, who
+believed in the truth of evolution, and enjoyed the task of fighting
+for his beliefs, that Darwin achieved so early an almost complete
+victory over the scientists who opposed him. Of course, the triumph
+was not all-embracing; there are still a few people who follow the
+natural sciences and yet refuse to believe that one species can
+arise, either by natural selection or by some other means, from
+another species without the interference of a deity. And the public
+at large, particularly that portion of it which lives far away from
+museums, zoological gardens, and centers where illustrated talks on
+natural science are regularly given, still believes in the theory
+of special creation. But that belief neither signifies defeat for
+Darwin and his followers, nor casts doubt upon the essential truth of
+their ideas; it simply means that the theory of evolution is still
+relatively young, and that popular education is in its infancy.
+
+
+
+
+                             CHAPTER VI.
+
+                 THE POST-DARWINIANS: DEVRIES AND THE
+                           MUTATION THEORY.
+
+
+The period between 1860 and 1900 was occupied largely by elaborations
+of the Darwinian conception of evolution, and arguments as to whether
+or not organic descent was a fact. In those four decades there were
+many famous workers--Alfred Russell Wallace, co-discoverer with
+Darwin of the theory of selection; Weismann and Haeckel, Germany’s
+great evolutionists; the philosopher, Spencer; Cope, the American
+paleontologist, and Huxley, the English champion of scientific
+rationalism--these, and a host of others spent their lives in
+demonstrating the workings of evolution. But unfortunately, the
+opposition which they encountered forced them to write and work
+largely along lines of argument and thus much of their work was
+fruitless so far as the discovery of new principles is concerned.
+
+During this same period the doctrine of evolution suffered much
+from over-enthusiasm on the part of some of its defenders. Even
+Wallace overdid the hypothesis of sexual selection, and the kindred
+hypotheses of concealing and protective coloration. Naturalists
+sought to explain every coloring of animals and plants as being of
+some value to them, and therefore the real cause of the existence
+of the species; not a few carried the idea of value in sexual
+differences, such as those between the male and female peacock,
+to a similar extreme. But in spite of the inaccuracies which they
+published, these enthusiasts did far more good than harm, for they
+aided greatly in securing popular support for the main theory.
+
+It was toward the beginning of this century that evolutionary
+studies received another great stimulus. Professor Hugo de Vries,
+a Dutch botanist of considerable note, proposed what he called the
+“mutation theory” as a substitute for Darwin’s conception of “natural
+selection.” He began his studies by attempting to produce by careful
+selection a variety of buttercup which should contain in its flower
+more than the normal number of petals. He actually achieved the
+desired increase, but it was far from a stable condition; while
+some of the flowers possessed eight, nine, or ten petals, and a few
+as high as thirty-one, many of them possessed the original number,
+five. When selection was abandoned there appeared at once a general
+retrogression toward the primitive state, and this fact caused de
+Vries to conclude that selection alone was not enough to cause
+the formation of a new species of plant or animal[17]. Instead,
+he concluded that when a change of permanent value took place in
+a plant or animal it was something entirely different from the
+constant variations on which Darwin and his followers relied; it was
+a discontinuous variation--a ‘sport,’ the florist or gardener would
+call it--to which de Vries applied the new name mutation. Mutation,
+he believed, involved a very definite change in the reproductive
+cells of the organism--a change which had absolutely no relation to
+the environment. They arose from conditions within the plant and
+animal, and might or might not affect it favorably. Those mutations
+which were not beneficial would be eliminated by selection; those
+which were of value to the creature would probably be preserved.
+Thus, in de Vries’ mind evolution was a process due primarily to
+internal causes, its course being merely guided by environment,
+which selected those mutations capable of surviving.
+
+Without question, de Vries had a real basis for his theory. Mutations
+do take place among both wild and domestic creatures; thus among
+the dandelions there constantly appear special types which breed
+true and are, as Castle has called them, “little species within the
+dandelion species.” Similar mutations are well known in peas, beans,
+evening primroses, and such domestic animals as the sheep. Clearly,
+therefore, species do arise as de Vries stated; the question is, is
+this the only way in which they arise?
+
+This problem was raised little more than twenty years ago--a period
+far too short to allow for the settling of a question that is merely
+another statement of the problem that has puzzled scientists and
+philosophers for more than twenty centuries.
+
+There is, however, excellent reason for believing that the
+conceptions of both de Vries and Darwin are true; that neither of
+them excludes the other from operation. Thus in the famous chalk
+formation of England there may be found an evolutionary chain of
+sea urchins which, according to the general consensus of opinion,
+represent true Darwinian evolution. As N. C. Macnamara says, “They
+are first found in their shelled, sparsely ornamented forms, from
+which spring, as we ascend the zone, all the other species of the
+genus. The progression is unbroken and minute in the last degree. We
+can connect together into continuous series each minute variation
+and each species of graduation of structure so insensible that not a
+link in the chain of evidence is wanting.”
+
+On the other hand, the writer has recently completed a microscopic
+study of a group of ancient lamp-shells--animals which looked somewhat
+like molluscs, but which were very different internally--with
+altogether different results. The particular changes involved were
+minor matters of surface markings, which could have had no conceivable
+importance to the animals. Selection, therefore, may be virtually
+ruled out; indeed, many of the different forms lived close together,
+with apparently equal success. But in the small markings on the shells
+there appear, as one follows the series from bottom to top, very
+decided changes, and those changes are, in some cases, abrupt and
+complete.
+
+In others the variations are very small--indeed they could be
+distinguished only with the microscope--but so far as could be told,
+were distinct. This, therefore, points to a course of evolution that
+was clearly a matter of mutation, without any apparent governing by
+the process of natural selection.
+
+The conclusion which we may reach, therefore, is that both natural
+selection and mutation operate in the development of new forms
+from old. The variations, for which Darwin was at a complete loss
+to account, are in many cases the mutations emphasized by de Vries
+and his followers. But to what extent climate, food, habits, and
+multitudinous other environmental factors, coupled with such
+internal ones as racial old age, complicate the processes of
+variation and selection cannot yet be said. De Vries, in his mutation
+theory, supplied one of the deficiencies of Darwinism, and at the
+same time led scientists in general to realize that evolution is a
+far more complex problem than was supposed during the later portion
+of the last century. Darwin’s primitive mudfish, with its trace of
+mind, and the process of natural selection, will not by any means
+account for the multitude of higher vertebrate forms which people,
+and have peopled the lands and waters of the globe.
+
+At the same time the scientific public was awaking to the fact that
+evolution was an almost inconceivably complex affair, many of the
+post-Darwinian hypotheses began to show themselves of very doubtful
+importance. The theory of sexual selection, which Darwin elaborated
+in the “Descent of Man” began a steady decline. Such selection
+undoubtedly does take place, but it is not carried on to so great
+an extent as was once supposed. The idea of the protective value of
+colors and color arrangement, too, began to be doubted, although at
+the same time its principles became much better known and therefore
+more strongly emphasized by some naturalists. Inheritance of directly
+acquired characters was proved to be an impossibility, and much
+doubt was thrown upon the hypothesis of use and disuse. Instead of
+legs disappearing because they are not used, they are now thought
+to disappear because the evolutionary processes going on within
+the animal demands their disappearance. What these processes are we
+do not know, but our frank avowal of ignorance gives us a certain
+confidence that we shall eventually find out.
+
+But it is not only ideas that have changed within the last two
+decades; methods of study have undergone an even greater revolution.
+De Vries, at almost the same time he discovered mutation,
+rediscovered the fact that heredity was by no means so mysterious
+and erratic as it had been generally thought. Animals and plants, he
+discovered, possessed many characters which behaved in very definite
+ways when two varieties were crossed, and that the characters of an
+organism could be determined largely by the interbreeding of its
+ancestors. Thus arose the science of _genetics_, which seeks to
+find out the numerous factors underlying the various phenomena of
+heredity. And since heredity is the base of all evolution, genetics
+has for its ultimate aim the determination of the causes of that
+great process which is responsible for the existence of whatever
+animals and plants inhabit and have inhabited the earth. The
+geneticist is the most modern of evolutionists; he is not satisfied
+with finding out what has taken place in the past; he sets out to
+make evolution, or tiny portions of it, take place within his own
+laboratories and greenhouses.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+Today, despite the assertions of a few of its opponents, the theory
+of organic evolution is more thoroughly alive than it has ever
+been before. Paleontologists are studying their fossil shells and
+corals and bones in order to find out what has taken place during
+the millions upon millions of years during which living things
+have inhabited our planet. Anatomists are studying the bodies of
+modern animals, from the simplest to the highest, to determine their
+relationships one to the other; embryologists are tracing out the
+evolution of the individual in his life before birth. The geneticists
+are breeding plants, rabbits, mice, fishes, flies, potato bugs so
+that they may discover what evolution is doing today. Everywhere
+men are studying, comparing, experimenting. Their purpose is not
+to discover whether or not evolution is a fact; on that point they
+have long ago been satisfied. They are trying to find out how it
+operates and what forms it has produced; how differences arise among
+organisms, and what are their effects, and by what means they are
+passed from one generation to another until they become part and
+parcel of the inheritance, thereby establishing a new species.
+
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+        [1] Modified after Zeller and Osborn.
+
+        [2] Osborn, “From the Greeks to Darwin,” p. 86.
+
+        [3] This claim has at various times been disputed;
+            Osborn, however, accepts it without question.
+
+        [4] “From the Greeks to Darwin,” pp. 101-102.
+
+        [5] Quoted by Osborn, with the comment: “As Haeckel
+            observes, Darwin rose up as Kant’s Newton.”
+
+        [6] Osborn, on whose writings most of this chapter is
+            based, comments that Scotland was “a country which
+            the Mayor evidently considered so remote that
+            his observation would probably not be gainsaid.”
+            This important fact, that the faker could not be
+            contradicted, probably was responsible for many of
+            the absurdities published. However, when we examine
+            the general state of knowledge at that time, we
+            are forced to admit that this is not the whole
+            explanation. Without much question, many of these
+            writers were at least partly serious, and actually
+            believed the impossible tales which they printed,
+            just as they believed they had seen witches and
+            ghosts.
+
+        [7] The “Scientific Monthly” contains an interesting
+            article on the history of scientific illustration,
+            showing many of the remarkable pictures to be found
+            in early works.
+
+        [8] Carl von Linne was the greatest naturalist of
+            eighteenth century Sweden. He lived from 1707 to
+            1778, and for many years was professor at the
+            University of Upsala.
+
+        [9] In Buffon’s day the Americas were still the “New
+            World,” and it was customary with naturalists of the
+            time to consider it new, not only in discovery, but
+            in its plant and animal inhabitants. For them, the
+            animals of America came from the Old World, just
+            as did its white settlers; the idea of opposite
+            migrations was quite unheard of. How different this
+            conception was from the actual state of affairs can
+            be seen by reference to such books as Osborn’s “Age
+            of Mammals.”
+
+       [10] Osborn, op. cit. p. 138.
+
+       [11] Op. cit., pp. 181-182. The need of which Dr. Osborn
+            speaks was not by any means confined to science of
+            Goethe’s time. The great characteristic of modern
+            paleontology, for example, is observation without
+            either generalization or philosophy. It is for this
+            reason that the science of fossils has yielded
+            relatively meagre data on evolution.
+
+       [12] This was not true of the naturalist in later life,
+            when he was for years a semi-invalid.
+
+       [13] “Contemporary Portraits,” pp. 12-13.
+
+       [14] “Mammifers” = mammals; that is, animals which suckle
+            their young.
+
+       [15] Darwin seemed unable to speak of Lamarck without
+            contempt or derision. Certainly he was not familiar
+            with Lamarck’s writings in the French, and
+            attributed to that naturalist certain erroneous
+            ideas for which he was not responsible. Also, it
+            would seem that Darwin failed to make allowances for
+            Lamarck’s insuperable handicaps, and his position
+            as a pioneer, and therefore adopted an attitude of
+            unjustified antagonism.
+
+       [16] “Darwinism,” or “The Darwinian Theory” refers to the
+            theory of natural selection, and the sub-theory of
+            sexual selection, ~not~ to the theory or concept of
+            organic evolution.
+
+       [17] This conclusion was probably unjustified; his
+            observation covered too short a period to mean a
+            great deal.
+
+
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76278 ***