Evolution, Old & New: Or, the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck,; as compared with that of Charles DarwinButler, Samuel
Philosophy
Evolution, Old & New: Or, the Theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck,; as compared with that of Charles Darwin
Butler, Samuel
Evolution (Biology) -- History
In the 'Academy' for April 19, 1879, Mr. Wallace quotes Professor
Haeckel as saying that our "highly purposive and admirably-constituted
sense-organs have developed without premeditated aim; that they have
originated by the same mechanical process of Natural Selection, by the
same constant interaction of Adaptation and Heredity [what _is_ Heredity
but another word for unknown causes, unless it is explained in some such
manner as in 'Life and Habit'?] by which all the other purposive
contrivances of the animal organization have been slowly and gradually
evolved during the struggle for existence."
I see no evidence for "premeditated aim" at any modification very far in
advance of an existing organ, any more than I do for "premeditated aim"
on man's part at any as yet inconceivable mechanical invention; but as
in the case of man's inventions, so also in that of the organs of
animals and plants, modification is due to the accumulation of small,
well-considered improvements, as found necessary in practice, and the
conduct of their affairs. Each step having been purposive, the whole
road has been travelled purposively; nor is the purposiveness of such an
organ, we will say, as the eye, barred by the fact that invention has
doubtless been aided by some of those happy accidents which from time to
time happen to all who keep their wits about them, and know how to turn
the gifts of Fortune to account.
FOOTNOTES:
[371] 'Origin of Species,' p. 109.
[372] 'Origin of Species, p. 401.
[373] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 242.
[374] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 244.
[375] 'Phil. Zool.,' tom. i. p. 245.
APPENDIX.
CHAPTER I.
REVIEWS OF 'EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW.'
Those who have been at the pains to read the foregoing book will,
perhaps, pardon me if I put before them a short account of the reception
it has met with: I will not waste time by arguing with my critics at any
length; it will be enough if I place some of their remarks upon my book
under the same cover as the book itself, with here and there a word or
two of comment.
The only reviews which have come under my notice appeared in the
'Academy' and the 'Examiner,' both of May 17, 1879; the 'Edinburgh Daily
Review,' May 23, 1879; 'City Press,' May 21, 1879; 'Field,' May 26,
1879; 'Saturday Review,' May 31, 1879; 'Daily Chronicle,' May 31, 1879;
'Graphic' and 'Nature,' both June 12, 1879; 'Pall Mall Gazette,' June
18, 1879; 'Literary World,' June 20, 1879; 'Scotsman,' June 24, 1879;
'British Journal of Homoeopathy' and 'Mind,' both July 1, 1879;
'Journal of Science,' July 18, 1879; 'Westminster Review,' July, 1879;
'Athenaeum,' July 26, 1879; 'Daily News,' July 29, 1879; 'Manchester
City News,' August 16, 1879; 'Nonconformist,' November 26, 1879;
'Popular Science Review,' Jan. 1, 1880; 'Morning Post,' Jan. 12, 1880.
Some of the most hostile passages in the reviews above referred to are
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