Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic Modification Part 10

"It is not that all large genera are now varying much, and are thus increasing in the number of their species, or that no small genera are now multiplying and increasing; for if this had been so it would have been fatal to MY THEORY; inasmuch as geology," &c. (p. 56).

The words "my theory" stand in all the editions. Again:-

"This relation has a clear meaning ON MY VIEW of the subject; I look upon all the species of any genus as having as certainly descended from the same progenitor, as have the two s.e.xes of any one of the species" (p. 157).

"My view" here, especially in the absence of reference to any other writer as having held the same opinion, implies as its most natural interpretation that descent pure and simple is Mr. Darwin's view.

Subst.i.tute "the theory of descent" for "my view," and we do not feel that we are misinterpreting the author's meaning. The words "my view" remain in all editions.

Again:-

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but to the best of my belief the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, FATAL TO MY THEORY.

"These difficulties and objections may be cla.s.sed under the following heads:- Firstly, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, why do we not everywhere see?" &c. (p. 171).

We infer from this that "my theory" is the theory "that species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations"--that is to say, that it is the theory of descent with modification; for the theory that is being objected to is obviously the theory of descent in toto, and not a mere detail in connection with that theory.

The words "my theory" were altered in 1872, with the sixth edition of the "Origin of species," into "the theory;" but I am chiefly concerned with the first edition of the work, my object being to show that Mr. Darwin was led into his false position as regards natural selection by a desire to claim the theory of descent with modification; if he claimed it in the first edition, this is enough to give colour to the view which I take; but it must be remembered that descent with modification remained, by the pa.s.sage just quoted "my theory," for thirteen years, and even when in 1869 and 1872, for a reason that I can only guess at, "my theory" became generally "the theory," this did not make it become any one else's theory. It is hard to say whose or what it became, if the words are to be construed technically; practically, however, with all ingenuous readers, "the theory" remained as much Mr. Darwin's theory as though the words "my theory" had been retained, and Mr. Darwin cannot be supposed so simple-minded as not to have known this would be the case. Moreover, it appears, from the next page but one to the one last quoted, that Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent with modification generally, even to the last, for we there read, "BY MY THEORY these allied species have descended from a common parent,"

and the "my" has been allowed, for some reason not quite obvious, to survive the general ma.s.sacre of Mr. Darwin's "my's" which occurred in 1869 and 1872.

Again:-

"He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met," &c. (p. 185).

Here the argument evidently lies between descent and independent acts of creation. This appears from the paragraph immediately following, which begins, "He who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation," &c. We therefore understand descent to be the theory so frequently spoken of by Mr. Darwin as "my."

Again:-

"He who will go thus far, if he find on finis.h.i.+ng this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained BY THE THEORY OF DESCENT, ought not to hesitate to go farther, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as an eagle's eye might be formed BY NATURAL SELECTION, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades" (p. 188).

The natural inference from this is that descent and natural selection are one and the same thing.

Again:-

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, MY THEORY would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my THEORY, there has been much extinction" (p. 189).

This makes "my theory" to be "the theory that complex organs have arisen by numerous, successive, slight modifications;" that is to say, to be the theory of descent with modification. The first of the two "my theory's" in the pa.s.sage last quoted has been allowed to stand. The second became "the theory" in 1872. It is obvious, therefore, that "the theory" means "my theory;" it is not so obvious why the change should have been made at all, nor why the one "my theory" should have been taken and the other left, but I will return to this question.

Again, Mr. Darwin writes:-

"Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could not possibly have been produced by small successive transitional gradations, yet, undoubtedly grave cases of difficulty occur, some of which will be discussed in my future work" (p. 192).

This, as usual, implies descent with modification to be the theory that Mr. Darwin is trying to make good.

Again:-

"I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named towards which no transitional variety is known to lead . . . Why, ON THE THEORY OF CREATION, should this be so? Why should not nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the slowest and shortest steps" (p. 194).

Here "the theory of natural selection" is opposed to "the theory of creation;" we took it, therefore, to be another way of saying "the theory of descent with modification."

Again:-

"We have in this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and objections which may be urged against MY THEORY. Many of them are very grave, but I think that in the discussion light has been thrown on several facts which, ON THE THEORY OF INDEPENDENT ACTS OF CREATION, are utterly obscure" (p. 203).

Here we have, on the one hand, "my theory," on the other, "independent acts of creation." The natural ant.i.thesis to independent acts of creation is descent, and we a.s.sumed with reason that Mr. Darwin was claiming this when he spoke of "my theory." "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"On the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand the full meaning of that old canon in natural history, 'Natura non facit saltum.' This canon, if we look only to the present inhabitants of the world is not strictly correct, but if we include all those of past times, it must BY MY THEORY be strictly true" (p. 206).

Here the natural interpretation of "by my theory" is "by the theory of descent with modification;" the words "on the theory of natural selection," with which the sentence opens, lead us to suppose that Mr. Darwin regarded natural selection and descent as convertible terms. "My theory" was altered to "this theory" in 1872. Six lines lower down we read, "ON MY THEORY unity of type is explained by unity of descent." The "my" here has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"Again, as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with MY THEORY, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has never," &c. (p. 210).

Who was to see that "my theory" did not include descent with modification? The "my" here has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"The fact that instincts . . . are liable to make mistakes;--that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals, but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others;-- that the canon of natural history, 'Natura non facit saltum,' is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise inexplicable,--ALL TEND TO CORROBORATE THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 243).

We feel that it is the theory of evolution, or descent with modification, that is here corroborated, and that it is this which Mr. Darwin is mainly trying to establish; the sentence should have ended "all tend to corroborate the theory of descent with modification;" the subst.i.tution of "natural selection" for descent tends to make us think that these conceptions are identical. That they are so regarded, or at any rate that it is the theory of descent in full which Mr. Darwin has in his mind, appears from the immediately succeeding paragraph, which begins "THIS THEORY," and continues six lines lower, "For instance, we can understand, on the PRINCIPLE OF INHERITANCE, how it is that," &c.

Again:-

"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, ON MY THEORY, formerly have existed" (p.

280).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869. No reader who read in good faith could doubt that the theory of descent with modification was being here intended.

"It is just possible BY MY THEORY, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; but in this case DIRECT intermediate links will have existed between them" (p. 281).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"BY THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus," &c. We took this to mean, "By the theory of descent with modification all living species," &c. (p. 281).

Again:-

"Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very fine species of D'Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties; and on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which ON MY THEORY we ought to find" (p. 297).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

In the fourth edition (1866), in a pa.s.sage which is not in either of the two first editions, we read (p. 359), "So that here again we have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by MY THEORY." "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869; the theory of descent with modification is unquestionably intended.

Again:-

"Geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against MY VIEWS" (p. 299).