Books: Luck or Cunning?
S >>
Samuel Butler >> Luck or Cunning?
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 | 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19
"And while the world of thought was thus seething and moving
restlessly before the wave of ideas set in motion by these various
independent philosophers, another group of causes in another field
was rendering smooth the path beforehand for the future champion of
the amended evolutionism. Geology on the one hand and astronomy on
the other were making men's minds gradually familiar with the
conception of slow natural development, as opposed to immediate and
miraculous creation.
. . .
"The influence of these novel conceptions upon the growth and spread
of evolutionary ideas was far-reaching and twofold. In the first
place, the discovery of a definite succession of nearly related
organic forms following one another with evident closeness through
the various ages, inevitably suggested to every inquiring observer
the possibility of their direct descent one from the other. In the
second place, the discovery that geological formations were not
really separated each from its predecessor by violent revolutions,
but were the result of gradual and ordinary changes, discredited the
old idea of frequent fresh creations after each catastrophe, and
familiarised the minds of men of science with the alternative notion
of slow and natural evolutionary processes. The past was seen in
effect to be the parent of the present; the present was recognised
as the child of the past."
This is certainly not Mr. Darwin's own account of the matter.
Probably the truth will lie somewhere between the two extreme views:
and on the one hand, the world of thought was not seething quite so
badly as Mr. Allen represents it, while on the other, though "three
classes of fact," &c., were undoubtedly "brought strongly before"
Mr. Darwin's "mind in South America," yet some of them had perhaps
already been brought before it at an earlier time, which he did not
happen to remember at the moment of writing his letter to Professor
Haeckel and the opening paragraph of the "Origin of Species."
CHAPTER XIV--Darwin and Descent with Modification (continued)
I have said enough to show that Mr. Darwin claimed I to have been
the originator of the theory of descent with modification as
distinctly as any writer usually claims any theory; but it will
probably save the reader trouble in the end if I bring together a
good many, though not, probably, all (for I much disliked the task,
and discharged it perfunctorily), of the passages in the "Origin of
Species" in which the theory of descent with modification in its
widest sense is claimed expressly or by implication. I shall quote
from the original edition, which, it should be remembered, consisted
of the very unusually large number of four thousand copies, and from
which no important deviation was made either by addition or
otherwise until a second edition of two thousand further copies had
been sold; the "Historical Sketch," &c., being first given with the
third edition. The italics, which I have employed so as to catch
the reader's eye, are mine, not Mr. Darwin's. Mr. Darwin writes:-
"Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I CAN
ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT, AFTER THE MOST DELIBERATE STUDY AND
DISPASSIONATE JUDGMENT OF WHICH I AM CAPABLE, THAT THE VIEW WHICH
MOST NATURALISTS ENTERTAIN, AND WHICH I FORMERLY ENTERTAINED--NAMELY
THAT EACH SPECIES HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CREATED--IS ERRONEOUS. I
am fully convinced that species are not immutable, but that those
belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants
of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as
the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of
that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection"
(or the preservation of fortunate races) "has been the main but not
exclusive means of modification" (p. 6).
It is not here expressly stated that the theory of the mutability of
species is Mr. Darwin's own; this, nevertheless, is the inference
which the great majority of his readers were likely to draw, and did
draw, from Mr. Darwin's words.
Again:-
"It is not that all large genera are now varying much, and are thus
increasing in the number of their species, or that no small genera
are now multiplying and increasing; for if this had been so it would
have been fatal to MY THEORY; inasmuch as geology," &c. (p. 56).
The words "my theory" stand in all the editions. Again:-
"This relation has a clear meaning ON MY VIEW of the subject; I look
upon all the species of any genus as having as certainly descended
from the same progenitor, as have the two sexes of any one of the
species" (p. 157).
"My view" here, especially in the absence of reference to any other
writer as having held the same opinion, implies as its most natural
interpretation that descent pure and simple is Mr. Darwin's view.
Substitute "the theory of descent" for "my view," and we do not feel
that we are misinterpreting the author's meaning. The words "my
view" remain in all editions.
Again:-
"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of
difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so
grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being
staggered; but to the best of my belief the greater number are only
apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, FATAL TO MY
THEORY.
"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the
following heads:- Firstly, if species have descended from other
species by insensibly fine gradations, why do we not everywhere
see?" &c. (p. 171).
We infer from this that "my theory" is the theory "that species have
descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations"--that is
to say, that it is the theory of descent with modification; for the
theory that is being objected to is obviously the theory of descent
in toto, and not a mere detail in connection with that theory.
The words "my theory" were altered in 1872, with the sixth edition
of the "Origin of species," into "the theory;" but I am chiefly
concerned with the first edition of the work, my object being to
show that Mr. Darwin was led into his false position as regards
natural selection by a desire to claim the theory of descent with
modification; if he claimed it in the first edition, this is enough
to give colour to the view which I take; but it must be remembered
that descent with modification remained, by the passage just quoted
"my theory," for thirteen years, and even when in 1869 and 1872, for
a reason that I can only guess at, "my theory" became generally "the
theory," this did not make it become any one else's theory. It is
hard to say whose or what it became, if the words are to be
construed technically; practically, however, with all ingenuous
readers, "the theory" remained as much Mr. Darwin's theory as though
the words "my theory" had been retained, and Mr. Darwin cannot be
supposed so simple-minded as not to have known this would be the
case. Moreover, it appears, from the next page but one to the one
last quoted, that Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent with
modification generally, even to the last, for we there read, "BY MY
THEORY these allied species have descended from a common parent,"
and the "my" has been allowed, for some reason not quite obvious, to
survive the general massacre of Mr. Darwin's "my's" which occurred
in 1869 and 1872.
Again:-
"He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it,
must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met," &c. (p. 185).
Here the argument evidently lies between descent and independent
acts of creation. This appears from the paragraph immediately
following, which begins, "He who believes in separate and
innumerable acts of creation," &c. We therefore understand descent
to be the theory so frequently spoken of by Mr. Darwin as "my."
Again:-
"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that
large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained BY
THE THEORY OF DESCENT, ought not to hesitate to go farther, and to
admit that a structure even as perfect as an eagle's eye might be
formed BY NATURAL SELECTION, although in this case he does not know
any of the transitional grades" (p. 188).
The natural inference from this is that descent and natural
selection are one and the same thing.
Again:-
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, MY THEORY would absolutely break down. But I can
find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do
not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to
much-isolated species, round which, according to my THEORY, there
has been much extinction" (p. 189).
This makes "my theory" to be "the theory that complex organs have
arisen by numerous, successive, slight modifications;" that is to
say, to be the theory of descent with modification. The first of
the two "my theory's" in the passage last quoted has been allowed to
stand. The second became "the theory" in 1872. It is obvious,
therefore, that "the theory" means "my theory;" it is not so obvious
why the change should have been made at all, nor why the one "my
theory" should have been taken and the other left, but I will return
to this question.
Again, Mr. Darwin writes:-
"Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ
could not possibly have been produced by small successive
transitional gradations, yet, undoubtedly grave cases of difficulty
occur, some of which will be discussed in my future work" (p. 192).
This, as usual, implies descent with modification to be the theory
that Mr. Darwin is trying to make good.
Again:-
"I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named towards
which no transitional variety is known to lead . . . Why, ON THE
THEORY OF CREATION, should this be so? Why should not nature have
taken a leap from structure to structure? ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL
SELECTION we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural
selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive
variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the
slowest and shortest steps" (p. 194).
Here "the theory of natural selection" is opposed to "the theory of
creation;" we took it, therefore, to be another way of saying "the
theory of descent with modification."
Again:-
"We have in this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and
objections which may be urged against MY THEORY. Many of them are
very grave, but I think that in the discussion light has been thrown
on several facts which, ON THE THEORY OF INDEPENDENT ACTS OF
CREATION, are utterly obscure" (p. 203).
Here we have, on the one hand, "my theory," on the other,
"independent acts of creation." The natural antithesis to
independent acts of creation is descent, and we assumed with reason
that Mr. Darwin was claiming this when he spoke of "my theory." "My
theory" became "the theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"On the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand the
full meaning of that old canon in natural history, 'Natura non facit
saltum.' This canon, if we look only to the present inhabitants of
the world is not strictly correct, but if we include all those of
past times, it must BY MY THEORY be strictly true" (p. 206).
Here the natural interpretation of "by my theory" is "by the theory
of descent with modification;" the words "on the theory of natural
selection," with which the sentence opens, lead us to suppose that
Mr. Darwin regarded natural selection and descent as convertible
terms. "My theory" was altered to "this theory" in 1872. Six lines
lower down we read, "ON MY THEORY unity of type is explained by
unity of descent." The "my" here has been allowed to stand.
Again:-
"Again, as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with
MY THEORY, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has
never," &c. (p. 210).
Who was to see that "my theory" did not include descent with
modification? The "my" here has been allowed to stand.
Again:-
"The fact that instincts . . . are liable to make mistakes;--that no
instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals,
but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others;--
that the canon of natural history, 'Natura non facit saltum,' is
applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is
plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise
inexplicable,--ALL TEND TO CORROBORATE THE THEORY OF NATURAL
SELECTION" (p. 243).
We feel that it is the theory of evolution, or descent with
modification, that is here corroborated, and that it is this which
Mr. Darwin is mainly trying to establish; the sentence should have
ended "all tend to corroborate the theory of descent with
modification;" the substitution of "natural selection" for descent
tends to make us think that these conceptions are identical. That
they are so regarded, or at any rate that it is the theory of
descent in full which Mr. Darwin has in his mind, appears from the
immediately succeeding paragraph, which begins "THIS THEORY," and
continues six lines lower, "For instance, we can understand, on the
PRINCIPLE OF INHERITANCE, how it is that," &c.
Again:-
"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of
intermediate forms must, ON MY THEORY, formerly have existed" (p.
280).
"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869. No reader who read in good
faith could doubt that the theory of descent with modification was
being here intended.
"It is just possible BY MY THEORY, that one of two living forms
might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a
tapir; but in this case DIRECT intermediate links will have existed
between them" (p. 281).
"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"BY THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION all living species have been
connected with the parent species of each genus," &c. We took this
to mean, "By the theory of descent with modification all living
species," &c. (p. 281).
Again:-
"Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very
fine species of D'Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties; and
on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which ON MY
THEORY we ought to find" (p. 297).
"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.
In the fourth edition (1866), in a passage which is not in either of
the two first editions, we read (p. 359), "So that here again we
have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by MY
THEORY." "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869; the theory of
descent with modification is unquestionably intended.
Again:-
"Geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking down the
distinction between species, by connecting them together by
numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been
effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many
objections which may be urged against MY VIEWS" (p. 299).
We naturally took "my views" to mean descent with modification. The
"my" has been allowed to stand.
Again:-
"If, then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have
no right to expect to find in our geological formations an infinite
number of those transitional forms which ON MY THEORY assuredly have
connected all the past and present species of the same group in one
long and branching chain of life . . . But I do not pretend that I
should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best
preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable
transitional links between the species which lived at the
commencement and at the close of each formation pressed so hardly ON
MY THEORY" (pp. 301, 302).
Substitute "descent with modification" for "my theory" and the
meaning does not suffer. The first of the two "my theories" in the
passage last quoted was altered in 1869 into "our theory;" the
second has been allowed to stand.
Again:-
"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear
in some formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists . . .
as a fatal objection TO THE BELIEF IN THE TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES.
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal TO THE
THEORY OF DESCENT WITH SLOW MODIFICATION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION"
(p. 302).
Here "the belief in the transmutation of species," or descent with
modification, is treated as synonymous with "the theory of descent
with slow modification through natural selection; "but it has
nowhere been explained that there are two widely different "theories
of descent with slow modification through natural selection," the
one of which may be true enough for all practical purposes, while
the other is seen to be absurd as soon as it is examined closely.
The theory of descent with modification is not properly convertible
with either of these two views, for descent with modification deals
with the question whether species are transmutable or no, and
dispute as to the respective merits of the two natural selections
deals with the question how it comes to be transmuted; nevertheless,
the words "the theory of descent with slow modification through the
ordinary course of things" (which is what "descent with modification
through natural selection" comes to) may be considered as expressing
the facts with practical accuracy, if the ordinary course of nature
is supposed to be that modification is mainly consequent on the
discharge of some correlated function, and that modification, if
favourable, will tend to accumulate so long as the given function
continues important to the wellbeing of the organism; the words,
however, have no correspondence with reality if they are supposed to
imply that variations which are mainly matters of pure chance and
unconnected in any way with function will accumulate and result in
specific difference, no matter how much each one of them may be
preserved in the generation in which it appears. In the one case,
therefore, the expression natural selection may be loosely used as a
synonym for descent with modification, and in the other it may not.
Unfortunately with Mr. Charles Darwin the variations are mainly
accidental. The words "through natural selection," therefore, in
the passage last quoted carry no weight, for it is the wrong natural
selection that is, or ought to be, intended; practically, however,
they derived a weight from Mr. Darwin's name to which they had no
title of their own, and we understood that "the theory of descent
with slow modification" through the kind of natural selection
ostensibly intended by Mr. Darwin was a quasi-synonymous expression
for the transmutation of species. We understood--so far as we
understood anything beyond that we were to believe in descent with
modification--that natural selection was Mr. Darwin's theory; we
therefore concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that the
theory of the transmutation of species generally was so also. At
any rate we felt as regards the passage last quoted that the theory
of descent with modification was the point of attack and defence,
and we supposed it to be the theory so often referred to by Mr.
Darwin as "my."
Again:-
"Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus,
Lingula, &c., do not differ much from the living species; and it
cannot ON MY THEORY be supposed that these old species were the
progenitors," &c. (p. 306) . . . "Consequently IF MY THEORY BE TRUE,
it is indisputable," &c. (p. 307).
Here the two "my theories" have been altered, the first into "our
theory," and the second into "the theory," both in 1869; but, as
usual, the thing that remains with the reader is the theory of
descent, and it remains morally and practically as much claimed when
called "the theory"--as during the many years throughout which the
more open "my" distinctly claimed it.
Again:-
"All the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Owen,
Agassiz, Barrande, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists,
as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often
vehemently, maintained THE IMMUTABILITY OF SPECIES. . . . I feel how
rash it is to differ from these great authorities . . . Those who
think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who
do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds
brought forward in this volume, will undoubtedly at once REJECT MY
THEORY" (p. 310).
What is "my theory" here, if not that of the mutability of species,
or the theory of descent with modification? "My theory" became "the
theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"Let us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to the
geological succession of organic beings, better accord with the
common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their
SLOW AND GRADUAL MODIFICATION, THROUGH DESCENT AND NATURAL
SELECTION" (p. 312).
The words "natural selection" are indeed here, but they might as
well be omitted for all the effect they produce. The argument is
felt to be about the two opposed theories of descent, and
independent creative efforts.
Again:-
"These several facts accord well with MY THEORY" (p. 314). That "my
theory" is the theory of descent is the conclusion most naturally
drawn from the context. "My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.
Again:-
"This gradual increase in the number of the species of a group is
strictly conformable WITH MY THEORY; for the process of modification
and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and
gradual, . . . like the branching of a great tree from a single
stem, till the group becomes large" (p. 314).
"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869. We took "my theory" to be
the theory of descent; that Mr. Darwin treats this as synonymous
with the theory of natural selection appears from the next
paragraph, on the third line of which we read, "On THE THEORY OF
NATURAL SELECTION the extinction of old forms," &c.
Again:-
"THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION is grounded on the belief that each
new variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and
maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes
into competition; and the consequent extinction of less favoured
forms almost inevitably follows" (p. 320). Sense and consistency
cannot be made of this passage. Substitute "The theory of the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" for "The
theory of natural selection" (to do this is only taking Mr. Darwin's
own synonym for natural selection) and see what the passage comes
to. "The preservation of favoured races" is not a theory, it is a
commonly observed fact; it is not "grounded on the belief that each
new variety," &c., it is one of the ultimate and most elementary
principles in the world of life. When we try to take the passage
seriously and think it out, we soon give it up, and pass on,
substituting "the theory of descent" for "the theory of natural
selection," and concluding that in some way these two things must be
identical.
Again:-
"The manner in which single species and whole groups of species
become extinct accords well with THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION"
(p. 322).
Again:-
"This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life
throughout the world, is explicable ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL
SELECTION" (p. 325).
Again:-
"Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living
species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this is
at once explained ON THE PRINCIPLE OF DESCENT" (p. 329).
Putting the three preceding passages together, we naturally inferred
that "the theory of natural selection" and "the principle of
descent" were the same things. We knew Mr. Darwin claimed the
first, and therefore unhesitatingly gave him the second at the same
time.
Again:-
"Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with
THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 331)
Again:-
"Thus, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the main facts
with regard to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms of life to
each other and to living forms, seem to me explained in a
satisfactory manner. And they are wholly inexplicable ON ANY OTHER
VIEW" (p. 333).
The words "seem to me" involve a claim in the absence of so much as
a hint in any part of the book concerning indebtedness to earlier
writers.
Again:-
"ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT, the full meaning of the fossil remains,"
&c. (p. 336).
In the following paragraph we read:-
"But in one particular sense the more recent forms must, ON MY
THEORY, be higher than the more ancient."
Again:-
"Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent
the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the
geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to
the embryological development of recent forms. . . . This doctrine
of Agassiz accords well with THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p.
338).
"The theory of natural selection" became "our theory" in 1869. The
opinion of Agassiz accords excellently with the theory of descent
with modification, but it is not easy to see how it bears upon the
fact that lucky races are preserved in the struggle for life--which,
according to Mr. Darwin's title-page, is what is meant by natural
selection.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 | 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19