Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and UtilityRomanes, George John
Science
Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3: Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility
Romanes, George John
Evolution (Biology); Heredity
progressively fall in proportion to the progressive weakening of
this force.
"Now, according to my views, the force of heredity under such
circumstances is always bound to fail, and this for two reasons. In
the first place, it must usually happen that when an organ becomes
useless, natural selection as regards that organ will not only
_cease_, but become _reversed_. For the organ is now absorbing
nutriment, causing weight, occupying space, and so on, _uselessly_.
Hence, even if it be not also a source of actual danger, 'economy
of growth' will determine a reversal of selection against an organ
which is now not merely useless, but deleterious. And this
degenerating influence of the reversal of selection will throughout
be assisted by the cessation of selection, which will now be always
acting round a continuously sinking average. Nevertheless, a point
of balance will eventually be reached in this case, just as it was
in the previous case where the cessation of selection was supposed
to be working alone. For, where the reversal of selection has
reduced the diminishing organ to so minute a size that its presence
is no longer a source of detriment to the organism, the cessation
of selection will carry the reduction a small degree further; and
then the organ will remain as a 'rudiment.' And so it will remain
permanently, unless there be some further reason why the still
remaining force of heredity should be abolished. This further (or
second) reason I found in the consideration that, however enduring
we may suppose the force of heredity to be, we cannot suppose that
it is actually everlasting; and, therefore, that we may reasonably
attribute the eventual disappearance of rudimentary organs to the
eventual failure of heredity itself. In support of this view there
is the fact that rudimentary organs, although very persistent, are
not everlasting. That they should be very persistent is what we
should expect, if the hold which heredity has upon them is great in
proportion to the time during which they were originally useful,
and thus firmly stamped upon the organization by natural selection
causing them to be strongly inherited in the first instance. For
example, we might expect that it would be more difficult finally to
eradicate the rudiment of a wing than the rudiment of a feather;
and accordingly we find it a general rule that long-enduring
rudiments are rudiments of organs distinctive of the higher
taxonomic divisions--i.e. of organs which were longest in building
up, and therefore longest sustained in a state of working
efficiency.
"Thus, upon the whole, my view of the facts of degeneration remains
the same as it was when first published in these columns seventeen
years ago, and may be summarized as follows.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account