The geographical and geological evidences in favour of the theory of
descent are facts taken from sciences which are not biology proper; they
are not facts of the living but only facts about the living. That is not
quite without logical importance, for it shows that not biology alone
has led to the transformism hypothesis. Were it otherwise, transformism
might be said to be a mere hypothesis *ad hoc*; but now this proves to
be not the case, though we are far from pretending that transformism
might be regarded as resting upon a real *causa vera*.
But let us study the second group of facts which support the theory of
descent. It is a group of evidences supplied by biology itself that we
meet here, there being indeed some features in biology which can be
said to gain some light, some sort of elucidation, if the theory of
descent is accepted. Of course, these facts can only be such as relate
to specific diversities, and indeed are facts of systematics; in other
words, there exists something in the very nature of the system of
organisms that renders transformism probable. The system of animals and
plants is based upon a principle which might be called the principle
of *similarities and diversities by gradation*; its categories are not
uniform but different in degree and importance, and there are different
kinds of such differences. No doubt, some light would be shed upon this
character of the system, if we were allowed to assume that the relation
between similarities and diversities, which is gradual, corresponded to
a blood-relationship, which is gradual also.
THE COVERT PRESUMPTION OF ALL THEORIES OF DESCENT
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