{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2930/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2930","id":"gutenberg_2930","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2930","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882. On the origin of species","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"Produced by Amy E. Zelmer\n\n\n\n\n\nCRITICISMS ON \"THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES\"\n\n'The Natural History Review', 1864\n\n[1]\n\nBy Thomas H. Huxley\n\n\nIn the course of the present year several foreign commentaries upon Mr.\nDarwin's great work have made their appearance. Those who have perused\nthat remarkable chapter of the 'Antiquity of Man,' in which Sir Charles\nLyell draws a parallel between the development of species and that of\nlanguages, will be glad to hear that one of the most eminent philologers\nof Germany, Professor Schleicher, has, independently, published a most\ninstructive and philosophical pamphlet (an excellent notice of which is\nto be found in the 'Reader', for February 27th of this year) supporting\nsimilar views with all the weight of his special knowledge and\nestablished authority as a linguist. Professor Haeckel, to whom\nSchleicher addresses himself, previously took occasion, in his splendid\nmonograph on the 'Radiolaria' [2], to express his high appreciation of,\nand general concordance with, Mr. Darwin's views.\n\nBut the most elaborate criticisms of the 'Origin of Species' which\nhave appeared are two works of very widely different merit, the one\nby Professor Kolliker, the well-known anatomist and histologist of\nWurzburg; the other by M. Flourens, Perpetual Secretary of the French\nAcademy of Sciences.\n\nProfessor Kolliker's critical essay 'Upon the Darwinian Theory' is,\nlike all that proceeds from the pen of that thoughtful and accomplished\nwriter, worthy of the most careful consideration. It comprises a brief\nbut clear sketch of Darwin's views, followed by an enumeration of the\nleading difficulties in the way of their acceptance; difficulties which\nwould appear to be insurmountable to Professor Kolliker, inasmuch as\nhe proposes to replace Mr. Darwin's Theory by one which he terms the\n'Theory of Heterogeneous Generation.' We shall proceed to consider first\nthe destructive, and secondly, the constructive portion of the essay.\n\nWe regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very widely from many\nof Professor Kolliker's remarks; and from none more thoroughly than from\nthose in which he seeks to define what we may term the philosophical\nposition of Darwinism.\n\n\"Darwin,\" says Professor Kolliker, \"is, in the fullest sense of the\nword, a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition, pp.\n199, 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal has been\ncreated for its benefit, and he regards the whole series of animal forms\nonly from this point of view.\"\n\nAnd again:\n\n\"7. The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin is a mistaken\none.\n\n\"Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility,\naccording to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or\nhurtful, or indifferent.\n\n\"The assumption that an organism exists only on account of some definite\nend in view, and represents something more than the incorporation of a\ngeneral idea, or law, implies a one-sided conception of the universe.\nAssuredly, every organ has, and every organism fulfils, its end, but its\npurpose is not the condition of its existence. Every organism is also\nsufficiently perfect for the purpose it serves, and in that, at least,\nit is useless to seek for a cause of its improvement.\"\n\nIt is singular how differently one and the same book will impress\ndifferent minds. That which struck the present writer most forcibly on\nhis first perusal of the 'Origin of Species' was the conviction that\nTeleology, as commonly understood, had received its deathblow at Mr.\nDarwin's hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: an organ or\norganism (A) is precisely fitted to perform a function or purpose (B);\ntherefore it was specially constructed to perform that function. In\nPaley's famous illustration, the adaptation of all the parts of the\nwatch to the function, or purpose, of showing the time, is held to be\nevidence that the watch was specially contrived to that end; on the\nground, that the only cause we know of, competent to produce such an\neffect as a watch which shall keep time, is a contriving intelligence\nadapting the means directly to that end.\n\nSuppose, however, that any one had been able to show that the watch had\nnot been made directly by any person, but that it was the result of the\nmodification of another watch which kept time but poorly; and that this\nagain had proceeded from a structure which could hardly be called a\nwatch at all--seeing that it had no figures on the dial and the hands\nwere rudimentary; and that going back and back in time we came at last\nto a revolving barrel as the earliest traceable rudiment of the whole\nfabric. And imagine that it had been possible to show that all these\nchanges had resulted, first, from a tendency of the structure to vary\nindefinitely; and secondly, from something in the surrounding world\nwhich helped all variations in the direction of an accurate time-keeper,\nand checked all those in other directions; then it is obvious that the\nforce of Paley's argument would be gone. For it would be demonstrated\nthat an apparatus thoroughly well adapted to a particular purpose might\nbe the result of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent\nagents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to\nthat end, by an intelligent agent.\n\nNow it appears to us that what we have here, for illustration's sake,\nsupposed to be done with the watch, is exactly what the establishment of\nDarwin's Theory will do for the organic world. For the notion that every\norganism has been created as it is and launched straight at a purpose,\nMr. Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may fairly be\ntermed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these\nvariations the few meet with surrounding conditions which suit them and\nthrive; the many are unsuited and become extinguished.\n\nAccording to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired\nstraight at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of\nwhich one hits something and the rest fall wide.\n\nFor the teleologist an organism exists because it was made for the\nconditions in which it is found; for the Darwinian an organism exists\nbecause, out of many of its kind, it is the only one which has been able\nto persist in the conditions in which it is found.\n\nTeleology implies that the organs of every organism are perfect and\ncannot be improved; the Darwinian theory simply affirms that they\nwork well enough to enable the organism to hold its own against such\ncompetitors as it has met with, but admits the possibility of indefinite\nimprovement. But an example may bring into clearer light the profound\nopposition between the ordinary teleological, and the Darwinian,\nconception.\n\nCats catch mice, small birds and the like, very well. Teleology tells\nus that they do so because they were expressly constructed for so\ndoing--that they are perfect mousing apparatuses, so perfect and so\ndelicately adjusted that no one of their organs could be altered,\nwithout the change involving the alteration of all the rest. Darwinism\naffirms on the contrary, that there was no express construction\nconcerned in the matter; but that among the multitudinous variations of\nthe Feline stock, many of which died out from want of power to resist\nopposing influences, some, the cats, were better fitted to catch mice\nthan others, whence they throve and persisted, in proportion to the\nadvantage over their fellows thus offered to them.\n\nFar from imagining that cats exist 'in order' to catch mice well,\nDarwinism supposes that cats exist 'because' they catch mice\nwell--mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence.\nAnd if the cat type has long persisted as we know it, the interpretation\nof the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not that the cats\nhave remained invariable, but that such varieties as have incessantly\noccurred have been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in the world\nthan the existing stock.\n\nIf we apprehend the spirit of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then,\nnothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it\nis commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a\n\"Teleologist in the fullest sense of the word,\" we would deny that he\nis a Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that,\napart from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable\nservice to philosophical thought by enabling the student of Nature to\nrecognise, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which\nare so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology has done\ngood service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the\nfundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe.\nThe apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the\nMorphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.\n\nBut leaving our own impressions of the 'Origin of Species,' and turning\nto those passages especially cited by Professor Kolliker, we cannot\nadmit that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them. Darwin, if we\nread him rightly, does 'not' affirm that every detail in the structure\nof an animal has been created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199):--\n\n\"The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately\nmade by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every\ndetail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor.\nThey believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in\nthe eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be\nabsolutely fatal to my theory--yet I fully admit that many structures\nare of no direct use to their possessor.\"\n\nAnd after sundry illustrations and qualifications, he concludes (p.\n200):--\n\n\"Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making some\nlittle allowance for the direct action of physical conditions) may be\nviewed either as having been of special use to some ancestral form,\nor as being now of special use to the descendants of this form--either\ndirectly, or indirectly, through the complex laws of growth.\"\n\nBut it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that every detail observed\nin an animal's structure is of use to it, or has been of use to its\nancestors; and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that every\ndetail of an animal's structure has been created for its benefit. On the\nformer hypothesis, for example, the teeth of the foetal Balaena have\na meaning; on the latter, none. So far as we are aware, there is not\na phrase in the 'Origin of Species', inconsistent with Professor\nKolliker's position, that \"varieties arise irrespectively of the notion\nof purpose, or of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may\nbe either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent.\"\n\nOn the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary of Chap. V.):--\n\n\"Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out\nof a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part\nvaries more or less from the same part in the parents.... The external\nconditions of life, as climate and food, etc., seem to have induced some\nslight modifications. Habit, in producing constitutional differences,\nand use, in strengthening, and disuse, in weakening and diminishing\norgans, seem to have been more potent in their effects.\"\n\nAnd finally, as if to prevent all possible misconception, Mr. Darwin\nconcludes his Chapter on Variation with these pregnant words:--\n\n\"Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the offspring\nfrom their parents--and a cause for each must exist--it is the steady\naccumulation, through natural selection of such differences, when\nbeneficial to the individual, that gives rise to all the more important\nmodifications of structure which the innumerable beings on the face of\nthe earth are enabled to struggle with each other, and the best adapted\nto survive.\"\n\nWe have dwelt at length upon this subject, because of its great general\nimportance, and because we believe that Professor Kolliker's criticisms\non this head are based upon a misapprehension of Mr. Darwin's\nviews--substantially they appear to us to coincide with his own. The\nother objections which Professor Kolliker enumerates and discusses are\nthe following [3]:--\n\n\"1. No transitional forms between existing species are known; and\nknown varieties, whether selected or spontaneous, never go so far as to\nestablish new species.\"\n\nTo this Professor Kolliker appears to attach some weight. He makes the\nsuggestion that the short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological\nproduct.\n\n\"2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the organic\nremains of earlier epochs.\"\n\nUpon this, Professor Kolliker remarks that the absence of transitional\nforms in the fossil world, though not necessarily fatal to Darwin's\nviews, weakens his case.\n\n\"3. The struggle for existence does not take place.\"\n\nTo this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kolliker, very justly, attaches no\nweight.\n\n\"4. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and a\nnatural selection, do not exist.\n\n\"The varieties which are found arise in consequence of manifold external\ninfluences, and it is not obvious why they all, or partially, should be\nparticularly useful. Each animal suffices for its own ends, is perfect\nof its kind, and needs no further development. Should, however, a\nvariety be useful and even maintain itself, there is no obvious\nreason why it should change any further. The whole conception of the\nimperfection of organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected\nis plainly the weakest side of Darwin's Theory, and a 'pis aller'\n(Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle by which\nto explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe, have occurred.\"\n\nHere again we must venture to dissent completely from Professor\nKolliker's conception of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis. It appears to us to be\none of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that it involves no\nbelief in a necessary and continual progress of organisms.\n\nAgain, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright, assumes no special tendency of\norganisms to give rise to useful varieties, and knows nothing of\nneeds of development, or necessity of perfection. What he says is, in\nsubstance: All organisms vary. It is in the highest degree improbable\nthat any given variety should have exactly the same relations to\nsurrounding conditions as the parent stock. In that case it is either\nbetter fitted (when the variation may be called useful), or worse\nfitted, to cope with them. If better, it will tend to supplant the\nparent stock; if worse, it will tend to be extinguished by the parent\nstock.\n\nIf (as is hardly conceivable) the new variety is so perfectly adapted\nto the conditions that no improvement upon it is possible,--it will\npersist, because, though it does not cease to vary, the varieties will\nbe inferior to itself.\n\nIf, as is more probable, the new variety is by no means perfectly\nadapted to its conditions, but only fairly well adapted to them, it will\npersist, so long as none of the varieties which it throws off are better\nadapted than itself.\n\nOn the other hand, as soon as it varies in a useful way, i.e. when the\nvariation is such as to adapt it more perfectly to its conditions, the\nfresh variety will tend to supplant the former.\n\nSo far from a gradual progress towards perfection forming any necessary\npart of the Darwinian creed, it appears to us that it is perfectly\nconsistent with indefinite persistence in one estate, or with a gradual\nretrogression. Suppose, for example, a return of the glacial epoch and a\nspread of polar climatal conditions over the whole globe. The operation\nof natural selection under these circumstances would tend, on the whole,\nto the weeding out of the higher organisms and the cherishing of the\nlower forms of life. Cryptogamic vegetation would have the advantage\nover Phanerogamic; Hydrozoa over Corals; Crustacea over Insecta, and\nAmphipoda and Isopoda over the higher Crustacea; Cetaceans and Seals\nover the Primates; the civilization of the Esquimaux over that of the\nEuropean.\n\n\"5. Pelzeln has also objected that if the later organisms have proceeded\nfrom the earlier, the whole developmental series, from the simplest to\nthe highest, could not now exist; in such a case the simpler organisms\nmust have disappeared.\"\n\nTo this Professor Kolliker replies, with perfect justice, that the\nconclusion drawn by Pelzeln does not really follow from Darwin's\npremisses, and that, if we take the facts of Palaeontology as they\nstand, they rather support than oppose Darwin's theory.\n\n\"6. Great weight must be attached to the objection brought forward by\nHuxley, otherwise a warm supporter of Darwin's hypothesis, that we know\nof no varieties which are sterile with one another, as is the rule among\nsharply distinguished animal forms.\n\n\"If Darwin is right, it must be demonstrated that forms may be produced\nby selection, which, like the present sharply distinguished animal\nforms, are infertile, when coupled with one another, and this has not\nbeen done.\"\n\nThe weight of this objection is obvious; but our ignorance of the\nconditions of fertility and sterility, the want of carefully conducted\nexperiments extending over long series of years, and the strange\nanomalies presented by the results of the cross-fertilization of many\nplants, should all, as Mr. Darwin has urged, be taken into account in\nconsidering it.\n\nThe seventh objection is that we have already discussed ('supra', p.\n178).\n\nThe eighth and last stands as follows:--\n\n\"8. The developmental theory of Darwin is not needed to enable us to\nunderstand the regular harmonious progress of the complete series of\norganic forms from the simpler to the more perfect.\n\n\"The existence of general laws of Nature explains this harmony, even if\nwe assume that all beings have arisen separately and independent of one\nanother. Darwin forgets that inorganic nature, in which there can be no\nthought of genetic connexion of forms, exhibits the same regular plan,\nthe same harmony, as the organic world; and that, to cite only one\nexample, there is as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and\nanimals.\"\n\nWe do not feel quite sure that we seize Professor Kolliker's meaning\nhere, but he appears to suggest that the observation of the general\norder and harmony which pervade inorganic nature, would lead us to\nanticipate a similar order and harmony in the organic world. And this is\nno doubt true, but it by no means follows that the particular order\nand harmony observed among them should be that which we see. Surely the\nstripes of dun horses, and the teeth of the foetal 'Balaena', are not\nexplained by the \"existence of general laws of Nature.\" Mr. Darwin\nendeavours to explain the exact order of organic nature which exists;\nnot the mere fact that there is some order.\n\nAnd with regard to the existence of a natural system of minerals; the\nobvious reply is that there may be a natural classification of any\nobjects--of stones on a sea-beach, or of works of art; a natural\nclassification being simply an assemblage of objects in groups, so as\nto express their most important and fundamental resemblances and\ndifferences. No doubt Mr. Darwin believes that those resemblances and\ndifferences upon which our natural systems or classifications of animals\nand plants are based, are resemblances and differences which have been\nproduced genetically, but we can discover no reason for supposing that\nhe denies the existence of natural classifications of other kinds.\n\nAnd, after all, is it quite so certain that a genetic relation may not\nunderlie the classification of minerals? The inorganic world has not\nalways been what we see it. It has certainly had its metamorphoses,\nand, very probably, a long \"Entwickelungsgeschichte\" out of a nebular\nblastema. Who knows how far that amount of likeness among sets of\nminerals, in virtue of which they are now grouped into families and\norders, may not be the expression of the common conditions to which that\nparticular patch of nebulous fog, which may have been constituted by\ntheir atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest sense, the\ndescendants, was subjected?\n\nIt will be obvious from what has preceded, that we do not agree with\nProfessor Kolliker in thinking the objections which he brings forward\nso weighty as to be fatal to Darwin's view. But even if the case were\notherwise, we should be unable to accept the \"Theory of Heterogeneous\nGeneration\" which is offered as a substitute. That theory is thus\nstated:--\n\n\"The fundamental conception of this hypothesis is, that, under the\ninfluence of a general law of development, the germs of organisms\nproduce others different from themselves. This might happen (1) by\nthe fecundated ova passing, in the course of their development, under\nparticular circumstances, into higher forms; (2) by the primitive and\nlater organisms producing other organisms without fecundation, out of\ngerms or eggs (Parthenogenesis).\"\n\nIn favour of this hypothesis, Professor Kolliker adduces the well-known\nfacts of Agamogenesis, or \"alternate generation\"; the extreme\ndissimilarity of the males and females of many animals; and of the\nmales, females, and neuters of those insects which live in colonies: and\nhe defines its relations to the Darwinian theory as follows:--\n\n\"It is obvious that my hypothesis is apparently very similar to\nDarwin's, inasmuch as I also consider that the various forms of animals\nhave proceeded directly from one another. My hypothesis of the creation\nof organisms by heterogeneous generation, however, is distinguished\nvery essentially from Darwin's by the entire absence of the principle\nof useful variations and their natural selection: and my fundamental\nconception is this, that a great plan of development lies at the\nfoundation of the origin of the whole organic world, impelling the\nsimpler forms to more and more complex developments. How this law\noperates, what influences determine the development of the eggs and\ngerms, and impel them to assume constantly new forms, I naturally cannot\npretend to say; but I can at least adduce the great analogy of the\nalternation of generations. If a 'Bipinnaria', a 'Brachialaria', a\n'Pluteus', is competent to produce the Echinoderm, which is so widely\ndifferent from it; if a hydroid polype can produce the higher Medusa;\nif the vermiform Trematode 'nurse' can develop within itself the very\nunlike 'Cercaria', it will not appear impossible that the egg, or\nciliated embryo, of a sponge, for once, under special conditions, might\nbecome a hydroid polype, or the embryo of a Medusa, an Echinoderm.\"\n\nIt is obvious, from these extracts, that Professor Kolliker's hypothesis\nis based upon the supposed existence of a close analogy between the\nphenomena of Agamogenesis and the production of new species from\npre-existing ones. But is the analogy a real one? We think that it is\nnot, and, by the hypothesis, cannot be.\n\nFor what are the phenomena of Agamogenesis, stated generally? An\nimpregnated egg develops into an asexual form, A; this gives rise,\nasexually, to a second form or forms, B, more or less different from A.\nB may multiply asexually again; in the simpler cases, however, it does\nnot, but, acquiring sexual characters, produces impregnated eggs from\nwhence A, once more, arises.\n\nNo case of Agamogenesis is known in which, 'when A differs widely from\nB', it is itself capable of sexual propagation. No case whatever is\nknown in which the progeny of B, by sexual generation, is other than a\nreproduction of A.\n\nBut if this be a true statement of the nature of the process of\nAgamogenesis, how can it enable us to comprehend the production of\nnew species from already existing ones? Let us suppose Hyaenas to have\npreceded Dogs, and to have produced the latter in this way. Then the\nHyena will represent A, and the Dog, B. The first difficulty that\npresents itself is that the Hyena must be asexual, or the process will\nbe wholly without analogy in the world of Agamogenesis. But passing over\nthis difficulty, and supposing a male and female Dog to be produced at\nthe same time from the Hyaena stock, the progeny of the pair, if the\nanalogy of the simpler kinds of Agamogenesis [4] is to be followed,\nshould be a litter, not of puppies, but of young Hyenas. For the\nAgamogenetic series is always, as we have seen, A: B: A: B, etc.;\nwhereas, for the production of a new species, the series must be A:\nB: B: B, etc. The production of new species, or genera, is the extreme\npermanent divergence from the primitive stock. All known Agamogenetic\nprocesses, on the other hand, end in a complete return to the primitive\nstock. How then is the production of new species to be rendered\nintelligible by the analogy of Agamogenesis?\n\nThe other alternative put by Professor Kolliker--the passage of\nfecundated ova in the course of their development into higher\nforms--would, if it occurred, be merely an extreme case of variation in\nthe Darwinian sense, greater in degree than, but perfectly similar in\nkind to, that which occurred when the well-known Ancon Ram was developed\nfrom an ordinary Ewe's ovum. Indeed we have always thought that Mr.\nDarwin has unnecessarily hampered himself by adhering so strictly to his\nfavourite \"Natura non facit saltum.\" We greatly suspect that she does\nmake considerable jumps in the way of variation now and then, and that\nthese saltations give rise to some of the gaps which appear to exist in\nthe series of known forms.\n\nStrongly and freely as we have ventured to disagree with Professor\nKolliker, we have always done so with regret, and we trust without\nviolating that respect which is due, not only to his scientific eminence\nand to the careful study which he has devoted to the subject, but to the\nperfect fairness of his argumentation, and the generous appreciation of\nthe worth of Mr. Darwin's labours which he always displays. It would be\nsatisfactory to be able to say as much for M. Flourens.\n\nBut the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences deals with\nMr. Darwin as the first Napoleon would have treated an \"ideologue;\"\nand while displaying a painful weakness of logic and shallowness of\ninformation, assumes a tone of authority, which always touches upon the\nludicrous, and sometimes passes the limits of good breeding.\n\nFor example (p. 56):--\n\n\"M. Darwin continue: 'Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete et ne pout etre\netablie entre les especes et les varietes.' Je vous ai deja dit que vous\nvous trompiez; une distinction absolue separe les varietes d'avec les\nespeces.\"\n\n\"Je vous ai deja dit; moi, M. le Secretaire perpetuel de l'Academie des\nSciences: et vous\n\n'Qui n'etes rien, Pas meme Academicien;'\n\nwhat do you mean by asserting the contrary?' Being devoid of the\nblessings of an Academy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our\nablest men treated in this fashion, even by a \"Perpetual Secretary.\"\n\nOr again, considering that if there is any one quality of Mr. Darwin's\nwork to which friends and foes have alike borne witness, it is his\ncandour and fairness in admitting and discussing objections, what is to\nbe thought of M. Flourens' assertion, that\n\n\"M. Darwin ne cite que les auteurs qui partagent ses opinions.\" (P. 40.)\n\nOnce more (p. 65):--\n\n\"Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu'etre frappe du\ntalent de l'auteur. Mais que d'idees obscures, que d'idees fausses! Quel\njargon metaphysique jete mal a propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui\ntombe dans le galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees claires, des idees\njustes! Quel langage pretentieux et vide! Quelles personifications\npueriles et surannees! O lucidite! O solidite de l'esprit Francais, que\ndevenez-vous?\"\n\n\"Obscure ideas,\" \"metaphysical jargon,\" \"pretentious and empty\nlanguage,\" \"puerile and superannuated personifications.\" Mr. Darwin has\nmany and hot opponents on this side of the Channel and in Germany,\nbut we do not recollect to have found precisely these sins in the long\ncatalogue of those hitherto laid to his charge. It is worth while,\ntherefore, to examine into these discoveries effected solely by the aid\nof the \"lucidity and solidity\" of the mind of M. Flourens.\n\nAccording to M. Flourens, Mr. Darwin's great error is that he has\npersonified Nature (p. 10), and further that he has\n\n\"imagined a natural selection: he imagines afterwards that this power of\nselection (pouvoir d'lire) which he gives to Nature is similar to the\npower of man. These two suppositions admitted, nothing stops him: he\nplays with Nature as he likes, and makes her do all he pleases.\" (P. 6.)\n\nAnd this is the way M. Flourens extinguishes natural selection:\n\n\"Voyons donc encore une fois, ce qu'il peut y avoir de fonde dans ce\nqu'on nomme election naturelle.\n\n\"L'election naturelle n'est sous un autre nom que la nature. Pour un\netre organise, la nature n'est que l'organisation, ni plus ni moins.\n\n\"Il faudra donc aussi personnifier l'organisation, et dire que\nl'organisation choisit l'organisation. L'election naturelle est cette\nforme substantielle dont on jouait autrefois avec tant de facilite.\nAristote disait que 'Si l'art de batir etait dans le bois, cet art\nagirait comme la nature.' A la place de l'art de batir M. Darwin met\nl'election naturelle, et c'est tout un: l'un n'est pas plus chimerique\nque l'autre.\" (P.31.)\n\nAnd this is really all that M. Flourens can make of Natural Selection.\nWe have given the original, in fear lest a translation should be\nregarded as a travesty; but with the original before the reader, we\nmay try to analyse the passage. \"For an organized being, Nature is only\norganization, neither more nor less.\"\n\nOrganized beings then have absolutely no relation to inorganic nature: a\nplant does not, depend on soil or sunshine, climate, depth in the\nocean, height above it; the quantity of saline matters in water have no\ninfluence upon animal life; the substitution of carbonic acid for oxygen\nin our atmosphere would hurt nobody! That these are absurdities no one\nshould know better than M. Flourens; but they are logical deductions\nfrom the assertion just quoted, and from the further statement that\nnatural selection means only that \"organization chooses and selects\norganization.\"\n\nFor if it be once admitted (what no sane man denies) that the chances of\nlife of any given organism are increased by certain conditions (A) and\ndiminished by their opposites (B), then it is mathematically certain\nthat any change of conditions in the direction of (A) will exercise a\nselective influence in favour of that organism, tending to its increase\nand multiplication, while any change in the direction of (B) will\nexercise a selective influence against that organism, tending to its\ndecrease and extinction.\n\nOr, on the other hand, conditions remaining the same, let a given\norganism vary (and no one doubts that they do vary) in two directions:\ninto one form (a) better fitted to cope with these conditions than the\noriginal stock, and a second (b) less well adapted to them. Then it\nis no less certain that the conditions in question must exercise a\nselective influence in favour of (a) and against ( b), so that (a) will\ntend to predominance, and (b) to extirpation.\n\nThat M. Flourens should be unable to perceive the logical necessity of\nthese simple arguments, which lie at the foundation of all Mr. Darwin's\nreasoning; that he should confound an irrefragable deduction from the\nobserved relations of organisms to the conditions which lie around\nthem, with a metaphysical \"forme substantielle,\" or a chimerical\npersonification of the powers of Nature, would be incredible, were it\nnot that other passages of his work leave no room for doubt upon the\nsubject.\n\n\"On imagine une 'election naturelle' que, pour plus de menagement, on me\ndit etre inconsciente, sans s'apercevoir que le contre-sens litteral est\nprecisement la: 'election inconsciente'.\" (P. 52.)\n\n\"J'ai deja dit ce qu'il faut penser de 'l'election naturelle'. Ou\n'l'election naturelle' n'est rien, ou c'est la nature: mais la nature\ndouee 'd'election', mais la nature personnifiee: derniere erreur du\ndernier siecle: Le xixe fait plus de personnifications.\" (P. 53.)\n\nM. Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious selection--it is for him a\ncontradiction in terms. Did M. Flourens ever visit one of the prettiest\nwatering-places of \"la belle France,\" the Baie d'Arcachon? If so, he\nwill probably have passed through the district of the Landes, and will\nhave had an opportunity of observing the formation of \"dunes\" on a grand\nscale. What are these \"dunes\"? The winds and waves of the Bay of\nBiscay have not much consciousness, and yet they have with great care\n\"selected,\" from among an infinity of masses of silex of all shapes and\nsizes, which have been submitted to their action, all the grains of sand\nbelow a certain size, and have heaped them by themselves over a great\narea. This sand has been \"unconsciously selected\" from amidst the gravel\nin which it first lay with as much precision as if man had \"consciously\nselected\" it by the aid of a sieve. Physical Geology is full of such\nselections--of the picking out of the soft from the hard, of the soluble\nfrom the insoluble, of the fusible from the infusible, by natural\nagencies to which we are certainly not in the habit of ascribing\nconsciousness.\n\nBut that which wind and sea are to a sandy beach, the sum of influences,\nwhich we term the \"conditions of existence,\" is to living organisms. The\nweak are sifted out from the strong. A frosty night \"selects\" the hardy\nplants in a plantation from among the tender ones as effectually as if\nit were the wind, and they, the sand and pebbles, of our illustration;\nor, on the other hand, as if the intelligence of a gardener had been\noperative in cutting the weaker organisms down. The thistle, which has\nspread over the Pampas, to the destruction of native plants, has been\nmore effectually \"selected\" by the unconscious operation of natural\nconditions than if a thousand agriculturists had spent their time in\nsowing it.\n\nIt is one of Mr. Darwin's many great services to Biological science\nthat he has demonstrated the significance of these facts. He has shown\nthat--given variation and given change of conditions--the inevitable\nresult is the exercise of such an influence upon organisms that one\nis helped and another is impeded; one tends to predominate, another\nto disappear; and thus the living world bears within itself, and is\nsurrounded by, impulses towards incessant change.\n\nBut the truths just stated are as certain as any other physical laws,\nquite independently of the truth, or falsehood, of the hypothesis\nwhich Mr. Darwin has based upon them; and that M. Flourens, missing the\nsubstance and grasping at a shadow, should be blind to the admirable\nexposition of them, which Mr. Darwin has given, and see nothing there\nbut a \"derniere erreur du dernier siecle \"--a personification of\nNature--leads us indeed to cry with him: \"O lucidite! O solidite de\nl'esprit Francais, que devenez-vous?\"\n\nM. Flourens has, in fact, utterly failed to comprehend the first\nprinciples of the doctrine which he assails so rudely. His objections to\ndetails are of the old sort, so battered and hackneyed on this side of\nthe Channel, that not even a Quarterly Reviewer could be induced to pick\nthem up for the purpose of pelting Mr. Darwin over again. We have Cuvier\nand the mummies; M. Roulin and the domesticated animals of America; the\ndifficulties presented by hybridism and by Palaeontology; Darwinism a\n'rifacciamento' of De Maillet and Lamarck; Darwinism a system without a\ncommencement, and its author bound to believe in M. Pouchet, etc. etc.\nHow one knows it all by heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65--\n\n\"Je laisse M. Darwin!\"\n\nBut we cannot leave M. Flourens without calling our readers' attention\nto his wonderful tenth chapter, \"De la Preexistence des Germes et de\nl'Epigenese,\" which opens thus:--\n\n\"Spontaneous generation is only a chimaera. This point established, two\nhypotheses remain: that of 'pre-existence' and that of 'epigenesis'.\nThe one of these hypotheses has as little foundation as the other.\" (P.\n163.)\n\n\"The doctrine of 'epigenesis' is derived from Harvey: following by\nocular inspection the development of the new being in the Windsor\ndoes, he saw each part appear successively, and taking the moment of\n'appearance' for the moment of 'formation' he imagined 'epigenesis'.\"\n(P. 165.)\n\nOn the contrary, says M. Flourens (p. 167),\n\n\"The new being is formed at a stroke ('tout d'un coup') as a whole,\ninstantaneously; it is not formed part by part, and at different times.\nIt is formed at once at the single 'individual' moment at which the\nconjunction of the male and female elements takes place.\"\n\nIt will be observed that M. Flourens uses language which cannot be\nmistaken. For him, the labours of von Baer, of Rathke, of Coste, and\ntheir contemporaries and successors in Germany, France, and England, are\nnon-existent: and, as Darwin \"imagina\" natural selection, so Harvey\n\"imagina\" that doctrine which gives him an even greater claim to\nthe veneration of posterity than his better known discovery of the\ncirculation of the blood.\n\nLanguage such as that we have quoted is, in fact, so preposterous, so\nutterly incompatible with anything but absolute ignorance of some of the\nbest established facts, that we should have passed it over in silence\nhad it not appeared to afford some clue to M. Flourens' unhesitating,\n'a priori', repudiation of all forms of the doctrine of progressive\nmodification of living beings. He whose mind remains uninfluenced by an\nacquaintance with the phenomena of development, must indeed lack one\nof the chief motives towards the endeavour to trace a genetic relation\nbetween the different existing forms of life. Those who are ignorant of\nGeology, find no difficulty in believing that the world was made as it\nis; and the shepherd, untutored in history, sees no reason to regard the\ngreen mounds which indicate the site of a Roman camp, as aught but part\nand parcel of the primeval hill-side. So M. Flourens, who believes that\nembryos are formed \"tout d'un coup,\" naturally finds no difficulty in\nconceiving that species came into existence in the same way.\n\n\n\n[Footnote 1: The Natural History Review', 1864.\n1. UEBER DIE DARWIN'SCHE SCH PFUNGSTHEORIE; EIN VORTRAG, VON A. K\nLLIKER. Leipzig, 1864.\n2. EXAMINATION DU LIVRE DE M. DARWIN SUR L'ORIGINE DES ESPECES. PAR P.\nFLOURENS. Paris, 1864.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 'Die Radiolarien: eine Monographie', p. 231.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Space will not allow us to give Professor Kolliker's\narguments in detail; our readers will find a full and accurate version\nof them in the 'Reader' for August 13th and 20th, 1864.]\n\n[Footnote 4: If, on the contrary, we follow the analogy of the\nmore complex forms of Agamogenesis, such as that exhibited by some\n'Trematoda' and by the 'Aphides', the Hyaena must produce, asexually,\na brood of asexual Dogs, from which other sexless Dogs must proceed.\nAt the end of a certain number of terms of the series, the Dogs would\nacquire sexes and generate young; but these young would be, not Dogs,\nbut Hyaenas. In fact, we have 'demonstrated', in Agamogenetic phenomena,\nthat inevitable recurrence to the original type, which is 'asserted' to\nbe true of variations in general, by Mr. Darwin's opponents; and which,\nif the assertion could be changed into a demonstration would, in fact,\nbe fatal to his hypothesis.]","title":"Criticisms on \"The Origin of Species\": From 'The Natural History Review', 1864","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6532}