The plurality of the human racePouchet, G. (Georges)
Philosophy
The plurality of the human race
Pouchet, G. (Georges)
Monogenism and polygenism
Some people have made a sort of bugbear out of this word _spontaneous
generation_, or rather, _spontaneous genesis_.[286] And yet, here
is one of these truths to which, we think, we shall be led by the
observation of facts and by reasoning. The great harm of examining
into the question is to be strangely mistaken as to its bearing, and
inclined to restrict its limits. It has, in fact, been said, that
every day genital organs are discovered in beings whom it was thought
were reproduced spontaneously. This is a specious argument to which
Plutarch has long ago done justice. A person, whom he brings forward in
one of his books, asks, “Which had the first existence, the egg or the
hen?” and concludes that “it was evidently the hen.” Even in treating
lightly on this subject,--in making it a familiar conversation, the
Greek physician was, however, not mistaken about the importance of
the matter. “So that,” answers one of the guests, “with this little
question of the egg and the hen, we raise, as with a lever, the great
and dark question of the generation of the world.”[287]
That the animals which we know all reproduce by eggs, is possible,
although it has not been proved, but this is not an important point;
we want to know if all the animals which we are able to observe do not
remount necessarily, in a more or less direct manner, and at a more or
less distant period, to a spontaneous beginning.[288] The difficulty is
everywhere the same,--everywhere we arrive at that immense obscurity
which envelopes the origin of life on the surface of our planet; but it
is essential in every case not to give to the phenomenon of spontaneous
beginning any other signification than it ought to have. We must not
believe, for instance, that matter is formed by the agglomeration of
parts which do not yet live in a perfect being, having already all its
organs distributed and proportionate, uniting in one living whole. This
would be to cast ourselves on the field of an absolutely improbable
hypothesis. Histology teaches us that each animal, its instincts and
intellect included, is at a given moment merely a mass of amorphous
matter, which, at a later period, will form itself, or in the midst of
which will be _spontaneously_ developed an anatomical element, that
is to say, an organised body. To admit spontaneous genesis, then, is
simply to admit the formation of organic amorphous primitive matter
apart from an already living body, at the cost of and in the heart
of which can be born the initial anatomical element of one of these
animals, very properly called _protozoa_. We can even ask, whether
this latent primary life, this atomic life, has not always been the
ruling life on our planet.[289] And since, when account is taken of
everything, we are almost entirely ignorant of the conditions necessary
to the fecundity of any primitive embryo, excepting certain physical
conditions of temperature, liquidity, etc.; and as, on the other hand,
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