diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76278-0.txt | 1601 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76278-h/76278-h.htm | 2430 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76278-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 781995 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
6 files changed, 4048 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf 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 *** diff --git a/76278-h/76278-h.htm b/76278-h/76278-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b8ec8cf --- /dev/null +++ b/76278-h/76278-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2430 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + A History of Evolution | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} +/* Heading Styles */ + h1,h2,h3,h4 { + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em; + clear: both; + font-weight: bold; + page-break-before: avoid;} + +h1 { /* use for book title */ + margin: 1em 5% 1em; + font-size: 180%;} +h2 { /* use for chapter headings */ + margin:2em 5% 1em; + font-size: 150%;} +h3 { margin: .5em 5% 1em; + font-size: 120%;} +h4 { margin: 2em 5% 1em; + font-size: 110%;} + +.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} /* use with h2 for epubs */ + +.break {page-break-before: always;} /* for epubs */ + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always; + margin-top: 4em;} + +/* Paragraph styles */ +p {text-indent: 1.25em; + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em;} + +.unindent {text-indent: 0em; + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em;} + +.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} +.right {text-align: right; margin-right: 4em;} +.center {text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em;} + +/* Font styling */ +.smaller {font-size: 83%;} +.larger {font-size: 120%;} +em {font-style: italic;} + +span.lock {white-space: nowrap;} /* for keeping following mdashes with preceding word and FN anchors with word they note */ + +abbr { border:none; text-decoration:none; font-variant:normal; } + +/* Links */ +a:visited {text-decoration:none; color: red;} +a:link {text-decoration:none;} /* no UL of any links - useful for html accessibility */ + +/* Rules */ +hr { /*default rule across entire width */ + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;}} + +/* Tables */ +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + text-align: center; + border-spacing: 0; /* this removes spaces between handmade lines around boxes */ +} + +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} +.tdc {text-align: center;} + +.pad1 {padding: 0 0 0 2em;} +.pad2 {padding: .5em 0 0 0;} +.vlt {vertical-align: top;} + +.pagenum { + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: 50%; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; /* needed if using indented paragraphs by default */ + color: #444;} + +/* Footnotes and Anchors */ +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; + text-indent: 0; font-size: 0.9em; text-decoration: none;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none; + white-space: nowrap; /* keeps footnote on same line as referenced text */ +} + + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76278 ***</div> + +<h4>Transcriber’s Note:</h4> + +<p>Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end of +the book. A table of contents was added for the convenience of +users. Obsolete and alternative spellings were not unchanged. Seven +misspelled words were corrected.</p> + +<p class="p2 unindent"> +<a href="#FOREWORD">FOREWORD</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.</a><br> +<a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.</a><br> +<a href="#FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</a><br> +</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span> +<p class="center">TEN CENT POCKET SERIES NO. 321<br> +Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius</p> + +<h1>A History of Evolution</h1> + +<p class="center larger">Carroll Lane Fenton</p> + + +<p class="p4 center">HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY<br> +GIRARD, KANSAS +</p> +</div> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span></p> +<p class="center"> +Copyright, 1922<br> +Haldeman-Julius Company<br> +</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +</div> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> + +<p><i>There is but thing greater than to search +after the natural laws which govern our universe—that +is to discover them.</i></p> +</div><!--end chapter--> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOREWORD">FOREWORD</h2> +</div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> +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 <em>men</em>, not by erratic, thinking +machines which popular magazines proclaim to +the world as representations of its scientists.</p> + +<p class="right"> +C. L. F.<br> +</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span></p> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER <abbr title="One">I.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>EVOLUTION AMONG THE GREEKS.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> +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.”</p> + +<p>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. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> +And yet, despite its deficiencies, this +chain was the best conception of animal development +and descent to be produced in more +than twenty centuries.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> +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 <em>seems</em> to be teleologically +organized merely because it cannot +be organized otherwise, but he must stand +ready to show grounds for his statement.</p> + +<p>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,” +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> +says he, “these young earth-children were nourished +by springs of milk.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<div class="break"> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> +<p class="center">THE GREEK PERIODS<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> +</div> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdc smaller">GENERAL CONCEPTION OF NATURE:</td> + <td class="tdc smaller" colspan="2">DIVISIONS OF THE SCHOOLS</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc pad2"><b>Mythological</b> + <td></td> + <td class="tdl pad2">The prehistoric traditions.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc smaller" rowspan="2">FIRST PERIOD:</td> + <td class="tdr vlt pad2"><abbr title="One">I.</abbr></td> + <td class="tdl pad2"><b>The Three Earliest Schools.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td></td> + <td class="tdl"> The Ionians: Thales (624-548), Anaximander (611-547), + Anaximenes (588-524), Diogenes <span class="lock">(440- ).</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc vlt"><b>Naturalistic</b></td> + <td></td> + <td class="tdl">The Pythagoreans (580-430). The Eleatics. Xenophanes + (576-480), Parmenides (<span class="lock">544- ).</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc" rowspan="2"><b>Materialistic</b><br>(Early)</td> + <td class="tdr pad2"><abbr title="Two">II.</abbr></td> + <td class="tdl pad2"><b>The Physicists.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td></td> + <td class="tdl">Heraclitus (535-475), Empedocles (495-435), Democritus + (450- ), Anaxagoras (500-428).</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc pad2 smaller">SECOND PERIOD:</td> + <td></td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Socrates (470-399), Plato (427-347).</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc pad2"><b>Teleological</b></td> + <td></td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Aristotle (384-322).</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2"></td> + <td class="tdl pad2">The Post-Aristotelians, (so-called Peripatetics), including + Theophrastus, Preaxagoras Herophilus, and others.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc smaller" rowspan="3">THIRD PERIOD:</td> + <td class="tdr pad2">A.</td> + <td class="tdl pad2"><abbr title="One">I.</abbr> <b>The Stoics.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td></td> + <td class="tdl"><abbr title="Two">II.</abbr> <b>The Epicureans.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td></td> + <td class="tdl pad1">Epicurus (341-270).</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdc" rowspan="3"><b>Materialistic</b><br>(Late)</td> + <td></td> + <td class="tdl pad2"><abbr title="Three">III.</abbr> <b>The Sceptics.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdr">B.</td> + <td class="tdl"><abbr title="One">I.</abbr> <b>Eclecticism.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td class="tdl pad1">Galen (131-201 A. D.).</td></tr> +</table> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER <abbr title="Two">II.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>FROM THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS TO KANT.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>Universities in Europe were founded at the +beginning of the twelfth century, following +those established by the <span class="lock">Arabs<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>.</span> 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, <span class="lock">discovered<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was the first of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> +and the mechanistic conception of all +life activities.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="lock">Osborn<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>,</span> he says:</p> + +<p>“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.” +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> +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:</p> + +<p>“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 <span class="lock">man<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>.”</span></p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> +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.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER <abbr title="Three">III.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>EVOLUTION AND THE SPECULATORS.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <span class="lock">Scotland<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>.”</span> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> +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 <span class="lock">creatures<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>.</span> 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?</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER <abbr title="Four">IV.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>EVOLUTION AND THE GREAT NATURALISTS.</h3> + +<p>One of the outstanding figures of zoology, +and for that matter, of all natural science is +Carl von Linne, more commonly known as +Carolus <span class="lock">Linnaeus<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>.</span> 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 <i lang="la">Spizella socialis</i>, 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> +of fact it is extremely convenient, just as in +a directory or telephone book it is convenient +to have the family name given first.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> +upon each species its immutable characters.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> +showing how they were changed by +climate, food, etc., so that eventually animals +coming from the eastern hemisphere to the +<span class="lock">western<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></span> + 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="lock">forms<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>,”</span> + and that no definite assertions might +be made regarding the origin of any particular +animal or plant.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> +halfway between was a remarkable mental +evolution to be covered in the space of less +than sixty years. What was the cause of it?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> +ostracism in case we made a departure from +the well beaten path.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> +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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Lamarck was, as we have said, a conscientious +scientist, and made use of his own accurate +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>In all France there was only one man who +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> +breadth of vision equalled by but few of the +workers who preceded him. As Osborn states:</p> + +<p>“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 <span class="lock">generalization.”<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></span></p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> +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.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> +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.</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER <abbr title="Five">V.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>DARWIN AND THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION</h3> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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, <span class="lock">healthy<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></span> + 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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> +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 <span class="lock">straw.”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> +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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<p>“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<span class="lock"> mammifers<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>,</span> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> +<span class="lock">nonsense<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></span> + 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.</p> + +<p>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!</p> + +<p>In France, even more than in England, the +“Origin of Species” was held in disapproval. +A translation of the book was offered to a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> +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?”</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> +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.”</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <em>I believe Natural Selection will account +for the production of every vertebrate +animal</em>.” In publication, however, he was more +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> +cautious, saying, “I am convinced that Natural +Selection has been the main, but not the exclusive +means of modification.”</p> + +<p>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 <span class="lock">theory<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>,</span> + 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.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> +“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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> +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.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER <abbr title="Six">VI.</abbr></h2> +</div> + +<h3>THE POST-DARWINIANS: DEVRIES AND THE +MUTATION THEORY.</h3> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> +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 <span class="lock">animal<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>.</span> 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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> +which selected those mutations capable +of surviving.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> +each species of graduation of structure so insensible +that not a link in the chain of evidence +is wanting.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> +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.</p> + +<p>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 <em>genetics</em>, +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.</p> + +<hr class="tb"> + +<p>Today, despite the assertions of a few of its +opponents, the theory of organic evolution is +more thoroughly alive than it has ever been +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> +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.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h3><a id="FOOTNOTES"></a>FOOTNOTES:</h3> +</div> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Modified after Zeller and Osborn.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> Osborn, “From the Greeks to Darwin,” p. 86.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> This claim has at various times been disputed; +Osborn, however, accepts it without question.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> “From the Greeks to Darwin,” pp. 101-102.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> Quoted by Osborn, with the comment: “As +Haeckel observes, Darwin rose up as Kant’s +Newton.”</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> 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.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> 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.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> 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.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> 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.”</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> Osborn, op. cit. p. 138.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> 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.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> This was not true of the naturalist in later +life, when he was for years a semi-invalid.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> “Contemporary Portraits,” pp. 12-13.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> “Mammifers” = mammals; that is, animals +which suckle their young.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> 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.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> “Darwinism,” or “The Darwinian Theory” refers +to the theory of natural selection, and +the sub-theory of sexual selection, <b>not</b> to the +theory or concept of organic evolution.</p> + +<p class="footnote"><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> This conclusion was probably unjustified; his +observation covered too short a period to mean +a great deal.</p> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 76278 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/76278-h/images/cover.jpg b/76278-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2a7721 --- /dev/null +++ b/76278-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5dba15 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This book, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this book outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f400cd --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +book #76278 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76278) |
