Such questions used to be asked, and when they were asked, although one
might have a very strong feeling that it was not so, at the same time
one could not exactly say why. One could not then find any scientific
argument for objections to that point of view. But with the further
development of the question the whole subject began gradually to wear a
different appearance; and I am going to give you a little bit of
autobiography, because I think it may be of some interest in this
connection. I am going to mention two or three of the successive stages
which the whole question took in my own mind as one thing came up after
another, and how from time to time it began to dawn upon me that I had
up to that point been looking at the problem from not exactly the right
point of view.
When Darwin's "Descent of Man" was published in 1871, it was of course a
book characterized by all his immense learning, his wonderful fairness
of spirit and fertility of suggestion. Still, one could not but feel
that it did not solve the question of the origin of man. There was one
great contrast between that book and his "Origin of Species." In the
earlier treatise he undertook to point out a _vera causa_ [true cause]
of the origin of species, and he did it. In his "Descent of Man" he
brought together a great many minor generalizations which facilitated
the understanding of man's origin. But he did not come at all near to
solving the central problem, nor did he anywhere show clearly why the
natural selection might not have gone on forever producing one set of
beings after another distinguishable chiefly by physical differences.
But Darwin's co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, at an early stage in
his researches, struck out a most brilliant and pregnant suggestion. In
that one respect Wallace went further than ever Darwin did. It was a
point of which, indeed, Darwin admitted the importance. It was a point
of which nobody could fail to understand the importance, that in the
course of the evolution of a very highly organized animal, if there came
a point at which it was of more advantage to that animal to have
variations in his intelligence seized upon and improved by natural
selection than to have physical changes seized upon, then natural
selection would begin working almost exclusively upon that creature's
intelligence, and he would develop in intelligence to a great extent,
while his physical organism would change but slightly. Now, that of
course applied to the case of man, who is changed physically but very
slightly from the apes, while he has traversed intellectually such a
stupendous chasm.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account