FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79  
80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   >>   >|  
cs and vertebrates separated from their common parent-stem long before the appearance of an eye so complex as that of the Pecten. Whence, then, the structural analogy? Let us question on this point the two opposed systems of evolutionist explanation in turn--the hypothesis of purely accidental variations, and that of a variation directed in a definite way under the influence of external conditions. The first, as is well known, is presented to-day in two quite different forms. Darwin spoke of very slight variations being accumulated by natural selection. He was not ignorant of the facts of sudden variation; but he thought these "sports," as he called them, were only monstrosities incapable of perpetuating themselves; and he accounted for the genesis of species by an accumulation of _insensible_ variations.[26] Such is still the opinion of many naturalists. It is tending, however, to give way to the opposite idea that a new species comes into being all at once by the simultaneous appearance of several new characters, all somewhat different from the previous ones. This latter hypothesis, already proposed by various authors, notably by Bateson in a remarkable book,[27] has become deeply significant and acquired great force since the striking experiments of Hugo de Vries. This botanist, working on the _OEnothera Lamarckiana_, obtained at the end of a few generations a certain number of new species. The theory he deduces from his experiments is of the highest interest. Species pass through alternate periods of stability and transformation. When the period of "mutability" occurs, unexpected forms spring forth in a great number of different directions.[28]--We will not attempt to take sides between this hypothesis and that of insensible variations. Indeed, perhaps both are partly true. We wish merely to point out that if the variations invoked are accidental, they do not, whether small or great, account for a similarity of structure such as we have cited. Let us assume, to begin with, the Darwinian theory of insensible variations, and suppose the occurrence of small differences due to chance, and continually accumulating. It must not be forgotten that all the parts of an organism are necessarily coordinated. Whether the function be the effect of the organ or its cause, it matters little; one point is certain--the organ will be of no use and will not give selection a hold unless it functions. However the minute structure of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79  
80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

variations

 

insensible

 

species

 

hypothesis

 

variation

 
accidental
 

experiments

 

structure

 
selection
 

theory


appearance

 

number

 

spring

 
mutability
 

directions

 
attempt
 

unexpected

 

occurs

 
Species
 

obtained


Lamarckiana

 

generations

 

OEnothera

 

working

 

botanist

 

deduces

 

periods

 

stability

 
transformation
 

alternate


highest

 
interest
 

period

 

accumulating

 

forgotten

 

continually

 

chance

 

suppose

 

occurrence

 

differences


organism

 

matters

 

effect

 
necessarily
 

coordinated

 

Whether

 
function
 
functions
 

Darwinian

 

invoked