Since we have heard the verdict of zoologists and botanists concerning
Darwinism, it is but right that we should now listen to a
palaeontologist, a representative of the science, which investigates
the petrified records of the earth's surface, and strives to collect
information regarding the world of life during remote, by-gone ages of
the earth. It is evident to every-one that the verdict of this science
must be of very special importance in passing on the question of the
development of living organisms. Darwin himself recognized this at the
outset. He and his followers, however, soon perceived that, while the
revelations of palaeontology were on the whole favorable to the
doctrine of Descent, in so far as they proved the gradual change of
organization, in consecutive strata, from the simple to more complex
forms, palaeontology revealed nothing that would sustain the Darwinian
theory as to the method of that development. As soon as the Darwinians,
and first of all Darwin himself, perceived this, they at once brought
forward a very cheap subterfuge. Since Darwinism postulates a very
gradual, uninterrupted development of living organisms, there must have
been an immense number of transition-forms between any two animal or
plant species which to-day, although otherwise related, are separated
by characteristic features. Consequently, on the Darwinian hypothesis,
all of these transition-forms must have perished for the singular
reason that other better organized forms overcame them in the struggle
for existence. If therefore the millions of transition-forms were still
missing, and the known petrified forms of older strata of the earth did
not reveal them, the Darwinians were able to console themselves until
from 20 to 40 years ago, with the assertion that our knowledge was
still too deficient, that a more thorough investigation of the earth's
surface and especially of out-of-the-way parts would eventually bring
to light the supposed transition forms. Such assertion affords very
poor consolation, and is anything but scientific. The method of natural
science consists in establishing general principles on the basis of the
materials actually furnished by experiments and observation and not in
excogitating general laws and then consoling oneself with the thought
that while our knowledge of nature is as yet extremely imperfect, time
will furnish the actual material necessary to substantiate our guesses.
But since then many a year has come and gone and Darwinism has caused,
and for that alone it deserves credit, a diligent research in every
field of natural science, and has promoted among palaeontologists a
search for the missing transition-forms. The materials of investigation
from the field of palaeontology have also wonderfully increased during
these decades. Hence it is worth while now at the dawn of the new
century to examine this material with a view to its availableness for
the theory of Descent and especially for Darwinism.
Professor Steinmann has recently done so in Freiburg in Breisgau, on
the occasion of an address as Rector of the University. What
conclusions did he reach?
Steinmann declares it to be the primary task of post-Darwinian
palaeontology "to arrange the fossil animal and plant-remains in the
order of descent and thus to build up a truly natural, because
historically demonstrable, classification of the animal and
plant-world." At the outset it is to be noted that for various reasons
palaeontology is unable to execute this momentous task in its full
extent. The evidence of palaeontology is deficient, if for no other
reason than that many animal organisms could not be preserved at all on
account of their soft bodies; many animal groups have, nevertheless,
received an unusual increase (mollusks, radiata, fish, saurians,
vertebrates, and dendroid plants).
As regards the attempt made in the sixties to draw up lines of descent,
Steinmann repudiates, without, of course, mentioning names, the family
tree constructed by Haeckel and his associates as wholly hypothetical
and hence unjustified; he rightly remarks that their method smacks of
the closet. He finds fault with them chiefly because they predicated
actuality of this imaginary family-tree and fancied that the historical
research of the future would have but isolated facts to establish.
In speaking of the palaeontological research of the last few decades,
Steinmann says: "In the light of recent research, fossil discoveries
have frequently appeared less intelligible and more ambiguous than
before, and in those cases in which an attempt has been made to bring
the descent-system into agreement with the actual facts, the
incongruity between the two has become obvious." Thus, for instance,
the well-known archaeopteryx is not, as was maintained, a connecting
link between reptile and bird, but a member of a blindly ending side
branch. In fact palaeontological research has proven incapable of
finding the transitions between different species, clearly determined
by the theory. But the overwhelming abundance of matter called for new
endeavors to master it. It was then further discovered--Steinmann finds
an illustration of this fact in the echinodermata--that the well-known
"fundamental law of biogenesis" of Haeckel can be accepted only in a
very restricted sense and may even lead to conclusions absolutely
false. We desire to remark here that a "fundamental principle" should
never mislead; if it does so, it is not a fundamental principle.
It is of importance to know that according to palaeontological
investigation, empiric systematizing and phylogenetic classification do
not always coincide, as, for instance, in the case of the ammonites.
Acording to palaeontological investigation the great systematic
categories are only grades of organization. Hence present day
systematizing is being more and more discarded, and the said
categories--as indeed also the lesser groups of forms--must be of
polyphyletic origin, that is, they must have descended from different
primitive stocks. It may be asked: What bearing has this principle of
multiple origins? For a long time reptiles were the predominating
vertebrates; when mammals and birds appeared, numerous, varied and
strange saurians inhabited land and sea; but "with the end of the
chalk-period most saurians seem to have vanished suddenly from the
scene, and soon we behold the mainlands and oceans inhabited by mammals
of most diverse kinds." The saurians have become almost extinct and the
mammal-tribe suddenly shows a most extraordinary variability and power
of development. How is either phenomenon to be explained?
"The disappearance of a group of organisms has been preferably
explained since the time of Darwin, by defeat in the struggle with
superior competitors. If ever an explanation lacked pertinency, it does
so in this case, in which the succumbing group is represented by
gigantic and well preserved animal forms, widely distributed and
accustomed to the most varied methods of nutrition, whereas the
competitor appears in the form of small, harmless marsupials. It would
be equivalent to a struggle between the elephant and the mouse."
We acknowledge with pleasure this clear rejection of Darwinism on the
part of Steinmann.
Steinmann also rejects the natural extinction of those forms, perhaps
from the weakness of old age; whether he is wholly warranted in doing
so, seems somewhat doubtful. He tries to explain the phenomenon on
the basis of the multiple origin of the mammals; and in fact there
is already speculation regarding triple origin, viz: tambreets,
marsupials, and the other mammals. Now if the latter also possessed a
multiple origin, the problem of the extinction of the saurians would,
according to Steinmann solve itself. One would not need to consider the
number of extinct forms as large as is now done. However, he does not
enter upon any closer consideration of this question. But he points
out, for instance, that to-day the shells of mollusks (snails and
conchylia) are regarded as structures that were acquired only in the
course of time for the sake of protection, the disappearance of which,
therefore, implied a disadvantage for the respective organisms. This
transition would be something extraordinary--"but if on the contrary,
one regards the shells as the necessary products of a special kind of
assimilation and of the immoveableness of certain parts of the body,
the gradual disappearance might well be considered a process which may
take place in various animal-groups with a certain regularity in the
course of the phyletic development." The snails devoid of shells, for
instance, may be derived with certainty from those possessed of shells;
this process has very probably also taken place in different genetic
lines.
This view is well worth consideration; it stands in sharp opposition,
in fundamental principles, to the Darwinian explanation. This calls for
special emphasis here. How should one explain the origin of uncrusted
mollusks from crusted ones through the struggle for existence, since in
such a contest the latter must have had far greater prospect of
survival than the former?
This view together with the principle of multiple origin opens up,
according to Steinmann, "the prospect of an altered conception of the
process of formation of the organic world." According to the new
conception, the many extinct forms of antiquity are not, as Darwin
supposed, "unsuccessful attempts and continued aberrations of
nature"--how this reminds one of that old, naive, much-ridiculed idea
that fossils were models that God had discarded as unserviceable--but
would gain new life and assume hitherto unsuspected relationship to the
present organic creation.
"Science, which seeks after operative causes, at the beginning of the
century regarded creation as a multiplicity of phenomena without any
causal connection as to their origin. Darwin taught as a fundamental
principle the unity and the causal inter-relation of creation, but was
not entirely able to save this hypothesis from a violent and sudden
death. In the future sketch creation will appear as wholly restricted
in itself and lasting, the causes of its limitation lie, up to the time
of the intervention of men, solely in the balanced motion of the planet
which it peoples."
At the close of his address Steinmann points out that behind the
problem of the manner of development, there stands "the unsolved
question regarding its operative causes." "Regarding this point," he
continues, "opinions have perhaps never been so divergent as they are
to-day. The times have passed when the Darwinian explanations were
regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine
of Descent. Not only are the adherents of Darwinian ideas divided among
themselves, but the theory of Lamarck, somewhat altered, favored by the
results of historical investigation, appears more striking and now
seems more in harmony with facts than formerly. What is considered by
one as the ruling factor in the evolution of organisms is regarded by
another as a "quantite negligeable" or even as the greatest mistake of
the century. In this discord of opinions the principle of Descent alone
forms the stable pole."
Thus Steinmann, and we can but applaud his conclusions with undisguised
pleasure, for they tend throughout in the direction of our anti-Darwinian
view, and deal Darwinism another fatal blow. It is also worthy of
special note that this time the blow is dealt from the side of
palaeontology; for, even if now and again we dissent from Steinmann, in
this we fully agree with him that the historical method of considering
the evidences of bygone periods of creation is at the very least quite
as important for passing correct judgment regarding descent, as is the
investigation of contemporary living organisms. Indeed, family-trees
were constructed without regard for palaeontology, almost exclusively
from an examination of present conditions, and sometimes the author did
not even shrink from falsification. This procedure has been bitterly
revenged and will take further revenge unless at length a definite end
be put to the family-tree nuisance and the respective books instead of
being published anew, be relegated to the lumber-room of science, there
to turn yellow amid dust and cobwebs--the curious evidence of gross
folly. But only have patience, even that time will come.
The conclusions of Steinmann, that are most important for us, may be
summarized as follows:
1. The family and transition forms demanded from palaeontology by
Darwinism for its family-trees, constructed not empirically but _a
priori_, are nowhere to be found among the abundant materials which
palaeontological investigation has already produced.
2. The results of the investigation do not correspond with the family
groups drawn up according to the so-called "biogenetic principle,"
which principle has in fact led men of science into false paths.
3. At best, the biogenetic principle has a limited validity, (we add
that later it will undoubtedly follow Darwinism and its family trees
into the lumber-room).
4. The results of palaeontology, in so far, for instance, as they
testify to the sudden disappearance of the saurians and the advent of
mammals, everywhere contradict the Darwinian principle of the survival
of the fittest in the struggle for existence.
5. "The time has long passed when the Darwinian explanations were
regarded with naive confidence as the alpha and omega of the doctrine
of Descent."
6. Only the principle of Descent is universally recognized; the "how"
of it, its causes, are to-day entirely a matter of dispute.