Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic ModificationButler, Samuel
Philosophy
Luck, or Cunning, as the Main Means of Organic Modification
Butler, Samuel
Evolution; Natural selection
When Professor Ray Lankester goes on to speak of the “undemonstrable
agencies” “arbitrarily asserted” to exist by Professor Semper, he is
again presuming on the ignorance of his readers. Professor Semper’s
agencies are in no way more undemonstrable than Mr. Darwin’s are. Mr.
Darwin was perfectly cogent as long as he stuck to Lamarck’s
demonstration; his arguments were sound as long as they were Lamarck’s,
or developments of, and riders upon, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck,
and almost incredibly silly when they were his own. Fortunately the
greater part of the “Origin of Species” is devoted to proving the theory
of descent with modification, by arguments against which no exception
would have been taken by Mr. Darwin’s three great precursors, except in
so far as the variations whose accumulation results in specific
difference are supposed to be fortuitous—and, to do Mr. Darwin justice,
the fortuitousness, though always within hail, is kept as far as possible
in the background.
“Mr. Darwin’s arguments,” says Professor Ray Lankester, “rest on the
_proved_ existence of minute, many-sided, irrelative variations _not_
produced by directly transforming agents.” Mr. Darwin throughout the
body of the “Origin of Species” is not supposed to know what his
variations are or are not produced by; if they come, they come, and if
they do not come, they do not come. True, we have seen that in the last
paragraph of the book all this was changed, and the variations were
ascribed to the conditions of existence, and to use and disuse, but a
concluding paragraph cannot be allowed to override a whole book
throughout which the variations have been kept to hand as accidental.
Mr. Romanes is perfectly correct when he says {232a} that “natural
selection” (meaning the Charles-Darwinian natural selection) “trusts to
the chapter of accidents in the matter of variation” this is all that Mr.
Darwin can tell us; whether they come from directly transforming agents
or no he neither knows nor says. Those who accept Lamarck will know that
the agencies are not, as a rule, directly transforming, but the followers
of Mr. Darwin cannot.
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