SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION
Brief statement of Theory—Objections to the Theory fall into two
classes—Those which strike at the root of the Theory—Those which deny
the all-sufficiency of Natural Selection—Objections which strike at
root of Theory are based on misconception—Objections to Wallaceism—The
Theory fails to explain the origin of Variations—Natural Selection
called on to explain too much—Unable to explain beginnings of new
organs—The Theory of change of function—The co-ordination of
variations—The fertility of races of domesticated animals—Missing
links—Swamping effects of intercrossing—Small variations cannot have a
survival value—Races inhabiting same area—Excessive
specialisation—Chance and Natural Selection—Struggle for existence most
severe among young animals—Natural Selection fails to explain mimicry
and other phenomena of colour—Conclusion, that scarcely an organism
exists which does not possess some feature inexplicable on the theory
of Natural Selection as held by Wallace and his followers.
“The burden of proof is on him who asserts” is a rule of evidence which
the man of science should apply as rigidly as does the lawyer.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to prove our assertion that the theory
of natural selection does not afford an adequate explanation of all the
varied phenomena observed in the organic world.
Theory of Natural Selection
The theory of natural selection is so generally understood, that to set
it forth in detail in this place would be quite superfluous.
Darwin, it will be remembered, based his great hypothesis on the
following observed facts:—
1. No two individuals of a species are exactly alike. This is sometimes
called the law of variation.
2. All creatures tend in a general way to resemble their parents in
appearance more closely than they resemble individuals not related to
them. This may be termed the law of heredity.
3. Each pair of organisms produces in the course of a lifetime, on an
average, many more than two young ones.
4. On an average the total number of each species remains stationary.
From (3) and (4) follows the doctrine of Malthus, namely, that many more
individuals are born than can reach maturity.
Darwin applied this doctrine to the whole of the animal and the vegetable
kingdoms.
In his introduction to _The Origin of Species_ he writes:—“As many more
individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as,
consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it
follows that any being, if it vary, however slightly, in any manner
profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions
of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally
selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety
will tend to propagate its new and modified form.”
In other words, the struggle for existence amongst all organic beings
throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical
ratio of their increase, results in the survival of the fittest, that is
to say, of those best adapted to cope with their enemies and to secure
their food. Since organisms are thus naturally selected in nature, we may
speak of a natural selection which acts in much the same way as the human
breeder does. Darwin’s theory, then, is that all the variety of organisms
which now exist have been evolved from one or more forms by this process
of natural selection.
Various Anti-Darwinian Views
The objections which have been urged against the theory of natural
selection fall into two classes.
I. Those which strike at its root, which either deny that there is any
natural selection, or declare that it is not capable of producing a new
species.
II. Those which are directed against the all-sufficiency of natural
selection to account for organic evolution.
Those of the first class need not detain us long, although among those
who formulate them are to be found some eminent men of science.
Delage alleges that selection is powerless to form species, its function
is, according to him, limited to the suppression of variations radically
bad, and to the maintaining of a species in its normal character. It is
thus an inimical factor in evolution, a retarder rather than an
accelerator of species-change. It merely acts by preserving the type at
the expense of the variants, and so acts as a brake on evolution.
Korschinsky, while possibly not denying that selection occurs in nature,
declares that its influence on evolution is _nil_, or, if it has any
influence, that it is a hindering one.
Eimer similarly denies any capacity on the part of natural selection to
create species.
Pfeffer urges a very different objection. He says that if such a force as
natural selection existed it would transform species much more rapidly
than it does!
Now, in order that the above objections can carry any weight, one of two
sets of conditions must be fulfilled.
Either all organisms must be perfectly adapted to their environment, and
this environment must never change, or there must be inherent in each
species a kind of growth-force which impels the species to develop in
certain fixed directions. In either of these circumstances natural
selection will be an inhibitory force, for if the normal organism is
perfectly adapted to its environment, all variations from the type must
be unfavourable, and natural selection will weed out the individuals that
display them. No careful student of nature can maintain, either that all
animals are perfectly adapted to their environment, or that this never
changes. Hence those who deny that natural selection is a factor in the
making of species, assume the second set of conditions, that species
develop in certain fixed directions, being impelled either by internal or
external forces. How far these ideas are founded on fact we shall
endeavour to determine when speaking of variation. It must suffice at
present to say that even if any of these views of orthogenesis be
established, natural selection will have, so to speak, a casting vote, it
will decide which series of species developing along preordained lines
shall survive and which shall not survive.
Thus we reach by a different line of argument the conclusion we arrived
at in the last chapter: namely, there is no room for doubt that natural
selection is a factor in the making of species.
We must now pass on to the second class of objections, those which are
urged against the all-sufficiency of natural selection. So numerous are
these that it is not feasible to consider them all. A brief notice of the
more important ones should suffice to satisfy any unbiassed person;
firstly, that natural selection is an important factor in evolution;
secondly, that the position taken up by Wallace and his followers, that
natural selection, acting on minute variations, is the one and only
factor in organic evolution, is untenable.
Darwinism does not explain Variation
1. It has been urged that the Darwinian theory makes no attempt to
explain variation, and that, until we know what it is that causes
variations, we are not in a position to explain evolution. This of course
is quite true, but the objection is scarcely a fair one, since, as we
have seen, Darwin freely admitted that his theory made no attempt to
explain the origin of variations. It is not reasonable to object to a
theory because it fails to explain phenomena with which it expressly
states that it is not concerned. On the other hand, the objection is one
that must be reckoned with, for, as we shall see, it makes a great
difference to the importance of natural selection as a factor in
evolution if variations appear indiscriminately in all directions, as
Darwin tacitly assumed they do, or whether, as some biologists believe,
they are determinate in direction, being the result of a growth-force
inherent in all organisms.
2. Very similar to the above-mentioned objection is that which points out
that it is a long journey from Amoeba to man. It is difficult to believe
that this long course of development from the simple to the complex is
due to the action of a blind force, to the survival of those whose
fortuitous variations happen to be best adapted to the environment. The
result seems out of all proportion to the cause. There must be some
potent force inherent in protoplasm, or behind organisms, impelling them
upwards. This objection is as difficult to refute as it is to establish.
It is purely speculative.
3. A very serious objection to the Darwinian theory is that the
beginnings of new organs cannot be explained by the action of natural
selection on fortuitous minute variations, and natural selection can act
on an organ only when that organ has attained sufficient size to be of
practical utility to its possessor. When once an organ has come into
being it is not difficult to understand how it can be improved, modified
and developed by natural selection. But how can we explain the origin of
an organ such as a limb by the action of natural selection on minute
variations?
Theory of Change of Function
The theory of the change of function goes some way towards meeting the
difficulty, for by means of it we are able to understand how certain
organs, as, for example, the lung of air-breathing animals, might have
come into existence. This is said to have been developed from the
swimming-bladder of fishes. This bladder is, to use the words of Milnes
Marshall, “a closed sac lying just underneath the vertebral column. In
many fish it acquires a connection by a duct with some part of the
alimentary canal. It then becomes an accessory breathing organ,
especially in those fish which are capable of living out of water for a
time, _e.g._ the _Protopterus_ of America. An interesting series of
modifications exists connecting the air-bladder with the lung of the
higher vertebrates, which is undoubtedly the same organ.”
This theory, however, does not seem adequate to explain the origin of all
organs. It does not explain, for example, how limbs developed in a
limbless organism. Wallace tried to avoid the difficulty by asserting
that it is unreasonable to ask a new theory that it shall reveal to us
exactly what took place in remote geological ages and how it took place.
To this the obvious reply is, firstly, that we ought not to give
unqualified acceptance to any theory of evolution until it does afford us
such explanations, and, secondly, that the theory of the origin of
species by means of natural selection is no longer a new one.
Latterly, however, Wallace appears to have given up all hope of being
able to account for the origin of new organs by means of natural
selection, for he states on page 431 of the issue of the _Fortnightly
Review_ for March 1909: “It follows—not as a theory but as a fact—that
whenever an advantageous variation is needed, it can only consist in an
increase or decrease of some power or faculty already existing.” Now, in
order for an increase or decrease to occur, there must be something in
existence to be increased or diminished. Wallace, it is true, speaks here
only of powers and faculties; but it can scarcely be supposed that he
believes that variations as to structure are intrinsically different from
those relating to powers and faculties.
4. Herbert Spencer urges, as an objection to the theory of natural
selection, that favourable variations in one organ are likely to be
counterbalanced by unfavourable variations in some other organ. He
maintains that the chances are enormous against the occurrence of the
“many coincident and co-ordinated variations” that are necessary to
create a life or death determining advantage.
This objection was urged by a writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ in January
1909, and even by Wallace himself in the _Fortnightly Review_ last March
against the mutation theory. This objection, strong though it appears on
paper, exists only in the imagination of the objector.
Those who urge it display a misunderstanding of the manner in which
natural selection acts, and ignorance of the phenomenon of the
correlation of organs.
Correlation
Natural selection deals with an organism as a whole. Its effect is to
permit those creatures to survive which, taken as a whole, are best
adapted to their environment.
Physiologists insist with ever-increasing emphasis that there is more or
less correlation and inter-connection between the various parts of an
organism.
The several organs of an animal are not so many isolated units. It is
impossible to act on one organ without affecting some or all of the
others.
Variations in a given direction of one organ are usually accompanied by
correlated variations in some of the other organs. If strength be of
paramount importance to an animal, natural selection will tend to
preserve those individuals which exhibit strength to a marked degree, and
this exhibition of strength may be accompanied by other peculiarities,
such as short legs or a certain colour, so that natural selection will
indirectly tend to produce individuals with short legs and having the
colour in question, and it may happen that this particular colour is one
that renders the animal more conspicuous than the normal colour does.
Nevertheless, on account of the all-needful strength which accompanies
it, those animals so coloured may survive while those of a more
protective hue perish. Thus, paradoxical though it seems, natural
selection may indirectly be responsible for characteristics which in
themselves are injurious to the individual. This is probably the case as
regards the decorative plumage of some male birds. The phenomenon of
correlation was recognised by Darwin, and has, we believe, played an
important part in the making of species. We shall deal more fully with
the subject in a later chapter.
5. An oft-urged objection to the theory of natural selection, and one
which weighed very strongly with Huxley, is that breeders have hitherto
not succeeded in breeding a variety which is infertile with the parent
species. If, Huxley asked, breeders cannot produce such a thing, how can
we say we consider it proved that natural selection produces new species
in nature? This objection, however, loses much of its force in view of
the fact that many perfectly distinct species are quite fertile when bred
together. We shall recur to this in Chapter IV.
6. The fact that palæontology has hitherto failed to yield links
connecting many existing species is a classical objection to the theory
of the origin of species by gradual evolution.
Missing Links
Wallace states this objection as follows, on page 376 of his _Darwinism_:
“Many of the gaps that still remain are so vast that it seems incredible
to these writers that they could ever have been filled up by a close
succession of species, since these must have been spread over so many
ages, and have existed in such numbers, that it seems impossible to
account for their total absence from deposits in which great numbers of
species belonging to other groups are preserved and have been
discovered.”
Wallace’s reply is to the effect that in the case of many species
palæontology affords abundant evidence of the gradual change of one
species into another, the foot of the horse being a well-known case. The
genealogy of this noble quadruped can be traced from the Eocene four-toed
_Orohippus_, through the _Mesohippus_, the _Miohippus_, the
_Protohippus_, and the _Pliohippus_, until we reach the one-toed _Equus_.
Wallace further points out that in order that the fossil of any organism
may be preserved, the “concurrence of a number of favourable conditions”
is required, and against this the chances are enormous. Lastly, he urges
the imperfection of our knowledge of the things that lie embedded in the
earth’s crust.
The objection based on the lack of “missing links” loses some of its
force if we accept the theory that species sometimes arise as sports.
Thus, suppose a species with well-developed horns produces as a mutation
a hornless variety, which eventually replaces the horned form, we should
look in vain for any forms intermediate between the parent and the
daughter species. On the other hand, it is significant that just where
the links are most needed they are missing. For example, the splint bones
of the horse, taken in conjunction with the feet of existing tapirs,
which have four toes in front and three behind, would have led us to
infer, without the help of the geological record, that the horse was a
descendant of a polydactyle ancestor. When, however, we come to the
origin of birds, bats, and whales, palæontology fails to give us any
assistance, so that we are in the dark as to the origin of such really
important modifications.
7. The swamping effects of inter-crossing is an objection which has been
repeatedly urged against the Darwinian theory.
This objection is not so serious as it appears at first sight. Darwin and
Wallace maintain, firstly, that natural selection acts by eliminating all
individuals except those which present favourable variations. The
favoured few alone survive and mate with one another, so that there is
here no question of the swamping effects of inter-crossing, none but
well-adapted individuals being left to mate with one another.
The objection gains greater force when directed against the theory that
evolution proceeds by sudden jumps. But in this connection we must bear
in mind that the experiments of Mendel and his followers have
demonstrated that some of the offspring of crosses may resemble their
pure ancestors and breed true _inter se_. Nor is this all.
Recurrent Mutations
Experience shows that where a mutation, or sport, or discontinuous
variation occurs, it frequently repeats itself; for example, the
black-winged sport of the peafowl has occurred several times over and in
different flocks of birds. The sport or mutation must have a definite
cause. There must be something within the organism, something in the
generative cells, which causes the mutation to arise; and hence, on _a
priori_ grounds, we should expect the same mutation to arise about the
same time in many individuals. It seems legitimate to infer that things
have been quietly working up to a climax. When this is reached there
results a mutation. Therefore we should expect sudden mutations to appear
simultaneously in a number of individuals. To this important subject we
shall return.
8. An almost insuperable objection to the theory that species have
originated by the action of natural selection on minute variations, is
that such small differences cannot be of a life-or-death value, or, as it
is usually called, a survival value to their possessor. But if evolution
is the result of the preservation by natural selection of such slight
variations, it is absolutely necessary that each of these should possess
a survival value.
As D. Dewar has pointed out, on page 704 of vol. ii. of _The Albany
Review_, it is only when the beast of prey and its victim are evenly
matched as regards fleetness and power of endurance that small variations
in these qualities can have a survival value. But in the rough and tumble
of the struggle for existence the victim and its foe are but rarely
well-matched. Take as an example the case of a flycatcher. “This bird,”
writes D. Dewar, “will sometimes take three or four insects in the course
of one flight; all are captured with the same ease, although the length
of wing in each victim varies. So great is the superiority of the bird
that it does not notice the difference in the flying powers of its puny
quarry.” It is unnecessary to labour this point.
9. Species or varieties differing considerably in colour may exist side
by side, as the hooded and carrion crows, the white and dark breasted
forms of the Arctic skua, the pale and dark forms of the fulmar petrel,
the grey and rufous forms of the American scops owl (_Megascops asio_).
It is true that preponderance of one form or another in certain districts
points to some advantage possessed by one over the other, but, for all we
know, it may be due to heredity, and in any case the co-existence of the
two types in part of their range, or at certain seasons, shows that
selection is not at all rigorous.
The same argument applies to the co-existence of very
differently-coloured species with generally similar habits, such as that
of the jaguar and puma in South America, and the five very
differently-coloured flycatchers in the Nilgiri Hills.
Leaf-butterflies
In short, there is abundant evidence to show that considerable
differences in colour do not appear to have any effect on the chances of
survival in the struggle for existence of those that display them. Yet
this is precisely what the supporters of the Darwinian hypothesis cannot
afford to admit, for they then find it impossible to account for the
origin of such a form as _Kallima_, the leaf-butterfly, by the action of
natural selection. As most people are aware, this creature displays a
remarkable resemblance to a decaying leaf. “These butterflies” (there are
several species which show the marvellous imitation), writes Kellog, on
page 53 of _Darwinism To-day_, “have the under sides of both fore and
hind wings so coloured and streaked that when apposed over the back in
the manner common to butterflies at rest, the four wings combine to
resemble with absurd fidelity a dead leaf still attached by a short
petiole to the twig or branch. I say absurd, for it seems to me the
resemblance is over-refined. Here for safety’s sake it is no question of
mimicking some one particular kind of other organism or inanimate thing
in nature which birds do not molest. It is simply to produce the effect
of a dead leaf on a branch. Leaf-shape and general dead-leaf
colour-scheme are necessary for this illusion. But are these following
things necessary? namely, an extra-ordinarily faithful representation of
mid-rib and lateral veins, even to faint microscopically-tapering vein
tips; a perfect short petiole produced by the apposed ‘tails’ of the
hind-wings; a concealment of the head of the butterfly so that it shall
not mar the outlines of the lateral margin of the leaf; and finally,
delicate little flakes of purplish or yellowish brown to mimic spots of
decay and fungus-attacked spots in the leaf! And, as culmination, a tiny
circular clear spot in the fore-wings (terminal part of the leaf) which
shall represent a worm-eaten hole, or a piercing of the dry leaf by
flying splinter, or the complete decay of a little spot due to fungus
growth! A general and sufficient seeming of a dead leaf, object of no
bird’s active interest, yes, but not a dead leaf modelled with the
fidelity of the waxworkers in the modern natural history museums. When
natural selection has got Kallima along to that highly desirable stage
when it was so like a dead leaf in general seeming that every bird
sweeping by saw it only as a brown leaf clinging precariously to a
half-stripped branch, it was natural selection’s bounden duty, in
conformance to its obligations to its makers, to stop the further
modelling of Kallima and just hold it up to its hardly won advantage. But
what happens? Kallima continues its way, specifically and absurdly
dead-leafwards, until to-day it is a much too fragile thing to be
otherwise than very gingerly handled by its rather anxious
foster-parents, the Neo-Darwinian selectionists.” It is obvious that if
natural selection has produced so highly specialised an organism as the
dead-leaf butterfly, every minute variation must be of value and have
been seized upon by natural selection.
A Dilemma
Thus the Wallaceians are on the horns of a dilemma. If they assert, as
they appear to do, that every infinitesimal variation has a survival
value, they find it difficult to explain the existence, side by side of
such forms as the hooded and carrion crows, to say why in some species of
bird both sexes assume a conspicuous nuptial plumage at the very time
when they stand most in need of protective coloration, why the cock
paradise flycatcher is chestnut for the first two years of his life and
then turns as white as snow. If, on the other hand, the Wallaceians
assert that small variations are unimportant and have no survival value,
they are, as Kellog points out, in trouble over the close and detailed
resemblance which the Kallima butterflies bear to dead leaves.
10. An objection to the Darwinian theory which has been advanced by Conn,
Henslow, D. Dewar, and others, is that the selection theory fails to take
into account the effects of chance. “If,” writes D. Dewar on page 707 of
_The Albany Review_, vol. ii., “the struggle for existence were of the
nature of a race at a well-regulated athletic meeting, where the
competitors are given a fair start, where there is no difference in the
conditions to which the various runners are subjected, then indeed would
every variation tell. I would rather liken the struggle for existence to
the rush to get out of a crowded theatre, poorly provided with exits,
when an alarm of fire is given. The people to escape are not necessarily
the strongest of those present. Propinquity to a door may be a more
valuable asset than strength.”
Or again, we may take the imaginary case of some antelopes being pursued
by wolves. The chase, being prolonged, brings the antelopes to a locality
with which they are not familiar. The foremost of the herd, the most
swift, and therefore the individual which should stand the best chance of
survival, suddenly finds himself on soft boggy ground, which, owing to
the depth to which his feet sink into the soil, seriously impedes his
progress. His fellow antelopes, now outdistanced, seeing his predicament,
take another course and soon leave him behind, to fall an easy prey to
his foes. Here we have a case of the perishing of the most fit as regards
the important point of speed.
The Effects of Chance
Writing of plants, Professor Henslow says, on page 16 of _The Heredity of
Acquired Characters in Plants_: “As the whole of the animal kingdom
ultimately lives upon the vegetable, plants must supply the entire
quantity of food supplied, not to add innumerable vegetable parasites as
well, for both young and old. Myriads of germinating seeds perish
accordingly, being destroyed by slugs and other mollusca, and ‘mildews,’
etc. But far more seeds and spores—about 50,000,000 of these it is
calculated can be borne in a single male-fern—never germinate at all.
They fall where the conditions of life are unfavourable and perish. This
misfortune is not due to any inadaptiveness in themselves, but to the
surrounding conditions which will not let them germinate. Thus thousands
of acorns and other fruits, as of elder, drop upon the ground in and by
our hedges, road-sides, copses, and elsewhere; but scarcely any or even
no seedlings are to be seen round the trees.”
Every year thousands of birds perish in the great migratory flight,
others succumb in a cyclone, a fierce tropical storm, a prolonged
drought, a severe frost. Here death overtakes multitudes, all that dwell
in a locality, the weak and the strong, the swift and the slow alike.
This objection may be met by saying that in the long run it is the
fittest that will survive. This is true. The objection is nevertheless of
importance in showing how exceedingly uncertain must be the action of
natural selection if it have but small variations upon which to work. In
such circumstances the mills of natural selection may grind surely, but
they must grind very slowly.
11. We must bear in mind that the struggle for existence is most severe
among young animals, among creatures that are not fully developed. Nature
pays no attention to potentialities. The weak go to the wall in the
conflict, even though, if allowed time, they might develop into prodigies
of strength.
Moreover, and this is an important point, death in the case of young
creatures overtakes broods and families rather than individuals.
The above-cited objections to the theory that species have originated by
the action of natural selection on minute variations, are mostly of a
general nature; let us now notice briefly a few more concrete objections.
We shall not devote much space to these in the present chapter, since we
shall be continually confronted with them when dealing with the subject
of animal colouring.
The Origin of Mimicry
12. Natural selection, as we shall see, fails to account for the origin
of what is known as protective mimicry. Some insects look like inanimate
objects, others resemble other insects which are believed or known to be
unpalatable. Those creatures displaying this resemblance to other objects
or creatures, and deriving profit therefrom, are said to “mimic” the
objects or creatures they copy. They are also called “Mimics.” It is easy
to understand the profit that these mimics derive from their mimicry.
When once the disguise has been assumed we can comprehend how natural
selection will tend to improve it by eliminating those that mimic badly;
but it seems to us that the theory fails utterly to account for the
origin of the likeness.
13. Similarly, the Neo-Darwinian theory fails to explain the colours of
the eggs of birds laid in open nests, why, for example, the eggs of the
accentor or hedge-sparrow are blue and those of the doves are white.
14. The theory fails to give a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena
of sexual dimorphism. Why, for example, in some species of doves and
ducks, the sexes are alike, while in other species with similar habits
they differ in appearance.
15. It fails to explain why the rook is black and why the jackdaw has a
grey neck.
These and many other objections we shall deal with more fully in the
chapter on animal colouration. It must suffice here to mention them, and
to say that our experience teaches us that scarcely a single species of
bird or beast exists which does not display some characteristic which is
inexplicable on the theory that natural selection, acting on small
variations, is the one and only cause of organic evolution.