a history of evolution - archive...8 ahistoryofevolution losophers,andtheirevidentfailurestounder-...

LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO.Edited by £. Haldeman-Julius 321

A History of

EvolutionCarroll Lane Fenton

TEN CENT POCKET SERIES NO. 321

Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius

A History of

EvolutionCarroll Lane Fenton

HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANYGIRARD, K \\s\s

Copyright, 1922

Haldeman-Julius Company

There is out thing greater than to search

after the natural laws which govern our uni-

verse—that is to discover them.

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

FOREWORDNothing can be more nearly a truism than

the statement that everything in the knownuniverse is the product of some sort of evo-

lution. At the same time, there is hardly adoctrine in the civilized world that has arousedmore enthusiasm, interest, and enmity, thanthe doctrine of organic evolution. And yet I

have found, to my great surprise, that few of usare accustomed to thinking of that doctrine it-

self as a product of a long process of evolution,covering more than twenty-six centuries. Weare all too apt to think of the doctrine of or-

ganic evolution as beginning with Darwin andending with Huxley and Haeckel; as a matterof fact, it began (so far as we can tell) withThales, and shall not end so long as humanbeings inhabit this planet.

It is with the idea of presenting, in a con-densed form, the essentials of this "evolutionof evolution" that I have prepared this book.It is neither detailed nor technical; it does notassume to be a complete history of the sub-ject under consideration. But it does give aconvenient, readable account of the most im-portant stages in that history, and at the sametime a slight glimpse of the major characterswho made it possible. This latter, unfortunate-

difficult for two reasons. The space of

this booklet is limited, aad only brief sketches

6 A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

can be given, where they can be given at all.

But more important than that is the lack ofmaterial. No scientist has been a Shakespeare,to be written about by Goethe and Frank Har-ris, nor yet a Cromwell, to receive the attentionof Carlyle. And yet the personality and for-

tunes of a scientist are just as important injudging his place in the world as are those of apoet or statesman. Without knowing thatLamarck was poor and blind we cannot prop-erly view his efforts; without realizing thatCuvier was spoiled, wealthy, and of a "rulingclass," we cannot understand his bitter con-

tempt for an honest, capable worker who wasfounding one of the greatest conceptions of all

human thought. And so, while we are consid-

ering the ideas that go to make up this evolu-

tion, let us remember that those ideas wereworked out by men, not by erratic, thinkingmachines which popular magazines proclaim to

the world as representations of its scientists.

C. L. F.

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION |

CHAPTER I.

EVOLUTION AMONG THE GREEKS.

The earliest known books on natural history,

and particularly on zoology, the science of ani-

mals, were those written by the ancient Greeks.We are certain that still more ancient volumesonce existed, for the Greek writers commonlyreferred to "the ancients," very much as au-

thors of today refer to the Greeks. But whothese ancients were, where they lived, and whatthey wrote, we have no means of knowing; for

all practical purposes the study of animal life

may be considered to have originated in Greeceduring the seventh century before the Christianera.

Never, perhaps, has a talented people beenso advantageously situated with relation to astimulating environment as were the Greeks.All about them was a sea teeming with low andprimitive forms of life, stimulating them to

the observation of nature. Their earliest phi-

losophies were philosophies of nature, of the be-

ginnings and causes of the universe and its

inhabitants. Of course, as has been pointedout by various students of philosophy, theGreeks did not follow truly scientific methodsof thought; they aimed directly at a theorywithout stopping to search for a mass of facts

to suggest and support it. Neither, for thatmatter, can they justly be called scientists ornaturalists; rather, they were poets and phi-


losophers, and their evident failures to under-stand the problems which they attacked arequite to be expected. As has been said, theysought the theory before they searched for

the fact, and having attained it they inter-

preted all facts in the light of the theory. Andif that was wrong—as it very often was—thewhole thing was wrong, because only the theorywas studied and no one knew anything aboutthe mistake.

But with all their superstitions and erroneousideas, the Greeks possessed an overpoweringcuriosity regarding the multitudinous naturalobjects 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 thatwater was the fundamental substance fromwhich all things come, and because of whichthey 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 in-

stead of one surrounded by a warm, highlypopulated sea, his ideas might well have beendifferent. Thus we must, at the very outset,

attribute to environment as well as to intellect

the reliability of an important Greek idea.

Anaximander (611-547), another astronomer,was the first important Greek evolutionist. Hebelieved that the earth first existed in a fluid

state. From its slow drying up were producedall living creatures, the first being man. These

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION 9

water-dwelling humans appeared as fishes in

the sea, and came out upon the land only whenthey had so far developed tljat they were able

to live in the air. The capsule-like case wrhichenclosed their bodies then burst, freeing themand allowing them to reproduce their kindupon the continents. In his ideas of the origin

of life Anaximander was the pioneer of "Abio-genesis," teaching that eels, frogs, and otheraquatic creatures were directly produced fromlifeless matter.

Anaximander's pupil, Anaximenes, departedradically from the teachings of Thales. Hethought that air, not water, was the cause ofall things, yet he held that in the beginningall creatures were formed from a primordialslime of earth and water. Another pupil of

Anaximander, Xenophanes (576-480), madehimself famous by discovering the true natureof fossils. Before his time, and indeed, forthousands of years afterward, fossils were heldto be accidents, or natural growths, or crea-tions of a devil, or of a god who delightedin puzzling his earthly children. Xenophanes.rightly interpreted them to be the remains ofanimals, and from this concluded that seasformerly covered what is now dry land.

Empedocles, (495-435) taught what is prob-ably the first clearly formulated theory of evo-lution. He supposed that many parts of ani-mals, such as heads, legs, necks, eyes, ears,and so on. were formed separately, and werekept apart bv the mysterious forces of hate.But love of nart for part finally overcame the


baser passion, and the various sections cametogether to form bodies. The combinations,unfortunately, were entirely accidental, and didnot always result in satisfactory creatures. Onebody, for example, might possess several headsand no legs; another might have an abundanceof arms and legs, but be without a head. Thesemonstrosities were unable to keep themselvesalive, and so perished, leaving the world to thebodies that had come together in proper combi-nations. Thus Empedocles, more than two thou-sand years before the first zoologist framedand taught a theory of organic evolution thatseemed to offer anything worth while, con-ceived one of the most important of evolution-ary principles—that of natural selection.

But by far the most striking figure amongthe early Greek philosophers who gave their

attention to natural history was Aristotle,

(384-322). He lived more than three hundredyears before the Christian era, and was a pupilof Plato and a teacher of Alexander the Great.He wrote upon a wide variety of subjects

—

politics, rhetoric, metaphysics, psychology, phi-

losophy, and natural history—and publishedseveral hundred works, most of which havebeen lost. It is true that Aristotle's booksare full of errors, and if the philosopher wereto be judged by the standards of twentieth cen-

tury science he would not appear very impor-tant. But it must be remembered that he wasa pioneer who, by the force of his own ability

created the serious study of natural history.

The workers who had preceded him had disr


covered relatively little; their works were most-ly speculations and vague hypotheses. As Aris-

totle himself says, "I found no basis prepared;no models to copy . . . Mine is the first step,

and therefore a small one, though worked outwith much thought and hard labor. It mustbe looked at as a first step and judged withindulgence. You, my readers, or hearers of

my lectures, if you think I have done as muchas can be fairly required for an initiatory

start, as compared with more advanced de-

partments of theory, will acknowledge whatI have achieved and pardon what I have left

for others to accomplish."

In his two books, "Physics" and "NaturalHistory of Animals" are set forth Aristotle'sviews on nature, and his remarkably accurateobservations of both plants and animals. Hedistinguished about five hundred species ofmammals, birds, and fishes, besides showing anextensive knowledge of corals and their allies,

sponges, squids, and other marine animals. Heunderstood the adaptation of animals and theirparts to the needs placed upon them, and wasfamiliar with the commoner principles of hered-ity. He considered life to be a function of theanimal or plant exhibiting it, and not a sepa-rate entity, given out by some divine power,or mysterious force. Aristotle devised a heredi-tary chain, extending from the simplest ani-mals of which he had knowledge to the highest,man. This chain was a very direct affair, notat all resembling the modern "evolutionarytree" in its various ramifications and irregulari-


ties. And yet, despite its deficiencies, this

chain was the best conception of animal de-

velopment and descent to be produced in morethan twenty centuries.

Unfortunately, Aristotle saw nothing of valuein the crude survival suggestion of Empedo-cles. He believed that there was a purpose, acontinued striving after beauty, in all the va-riations of plants and animals, and allowednothing whatever to what we, for lack of betterknowledge, call "chance variation." He did,

however, restate Empedocles , position in mod-ern, scientific language in order that he mightrefute it the more ably. He argues stronglyfor his conception of purpose in evolution, say-

ing, "It is argued that where all things hap-pened as if they were made for some purpose,being aptly united by chance, these were pre-

served, but such as were not aptly made, thesewere lost and still perish." He then makesreference to the way which Empedocles usedthis conception to explain the non-existence ofthe mythical monsters of olden time, states

again that nothing is produced by chance, andcloses with the statement, "There is, therefore,

a'purpose in things which are produced by, andexist from, Nature."

Aristotle was far and away ahead of anyother evolutionist of ancient times; indeed, hadhe turned his genius to the clarification andsupport of the survival hypothesis, instead of

combating it, he might have been properly con-sidered as the "Greek prophet of Darwinism."TTis teachings were opposed by the philosopher


Epicurus, who lived from 341 to 270 and wasone of the most prominent figures of ancient

rationalism. Epicurus did not believe in any-

thing supernatural; he maintained that every-

thing could be explained on a purely naturaland mechanical basis. He excluded teleology,

the doctrine of a conscious plan or purposein evolution and nature from any place in truephilosophy, thus taking an important stand in

a struggle not yet settled. Unfortunately, Epi-curus did not take the trouble to explain whathis postulated natural causes were, or how theybehaved. The agnostic may well say, with El-

liot, that the organic world seems to be tele-

ologically organized merely because it cannotbe organized otherwise, but he must standready to show grounds for his statement.

After Epicurus we must pass from Greece toRome. T. Lucretius Carus (99-55), more com-monly known as Lucretius, revived the teach-

ings of ancient Greek philosophers and unitedthem with those of Epicurus, whose doctrines

he made famous in the long poem, "De RerumNatura." Lucretius maintained a purely me-chanical, rationalistic view of nature, butignored the valuable work of Aristotle. He re-

vived Empedocles' hypothesis of survival, butconfined its application to the mythical mon-sters of past ages—centaurs, chimeras, and so

on. He believed in the spontaneous generationof life, speaking of mounds arising, "fromwhich people sprang forth, for they had beennourished within." "In an analogous manner,"


says he, "these young earth-children were nour-ished by springs of milk."Thus we see that Lucretius, although an ex-

cellent poet, was neither a good evolutionist

nor a first-rate philosopher. In his abandon-ment of Aristotle he discarded the only phaseof Greek thought which had come near to trueconceptions of evolution, and in expounding thedoctrine of spontaneous generation, he fostered

an idea that was to prove of almost infinite

harm to the evolution idea.

There was no one to carry on the work.Greece was no longer a great nation; her "phi-

losophers" were mostly second-rate tutors.

Rome produced no naturalists of note, Pliny,

the greatest, being of small capacity for re-

liable observation. The Greeks had done much;they had asked questions and insofar as theywere able, had given answers. They left theworld face to face with the problem of naturalcausation, and their ideas endured as a basis

for the work of future scientists and philoso-

phers.

a HISTORY OF EVOLUTION 15

THE GREEK PERIODS1

GENERAL CON- DIVISIONS OF THE SCHOOLSCEPTION OFNATURE:Mythological

FIRST PERIOD:

Naturalistic

Materialistic(Early)

The prehistoric traditions.

I. The Three Earliest Schools.The Ionians: Thales (624548), Anaximander (611-547),Anaximenes (588-524), Dio-genes (440- ).

The Pythagoreans (580-430).The Eleatics. Xenophanes(576-480), Parmenides(544- ).

II. The Physicists.Heraclitus (535-475), Empe-docles (495-435), Democritus(450- ), Anaxagoras (500-428).

SECOND PERIOD:

Teleological

(470-399), PlatoSocrates(427-347).

Aristotle (384-322).

The Post-Aristotelians, (so-called Peripatetics), includ-ing Theophrastus, Preaxa-goras, Herophilus, and oth-

_..__ A. T. The Stoics.THIRD PERIOD: II. The Epicureans.Hpicurus (341-270).

MateriiiliNtic III. The Sceptics.(Late) B. I. Eclecticism.

Galen (131-201 A. D.).

^lodificd after Zeller and Osborn.

16 A HISTORY" OF EVOLUTION

CHAPTER II.

FROM THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS TO KANT.

Inasmuch as almost the entire learning ofEurope for several centuries was under theprotection and rule of the church, it is im-portant that we examine in some detail thefate of evolution at the hands of that organ-ization.

The early church drew its teachings on theorigin and development of life from two sources—the Book of Genesis, and the philosophies ofPlato and Aristotle. The early ChristianFathers, or at least the more prominent of

them, were very broad-minded in their inter-

pretations of the "revelations" of the Bible. Inthe fourth century, Gregory of Nyassa begana natural interpretation of Genesis that wascompleted in that century, and the one follow-

ing, by Augustine. Despite the plain state-

ments of the direct, or "special" creation of

all living things, to be found in Genesis, Au-gustine promulgated a very different doctrine.

He believed that all development took placeaccording to powers incorporated in matter bythe Creator. Even the body of man himselffitted into this plan, and was therefore a pro-

duct of divinely originated, but naturally ac-

complished development. Thus Augustine, asMoore says, "distinctly rejected Special Cre-

ation in favor of a doctrine which, without anyviolence to language, we may call a theory of

Evolution."


It is particularly interesting to note, in these

days when prominent men go about denounc-ing the doctrine of organic evolution as foul,

repulsive, and contrary to the will of God, thatthe early churchmen were not troubled by suchnarrowness. Augustine not only gave up theorthodox statement of special creation; he mod-ified 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 findhim rebuking those who, ignorant of the prin-

ciples underlying nature, seek to explain thingsaccording to the letter of the scriptures. "It

is very disgraceful and mischievous, ,, says he,

"that a Christian speaking of such matters asbeing according to the Christian Scripturesshould be heard by an unbeliever talking suchnonsense that the unbeliever, perceiving himto be as wide from the mark as east from west,can hardly restrain himself from laughing."Augustine was fojlowed by some of the later

church authorities, most notably ThomasAquinas, who lived in the latter part of the thir-

teenth century. He did not add to the evolu-tion idea, but rather expounded the Adeas ofAugustine. His importance was due to his highrank as a church authority, not to any ideaswhich he produced.

During the period between Augustine andAquinas, however, science almost died out inEurope, and leadership in philosophy went in-

to the hands of the Arabs. Between 813 and833 the works of Aristotle were translated in-

to Arabic, and they form the basis of tho nat-


ural philosophies of the Arabians. Avicenna(980-1037) probably held a naturalistic theoryof evolution, and is known to have been fun-damentally modern in his conceptions of geol-

ogy. During the tenth century scientific

books were imported into Spain in consider-able numbers, and the Spanish scientific move-ment culminated in the works of Avempace andAbubacer (Abn-Badja and Ibn-Tophail). Theformer held that there were strong relation-

ships between men, animals, plants, and min-erals, which made them into a closely unitedwhole. Abubacer, a poet, believed in the spon-taneous generation of life, and sketched in ahighly imaginative fashion the development of

human thought and civilization.

But the reactionary trend of church thoughtduring the dark ages finally attacked and con-

quered Arabic progress. In 1209 the ChurchProvincial Council of Paris forbade the studyof Arabic writers, and even declared againstthe reading of Aristotle's "Natural Philosophy."During the middle ages the progress backwardwas carried to an even greater degree. Menno longer cared to think, or to discover things;

they preferred to be told what they should be-

lieve. This attitude was encouraged by theauthorities of the church, who represented pow-er, 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 every-

one, and by almost everyone was rendered as

a matter of course. Those who by chance madereal discoveries, and found that they contra-


dieted the established authorities, either re-

fused to believe their own senses, or else

feared to publish their information because of

the almost certain prosecution that would fol-

low. To believe blindly, without analysis or

question, was considered right and proper; to

seek knowledge for oneself was a crime thatthe medieval church, and her governmental al-

lies, stood ever ready to punish.

But the autocratic enforcement of antiquateddogma, and the serf-like submission to au-thority, could not go on forever. A revolutioncame, even within the ranks of the theologiansthemsejves. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) re-

vived the teachings of Aristotle, and combinedthem with theories, and combined them withideas secured by omnivorous reading of Greek,Arabic, and Oriental writings. He undoubted-ly had some conception of evolution, comparesthe intelligence of man and various of the low-er animals, and recognizes a physical relation-

ship between them. In geology he was essen-

tially modern, arguing against the six thousandyears of Bible chronology, and maintainingthat conditions of his day were the same, fun-damentally, as those during ancient periods of

the earth's history—a doctrine which he prob-ably borrowed from the Arabian, Avicenna.

Before considering others of the philosopherswho became, during the sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries, the sponsors of the evolutionidea, we may well pause to glance at the gen-eral state of learning throughout Europe atthe beginning of that period. Just as any ideaIs a product of the men who advocate it, so

20 A HISTORY OP EVOLUTION

is its development dependant upon the stateof culture in the regions where it is beingfostered. We must, therefore, consider the out-standing features of that environment in orderto understand the true significance of the pro-gress made along the line in which we areprincipally interested.

Universities in Europe were founded at thebeginning of the twelfth century, followingthose established by the Arabs1

. Oxford, themost noted university of England, was foundedabout a century later. For a long time afterthis, authority still held almost unchallengedsway. Naturalists were mainly compilers, re-

peating what had been said and done beforethem, and carefully avoiding anything new.But in the first half of the sixteenth centurythere sprang up, in the Italian university townof Padua, an important school of anatomy. In1619 Harvey, an English physiologist, discov-

ered2 the circulation of blood, and applied themethod of experimental study in zoology. Thisone piece of work was of far more importancethan all of his contributions to physiology

—

of which he is usually considered the real

founder—for it gave to scientists the one al-

most infallible method of securing information.In the latter half of the seventeenth centurythe study of microscopic organisms was begun,and the foundations of a logical classification

of animals was laid by Ray.

aOsborn, "From the Greeks to Darwin," p. 86."This claim has at various times been dis-

puted; Osborn, however, accepts it without ques-tion.


It was during these two centuries of progressthat the basis of our modern methods of evolu-

tionary investigation was laid. Oddly enough,this was done, not by the naturalists of thetime, but by the natural philosophers, such asBacon and Leibnitz. They found their sourceof inspiration in the Greek literature, especial-

ly the writings of Aristotle, incorporating mate-rial offered by the leading naturalists of theirtimes. Probably their biggest contribution wasin giving a proper direction to evolutionaryresearch; they saw clearly that the importantthing was not what had taken place among ani-

mals, but what changes and variations weregoing on under the very eyes of the investi-

gators. By establishing the fact that evolu-tion was nothing more than individual varia-tions en a stupendously large scale, theybrought variation into prominence and laid

the foundation for Darwin's final triumph.

The second great achievement of the phi-

losophers was their proof of the principle ofnatural causation. From Bacon, the earliest,

to Kant, one of the last of these workers, this

principle was the object of continued study andenthusiasm. Each of them believed that theworld, and in fact, the universe was governedby natural causes instead of by the constantinterference of a man-like Creator. Of course,this attitude was hailed as the rankest heter-

odoxy, and was under the ban of the church.Nevertheless, it prevailed, and has stood as apillar of all natural philosophy of the presentday.

Frnnois Bacon (1561-1626) waa the first of


the natural philosophers of later-day Europe.Ho was familiar with the Greek science, butrevolted strongly against the authority givenit. So radical was his attitude that he wentto wholly unjustifiable lengths in attackingthe Greeks, calling them "children . . .

prone to talking and incapable of generation."This enmity may partly explain Bacon's fail-

ure to put into practice the excellent ideaswhich he voiced in his epigrams, maxims, andaphorisms. He did, it is true, suggest themeans whereby the natural causes of whichhe wrote might be discovered, but he did lit-

tle investigation himself. Bacon was too nearthe reactionarism of the middle ages to con-sistently practice the inductive method of

study, and as a result his work was not of

lasting value.

The rebellion of Bacon in England was fol-

lowed by that of Descartes in France, andLeibnitz in Germany. The latter philosopherdid much to revive the teachings of Aristotle,

likening the series of animals to a chain, eachform representing a link. This conception,while good enough in Aristotle's time, wasout of date when revived by Leibnitz, and did

much to hamper a true interpretation of theevolutionary sequence. As we shall see morethan once in this study, scientific ideas are notlike statues or paintings, things of permanentand immutable value. An idea that was good,

and valuable, a hundred years ago may beneither today, and its revival would work dis-

tinct harm to knowledge. The "faddism"against which enemies of science complain is


neither harmful nor iniquitous. An idea shouldbe used to its utmost as long as it representsthe height of our knowledge; then, when it hasbeen replaced by new information which is anoutgrowth of itself, should be relegated to themuseum of scientific antiquities. An ancient,worn-out idea is just as harmful in science asit is in politics; the sooner it is done awaywith, the better for all concerned.

One of the most important, and at the sametime, most puzzling, of the German naturalphilosophers was Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804).When thirty-one years of age Kant published abook entitled, "The General History of Natureand Theory of the Heavens," in which he at-

tempted to harmonize the mechanical and tel-

eological views of nature. He considered na-ture as being under the guidance of exclu-sively natural causes, a very advanced positionwhen compared with the teological conceptionsof other Germans. But in his critical work,"The Teological Faculty of Judgment," pub-lished in 1790, he abandoned his progressiveviews on causation, dividing nature into the'inorganic, ' in which natural causes hold good,and the 'organic/ in which the teleologicalprinciple prevails. He called to the support ofthis conception the discoveries of the then newscience of paleontology, saying that the studentof fossils must of necessity admit the exist-

ence of a careful, purposive organizationthroughout both the plant and animal king-doms. That this assertion was unfounded is

shown by the fact that not a few modern pal-

eontologists are strong defenders of ration-


alism and the mechanistic conception of all

life activities.

But in spite of the fact that Kant was soawed by the immensity of the problem of or-

ganic evolution that he declared it impossibleof solution, he nevertheless declared himselfin favor of the careful study of all evidencebearing upon it. In a most striking passage,quoted by Schultze and Osborn1

, he says:

"It is desirable to examine the great domainof organized beings by means of a methodicalcomparative anatomy, or order to discoverwhether we may not find in them something re-

sembling a system, and that too in connectionwith their mode of generation, so that we maynot be compelled to stope short with a mereconsideration of forms as they are . . .

and need not despair of gaining a full insightinto this department of nature. The agree-ment of so many kinds of animals in a certaincommon plan of structure, which seems to bevisible 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 bythe application of the principle of the mechan-ism of Nature, without which, in fact, noscience can exist. This analogy of formsstrengthens the supposition that they have anactual blood relationship, due to derivationfrom a common parent; a supposition whichis arrived at by observation of the graduatedapproximation of one class of animals to an-

*"From the Greeks to Darwin;' pp. J01-10&

A HIST* >R1 OF EVOLUTH 'X 25

other." He goes on • to say that there is anunbroken chain extending from man to thelowest animals, from animals to plants, andfrom plants to the inorganic matter of whichthe earth is composed. And yet the man who,in 1790, could give so clear an outline of thebasic facts of evolution, was unable to be-

lieve that the sequence which he perceivedwould ever be understood! For in anotherpassage he says:

"It is quite certain that we cannot becomesufficiently acquainted with organized crea-tures and their hidden potentialities by aidof purely mechanical natural principles, muchless can we explain them; and this is so cer-

tain, that wTe may boldly assert that it is ab-

surd for man even to conceive such an idea, orto hope that a Newton may one day arise to

make even the production of a blade of grasscomprehensible, according to natural laws or-

dained by no intention; siich an insight wemust absolutely deny to man1 ."

Perhaps the production of a blade of grassis not yet thoroughly comprehensible to us,

but certainly the essential steps leading to

that production are now well known. Evenat the time Kant wrote there lived a man whodid much to render the explanation possible,

and another who, though disbelieving in evo-

lution of any sort, perfected the means bywhich evolutionists were to arrange and label

the members of the animal and plant king-

1 Qunr,.fi by Osborn, with the comment: "AsDarwin rose up aa Kunt's


doms in order to make the study of themorderly and comprehensible. The great phi-losopher's passion for accuracy, although anunusual and most creditable character in anage noted for its loose thought and wild specu-lation, prevented him from seeing the great sig-

nificance of his own work. When man is ableto comprehend a problem, and to state it inclear, accurate language, the solution of thatproblem is almost assured. The final triumphmay be years, or even centuries away, but its

eventual coming need hardly be questioned.

CHAPTER III.

EVOLUTION AND THE SPECULATORS.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, noted evolutionistand paleontologist, divides the evolutionistsof the seventeenth and eighteenth centuriesinto three groups—the natural philosophers,the speculative writers, and the great natu-ralists.

The speculative writers were a heterogenousgroup of men, partly philosophers, partly natu-ralists, and partly of various other professions,

They were, in the main, untrained in accurate,inductive, scientific investigation, and depend-ed 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 sup-port of observation, or the slightest regard for

scientific methods. Some of them were, for

their day, immensely popular writers, and their


trashy books, filled with myriads of impossible"facts," undoubtedly did a great deal to blockthe progress of true evolutionary studies. Justas the public today does not distinguish be-tween the would-be orator who talks of the"facts" of natural selection, and the true evo-lutionist, and ridicules both, so the public theeighteenth century linked the speculators withthe sincere, hard-working naturalists, and de-clared the ideas of both to be foolish and blas-phemous.

One of the most amusing of the speculatorswas Claude Duret, mayor of a small Frenchtown. 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 Scotland1." From this

tree, as pictured by the mayor, leaves are fall-

ing; on one side they reach water, and areslowly transformed into fishes; upon the other

^sborn, on whose writings most of thischapter is based, comments that Scotland was"a country which the Mayor evidently consid-er^] bo remote that his observation would prob-ably not be gainsaid." This important fact,that the faker could not be contradicted, prob-ably was responsible for many of the absurdi-ties published. However, when we examine the

pal state of knowledge" at that time, weare forced to admit that this is not the wholeexplanation. Without much question, many of

writers were at least partly serious, andactually believed the impossible tales whichthey printed, just as they believed they hadseen witches and ghosts.


they strike dry land and change themselvesinto birds. Fathers Bonnami and Kircher werelovers of the same kind of natural history; thelatter describes orchids which give birth to

birds and tiny men. Other writers of the timedescribed and figured such creatures as cen-taurs, sea-serpents, ship-swallowing devil-fish,

unicorns, and so on, solemnly assuring thereaders that they had seen, and sometimeseven killed these creatures1

. And all of this

nonsense was greedily read and believed bypeople who refused to admit that one species

might, in the course of thousands of years,

change into something distinguishably differ-

ent from the original form! One wonders if

there has been a greater paradox in the worldthan a public which denied the existence of

links between one species and another, yet be-

lieved in centaurs which were half man andhalf horse. Is it any wonder that, amid suchan environment, science was almost stifled,

and philosophy was largely a matter of deduc-tion and imagination?

3 The "Scientific Monthly" contains an inter-esting article on the history of scientific illus-tration, showing many of the remarkable pic-tures to be found in early works.


CHAPTER IV.

EVOLUTION AND THE GREAT NATURALISTS.

One of the outstanding figures of zoology,and for that matter, of all natural science is

Carl von Linne, more commonly known asCarolus Linnaeus 1

. For many years naturalists

had been struggling to establish a satisfactorysystem of naming and arranging the variousforms of animals, plants and fossils, but with-out very definite or satisfactory results. Lin-

naeus devised a very simple method of namingorganisms—one that is followed almost with-out modification even today. He chose Latinand ancient Greek as the languages in whichthe names should be cast, primarily becauseboth of them were more or less familiar to all

students of his day, and neither was an im-portant language of modern times. The nameitself was in two parts, one denoting the par-

ticular species, the other the group to whichthat species belonged. Thus the common chip-

ping sparrow is Spizella socialis, just as a man '

is William Jones, or James Thompson. Theonly difference is that in Linnaeus' systemof naming, the family name comes first; if

the same plan were used in human namesWilliam Jones would become Jones William.This may sound awkward, but as a matter

2Carl von Linne was the greatest naturalistof eighteenth century Sweden. He lived from1707 to 1778, and for many years was professorat the University of Upsala.


of fact it is extremely convenient, just as in

a directory or telephone book it is convenientto have the family name given first.

In the early editions of Linnaeus' greatwork, the "Systema Naturae" (System of Na-ture), published from 1735 to 1751, the greatnaturalist stated specifically that he believedin the absolute fixity of species from the timeof their creation, according to the literal inter-

pretation of Genesis. But Linnaeus was tooclose a student to hold this idea for long, andin his edition of 1762 we find him expressingthe opinion that many new species arose fromthe interbreeding of those originally created.However, he maintained that only species orig-

inated in this manner, and attributed the moregeneral resemblances of animals and plants tosimilarities of form implanted by the Creator.Plainly, therefore, Linnaeus was at heart a be-liever in special creation in a very slightly

restricted sense, and was by no means as pro-

gressive in this respect as the old Greek phi-

losopher Aristotle.

Foremost among the contemporaries of Lin-naeus was George Buffon, (1707-1788), theFrenchman whom Osborn has called the "nat-uralist founder of the modern applied formof the evolutionary theory." During his earlywork Buffon held essentially the same views ashis contemporary, Linnaeus, stating that thespecies of animals were separated by a gapwhich could not be bridged, and that everywhere were evidences of "the Creator, dictat-

ing his simple but beautiful laws and impress-

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION SI

ing upon each species its immutable charac-ters."

As early as 1755, however, Buffon found thathis studies in comparative anatomy placedmany difficulties in the way of these "simplebut beautiful laws" and "immutable charac-ters." He calls attention to the fact that thepig is plainly the "compound of other animals,"possessing many parts for which it has no use,

and concludes that "Nature is far from sub-jecting herself to final causes in the formationof her creatures," and that by continuallysearching for such causes men "deprive phi-

losophy of its true character, and misrepresentits object, which consists in the knowledge of

the 'how' of things." In 1761 he acknowledgeda belief in the frequent modification of species,

but believed that some animals were muchmore subject to variation than others. Heunderstood the struggle for existence, with its

consequent elimination of the species least ca-

pable of living under unfavorable circumstances,and stated it very clearly.

One of the most interesting portions of Buf-fon's evolutionary philosophy was his belief

that external conditions could directly modifythe structure of animals and plants, and thatthese modifications were hereditary. Thiswas, in essence, the theory of transmission ofacquired characters—a theory which was to begreatly elaborated by one of Buffon's successors,and which was to cause trouble among evolu-tionists for many decades. Buffon applied h.

particularly to the animals of the western hem-


isphere, showing how they were changed byclimate, food, etc., so that eventually animalscoming from the eastern hemisphere to thewestern1 would become new species. In thisconnection he emphasizes the fact, also point-ed out by Kant, that man must study thechanges taking place in his own period inorder to understand those which has been ac-

complished in the past, and might be accom-plished in the future.

Even at the time when he believed most thor-oughly in evolution and variation, Buffon wastroubled by the Bible account of creation, andwavered between the two. Some time after

1766 he abandoned his advanced stand on evo-lution, and concluded that species were neitherstatic nor changeable, but instead that "spe-cific types could assume a great variety of

forms2," and that no definite assertions mightbe made regarding the origin of any particularanimal or plant.

One cannot but wonder what was the causefor Buffon's confusion and changes of attitude.

From special creationist to radical evolutionist,

and then to conservative occupying a position

1In Buffon's day the Americas were still the"New World," and it was customary with natu-ralists of the time to consider it new, not onlyin discovery, but in its plant and animal in-habitants. For them, the animals of Americacame from the Old World, just as did its whitesettlers; the idea of opposite migrations wa9quite unheard of. How different this concep-tion was from the actual state of affairs canbe seen by reference to such books as Osborn's"Au<> of Mammals."

orn, op. cit. p. 138.

A HISTORY QP EVOLUTION 33

halfway between was a remarkable mentalevolution to be covered in the space of less

than sixty years. What was the cause of it?

The answer to this question is not a diffi-

cult one. Buffon was a pioneer, and not anoverly courageous one. He was staggered bythe immensity of the problem which he wastrying to solve, and at the same time, fettered

by the orthodox ideas of his day. And backof those ideas, as Buffon well knew, there waspower—power of the church, of society, andof the scientific world. And neither thechurch, society, nor science was ready to ac-

cept the doctrine of descent, of organic evolution. Linnaeus, as we have seen, was easiltf

1

the greatest and most influential zoologist afi

his day, and was at the same time a stronganti-evolutionist. His influence was so greatthat Buffon could hardly have escaped it, acdtj

this probably added to the difficulties oi (b6)j

vacillating evolutionist.

And so, when we considered the difficulties

under which Buffon worked, we are not sur-

prised that he found it hard to discover whathis ideas on evolution should finally be. Hewas evidently no hero, willing to become amartyr for science, nor yet a dogmatist, will-

ing to lay his own ideas down as law. In-

stead of ridiculing him for his indecision,therefore, we should sympathize with him be-cause of his difficulties. Probably few of uswould say or write very revolutionary things

loaded down with half-shed ortho-threatened by BOCial and scientific

6* A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION

ostracism in case we made a departure fromthe well beaten path.The next important figure in evolution is

Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of the greatCharles Darwin. He was a country physician,a poet, and a very accurate naturalist, but un-fortunately buried his ideas in volumes of

verse and of combined medicine and philoso-

phy. He believed in the spontaneous originof the lower animals, but maintained that all

of the higher forms were products of naturalreproduction. The transition from water-to-land-dwelling animals he illustrated, not byfanciful creations, but by the classic exampleof the development of the frog, which beginslife as a legless tadpole, and ends it as ananimal incapable of breathing under water.

To man Dr. Darwin gave much attention,

devoting a whole canto to the human hand

—

"The hand, first gift of Heaven!"—and outlin-

ing the development of man's various faculties.

Farther on he describes the struggle for ex-

istence in lines which remind one of Tenny-son's description of nature, except that theylack Tennyson's inevitable syrupiness. Evi-dently, however, Darwin fails to connect this

struggle with its obvious result, the survivalof the fittest.

Dr. Darwin's theory of evolution differedfrom that of Buffon in at least one importantrespect. Nowhere does he stress the direct in-

fluence of environment in the production of

variations; on the contrary, he maintainedthat modifications spring from the reactionsof the organism. In this he clearly stated the


theory which is generally known as Lamarck'sversion of the theory of the transmission of

acquired characters. In fact, he carried his

ideas much farther than did Lamarck, attrib-

uting to plants the attribute of sendibility, andsupposed their evolution to be due to their ownefforts toward the development of certaincharacters. Adaptations, which Aristotle hadbelieved 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 changeand develop, and that power was handed downfrom one generation to another until it was pos-

sessed by every animal and plant. This powerwas the cause of all variation, adaptation, andevolution, and there was no further divine in-

terference. Dr. Darwin did not see any great,all-encompassing plan of improvement, suchas is postulated by the teleologists of today;to him everything was the logical and neces-sary outcome of the original powers of livingthings. In this, as we shall see, he believedessentially as do modern evolutionists who donot see in the laws of the universe any neces-sity for abandoning religion, but who at thesame time do not believe in a highly personalgod who, as one theologian expressed it re-

cently, "works out His divine will through theprocesses of evolution."

Dr. Darwin was author of two other distinct-

ly modern ideas, among the most important ofhis entire work. The first of these is that all

living things are descended from a single orig-inal living mass, or "filament"—that every liv-


ing thing on the earth is related to every otherliving thing. The second is that the processof evolution is almost inconceivably slow, andthat millions upon millions of years have beennecessary for it. The first idea, while quiteconceivably true, can never be proved definite-

ly, but the second has been demonstrated overand over again. Just how many millions weshall allow is, of course, undetermined; someauthorities demand sixty; others say that eighthundred 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 withthe facts of evolution than do the smallerones. How fully Dr. Darwin was a prophet of

modern scientific chronology we are just be-ginning to recognize.

The leadership in evolution, which for atime had gone to England, was soon given backto France. The new champion of the theorywas Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), oneof the most pathetic figures in the entire his-

tory of zoology. He was a brilliant man, anda skilled zoologist, but because he was cour-

ageous, blind, and desperately poor, he suf-

fered little less than martyrdom throughoutmuch of his life, and was given but scant at-

tention by his contemporaries. Baron Cuvier,rich, talented, and a member of the elite of

the nation, dominated French zoology. He wasa desperate reactionary, holding out for a lit-

eral acceptance of the Bible account of spe-

cial creation, and ridiculed not only thetheories of Lamarck, tyit the whole conception


of evolution. For years he blocked the pro-

gress along all lines but his own restricted

field of anatomy, and waged bitter warfareon anyone who dared to oppose him. And so

the blind Lamarck lived in poverty and ob-

scurity, neglected by both scientists and thosewho knew nothing of zoology. And throughthis he stood faithfully by the ideas which hebelieved but was too poor and unknown to

defend.Lamarck first held to the old teaching that

species were fixed, and could neither changenor be changed. But as he learned more his

views changed, and in 1809 he published abook stating his interpretation of evolution.One of his principal ideas was that the effects

of the use or disuse of any part of the bodymay be passed on from parent to children un-til they finally become parts of the animal'smake-up. It is well known that an arm thatis never used becomes weak; that a musclewhich is constantly at work becomes strong,and large. Lamarck supposed that this in-

crease or decrease in size could be inherited,and thus races with short, thin arms, or heavypowerful muscles could be developed. This is

the "theory of inheritance of acquired charac-teristics" again, first formulated by ErasmusDarwin. Just how much there is to this theoryno one has been able to say; some believe it

to be worthless while others, particularly thosewho study fossil animals, think that it pos-sesses a certain amount of truth.

Lamarck was, as we have said, a conscienti-:ientist, and made use of his own accurate


observations insofar as this was possible. Butwhen he became blind, dictating his books to

his daughter in order to get them written, ob-

servation was clearly out of the question. Inits stead the great naturalist was forced to rely

upon the reports of other observers, and thosereports were none too reliable. The obviousweakness of some of his second-hand facts re-

acted very unfavorably upon the whole work ofLamarck, and gave his opponents abundantweapons for their attacks upon his opinions.

But in spite of these handicaps, Lamarckdid a very important work. He not only stated

his own position very clearly, marshalling suchfacts as were at his disposal to its support; hedevised a branching system of animal descentwhich approximated the modern "evolutionarytree" and represented far more truly than didthe Aristotelian chain the true state of things.

He argued strongly and clearly against the fal-

lacious doctrine of special creations and nu-merous geologic catastrophes which, supposed-ly, annihilated all of the life on earth at theparticular times of their occurrence and made along series of new creations necessary.

Perhaps the greatest of all Lamarck's achieve-

ments was his clear statements of the problemsof evolution. As one writer has said, he askedevery one of the big, important questions whichlater evolutionists have had to answer, and bythe clear phrasing of his questions, made theanswers thereto the more easy.**** *** #*In all France there was only one man who


was willing to champion this blind naturalist

in his stand for evolution. Geoffrey St.-Hilaire

was at first a follower of Buffon, but he later

became convinced of the value of Lamarck'swork, 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 debatebrought a certain fame to St.-Hilaire, he wasjudged the loser, and the affair was hailed as

a great and conclusive victory for those whoupheld the theory of special creation.

Although St.-Hilaire believed in the truthof organic evolution, he did not wholly agreewith Lamarck. He supposed that environment—that is, surrounding conditions—determinedthe changes that took place in animals, andpreceded some of the most modern of evolution-

ists by teaching that one species might arisesuddenly from an earlier one, without any in-

termediate forms. As a result of these suddenchanges, it wras, said St.-Hilaire, often un-necessary to produce the "missing links" overwhich adverse critics made such a to-do. It

was also unnecessary to show why variationswould not be wiped out before they were firmlyestablished. According to his hypothesis, eachnew form was complete, and no amount of

normal interbreeding with other forms wouldproduce fertile hybrids between the two.

We now come to one of the most interesting,

and most remarkable of evolutionists. JohannWolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) was an anatomist,a philosopher, and a great poet, and thusbrought to the problem of organic evolution a


breadth of vision equalled by but few of theworkers who preceded him. As Osborn states:

"The brilliant early achievements of Goethein science afford another illustration of theunion of imagination and powers of observa-tion as the essential characteristics of the nat-

uralist. When he took his journey into Italy,

and the poetic instinct began to predominateover the scientific, science lost a disciple whowould have ranked among the very highest, if

not the highest. Of this time Goethe says:'I have abandoned my master Loder for myfriend Schiller, and Linnaeus for Shakespeare.*Yet Goethe, in the midst of poetry, never lost

his passion por scientific studies. He seemsto have felt instinctively that what contempo-rary science needed was not only observation,but generalization. ,n

Goethe derived much of his inspiration fromBuffon and the German natural philosophers.Unfortunately he never discovered the worksof Lamarck, although he anticipated that scien-

tist in some of his work with plants. There canbe little doubt that, had Goethe discovered the"Philosophie Zoologique," he would have ac-

cepted its principal doctrine, and would haveproclaimed them with a vigor that would haveovercome even the antagonism of Cuvier. As

xOp. cit, pp. 181-182. The need of which Dr.Osborn speaks was not by any means confinedto science of Goethe's time. The great char-acteristic of modern paleontology, for example,is observation without either generalization orphilosophy. It is for this reason that thescience of fossils has yielded relatively meagredata on evolution.


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 ownwords, this theory enabled him to "assert, with-

out hesitation, that all the more perfect organicnatures, 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 whichare none the less permanent, and which still

daily changes and modifies its form by propa-gation."

Akin to Goethe, in some respects, was Gott-fried Treviranus (1776-1837), a German natural-ist who was a contemporary of St.-Hilaire, Goe-the, and Lamarck. Like the German naturalphilosophers, he considered life as the result

of chemical and mechanical processes, and pro-

tested whole-heartedly against purely specula-tive work, calling it "dreams and visions." Atthe same time, he complained that most ofbotany and zoology was made up of dry reg-isters of names and that the work of manynaturalists consisted of the "spirit killing* * * reading and writing of compilations."Treviranus believed that it was quite withinthe abilities of man to discover the basic phi-losophy of nature, largely by the use of work-ing hypotheses as a means of aiding the investi-

gator in attaining the actual facts.

In view of Treviranus* modern stand on thestudy of animal life, and the interpretationof ascertained facts, we might well expect himto show an equal modernity in his conception


of evolution. But in this we are to be disap-pointed. As soon as he departed from hisprinciples of biology, and attempted to applythose principles to the development of animallife, Treviranus became victim to those same"dreams and visions" against which he pro-tested so strongly. He depended very largelyupon the work of Buffon, and believed thatmodification of form was due entirely to en-vironment. He revived the ancient doctrineof spontaneous generation of living things, orabiogenesis, stating his belief very clearly.

All of this shows that Treviranus, althoughan ardent believer in evolution, added verylittle to the idea. In his ideas of the factors

of volution he did not advance beyond Buffon;in his ideas of descent he was less clear andaccurate than his contemporary, Lamarck. Butin his more general work, particularly in de-

fining and organizing the science of biology, herendered great service to future zoologists andevolutionists. And such service, slight thoughit was, was of value. During the early part of

the nineteenth century the doctrine of evolu-

tion needed all the support that could be givenit, and even a mistaken scientist was a valuabledefender of a struggling cause.

Thus for more than two thousand years thetheory of organic evolution had been grow-ing. Philosophers, country doctors, poets, andnaturalists had contributed their share to its

volume, its character, and its support. But as

yet is was little more than an idea in the

rough, waiting for some one to refine it, to put

A HISTORY OP EVOLUTION 43

It into clear and unmistakable language, andto back it up by evidence secured directly fromstudies 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 conventionalthought and old-fashioned restriction, and there-

by give an insight into life and life's historythat would revolutionize human thought, andhelp in a better understanding between manand man, and man and beast.

CHAPTER V.

DARWIN AND THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION

The outstanding figure of the entire historyof evolution is Charles Darwin. Whether ornot be deserves all of the prominence that hasbeen given him is a question—a question thatprobably must be answered in the negative. Wearo very apt to lionize the victor while weignore those who made the victory possible,

whether it be won in science, politics, or war-fare. Among certain circles today there is anundeniable tendency to over-praise Darwin; to

talk and think as though he were the first andthe last truly great evolutionist. It is becom-ing with Darwin as Harris found it withShakespeare: "He is like the Old-Man-of-the-

44 A HISTORY OP EVOLU ETON

Sea on the shoulders of our youth; he has he-come an obsession 'to the critic, a weapon tothe pedant, a nuisance to the man of genius."If we substitute 'popularized for 'critic,' Harris*sentence will apply to Darwin without furthermodification. There is a popular misconcep-tion that a great and successful scientist mustof necessity be a man of great genius; nothingof the sort is true. Take the average "author-ity" away from his specialty, and he is a verycommonplace individual; take him with it, andhe is often little more than a remarkably dur-able and precise human machine.

. Neither biographers nor critics have shownus any good reasons for considering CharlesDarwin an exceptionally great man. He was ahighly successful scientist, but at the same timehe was aided to success by the condition of

science during the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, and his personal fortune. In this

connection it will be worth our while to ex-

amine the opinions of Carlyle, as: reported byFrank Harris. The two were discussing nota-bles of the century, and Harris brought up thename of Darwin. Carlyle described the twobrothers as "solid, healthy1 men, not greatlygifted, but honest and careful and hardwork-ing * * *» an(j speaking of a conversationwith Chatles Darwin after his return fromthe "Beagle" voyage, said: "I saw in himthen qualities I had hardly done justice to be-

fore: a patient clear-mindedness, fairness too,

irThif? was not true of the naturalist in laterlife, when/he was for years n semi-invalid.

A HISTCRY OF ia'ULL'TIuN 45

and, above all, an allegiance to facts, just as

facts, which was most pathetic to me; it wasso instinctive, determined, even desperate, asort of belief in its way, an English belief, that

the facts must lead you right if you onlyfollowed them honestly, a poor, groping, blind

faith—all that seems possible to us in these

days of flatulent unbelief and piggish uncon-cern for everything except swill and straw."1'

We need not, like Carlyle, abuse this "allegi-

ance 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 maintainthat fact-hunting is, of necessity, a mark of

genius is absurd.

It is largely the qualities that prevent usfrom ranking Darwin as a genius that es-

tablish his eminence as a research scientist.

He is great not for his ideas, for they hadbeen worked out before him, but for the clear-

ness with which he stated his conclusions, andthe wealth of proof which he brought to theirdefence. The earliest evolutionists tried to solvetheir problems by deduction, making the theoryfirst, and searching for the facts afterward.Darwin's method was just the opposite. As hehimself says, he searched for fact after fact,

at the same time straining to keep all thoughtof theory from his mind. Finally, when he hadascertained how things actually were, and hadarranged his information, he set forth to formu-late a theory that might accord fully with

^"Contemporary Portraits," pp. 12-13.


what he knew to be the truth. He took theancient, indefinite idea of evolution and weldedit into an organized theory, and armed it withan array of facts that made it irresistible.

While some of Darwin's beliefs have failed to

show the importance he assigned them, andothers of them are very probably errors, thereare few indeed who seriously, from the stand-point of science, care to question the concep-tion that all living things have developed fromearlier living things of simpler or more primi-tive character. His careful, painstaking workgained for his ideas a world wide acceptanceamong thinking men, and made Charles Dar-win one of the greatest figures in the historyof science.

The story of Darwin's life is a story of long,

careful study and preparation, of rapid publi-

cation of his discoveries when he set out towrite them, and finally of triumph over thosewho opposed him. He was born on the twelfthof February, 1809, the same day that broughtthe world Abraham Lincoln. Someone hassaid that on that day the world's greatest libera-

tors were born—in America the one who wouldfree the bodies of men from bondage; in Eng-land the man who would free their minds froma no less real slavery to custom, power, andworn-out dogma.

When he was sixteen years old, Darwin wentto Edinburgh to study medicine. But he wasalready a rebel against dryness and dead aca-

demic thought, and wrote home that the lec-

tures in anatomy were quite as dry as was the


lecturer himself. After two years of medicinehe gave up his work at Edinburgh, and went to

Cambridge to become a preacher. But whilestudying for the ministry the young Darwinspent a great deal of his time with nature, andacquired something of a reputation as a nat-

uralist. 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 withmaking Darwin a great naturalist than anyother 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 argumentswhich 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 Eng-land, and finally in 1859 published his greatbook, "The Origin of Species." This was thefirst concise statement of a theory of evolu-

tion, backed up by actual evidence, and it

created a furore both in Europe and America.Some scientists eagerly took up with Darwin'sideas, seeing in them the explanation of facts

that they had long been unable to Understand.Others, lacking in breadth of knowledge, orunwilling to give up old beliefs, fought bitterly

against evolution. The controversy involved notonly scientists, but the churchmen, and was aleading feature in newspapers, magazines, and


books. "The Origin of Species" ran into manyeditions, and was translated into several lang-

uages. Darwin found himself a center of in-

terest for the world, and his theory a cause of

heated argument for all who cared to talk or

write about it.

How revolutionary Darwin's work was, andhow unwillingly he himself came to the con-

clusion that organic evolution was an undeni-able truth, it is hard for us to understand. Formost of us, some at least, of the essential facts

of evolution are every-day knowledge; we lookupon the anti-evolutionist as a strange anach-ronism—a hang-over from a past age. But in

Darwin's day conditions were very different.

Thus we find him, in a letter written in 1844

to the great botanist Hooker, saying:

"I have been . . . engaged in a very presump-tuous work, and I know no one individual whowould not say a very foolish one. I was sostruck with the distribution of the Galapagosorganisms, etc., and with the character of theAmerican fossil mammifers1

, etc., that I de-

termined to collect, blindly, every sort of fact,

which could bear in any way on what arespecies. ... At last, gleams of light have come ;

and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to

the opinion that I started with) that speciesare not (it is like confessing a murder) im-mutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck

14,Mainmifors" = mammals; that is, animalswhich suckle their young.


Monsense2 of a 'tendency to progressicJ,' 'adap-

tations from the slow willing of animals', etc.!

But the conclusions I am led to are not widelydifferent from his; though the means of changeare wholly so." This last statement, as we shall

see by reference to the "Origin of Species" wasnot wholly true.

Another glimpse at the state of affairs in

1859 and the immediately succeeding years maybe found in Darwin's anxiety to convinceHooker, Lyell, and Huxley that species werevariable and changeable, and his rejoicing whenHuxley wrote out his very guarded acceptanceof the Darwinian version of organic evolution.

We find it hard to conceive of Huxley, the "war-horse of Darwinism" reluctantly agreeing to

most of Darwin's points, but at the same timevoicing strong objections to others. And yetthese very objections of Huxley's, made in 1859,

were in 1921 paraded oefore an audience at oneof the country's most famous universities as"

evidence against the truth of organic evolu-tion!

In France, even more than in England, the"Origin of Species" was held in disapproval.A translation of the book wTas offered to a

2Darwin seemed unable to speak of Lamarckwithout contempt or derision. Certainly he wasnot familiar with Lamarck's writings in theFrench, and attributed to that naturalist certainerroneous Ideas for which he was not respons-ible. Also, it would seem that Darwin failedto make allowances for Lamarck's insuperablehandicaps, and his position as a pioneer, andtherefore adopted an attitude of unjustified an-tagonism.


noted publisher of Paris, and was unceremoni-ously refused. The country which had praisedCuvier, and ridiculed Lamarck and St.-Hilairewas not going to receive willingly the contribu-tions of an iconoclastic Englishman. We arenot surprised to find Darwin depressed by theEuropean reception of his theories, and writingto Huxley: "Do you know of any good andspeculative foreigners to whom it would beworth while to send my book?"

But what was this "new" theory of evolu-tion that so aroused the world? What were its

characteristics, and how did if differ from thetheories of Aristotle, Kant, Buffon, and CharlesDarwin's own grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Dar-win?

The theory of evolution set forth in the"Origin of Species" contained three principalfactors: (1) the constant variation of animalsand plants, (2) the struggle for existence, and(3) the natural selection of those organismswhich possess variations which are of value tothem in their attempt to keep alive.

The idea of variation was based upon simpleobservation. Dr. Herbert Walter has said that"variation is the most constant thing in nature,"

and paradoxical as that may seem, it is never-

theless true. No man looks exactly like anotherman, no tree exactly like another tree, no shell

exactly like another shell. The Japanese ar-

tists appreciate this variation, and make useof their knowledge in painting, which is oneof the reasons why their art is not readily ap-

preciated by the occidental who is much in-

A HISTORY OP EVOLUTION 51

clined to "lump" things. No Japanese artist

would think of painting two dogs, or twostreams, or two houses that resembled eachother in every respect, for he knows that everything in the universe, whether it be alive or

dead, organic or inorganic, differs from everyother thing in the universe. Sometimes thedifference is easily seen, as that between ashark and a goldfish, or a Negro and a Scandi-navian or Teuton. At others it is almost in-

distinguishable, and can be discovered only bythe most accurate micrometer, or the most pre-

cise chemical analysis. But always the dif-

ference exists, the variation is present, andthis fact is the basis for Darwin's belief in

the inborn necessity for all living things to

vary.

The second factor, that of a struggle for ex-istence, was suggested to Darwin by a readingof Malthus' classic paper on population. Allcreatures normally tend to increase in num-bers. Mating fish produce millions of eggs in

a season; chickens rear nestfulls of young;rabbits and guinea-pigs produce litter afterlitter of young from the matings of two par-ents—everywhere, both in nature and in domes-tication, living things seem to be on the in-

crease. And yet we have no evidence that (ex-

cluding the rather doubtful influence of mam)there are more animals on earth today thamthere were half a million years ago; the prob-abilities are that there are fewer. Clearly,therefore, some process is at work which pre-

vents the seeming increase from taking place.


In order to understand something of thecomplexity of this process, let us select a spe-cific example. Among marine animals, theoysters are remarkable for the immense num-bers of eggs which they produce—the averagefor the American oyster is probably about 16,-

000,000. If all the progeny of a single oysterwere to live and reproduce, and their progenywere to do likewise, and so on until there weregreat-great-grandchildren, the total number ofoysters that were descendants of the originalpair would be about 66,000,000,000,000,000,000,-

000,000,000,000,000 and their shells would makea mass eight times as great as the earth.

Now it is quite obvious that the earth can-not hold, and cover with water, a mass of

oyster shells eight times as great as itself; theoceans, if they were spread evenly over thesurface (which they never were, and never canbe), would accommodate but a few of the greathorde. Neither do those same oceans contain*

enough food to satisfy, or begin to satisfy, theneeds of these theoretical descendants of a sin-

gle oyster. Clearly, therefore, space and foodalone are enough to prevent the undue multi-plication of creatures upon the earth.

But there are factors other than space andfood which aid in accomplishing the result.

There are water conditions, animal enemiessuch as the starfish, and a host of other meansby which the population of oysters is kept

down. And even if it were to increase greatly,

the numbers of starfish would at the same timease, and simultaneously set about decreas-


Ing the numbers of the oysters, which decreasewould in turn cut down the numbers of

the starfish, and so on. Thus we see that themaximum abundance of an organism is arbi-

trarily set by the conditions under which that

organism lives. It may attain the limit set

for it, but beyond that it may go only tempor-arily. Then the surplus dies from starvation,crowding, animal and plant enemies, and athousand other of the factors which constantlywork in the constant warfare of nature, thenever-ending "struggle for existence."

The third factor of Darwinian evolution, thatof natural selection, is based upon the othertwo. Darwin supposed that the individuals of

a species, or variety, exhibited variations for

two reasons: because it was part of theirvery nature to do so, and because the condi-tions of their environment forced them. Inthe course of this constant change there would,of necessity, be some modifications that wereof value to their possessors, while others wouldappear which were of more or less definiteharm. In the course of the struggle for ex-istence, those creatures which possessed help-ful variations would naturally possess a cer-

tain advantage over those which lacked it orwhich exhibited variations which were of harm-ful nature. Thus in a cold, snowy climate, thatanimal which developed a white coat would bemuch safer from detection than his companionswhich might have fur of a dark hue, either inapproaching his prey, or in escaping his pur-suers. Thp ultimate outcome of this would be


that the white animal would populate the re-

gion, while his colored brethren would soonbecome extinct. The same principle, Darwinthought, applied to mental advantages; themore skillful mind triumphed, over the less;

the quick-witted animal lived at the expenseof the clumsy-witted one. Throughout theearth, those animals most capable of livinglived, brought forth young, and thus perpetr-ated their capabilities, both mental and pkysi-cal. This process quite plainly helped in thedevelopment of man, and in his progress, butsingularly enough, within this ranks today it

does not operate. Great mental capacity fs

not today the most important survival factoramong humanity. As the archeologist Keithhas 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 believingthat the earth is flat and Buddha an all-power-

ful god, but will leave behind him a large andrapidly multiplying family.

During the years just prior to the appearanceof the "Origin," Darwin had an almost com-plete confidence in the power of natural se-

lection to account for all the phenomena ofevolution. Even in the year when that workappeared, he wrote Lyell: "Grant a simoloarchetypal creature, like the Mud-fish or Lepido-siren, with five senses and some vestige of

mind, and I believe Natural Selection will ac-

count for the production of every vertebrateanimal.* 1 In publication, however, he was moro


cautious, saying, "I am convinced that NaturalSelection has been the main, but not the exclu-

sive means of modification."

From his extreme position on the effectiveability of natural selection to seize upon avariation and so foster it that a new specieswould appear, Darwin slowly but not unwill-ingly receded. Ten years after the first pub-lication of the Darwinian theory1

, he admittedthat variations might not have been so su-

premely important as he supposed; in 1878he believed in the direct action of environ-ment in producing variations, as did Buffon;in 1880 he adopted Lamarck's theory of theuse and disuse of parts. In 1881, in the "De-scent of Man," Darwin lays much stress uponsexual selection, the idea that members of onesex rendered themselves particularly attractivein order to capture the attentions of their

would-be mates. This, however, is really asubdivision of the natural selection idea—in

the general reliability of which the famous evo-lutionist still believed.

As we have said, in the estimate of Darwin'sgeneral environment, the world of the middlenineteenth century did not welcome the newprophet of natural law in the natural world.Many scientists accepted Darwinism, or at

least, the principle of evolution, without re-

serve; others made reservations; most of the

^'Darwinism," or "The Darwinian Theory" re-fers to the theory of natural selection; and

ib-theory of sexual selection, not to thetheory or concept of organic evolution.


"intelligentsia" declared it to be without theslightest element of truth. The public in gen-eral, and especially the church, clung to theold, valueless doctrine of a multitude of spe-cial creations by an omnipotent deity, appar-ently forgetting that the greatest of the churchfathers, Aquinas and Augustine, had beenprominent evolutionists in their day. Therearose about Darwin's theories a storm of argu-ment that lasted for many years, and involvedscientists, theologians, philosophers, and lay-

men thorughout the world.

Darwin, although an excellent and self-con-

fident scientist, was modest, retiring, andgreatly hampered by ill-health contracted dur-,

ing his "Beagle" voyage. He was forced to

leave the work of publicly defending his

theories to other men, the most noted of whomwas Thomas Henry Huxley, the "Bull dog of

Evolution." Huxley was an accomplishedscientist, a powerful speaker, and one of thefinest of European writers of science for theevery-day man. He wrote, taught, and lec-

tured in defense of the evolution theory; after

a long, hard day at the university, he wouldspend the evening lecturing before crowds of

workingmen from London's factories, telling

them how one species came from another, andhow a single-celled creature developed into acomplex animal with hundreds of miHiorjs of

cells in its body, at the same time reconstruct-

ing during its growth the entire evolutionary

history of its kind. It was largely because of

the lectures and magazine articles of this tire-

less scientist, who believed in the *ruth of

A aiSTORY OF EVOLUTION 67

evolution, and enjoyed the task of fighting for

his beliefs, that Darwin achieved so early analmost complete victory over the scientists

who opposed him. Of course, the triumph wasnot all-embracing; there are still a few peo-

ple who follow the natural sciences and yetrefuse to believe that one species can arise,

either by natural selection or by some othermeans, from another species without the in-

terference of a deity. And the public at large,

particularly that portion of it which lives far

away from museums, zoological gardens, andcenters where illustrated talks on naturalscience are regularly given, still believes in

the theory of special creation. But that be-lief neither signifies defeat for Darwin andhis followers, nor casts doubt upon the essen-tial truth of their ideas: it simnly means thatthe theory of evolution is still relatively young,and that popular is in its infancy.

CHAPTER V!

THE POST-DARWINIANS: DEVRIES AND THE

MUTATION THEORY.

The period between 1860 and 1900 was oc-

cupied largely by elaborations of the Dar-winian conception of evolution, and argumentsas to whether or not organic descent was a

In those four decades thei manyfamous workers—Alfred Russell Wallaci

tto Darwin of the theory ol

tnann and Haeckel, Germany's


grsat evolutionists; the philosopher, Spencer;Cope, the American paleontologist, and Hux-ley, the English champion of scientific ration-alism—these, and a host of others spent theirlives in demonstrating the workings of evo-lution. But unfortunately, the opposition whichthey encountered forced them to write andwork largely along lines of argument and thusmuch of their work was fruitless so far as thediscovery of new principles is concerned.

During this same period the doctrine of evo-lution suffered much from over-enthusiasm onthe part of some of its defenders. Even Wal-lace overdid the hypothesis of sexual selec-

tion, and the kindred hypotheses of conceal-ing and protective coloration. Naturalistssought to explain every coloring of animalsand plants as being of some value to them,and therefore the real cause of the existenceof the species; not a few carried the idea ofvalue in sexual differences, such as those be-tween the male and female peacock, to a simi-

lar extreme. But in spite of the inaccuracieswhich they published, these enthusiasts didfar more good than harm, for they aided great-

ly in securing popular support for the maintheory.

It was toward the beginning of this centurythat evolutionary studies received anothergreat stimulus. Professor Hugo de Vries, aDutch botanist of considerable note, proposedwhat he called the "mutation theory" as asubstitute for Darwin's conception of "naturalselection." He began his studies by attempt-ing to produce by careful selection a variety


of buttercup which should contain in its flow-

er more than the normal number of petals.

He actually achieved the desired increase, butit was far from a stable condition; whilesome of the flowers possessed eight, nine, orten petals, and a few as high as thirty-one,

many of them possessed the original num-ber, five. When selection was abandonedthere appeared at once a general retrogres-

sion toward the primitive state, and this fact

caused de Vries to conclude that selectionalone was not enough to cause the formationof a new species of plant or animal1

. Instead,he concluded that when a change of permanentvalue took place in a plant or animal it wassomething entirely different from the constantvariations on which Darwin and his followersrelied; it was a discontinuous variation—

a

'sport,' the florist or gardener would call it

—

to which de Vries applied the new name muta-tion. Mutation, he believed, involved a verydefinite change in the reproductive cells of

the organism—a change which had absolutelyno relation to the environment. They arosefrom conditions within the plant and animal,and might or might not affect it favorably.Those mutations which were not beneficialwould be eliminated by selection; those whichwere of value to the creature would probablybe preserved. Thus, in de Vries* mind evo-lution was a process due primarily to internalcauses, its course being merely guided by en-

xThis conclusion was probably unjustified; hisobservation covered too short a period to meana great deal.


vironment, which selected those mutations cap-able of surviving.Without question, de Vries had a real basis

ior his theory. Mutations do take place amongboth wild and domestic creatures; thus amongthe dandelions there constantly appear specialtypes which breed true and are, as Castle hascalled them, "little species within the dande-lion species." Similar mutations are wellknown in peas, beans, evening primroses, andsuch domestic animals as the sheep. Clearly,therefore, species do arise as de Vries stated;the question is, is this the only way in whichthey arise?

This problem was raised little more thantwenty years ago—a period far too short to

allow for the settling of a question that is

merely another statement of the problem thathas puzzled scientists and philosophers formore than twenty centuries.There is, however, excellent reason for be-

lieving that the conceptions of both de Vriesand Darwin are true; that neither of themexcludes the other from operation. Thus in

the famous chalk formation of England theremay be found an evolutionary chain of sea-

urchina which, according to the general con-census of opinion, represent true Darwinianevolution. As N. C. Macnamara says, "Theyare first found in their shelled, sparsely orna-mented forms, from which spring, as we ascendthe zone, all the other species of the genus.The progression is unbroken and minute in

Mi^ last degree. We can connect together into

continuous series each minute variation and

A HIHTt >RY < >F KV« >LUTH 'X 61

each species of graduation of structure so in-

sensible that not a link in the chain of evi-

dence is wanting."

On the other hand, the writer h^s recentlycompleted a microscopic study of a group ofancient lamp-shells—animals which lookedsomewhat like molluscs, but which were verydifferent internally—with altogether differentresults. The particular changes involved wereminor matters of surface markings, whichcould have had no conceivable importance to

the animals. Selection, therefore, may be vir-

tually ruled out: indeed, many of the differ-

ent forms lived close together, with apparentlyequal success. But in the small markings onthe shells there appear, as one follows theseries from bottom to top, very decidedchanges, and those changes are. in some cases,abrupt and complete.

In others the variations are very small—

-

indeed they could Qguished only withthe microscope—but so far as could be told,

were distinct. This, therefore, points to acourse of evolution that was clearly a matterof mutation, without any apparent governingby the process of natural selection.

The conclusion which we may reach, there-fore, is that both natural selection and muta-tion operate in the development of new formsfrom old. The variations, for which Darwinwas at a compete loss to account, are in many

mphasized by de Vriesand his followers. But to what extent cli-

food; habits, and multitudinous otherenvironmental factors, coupled with such in-


ternal ones as racial old age, complicate theprocesses of variation and selection cannotyet be said. De Vries, in his mutation theory,supplied one of the deficiencies of Darwin-ism, and at the same time led scientists ingeneral to realize that evolution is a far morecomplex problem than was supposed duringthe later portion of the last century. Dar-win's primitive mudfish, with its trace of mind,and the process of natural selection, will notby any means account for the multitude ofhigher vertebrate forms which people, andhave peopled the lands and waters of theglobe.

At the same time the scientific public wasawaking to the fact that evolution was an al-

most inconceivably complex affair, many of thepost-Darwinian hypotheses began to showthemselves of very doubtful importance. Thetheory of sexual selection, which Darwin elab-orated in the "Descent of Man" began a steadydecline. Such selection undoubtedly does takeplace, but it is not carried on to so great anextent as was once supposed. The idea of

the protective value of colors and color ar-

rangement, too, began to be doubted, althougkat the same time its principles became muckbetter known and therefore more strongly em-phasized by some naturalists. Inheritance of

directly acquired characters was proved to bean impossibility, and much doubt was thrownupon the hypothesis of use and disuse. In-

stead of legs disappearing because they are

not used, they are now thought to disappear

because the evolutionary processes going on

A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION «tt

within the animal demands their disappearance.What these processes are we do not know, but

our frank avowal of ignorance gives us a cer-

tain confidence that we shall eventually find

out.

But it is not only ideas that have changedwithin the last two decades; methods of studyhave undergone an even greater revolution.

De Vries, at almost the same time he discov-

ered mutation, rediscovered the fact that

heredity was by no means so mysterious anderratic as it had been generally thought. Ani-

mals and plants, he discovered, possessed manycharacters which behaved in very definite wayswhen two varieties were crossed, and that thecharacters of an organism could be deter-

mined largely by the interbreeding of its an-

cestors. Thus arose the science of genetics,

which seeks to find out the numerous factorsunderlying the various phenomena of heredity.And since heredity is the base of all evolution,genetics has for its ultimate aim the determin-ation of the causes of that great processwhich is responsible for the existence of what-ever animals and plants inhabit and have in-

habited the earth. The geneticist is the mostmodern of evolutionists; he is not satisfied withfinding out what has taken place in the past;he sets out to make evolution, or tiny por-tions of it, take place within his own labora-tories and greenhouses.

Today, despite the assertions of a few of its

opponents, the theory of organic evolution is

more thoroughly alive than it has ever been


before. Paleontologists are studying their fos-

sil shells and corals and bones in order to find

out what has taken place during the millionsupon millions of years during which living

things have inhabited our planet. Anatomistsare studying the bodies of modern animals,from the simplest to the highest, to determinetheir relationships one to the other; embry-ologists are tracing out the evolution of theindividual in his life before birth. The gene-ticists are breeding plants, rabbits, mice, fishes',

flies, potato bugs so that they may discoverwhat evolution is doing today. Everywheremen are studying, comparing, experimenting-.Their purpose is not to discover whether ornot evolution is a fact; on that point they havelong ago been satisfied. They are trying tofind out how it operates and what forms it

has produced; how differences arise amongorganisms, and what are their effects, and bywhat means they are passed from one genera-tion to another until they become part andparcel of the inheritance, thereby establishinga new species.

a history of evolution - archive...8 ahistoryofevolution losophers,andtheirevidentfailurestounder-...

Documents