On the Genesis of Species Part 3

Now suppose, what I think a moderate proposition, that the value of _m_ is 1,000, and the value of _x_ is 10, then

1/_m_^x = 1/1000^{10} = 1/10^{30}.

A number about ten thousand times as great as the number of waves of light that have fallen on the earth since historical time began. And it is to be further observed, that no improvement will give its possessor a _certainty_ of surviving and leaving offspring, but only an _extra chance_, the value of which it is quite impossible to estimate." This difficulty is, as Mr.

Murphy points out, greatly intensified by the undoubted fact that the wonderfully complex structure has been arrived at quite independently in beasts on the one hand and in cuttle-fishes on the other; while creatures of the insect and crab division present us with a third and quite separately developed complexity.

As to the ear, it would take up too much s.p.a.ce to describe its internal structure;[42] it must suffice to say that in its interior there is an immense series of minute rod-like bodies, termed _fibres of Corti_, having the appearance of a key-board, and each fibre being connected with a filament of the auditory nerve, these nerves being like strings to be struck by the keys, _i.e._ by the fibres of Corti. Moreover, this apparatus is supposed to be a key-board in function as well as in appearance, the{54} vibration of each one fibre giving rise, it is believed, to the sensation of one particular tone, and combinations of such vibrations producing chords. It is by the action of this complex organ then, that all the wonderful intricacy and beauty of Beethoven and Mozart come, most probably, to be perceived and appreciated.

Now it can hardly be contended that the preservation of any race of men in the struggle for life ever depended on such an extreme delicacy and refinement of the internal ear,--a perfection only exercised in the enjoyment and appreciation of the most perfect musical performances. How, then, could either the minute incipient stages, or the final perfecting touches of this admirable structure, have been brought about by vague, aimless, and indefinite variations in all conceivable directions of an organ, suitable to enable the rudest savage to minister to his necessities, but no more?

Mr. Wallace[43] makes an a.n.a.logous remark with regard to the organ of voice in man--the human larynx. He says of singing: "The habits of savages give no indication of how this faculty could have been developed by Natural Selection, because it is never required or used by them. The singing of savages is a more or less monotonous howling, and the females seldom sing at all. Savages certainly never choose their wives for fine voices, but for rude health, and strength, and physical beauty. s.e.xual selection could not therefore have developed this wonderful power, which only comes into play among civilized people."

Reverting once more to beauty of form and colour, there is one manifestation of it for which no one can pretend that s.e.xual selection can possibly account. The instance referred to is that presented by bivalve sh.e.l.l-fish.[44] Here we meet with charming tints and elegant forms and markings of no direct use to their possessors[45] in the struggle for {55} life, and of no indirect utility as regards s.e.xual selection, for fertilization takes place by the mere action of currents of water, and the least beautiful individual has fully as good a chance of becoming a parent as has the one which is the most favoured in beauty of form and colour.

Again, the peculiar outline and coloration of certain orchids--notably of our own bee, fly, and spider orchids--seem hardly explicable by any action of "Natural Selection." Mr. Darwin says very little on this singular resemblance of flowers to insects, and what he does say seems hardly to be what an advocate of "Natural Selection" would require. Surely, for minute accidental indefinite variations to have built up such a striking resemblance to insects, we ought to find that the preservation of the plant, or the perpetuation of its race, depends almost constantly on relations between bees, spiders, and flies respectively and the bee, spider, and fly orchids.[46] This process must have continued for ages constantly and perseveringly, and yet what is the fact? Mr. Darwin tells us, in his work on the Fertilization of Orchids, that neither the spider nor the fly orchids are much visited by insects, while, with regard to the bee orchid, he says, "I have never seen an insect visit these flowers." And he shows how this species is even wonderfully and specially modified to effect self-fertilization.

In the work just referred to Mr. Darwin gives a series of the most wonderful and minute contrivances by which the visits of insects are utilized for the fertilization of orchids,--structures so wonderful {56} that nothing could well be more so, except the attribution of their origin to minute, fortuitous, and indefinite variation.

The instances are too numerous and too long to quote, but in his "Origin of Species"[47] he describes two which must not be pa.s.sed over. In one (_Coryanthes_) the orchid has its lower lip enlarged into a bucket, above which stand two water-secreting horns. These latter replenish the bucket from which, when half-filled, the water overflows by a spout on one side.

Bees visiting the flower fall into the bucket and crawl out at the spout.

By the peculiar arrangement of the parts of the flower, the first bee which does so carries away the pollen-ma.s.s glued to his back, and then when he has his next involuntary bath in another flower, as he crawls out the pollen-ma.s.s attached to him comes in contact with the stigma of that second flower and fertilizes it. In the other example (_Catasetum_), when a bee gnaws a certain part of the flower, he inevitably touches a long delicate projection, which Mr. Darwin calls the antenna. "This antenna transmits a vibration to a certain membrane, which is instantly ruptured; this sets free a spring by which the pollen-ma.s.s is shot forth like an arrow in the right direction, and adheres by its viscid extremity to the back of the bee!"

Another difficulty, and one of some importance, is presented by those communities of ants which have not only a population of sterile females, or workers, but two distinct and very different castes of such. Mr. Darwin believes that he has got over this difficulty by having found individuals intermediate in form and structure[48] between the two working castes; others may think that we have in this belief of Mr. Darwin, an example {57} of the unconscious action of volition upon credence. A vast number of difficulties similar to those which have been mentioned might easily be cited--those given, however, may suffice.

There remains, however, to be noticed a very important consideration, which was brought forward in the _North British Review_ for June 1867, p. 286, namely, the necessity for the simultaneous modification of _many individuals_. This consideration seems to have escaped Mr. Darwin, for at p. 104 of his last (fifth) edition of "Natural Selection," he admits, with great candour, that until reading this article he did not "appreciate how rarely single variations, whether slight or strongly marked, could be perpetuated."

The _North British Review_ (speaking of the supposition that a species is changed by the survival of a few individuals in a century through a similar and favourable variation) says: "It is very difficult to see how this can be accomplished, even when the variation is eminently favourable indeed; and still more difficult when the advantage gained is very slight, as must generally be the case. The advantage, whatever it may be, is utterly outbalanced by numerical inferiority. A million creatures are born; ten thousand survive to produce offspring. One of the million has twice as good a chance as any other of surviving; but the chances are fifty to one against the gifted individuals being one of the hundred survivors. No doubt the chances are twice as great against any one other individual, but this does not prevent their being enormously in favour of _some_ average individual. However slight the advantage may be, if it is shared by half the individuals produced, it will probably be present in at least fifty-one of the survivors, and in a larger proportion of their offspring; but the chances are against the preservation of any one 'sport' (_i.e._ sudden, marked variation) in a numerous tribe. The vague use of an imperfectly understood doctrine of chance has led Darwinian supporters, first, to confuse the two cases above distinguished; and, secondly, to imagine {58} that a very slight balance in favour of some individual sport must lead to its perpetuation. All that can be said is that in the above example the favoured sport would be preserved once in fifty times. Let us consider what will be its influence on the main stock when preserved. It will breed and have a progeny of say 100; now this progeny will, on the whole, be intermediate between the average individual and the sport. The odds in favour of one of this generation of the new breed will be, say one and a half to one, as compared with the average individual; the odds in their favour will, therefore, be less than that of their parents; but owing to their greater number, the chances are that about one and a half of them would survive. Unless these breed together, a most improbable event, their progeny would again approach the average individual; there would be 150 of them, and their superiority would be, say in the ratio of one and a quarter to one; the probability would now be that nearly two of them would survive, and have 200 children, with an eighth superiority. Rather more than two of these would survive; but the superiority would again dwindle, until after a few generations it would no longer be observed, and would count for no more in the struggle for life than any of the hundred trifling advantages which occur in the ordinary organs. An ill.u.s.tration will bring this conception home. Suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by negroes, and to have established himself in friendly relations with a powerful tribe, whose customs he has learnt. Suppose him to possess the physical strength, energy, and ability of a dominant white race, and let the food and climate of the island suit his const.i.tution; grant him every advantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native; concede that in the struggle for existence his chance of a long life will be much superior to that of the native chiefs; yet from all these admissions, there does not follow the conclusion that, after a limited or unlimited {59} number of generations, the inhabitants of the island will be white. Our s.h.i.+pwrecked hero would probably become king; he would kill a great many blacks in the struggle for existence; he would have a great many wives and children." ... "In the first generation there will be some dozens of intelligent young mulattoes, much superior in average intelligence to the negroes. We might expect the throne for some generations to be occupied by a more or less yellow king; but can any one believe that the whole island will gradually acquire a white, or even a yellow, population?"

"Darwin says that in the struggle for life a grain may turn the balance in favour of a given structure, which will then be preserved. But one of the weights in the scale of nature is due to the number of a given tribe. Let there be 7000 A's and 7000 B's, representing two varieties of a given animal, and let all the B's, in virtue of a slight difference of structure, have the better chance of life by 1/7000 part. We must allow that there is a slight probability that the descendants of B will supplant the descendants of A; but let there be only 7001 A's against 7000 B's at first, and the chances are once more equal, while if there be 7002 A's to start, the odds would be laid on the A's. True, they stand a greater chance of being killed; but then they can better afford to be killed. The grain will only turn the scales when these are very nicely balanced, and an advantage in numbers counts for weight, even as an advantage in structure. As the numbers of the favoured variety diminish, so must its relative advantages increase, if the chance of its existence is to surpa.s.s the chance of its extinction, until hardly any conceivable advantage would enable the descendants of a single pair to exterminate the descendants of many thousands if they and their descendants are supposed to breed freely with the inferior variety, and so gradually lose their ascendency."

Mr. Darwin himself says of the article quoted: "The justice of these remarks cannot, I think, be disputed. If, for instance, a bird of some {60} kind could procure its food more easily by having its beak curved, and if one were born with its beak strongly curved, and which consequently flourished, nevertheless there would be a very poor chance of this one individual perpetuating its kind to the exclusion of the common form." This admission seems almost to amount to a change of front in the face of the enemy!

These remarks have been quoted at length because they so greatly intensify the difficulties brought forward in this chapter. If the most favourable variations have to contend with such difficulties, what must be thought as to the chance of preservation of the slightly displaced eye in a sole or of the incipient development of baleen in a whale?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

It has been here contended that a certain few facts, out of many which might have been brought forward, are inconsistent with the origination of species by "Natural Selection" only or mainly.

Mr. Darwin's theory requires minute, indefinite, fortuitous variations of all parts in all directions, and he insists that the sole operation of "Natural Selection" upon such is sufficient to account for the great majority of organic forms, with their most complicated structures, intricate mutual adaptations and delicate adjustments.

To this conception has been opposed the difficulties presented by such a structure as the form of the giraffe, which ought not to have been the solitary structure it is; also the minute beginnings and the last refinements of protective mimicry equally difficult or rather impossible to account for by "Natural Selection." Again the difficulty as to the heads of flat-fishes has been insisted on, as also the origin, and at the same time the constancy, of the limbs of the highest animals. Reference has also been made to the whalebone of whales, and to the impossibility of {61} understanding its origin through "Natural Selection" only; the same as regards the infant kangaroo, with its singular deficiency of power compensated for by maternal structures on the one hand, to which its own breathing organs bear direct relation on the other. Again, the delicate and complex pedicellariae of Echinoderms, with a certain process of development (through a secondary larva) found in that cla.s.s, together with certain other exceptional modes of development, have been brought forward. The development of colour in certain apes, the hood of the cobra, and the rattle of the rattlesnake have also been cited. Again, difficulties as to the process of formation of the eye and ear, and as to the fully developed condition of those complex organs, as well as of the voice, have been considered. The beauty of certain sh.e.l.l-fish; the wonderful adaptations of structure, and variety of form and resemblance, found in orchids; together with the complex habits and social conditions of certain ants, have been hastily pa.s.sed in review. When all these complications are duly weighed and considered, and when it is borne in mind how necessary it is for the permanence of a new variety that many individuals in each case should be simultaneously modified, the c.u.mulative argument seems irresistible.

The Author of this book can say that though by no means disposed originally to dissent from the theory of "Natural Selection," if only its difficulties could be solved, he has found each successive year that deeper consideration and more careful examination have more and more brought home to him the inadequacy of Mr. Darwin's theory to account for the preservation and intensification of incipient, specific, and generic characters. That minute, fortuitous, and indefinite variations could have brought about such special forms and modifications as have been enumerated in this chapter, seems to contradict not imagination, but reason. [Page 62]

That either many individuals amongst a species of b.u.t.terfly should be simultaneously preserved through a similar accidental and minute variation in one definite direction, when variations in many other directions would also preserve; or that one or two so varying should succeed in supplanting the progeny of thousands of other individuals, and that this should by no other cause be carried so far as to produce the appearance (as we have before stated) of spots of fungi, &c.--are alternatives of an improbability so extreme as to be practically equal to impossibility.

In spite of all the resources of a fertile imagination, the Darwinian, pure and simple, is reduced to the a.s.sertion of a paradox as great as any he opposes. In the place of a mere a.s.sertion of our ignorance as to the way these phenomena have been produced, he brings forward, as their explanation, a cause which it is contended in this work is demonstrably insufficient.

Of course in this matter, as elsewhere throughout nature, we have to do with the operation of fixed and constant natural laws, and the knowledge of these may before long be obtained by human patience or human genius; but there is, it is believed, already enough evidence to show that these as yet unknown natural laws or law will never be resolved into the action of "Natural Selection," but will const.i.tute or exemplify a mode and condition of organic action of which the Darwinian theory takes no account whatsoever. [Page 63]

CHAPTER III.

THE CO-EXISTENCE OF CLOSELY SIMILAR STRUCTURES OF DIVERSE ORIGIN.

Chances against concordant variations.--Examples of discordant ones.--Concordant variations not unlikely on a non-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis.--Placental and implacental mammals.--Birds and reptiles.--Independent origins of similar sense organs.--The ear.--The eye.--Other coincidences.--Causes besides Natural Selection produce concordant variations in certain geographical regions.--Causes besides Natural Selection produce concordant variations in certain zoological and botanical groups.--There are h.o.m.ologous parts not genetically related.--Harmony in respect of the organic and inorganic worlds.--Summary and conclusion.

The theory of "Natural Selection" supposes that the varied forms and structure of animals and plants have been built up merely by indefinite, fortuitous,[49] minute variations in every part and in all directions--those variations only being preserved which are directly or indirectly useful to the individual possessing them, or necessarily correlated with such useful variations.

[Ill.u.s.tration: WINGBONES OF PTERODACTYLE, BAT, AND BIRD.

(_Copied, by permission, from Mr. Andrew Murray's "Geographical Distribution of Mammals."_)]

On this theory the chances are almost infinitely great against the independent, accidental occurrence and preservation of two similar series of minute variations resulting in the independent development of two closely similar forms. In all cases, no doubt (on this same theory), _some_ adaptation to habit or need would gradually be evolved, but that {64} adaptation would surely be arrived at by different roads. The organic world supplies us with mult.i.tudes of examples of similar functional results being attained by the most diverse means. Thus the body is sustained in the air by birds and by bats. In the first case it is so sustained by a limb in which the bones of the hand are excessively reduced, but which is provided with immense outgrowths from the skin--namely, the feathers of the wing. In the second case, however, the body is sustained in the air by a limb in which the bones of the hand are enormously increased in length, and so sustain a great expanse of naked skin, which is the flying membrane of the bat's wing. Certain fishes and certain reptiles can also flit and take very prolonged jumps in the air. The flying-fish, however, takes these by means of a great elongation of the rays of the pectoral fins--parts which cannot be said to be of the same nature as the const.i.tuents of the wing of either the bat or the bird. The little lizard, which enjoys the formidable name of "flying-dragon," flits by means of a structure altogether peculiar--namely, by the liberation and great elongation of some of the ribs which support a fold of skin. In the extinct pterodactyles--which were _truly_ flying {65} reptiles--we meet with an approximation to the structure of the bat, but in the pterodactyle we have only one finger elongated in each hand: a striking example of how the very same function may be provided for by a modification similar in principle, yet surely manifesting the independence of its origin. When we go to lower animals, we find flight produced by organs, as the wings of insects, which are not even modified limbs at all; or we find even the function sometimes subserved by quite artificial means, as in the aerial spiders, which use their own threads to float with in the air. In the vegetable kingdom the atmosphere is often made use of for the scattering of seeds, by their being furnished with special structures of very different kinds. The diverse modes by which such seeds are dispersed are well expressed by Mr. Darwin. He says:[50] "Seeds are disseminated {66} by their minuteness,--by their capsule being converted into a light balloon-like envelope,--by being embedded in pulp or flesh, formed of the most diverse parts, and rendered nutritious, as well as conspicuously coloured, so as to attract and be devoured by birds,--by having hooks and grapnels of many kinds and serrated awns, so as to adhere to the fur of quadrupeds,--and by being furnished with wings and plumes, as different in shape as elegant in structure, so as to be wafted by every breeze."

[Ill.u.s.tration: SKELETON OF THE FLYING-DRAGON.

(Showing the elongated ribs which support the flitting organ.)]

Again, if we consider the poisoning apparatus possessed by different animals, we find in serpents a perforated--or rather very deeply channelled--tooth. In wasps and bees the sting is formed of modified parts, accessory in reproduction. In the scorpion, we have the median terminal process of the body specially organized. In the spider, we have a specially constructed antenna; and finally in the centipede a pair of modified thoracic limbs.

[Ill.u.s.tration: A CENTIPEDE.]

It would be easy to produce a mult.i.tude of such instances of similar ends being attained by dissimilar means, and it is here contended that by "the action of Natural Selection" _only_ it is so improbable as to be practically impossible for two exactly similar structures to have ever been independently developed. It is so because the number of possible {67} variations is indefinitely great, and it is therefore an indefinitely great number to one against a similar series of variations occurring and being similarly preserved in any two independent instances.

The difficulty here a.s.serted applies, however, only to pure Darwinism, which makes use _only_ of indirect modifications through the survival of the fittest.

Other theories (for example, that of Mr. Herbert Spencer) admit the _direct_ action of conditions upon animals and plants--in ways not yet fully understood--there being conceived to be at the same time a certain peculiar but limited power of response and adaptation in each animal and plant so acted on. Such theories have not to contend against the difficulty proposed, and it is here urged that even very complex extremely similar structures have again and again been developed quite independently one of the other, and this because the process has taken place not by merely haphazard, indefinite variations in all directions, but by the concurrence of some other and internal natural law or laws co-operating with external influences and with Natural Selection in the evolution of organic forms.

It must never be forgotten that to admit any such constant operation of any such unknown natural cause is to deny the purely Darwinian theory, which relies upon the survival of the fittest by means of minute fortuitous indefinite variations.

Amongst many other obligations which the Author has to acknowledge to Professor Huxley, are the pointing out of this very difficulty, and the calling his attention to the striking resemblance between certain teeth of the dog and of the thylacine as one instance, and certain ornithic peculiarities of pterodactyles as another.

Mammals[51] are divisible into one great group, which comprises the {68} immense majority of kinds termed, from their mode of reproduction, _placental Mammals_, and into another very much smaller group comprising the pouched-beasts or marsupials (which are the kangaroos, bandicoots, phalangers, &c., of Australia), and the true opossums of America, called _implacental Mammals_. Now the placental mammals are subdivided into various orders, amongst which are the flesh-eaters (Carnivora, _i.e._ cats, dogs, otters, weasels, &c.), and the insect-eaters (Insectivora, _i.e._ moles, hedgehogs, shrew-mice, &c.). The marsupial mammals also present a variety of forms (some of which are carnivorous beasts, whilst others are insectivorous), so marked that it has been even proposed to divide them into orders parallel to the orders of placental beasts.

The resemblance, indeed, is so striking as, on Darwinian principles, to suggest the probability of genetic affinity; and it even led Professor Huxley, in his Hunterian Lectures, in 1866, to promulgate the notion that a vast and widely-diffused marsupial fauna may have existed anteriorly to the development of the ordinary placental, non-pouched beasts, and that the carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous placentals may have respectively descended from the carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous marsupials.

[Ill.u.s.tration: TEETH OF UROTRICHUS AND PERAMELES.]

Amongst other points Professor Huxley called attention to the resemblance between the anterior molars of the placental dog with those of the marsupial thylacine. These, indeed, are strikingly similar, but there are better examples still of this sort of coincidence. Thus it has often {69} been remarked that the insectivorous marsupials, _e.g. Perameles_, wonderfully correspond, as to the form of certain of the grinding teeth, with certain insectivorous placentals, _e.g. Urotrichus_.

Again, the saltatory insectivores of Africa (_Macroscelides_) not only resemble the kangaroo family (_Macropodidae_) in their jumping habits and long hind legs, but also in the structure of their molar teeth, and even further, as I have elsewhere[52] pointed out, in a certain similarity of the upper cutting teeth, or incisors.

Now these correspondences are the more striking when we bear in mind that a similar dent.i.tion is often put to very different uses. The food of different kinds of apes is very different, yet how uniform is their dental structure! Again, who, looking at the teeth of different kinds of bears, would ever suspect that one kind was frugivorous, and another a devourer exclusively of animal food?

The suggestion made by Professor Huxley was therefore one which had much to recommend it to Darwinians, though it has not met with any notable acceptance, and though he seems himself to have returned to the older notion, namely, that the pouched-beasts, or marsupials, are a special ancient offshoot from the great mammalian cla.s.s.

But whichever view may be the correct one, we have in either case a number of forms similarly modified in harmony with surrounding conditions, and eloquently proclaiming some natural plastic power, other than mere fortuitous variation with survival of the fittest. If, however, the Reader thinks that teeth are parts peculiarly qualified for rapid variation (in which view the Author cannot concur), he is requested to suspend his judgment till he has considered the question of the independent evolution of the _highest organs of sense_. If this seems to establish the {70} existence of some other law than that of "Natural Selection," then the operation of that other law may surely be also traced in the harmonious co-ordinations of dental form.