diff options
Diffstat (limited to '76278-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 76278-h/76278-h.htm | 2430 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 76278-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 781995 bytes |
2 files changed, 2430 insertions, 0 deletions
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 |
