NATURAL SELECTION CONSIDERED AS A MEANS OF MODIFICATION. THE CONFUSION
WHICH THIS EXPRESSION OCCASIONS.
When Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the most important
"means" of modification, I am not sure that I understand what he wishes
to imply by the word "means." I do not see how the fact that those
animals which are best fitted for the conditions of their existence
commonly survive in the struggle for life, can be called in any special
sense a "means" of modification.
"Means" is a dangerous word; it slips too easily into "cause." We have
seen Mr. Darwin himself say that Buffon did not enter on "the _causes or
means_"[347] of modification, as though these two words were synonymous,
or nearly so. Nevertheless, the use of the word "means" here enables Mr.
Darwin to speak of Natural Selection as if it were an active cause
(which he constantly does), and yet to avoid expressly maintaining that
it is a cause of modification. This, indeed, he has not done in express
terms, but he does it by implication when he writes, "Natural Selection
_might be most effective in giving_ the proper colour to each kind of
grouse, and in _keeping_ that colour when once acquired." Such language,
says the late Mr. G. H. Lewes, "is misleading;" it makes "selection an
agent."[348]
It is plain that natural selection cannot be considered a cause of
variation; and if not of variation, which is as the rain drop, then not
of specific and generic modification, which are as the river; for the
variations must make their appearance before they can be selected.
Suppose that it is an advantage to a horse to have an especially hard
and broad hoof, then a horse born with such a hoof will indeed probably
survive in the struggle for existence, but he was not born with the
larger and harder hoof _because of his subsequently surviving_. He
survived because he was born fit--not, he was born fit because he
survived. The variation must arise first and be preserved afterwards.
Mr. Darwin therefore is in the following dilemma. If he does not treat
natural selection as a cause of variation, the 'Origin of Species' will
turn out to have no _raison d'etre_. It will have professed to have
explained to us the manner in which species has originated, but it will
have left us in the dark concerning the origin of those variations
which, when added together, amount to specific and generic differences.
Thus, as I said in 'Life and Habit,' Mr. Darwin will have made us think
we know the whole road, in spite of his having almost ostentatiously
blindfolded us at every step in the journey. The 'Origin of Species'
would thus prove to be no less a piece of intellectual sleight-of-hand
than Paley's 'Natural Theology.'
If, on the other hand, Mr. Darwin maintains natural selection to be a
cause of variation, this comes to saying that when an animal has varied
in an advantageous direction, the fact of its subsequently surviving in
the struggle for existence is the cause of its having varied in the
advantageous direction--or more simply still--that the fact of its
having varied is the cause of its having varied.
And this is what we have already seen Mr. Darwin actually to say, in a
passage quoted near the beginning of this present book. When writing of
the eye he says, "Variation will cause the slight alterations;"[349] but
the "slight alterations" _are_ the variations; so that Mr. Darwin's
words come to this--that "variation will cause the variations."
There does not seem any better way out of this dilemma than that which
Mr. Darwin has adopted--namely, to hold out natural selection as "a
means" of modification, and thenceforward to treat it as an efficient
cause; but at the same time to protest again and again that it is
not a cause. Accordingly he writes that "Natural Selection _acts
only by the preservation and accumulation_ of small inherited
modifications,"[350]--that is to say, it has had no share in inducing or
causing these modifications. Again, "What applies to one animal will
apply throughout all time to all animals--_that is, if they vary, for
otherwise natural selection can effect nothing_"[351]; and again, "for
natural selection only _takes advantage of such variations as
arise_"[352]--the variations themselves arising, as we have just seen,
from variation.
Nothing, then, can be clearer from these passages than that natural
selection is not a cause of modification; while, on the other hand,
nothing can be clearer, from a large number of such passages, as, for
instance, "natural selection may be _effective_ in _giving_ and
_keeping_ colour,"[353] than that natural selection is an efficient
cause; and in spite of its being expressly declared to be only a "means"
of modification, it will be accepted as cause by the great majority of
readers.
Mr. Darwin explains this apparent inconsistency thus:--He maintains that
though the advantageous modification itself is fortuitous, or without
known cause or principle underlying it, yet its becoming the predominant
form of the species in which it appears is due to the fact that those
animals which have been advantageously modified commonly survive in
times of difficulty, while the unmodified individuals perish: offspring
therefore is more frequently left by the favourably modified animal, and
thus little by little the whole species will come to inherit the
modification. Hence the survival of the fittest becomes a means of
modification, though it is no cause of variation.
It will appear more clearly later on how much this amounts to. I will
for the present content myself with the following quotation from the
late Mr. G. H. Lewes in reference to it. Mr. Lewes writes:--
"Mr. Darwin seems to imply that the external conditions which cause a
variation are to be distinguished from the conditions which accumulate
and perfect such variation, that is to say, he implies a radical
difference between the process of variation and the process of
selection. This I have already said does not seem to me acceptable; the
selection I conceive to be simply the variation which has
survived."[354]
Certainly those animals and plants which are best fitted for their
environment, or, as Lamarck calls it, "_circonstances_"--those animals,
in fact, which are best fitted to comply with the conditions of their
existence--are most likely to survive and transmit their especial
fitness. No one would admit this more readily than Lamarck. This is no
theory; it is a commonly observed fact in nature which no one will
dispute, but it is not more "a means of modification" than many other
commonly observed facts concerning animals.
Why is "the survival of the fittest" more a means of modification than,
we will say, the fact that animals live at all, or that they live in
successive generations, being born, continuing their species, and dying,
instead of living on for ever as one single animal in the common
acceptation of the term; or than that they eat and drink?
The heat whereby the water is heated, the water which is turned into
steam, the piston on which the steam acts, the driving wheel, &c., &c.,
are all one as much as another a means whereby a train is made to go
from one place to another; it is impossible to say that any one of them
is the main means. So (_mutatis mutandis_) with modification. There is
no reason therefore why "the survival of the fittest" should claim to
be an especial "means of modification" rather than any other necessary
adjunct of animal or vegetable life.
I find that the late Mr. G. H. Lewes has insisted on this objection in
his 'Physical Basis of Mind.' I observe, also, that in the very passage
in which he does so, Mr. Lewes appears to have been misled by Mr.
Darwin's use of that dangerous word "means," and, at the same time, by
his frequent treatment of natural selection as though it were an active
cause; so that Mr. Lewes supposes Mr. Darwin to have fallen into the
very error of which, as I have above shown, he is evidently struggling
to keep clear--namely, that of maintaining natural selection to be a
"cause" of variation. Mr. Lewes then continues:--
"He [Mr. Darwin] separates Natural Selection from all the primary causes
of variation either internal or external--either as results of the laws
of growth, of the correlations of variation, of use and disuse, &c., and
limits it to the slow accumulation of such variations as are profitable
in the struggle with competitors. And for his purpose this separation is
necessary. But biological philosophy must, I think, regard the
distinction as artificial, _referring only to one of the great factors
in the production of species_."[355]
The fact that one in a brood or litter is born fitter for the conditions
of its existence than its brothers and sisters, and, again, the causes
that have led to this one's having been born fitter--which last is what
the older evolutionists justly dwelt upon as the most interesting
consideration in connection with the whole subject--are more noteworthy
factors of modification than the factor that an animal, if born fitter
for its conditions, will commonly survive longer in the struggle for
existence. If the first of these can be explained in such a manner as to
be accepted as true, or highly probable, we have a substantial gain to
our knowledge. The second is little--if at all--better than a truism.
Granted, if it were not generally the case that those forms are most
likely to survive which are best fitted for the conditions of their
existence, no adaptation of form to conditions of existence could ever
have come about. "The survival of the fittest" therefore, or, perhaps
better, "the fertility of the fittest," is thus a _sine qua non_ for
modification. But, as we have just insisted, this does not render "the
fertility of the fittest" an especial "means of modification," rather
than any other _sine qua non_ for modification.
But, to look at the matter in another light. Mr. Darwin maintains
natural selection to be "the most important but not the exclusive means
of modification."
For "natural selection" substitute the words "survival of the fittest,"
which we may do with Mr. Darwin's own consent abundantly given.
To the words "survival of the fittest" add what is elided, but what is,
nevertheless, unquestionably as much implied as though it were said
openly whenever these words are used, and without which "fittest" has no
force--I mean, "for the conditions of their existence."
We thus find that when Mr. Darwin says that natural selection is the
most important, but not exclusive means of modification, he means that
the survival in the struggle for existence of those creatures which are
best fitted to comply with the conditions of their existence is the most
important, but not exclusive means whereby the descendants of a
creature, we will say, A, have become modified, so as to be now
represented by a creature, we will say, B.
But the word "_circonstances_," so frequently used by Lamarck for the
conditions of an animal's existence, contains, by implication, the idea
of animals _which shall exist or not according as they fulfil those
conditions or fail to fulfil them_. Conditions of existence are
conditions which something capable of existing must fulfil if it would
exist at all, and nothing is a condition of an animal's existence which
that animal need not comply with and may yet continue to exist. Again,
the words "animals" and "plants" comprehend the ideas of "fit,"
"fitter," and "fittest," "unfit," "unfitter," and "unfittest" for
certain conditions, for we know of no animals or plants in which we do
not observe degrees of fitness or unfitness for their "_circonstances_"
or environment, or conditions of existence.
The use, therefore, of the term "conditions of existence" is sufficient
to show that the person using it intends to imply that those animals and
plants will live longest (or survive) and thrive best which are best
able to fulfil those conditions. Hence it implies neither more nor less
than what is implied by the words "struggle for existence, with
consequent survival of the fittest"--that is to say, if we hold the
complying with any condition of life to which difficulty is attached to
be part of "the struggle" for life, and this we should certainly do.
The words "conditions of existence" may, then, be used instead of the
"struggle for existence with consequent survival of the fittest," for as
they cannot imply any less than the "struggle, &c.," when they are set
out in full, and without suppression, so neither do they imply more; for
nothing is a condition of existence, in so far as its power of effecting
the modification of any animal is concerned, which does not also involve
more or less difficulty or struggle; for if there is no difficulty or
struggle there will be nothing to bring about change of habit, and hence
of structure. This identity of meaning may be also seen if we call to
mind that the conditions of existence can be only a synonym for "the
conditions of continuing to live," and "the conditions of continuing to
live" a synonym for "the conditions of continuing to live a longer
time," and "the conditions of continuing to live a longer time," for
"the conditions of survival," and "the conditions of survival," for "the
survival of the fittest," inasmuch as the being fittest is the condition
of being the longest survivor.
But we have already seen that "the survival of the fittest," is,
according to Mr. Darwin, a synonym for "natural selection"; hence it
follows that "the conditions of existence" imply neither more nor less
than what is implied by "natural selection" when this expression is
properly explained, and may be used instead of it; so that when Mr.
Darwin says that "natural selection" is the main but not exclusive means
of modification, he must mean, consciously or unconsciously, that "the
conditions of existence" are the main but not exclusive means of
modification. But this is only falling in with "the views and erroneous
grounds of opinion," as Mr. Darwin briefly calls them, of Lamarck
himself; a fact which Mr. Darwin's readers would have seen more readily
if he had kept to the use of the words "survival of the fittest" instead
of "natural selection." Of that expression Mr. Darwin says[356] that it
is "more accurate" than natural selection, but naively adds, "and
sometimes equally convenient."
I have said that there is a practical identity of meaning between
"natural selection" and "the conditions of existence," when both
expressions are fully extended. I say this, however, without prejudice
to my right of maintaining that, of the two expressions, the one is
accurate, lucid, and calculated to keep the thread of the argument well
in sight of the reader, while the other is inaccurate, and always, if I
may say so, less "convenient," as being always liable to lead the reader
astray. Nor should it be lost sight of that Lamarck and Dr. Erasmus
Darwin maintain that species and genera have arisen _because animals can
fashion themselves into accord with_ their conditions, so that, as
Lamarck is so continually insisting, the action of the conditions is
indirect only--changed use and disuse being the direct causes; while,
according to Mr. Darwin, it is natural selection itself (which, as we
have seen, is but another way of saying conditions of existence) that is
the most important means of modification.
The identity of meaning above insisted on was, on the face of it, almost
as obscure as that between "_eveque_ and bishop." Yet we know that
"_eveque_" is "episc" and "bishop" "piscop," and that "episcopus" is the
Latin for bishop; the words, therefore, are really one and the same, in
spite of the difference in their appearance. I think I can show,
moreover, that Mr. Darwin himself holds natural selection and the
conditions of existence to be one and the same thing. For he writes, "in
one sense," and it is hard to see any sense but one in what follows,
"the conditions of life may be said not only to cause variability" (so
that here Mr. Darwin appears to support Lamarck's main thesis) "either
directly or indirectly, but likewise to include natural selection; for
the conditions determine whether this or that variety shall
survive."[357] But later on we find that "the expression of conditions
of existence, so often insisted upon by the illustrious Cuvier" (and
surely also by the illustrious Lamarck, though he calls them
"_circonstances_") "is fully embraced by the principle of natural
selection."[358] So we see that the conditions of life "_include_"
natural selection, and yet the conditions of existence "_are fully
embraced by_" natural selection, which, I take it, is an enigmatic way
of saying that they are one and the same thing, for it is not until two
bodies absolutely coincide and occupy the same space that the one can be
said both to include and to be embraced by the other.
The difficulty, again, of understanding Mr. Darwin's meaning is enhanced
by his repeatedly writing of "natural selection," or the fact that the
fittest survive in the struggle for existence, as though it were the
same thing as "evolution" or the descent, through the accumulation of
small modifications in many successive generations, of one species from
another and different one. In the concluding and recapitulatory chapter
of the 'Origin of Species,' he writes:--
"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered _on
the theory of descent with modification_ are serious enough;"[359] and
in the next paragraph, "As, according to _the theory of natural
selection, &c._," the context showing that in each case descent with
modification is intended.
Again:--
"On the theory of the _natural selection_ of successive, slight, but
profitable, modifications,"[360] that is to say, on the theory of the
survival of the fittest; while on the next page we find "_the theory of
descent with modification_," and "_the principle of natural selection_,"
used as though they were convertible terms.
Again:--
"The existence of closely allied or representative species in any two
areas implies, _on the theory of descent with modification, &c._;"[361]
and, in the next paragraph, "_the theory of natural selection_, with its
contingencies of extinction and divergence of character," is substituted
as though the two expressions were identical.
This is calculated to mislead. Independently of the fact that "natural
selection," or "the survival of the fittest," is in no sense a theory,
but simply an observed fact, yet even if the words are allowed to stand
for "descent with modification by means of natural selection," it is
still misleading to write as though this were synonymous with "the
theory of evolution," or "the theory of descent with modification." To
do this prevents the reader from bearing in mind that "evolution by
means of the circumstance-suiting power of plants and animals" as
advanced by the earlier evolutionists; and "evolution by means of lucky
accidents" with comparatively little circumstance-suiting power, are two
very different things, of which the one may be true and the other
untrue. It leads the reader to forget that evolution by no means stands
or falls with evolution by means of natural selection, and makes him
think that if he accepts evolution at all, he is bound to Mr. Darwin's
view of it. Hence, when he falls in with such writers as Professor
Mivart and the Rev. J. J. Murphy, who show, and very plainly, that the
survival of the fittest, unsupplemented by something which shall give a
definite aim to the variations which successively occur, fails to
account for the coadaptations of need and structure, he imagines that
evolution has much less to say for itself than it really has. If Mr.
Darwin, instead of taking the line which he has thought fit to adopt
towards Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and the author of the
'Vestiges,' had shown us what these men taught, why they taught it,
wherein they were wrong, and how he proposed to set them right, he would
have taken a course at once more agreeable with ordinary practice, and
more likely to clear misconception from his own mind and from those of
his readers.
Mr. Darwin says,[362] "it is easy to hide our ignorance under such
expressions as 'the plan of creation' and 'unity of design.'" Surely,
also, it is easy to hide want of precision of thought, and the absence
of any fundamental difference between his own main conclusion and that
of Dr. Darwin and Lamarck whom he condemns, under the term "natural
selection."
I assure the reader that I find the task of forming a clear,
well-defined conception of Mr. Darwin's meaning, as expressed in his
'Origin of Species,' comparable only to that of one who has to act on
the advice of a lawyer who has obscured the main issue as far as he can,
and whose chief aim has been to make as many loopholes as possible for
himself to escape through in case of his being called to account. Or,
again, to that of one who has to construe an Act of Parliament which was
originally framed so as to throw dust in the eyes of those who would
oppose the measure, and which, having been since found unworkable, has
had clauses repealed and inserted up and down it, till it is in an
inextricable tangle of confusion and contradiction.
As an example of my meaning, I will quote a passage to which I called
attention in 'Life and Habit.' It runs:--
"In the earlier editions of this work I underrated, as now seems
probable, the frequency and importance of modifications due to
spontaneous variability. But it is impossible to attribute to _this
cause_" (i. e. spontaneous variability, which is itself only an
expression for unknown causes) "the innumerable structures which are so
well adapted to the habits of life of each species. I can no more
believe in _this_" (i. e. that the innumerable structures, &c., can be
due to unknown causes) "than that the well adapted form of a racehorse
or greyhound, which, before the principle of selection by man was well
understood, excited so much surprise in the minds of the older
naturalists, can _thus_" (i. e. by attributing them to unknown causes)
"be explained."[363]
This amounts to saying that unknown causes can do so much, but cannot do
so much more. On this passage I wrote, in 'Life and Habit':--
"It is impossible to believe that, after years of reflection upon his
subject, Mr. Darwin should have written as above, especially in such a
place, if his mind was clear about his own position. Immediately after
the admission of a certain amount of miscalculation there comes a more
or less exculpatory sentence, which sounds so right that ninety-nine
people out of a hundred would walk through it, unless led by some
exigency of their own position to examine it closely, but which yet,
upon examination, proves to be as nearly meaningless as a sentence can
be."[364]
No one, to my knowledge, has impugned the justice of this criticism, and
I may say that further study of Mr. Darwin's works has only strengthened
my conviction of the confusion and inaccuracy of thought, which detracts
so greatly from their value.
So little is it generally understood that "evolution" and what is called
"Darwinism" convey indeed the same main conclusion, but that this
conclusion has been reached by two distinct roads, one of which is
impregnable, while the other has already fallen into the hands of the
enemy, that in the last November number of the 'Nineteenth Century'
Professor Tyndall, while referring to descent with modification or
evolution, speaks of it as though it were one and inseparable from Mr.
Darwin's theory that it has come about mainly by means of natural
selection. He writes:--
"_Darwin's theory_, as pointed out nine or ten years ago by Helmholtz
and Hooker, was then exactly in this condition of growth; and had they
to speak of the subject to-day they would be able to announce an
enormous strengthening of the theoretic fibre. Fissures in continuity
which then existed, and which left little hope of being ever spanned,
have been since bridged over, so that the further _the theory_ is tested
the more fully does it harmonize with progressive experience and
discovery. We shall never probably fill all the gaps; but this will not
prevent a profound belief in the truth of _the theory_ from taking root
in the general mind. Much less will it justify a total denial of _the
theory_. The man of science, who assumes in such a case the position of
a denier, is sure to be stranded and isolated."
This is in the true vein of the professional and orthodox scientist; of
that new orthodoxy which is clamouring for endowment, and which would
step into the Pope's shoes to-morrow, if we would only let it. If
Professor Tyndall means that those who deny evolution will find
themselves presently in a very small minority, I agree with him; but if
he means that evolution is Mr. Darwin's theory, and that he who rejects
what Mr. Darwin calls "the theory of natural selection" will find
himself stranded, his assertion will pass muster with those only who
know little of the history and literature of evolution.
FOOTNOTES:
[347] 'Origin of Species,' Hist. Sketch, p. xiii.
[348] 'Physical Basis of Mind,' p. 108.
[349] 'Origin of Species,' p. 146.
[350] Ibid. p. 75.
[351] Ibid. p. 88.
[352] 'Origin of Species,' p. 98.
[353] Ibid. p. 66.
[354] 'Physical Basis of the Mind,' p. 109, 1878.
[355] 'Physical Basis of the Mind,' p. 107, 1878.
[356] 'Origin of Species,' p. 49.
[357] 'Origin of Species,' p. 107.
[358] Ibid. p. 166.
[359] 'Origin of Species,' p. 406.
[360] Ibid, p. 416.
[361] Ibid. p. 419.
[362] 'Origin of Species,' p. 422.
[363] 'Origin of Species,' p. 171, ed. 1876.
[364] 'Life and Habit,' p. 260.