Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

behind the individual, the essential hidden dividual, of having given us, in fact, a few by the accidental; and helping him to un- really new and fresh ideas, will always rederstand the possibility of change by natu- main his own. ral means. There may be gaps and flaws In saying this, however, I do not wish in the genealogical pedigree of organic to imply assent to Mr. Darwin's views on life, as drawn by Mr. Darwin and his fol- the development of all species; I only lowers; there may be or there may not be wish to say that, in the presence of such a possibility of resisting their arguments high authorities, one ought to refrain from when, beginning with a group of animals, expressing an opinion, and be satisfied to boldly called “organisms without organs, wait. I am old enough to remember the such as the Bathybius Haeckelii, they ad- equally authoritative statements of the vance step by step to the crown and most eminent naturalists with regard to summit of the animal kingdom, and to the races of man. When my own rethe primus inter primates, man.

searches on language and the intellectual This is a point to be settled by physio- development of man led me to the conlogists; and if Carl Vogt may be accepted clusion that, if we had only sufficient time as their recognised representative and (some hundreds of thousands of years) alspokesman, the question would seem to be lowed us, there would be no difficulty in settled, at least so far as the savants of giving an intelligible account of the comEurope are concerned. 'No one,' he mon origin of all languages, I was met says, at least in Europe, dares any longer with the assurance that, even hypothetito maintain the independent and complete cally, such a view was impossible, because creation of species.'+ The reservation, the merest tyro in anatomy knew that the • at least in Europe, is meant, as is well different races of man constituted so many known, for Agassiz in America, who still species, that species were the result of inholds out, and is bold enough to teach, dependent creative acts, and that the

that the different species of the animal black, brown, red, yellow, and white races kingdom furnish an unexpected proof that could not possibly be conceived as dethe whole plan of creation was maturely scended from source. Men like weighed and fixed, long before it was car. Prichard and Humboldt, who maintained ried out.'I Professor Haeckel

, however, the possibility of a common origin, were the fiery apostle of Darwinism in Ger- accused of being influenced by extranemany, speaks more diffidently on the sub- ous motives. I myself was charged with a ject. In his last work on Kalkschwämme superstitious belief in the Mosaic ethnology. (p. xii.), just published, he writes: “The And why? Simply because, in the Science majority, and among it some famous biolo- of Language, I was a Darwinian before gists of the first class, are still of opinion Darwin; simply because I had protested that the problem of the origin of species against scientific as strongly as against has only been reopened by Darwin, but theological dogmatism; simply because I by no means solved.'

wished to see the question of the possiBut, however that may be, and what- bility of a common origin of languages ever modification Mr. Darwin's system treated, at least, as an open question.* may receive at the hands of professed And what has happened now ? All the physiologists, the honor of having cleared arguments about hybridity, infertility, local the Augean stable of endless species, of centres, permanent types, are swept away having explained many things which for- under the powerful broom of development, merly seemed to require the interference and we are told that not only the different of direct creation, by the slow action of varieties of man, but monkeys, horses, natural causes, of having made us see the cats, and dogs, have all one, or at the utinfluence exercised by the individual on most four progenitors; nay, that “no living the family, and by the family on the in- creature, in Europe at least, dares to affirm

the independent creation of species.' * Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, p.

Under these circumstances it seems but 165.

fair to follow the old Greek rule of abstain† Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la création indépendante et de toutes * See The Possibility of a Common Origin of pièces des espèces.' Quoted by Darwin, in his Language,' in my letter to Bunsen ‘On the TuraDescent of Man, vol. i. p. 1.

nian Languages, published in Bunsen's Chris# See Durand, Origines, pp. 77, 78.

tianity and Mankind, 1854.

one

ing, and to wait whether in the progress lowest forms. In various colloidal subof physical research the arguments of the stances, including the albumenoid, isomeric evolutionists will really remain unanswer- change is accompanied by contraction or able and unanswered.

expansion, and consequent motion; and The two points where the system of in such primordial types as the Protogenes Mr. Darwin, and more particularly of his of Haeckel, which do not differ in apfollowers, seems most vulnerable to the pearance from minute portions of albumen, general student, are the beginning and the the observed motions are comprehensible end. With regard to the beginning of as accompanying isomeric changes caused organic life, Mr. Darwin himself has exer- by variations in surrounding physical accised a wise discretion. He does not, as tions. The probability of this interpretawe saw, postulate one primordial form, tion will be seen on remembering the nor has he ever attempted to explain the evidence we have, that in the higher orfirst beginnings of organic life. He is ganisms the functions are essentially effectnot responsible, therefore, for the theories ed by isomeric changes from one to of his disciples, who either try to bridge another of the multitudinous forms which over the chasm between inorganic and protein assumes.' organic bodies by mere “Who knows?' or This is, no doubt, very able pleading on who fall back on scientific mythology; the part of an advocate, but I doubt for to speak of self-generation is to speak whether it would convince Mr. Spencer mythologically.

himself, as a judge. I see no narrowing Mr. Herbert Spencer writes thus in of the chasm between inorganic and oranswer to Mr. Martineau, who had dwelt ganic bodies, because certain substances, on the existence of this chasm between the called organic, have lately been built up living and the not-living as a fatal dif- in the laboratory. These so-called organic ficulty in the way of the general doctrine substances are not living bodies, but of evolution : 'Here, again, our ignorance simply the secretions of living bodies. The is employed to play the part of knowledge: question was not, whether we can imitate the fact that we do not know distinctly some of the productions turned out of the how an alleged transition has taken place, laboratory of a living body, but whether is transformed into the fact that no transi- we can build up a living body. tion has taken place.'

Secondly, unless Mr. Spencer is prepared The answer to this is clear. Why allege to maintain that life is nothing but isomeric a transition, if we do not know anything change, the mere fact that there is an apabout it? It is in alleging such a transi- parent similarity between the movements tion that we raise our ignorance to the of the lowest of living bodies and the exrank of knowledge. We need not say pansion and contraction produced in notthat a transition is impossible, if impossible living substances by isomeric change, carmeans inconceivable; but we ought not ries no weight. Even though the moveto say either that it is possible, unless we ments of the Protogenes Haeckelii were in mean by possible no more than con- appearance the same as those produced in ceivable.

chemical substances by isomeric change, Mr. Spencer then continues : Merely no one knows better than Mr. Spencer, noting this, however, I go on to remark that life is not merely movement, but that that scientific discovery is day by day nar- it involves assimilation, oxidation, and rerowing the chasm. Not many years since production, at least reproduction by fission. it was held as certain that chemical com- No chemist has yet produced albumen, pounds distinguished as organic could not much less a moneres ; and till that is done be formed artificially. Now, more than a we have as much right to protest against thousand organic compounds have been the hypothetical admission of a transition formed artificially. Chemists have disco- from no-life into life as Mr. Spencer would vered the art of building them up from have to protest against the assertion that the simpler to the more complex; and do such a transition is impossible. not doubt that they will eventually produce By the frequent repetition of such words the most complex. Moreover, the phe- as generatio spontanea, autogony, plasmogony, nomena attending isomeric change give a Urzeugung, and all the rest, we get acclue to those movements which are the customed to the sound of these words, and only indications we have of life in its at last imagine that they can be translated

[ocr errors]

behind the individual, the essential hidden dividual, of having given us, in fact, a few by the accidental; and helping him to un- really new and fresh ideas, will always rederstand the possibility of change by natu- main his own. ral means. There may be gaps and flaws In saying this, however, I do not wish in the genealogical pedigree of organic to imply assent to Mr. Darwin's views on life, as drawn by Mr. Darwin and his fol- the development of all species; I only lowers; there may be or there may not be wish to say that, in the presence of such a possibility of resisting their arguments high authorities, one ought to refrain from when, beginning with a group of animals, expressing an opinion, and be satisfied to boldly called 'organisms without organs,'* wait.

wait. I am old enough to remember the such as the Bathybius Haeckelii, they ad- equally authoritative statements of the vance step by step to the crown and most eminent naturalists with regard to summit of the animal kingdom, and to the races of man. When my own rethe primus inter primates, man.

searches on language and the intellectual This is a point to be settled by physio- development of man led me to the conlogists; and if Carl Vogt may be accepted clusion that, if we had only sufficient time as their recognised representative and (some hundreds of thousands of years) alspokesman, the question would seem to be lowed us, there would be no difficulty in settled, at least so far as the savants of giving an intelligible account of the comEurope are concerned. No one,' he mon origin of all languages, I was met says, ' at least in Europe, dares any longer with the assurance that, even hypothetito maintain the independent and complete cally, such a view was impossible, because creation of species.'t The reservation, the merest tyro in anatomy knew that the

at least in Europe,' is meant, as is well different races of man constituted so many known, for Agassiz in America, who still species, that species were the result of inholds out, and is bold enough to teach, dependent creative acts, and that the

that the different species of the animal black, brown, red, yellow, and white races kingdom furnish an unexpected proof that could not possibly be conceived as dethe whole plan of creation was maturely scended from source.

Men like weighed and fixed, long before it was car- Prichard and Humboldt, who maintained ried out.' Professor Haeckel, however, the possibility of a common origin, were the fiery apostle of Darwinism in Ger- accused of being influenced by extranemany, speaks more diffidently on the sub

ous motives. I myself was charged with a ject. In his last work on Kalkschwämme superstitious belief in the Mosaic ethnology. (p. xii.), just published, he writes: “The And why? Simply because, in the Science majority, and among it some famous biolo- of Language, I was a Darwinian before gists of the first class, are still of opinion Darwin ; simply because I had protested that the problem of the origin of species against scientific as strongly as against has only been reopened by Darwin, but theological dogmatism; simply because I by no means solved.'

wished to see the question of the possiBut, however that may be, and what- bility of a common origin of languages ever modification Mr. Darwin's system treated, at least, as an open question.* may receive at the hands of professed And what has happened now ? All the physiologists, the honor of having cleared arguments about hybridity, infertility, local the Augean stable of endless species, of centres, permanent types, are swept away having explained many things which for- under the powerful broom of development, merly seemed to require the interference and we are told that not only the different of direct creation, by the slow action of varieties of man, but monkeys, horses, natural causes, of having made us see the cats, and dogs, have all one, or at the utinfluence exercised by the individual on most four progenitors; nay, that no living the family, and by the family on the in- creature, in Europe at least, dares to affirm

the independent creation of species.' * Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, p.

Under these circumstances it seems but 165.

fair to follow the old Greek rule of abstain† Personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la création indépendante et de toutes * See “The Possibility of a Common Origin of pièces des espèces.' Quoted by Darwin, in his Language,' in my letter to Bunsen ‘On the TuraDescent of Man, vol. i. p. I.

nian Languages,' published in Bunsen's Chris# See Durand, Origines, pp. 77, 78.

tianity and Mankind, 1854.

one

ing, and to wait whether in the progress lowest forms. In various colloidal subof physical research the arguments of the stances, including the albumenoid, isomeric evolutionists will really remain unanswer- change is accompanied by contraction or able and unanswered.

expansion, and consequent motion; and The two points where the system of in such primordial types as the Protogenes Mr. Darwin, and more particularly of his of Haeckel, which do not differ in apfollowers, seems most vulnerable to the pearance from minute portions of albumen, general student, are the beginning and the the observed motions are comprehensible end. With regard to the beginning of as accompanying isomeric changes caused organic life, Mr. Darwin himself has exer- by variations in surrounding physical accised a wise discretion. He does not, as tions. The probability of this interpretawe saw, postulate one primordial form, tion will be seen on remembering the nor has he ever attempted to explain the evidence we have, that in the higher orfirst beginnings of organic life. He is ganisms the functions are essentially effectnot responsible, therefore, for the theories ed by isomeric changes from one to of his disciples, who either try to bridge another of the multitudinous forms which over the chasm between inorganic and protein assumes.' organic bodies by mere .Who knows ?' or This is, no doubt, very able pleading on who fall back on scientific mythology; the part of an advocate, but I doubt for to speak of self-generation is to speak whether it would convince Mr. Spencer mythologically.

himself, as a judge. I see no narrowing Mr. Herbert Spencer writes thus in of the chasm between inorganic and oranswer to Mr. Martineau, who had dwelt ganic bodies, because certain substances, on the existence of this chasm between the called organic, have lately been built up living and the not-living as a fatal dif- in the laboratory. These so-called organic ficulty in the way of the general doctrine substances are not living bodies, but of evolution : Here, again, our ignorance simply the secretions of living bodies. The is employed to play the part of knowledge: question was not, whether we can imitate the fact that we do not know distinctly some of the productions turned out of the how an alleged transition has taken place, laboratory of a living body, but whether is transformed into the fact that no transi- we can build up a living body. tion has taken place.'

Secondly, unless Mr. Spencer is prepared The answer to this is clear. Why allege to maintain that life is nothing but isomeric a transition, if we do not know anything change, the mere fact that there is an apabout it? It is in alleging such a transi- parent similarity between the movements tion that we raise our ignorance to the of the lowest of living bodies and the exrank of knowledge. We need not say pansion and contraction produced in notthat a transition is impossible, if impossible living substances by isomeric change, carmeans inconceivable; but we ought notries no weight. Even though the moveto say either that it is possible, unless we ments of the Protogenes Haeckelii were in mean by possible no more than con- appearance the same as those produced in ceivable.

chemical substances by isomeric change, Mr. Spencer then continues: “Merely no one knows better than Mr. Spencer, noting this, however, I go on to remark that life is not merely movement, but that that scientific discovery is day by day nar- it involves assimilation, oxidation, and rerowing the chasm. Not many years since production, at least reproduction by fission. it was held as certain that chemical com- No chemist has yet produced albumen, pounds distinguished as organic could not much less a moneres; and till that is done be formed artificially. Now, more than a we have as much right to protest against thousand organic compounds have been the hypothetical admission of a transition formed artificially. Chemists have disco- from no-life into life as Mr. Spencer would vered the art of building them up from have to protest against the assertion that the simpler to the more complex; and do such a transition is impossible. not doubt that they will eventually produce By the frequent repetition of such words the most complex. Moreover, the phe- as generatio spontanea, autogvny, plasmogony, nomena attending isomeric change give a Urzeugung, and all the rest, we get acclue to those movements which are the customed to the sound of these words, and only indications we have of life in its at last imagine that they can be translated into thought. But the Science of Lan- bones in the tertiary strata of Southern guage teaches us that it is always dangerous Asia and Africa, but we need not be afraid to do violence to words. Self-generation of ever meeting them face to face, even in is self-contradictory; for as long as we a South African congregation. I confess use generation in its original sense, it is I do not see that this constitutes any real impossible that the object of generation difference, nay, the statement that man is should be the same as the subject. Why, only laterally, not lineally, descended from therefore, use the word generation? We a catarrhine ape, seems to me to rest on should never venture to say that a man a complete confusion of thought. was his own father or his own son; and if Supposing the first ancestor of all living anyone believes that the production of life beings to have been a Moneres, as is possible by means of purely mechanical Haeckel tells us, and that this moneres decombinations, a new word should be veloped into an Amæba, and that the coined for his new idea. What is really Amoeba, after passing through sixteen * intended, is a complete reformation of the more stages of animal life, amerged as a two concepts of organic and inorganic Prosimia, a half-ape, which Prosimia besubstance, of lifeless and living bodies. came a Menocerca, or tailed ape, then an The two are no longer to be considered as Anthropoid ape, like the gorilla, then a mutually exclusive, but as co-ordinate, and Pithecanthropus or an ape-man, till at last both subordinate to some higher concept. the ape-man (a purely mythological being) Life may hereafter be discovered as the begat a man; surely, in that case, man is result of a chemical combination* of given the lineal descendant of an ape, though substances; a peculiar mode of force or his first ancestor was the small speck of being, dependent on ascertainable condi- protoplasm, called a Moneres, that has tions, and analogous to heat and electricity. not yet reached even the dignity of a Or it may be proved that millions of cell.f The admission of hundreds and years ago the chemical state of the earth thousands of intermediate links between was different, and that what is impossible the gorilla and man would not make the now in our laboratories was possible then smallest difference, as long as the genealoin the primeval laboratory of nature. But, gical continuity is not broken. Even if for the present, it seems to me a violation we represented to ourselves the genealoof the fundamental laws of scientific re- gical tree of the animal family as a real search, were we to use such an hypothesis tree, sending out by gemmation leaves and as a real explanation of the problem of branches, representing the different species life, or were we to attempt to use autogony

of animals from the amoeba to the ape, and as a real word. The origin of life is as un- developing its leader into man, we should known to us as it was to Zoroaster, Moses, gain nothing; for if the primordial moneres or Vasishtha; and Mr. Darwin shows a is our common ancestor, all his descendtruly Kantian spirit in abstaining from any ants

ants are brothers; all have, strictly speakexpression of opinion on this old riddle of ing, some molecule of that living substance the world.

which existed in the first living individual ; But while with regard to the first point, all are liable, therefore, to the capricious viz. the beginning of life, Mr. Darwin working of an unsuspected atavism. would seem to hold a neutral position, we Nor do I see any necessity for softening shall see that with regard to the second the true aspect of Darwin's theory, or point, viz. the development of some higher disguising its consequences. The question animal into man, Mr. Darwin is responsible is not whether the belief that animals so himself. He els convinced that, if not distant as a man, a monkey, an elephant, lineally, at all events laterally, man is the and a humming bird, a snake, a frog, and descendant of an ape. Much stress has

a fish could all have sprung from the same lately been laid on this, as a kind of salve parents is monstrous ;ť but simply and to our wounded pride, that man need not solely, whether it is true. If it is true, we consider himself as the lineal descendant of shall soon learn to digest it. Appeals to any living kind of ape.t We might, indeed, the pride or humility of man, to scientific if we had any feelings of reverence for our courage or religious piety, are all equally ancestors, hope to discover their fossil

* Haeckel, p. 578.

† Ib. p. 168. Strauss, p. 171. + Haeckel, p. 577.

Darwin, Descent, vol. i. p. 203.

*

« VorigeDoorgaan »