💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › punkerslut-evolution-origins-of-life.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:15:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Evolution: Origins of Life Author: Punkerslut Date: August 1, 2004 Language: en Topics: evolution, science, biology Source: Retrieved on 22nd April 2021 from http://www.anarchistrevolt.com/books/evolution11.html Notes: Edition 1.1
WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle as naturalist, I was much struck with
certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South
America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past
inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the
latter chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin
of species- that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of
our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in
1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by
patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could
possibly have any bearing on it. After five years’ work I allowed myself
to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I
enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to
me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued
the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these
personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in
coming to a decision.
-- Charles Darwin [1]
Mr. Darwin, who, I may tell you, has taken very great pains and spent
much valuable time and attention on the investigation of these
variations, and getting together all the facts that bear upon them.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley [2]
The two principles I wish to begin with are those which are least
doubted, by both experience and science. By inheritance, or heredity, it
should be understood that I am speaking of the occurrence when offspring
resemble to a great degree their parents. To quote Charles Darwin, “No
breeder doubts how strong is the tendency to inheritance; that like
produces like is his fundamental belief: doubts have been thrown on this
principle only by theoretical writers.” [3] By variation, or diversity
(or, sometimes even, “mutations”), by this it should be understood that
I am speaking of the changes that occur between offspring and parents,
that sometimes a child will resemble in all degrees their parents except
for some small, almost unnoticeable parts. Again, to quote Charles
Darwin, “No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species
are cast in the same actual mould.” [4]
It may almost seem that these principles are in direct adversity to each
other. The first concludes that children will be similar to their
parents yet the second concludes that children will differ from their
parents. To explain what may almost appear as a contradiction, the fact
is that organisms will resemble their parents to a degree and they
differ from their parents in a degree. Some will greatly resemble their
progenitors whereas others will look almost monstrous comparably. As far
as proving the truth of inheritance and variation, simple experience
would seem to prove it quite easily. For instance, when two members of
the same human race decide to have a child, it will be of their race,
just as when two people who are tall have a child, their child will also
tend to be tall. Yet these are very vague and simple correlations
between adults and children. Anyone who has a family will easily be able
to conclude that children resemble their parents in great degrees, in
facial features, in physical strengths and weaknesses, in body frame,
and in other manners. Also, too, no parent will be ably to deny the
principle of variation any more than they can deny the principle of
inheritance. Those who have children will no doubt see that there is
some variation, some degree of difference between them. That there are
some attributes held in their child, which neither parent had, is
undeniable.
Though it is quite true that simple experience alone would be enough to
sustain belief in both inheritance and variation, I would still like to
draw some scientific examples. There was one instance where a man could
use the muscles in his scalp to move heavy objects, and even move a set
of heavy books. A distant cousin of this man had moved to France, where
he was contacted and asked if he possessed the same ability — and
indeed, he did. [5] It has been proven that genius, as well as insanity
and deteriorated mental abilities, often times will run in a family. [6]
For many recreational drugs, which at some times are believed to induce
psychological trauma, it is suggested that they should be avoided if
there is any family history of schizophrenia or other mental illness.
[7] The ability to produce twins has also been associated with certain
families. [8]
In regards to variation, there is a type of plant known as “Sporting
Plants,” which under domestication, are very likely to produce a widely
different character in their descendants [9] To quote Charles Darwin,
“At long intervals of time, out of millions of individuals reared in the
same country and fed on nearly the same food, deviations of structure so
strongly pronounced as to deserve to be called monstrosities arise.”
[10] When animals have been observed to breed in captivity (which is a
rarity in itself), it has been noticed that the offspring are somewhat
unlike their parents. [11] The scientist, Mr. Walsh, when examining
insects, found that insects of the same species often produce
secretions, which differ in color, size and nature. [12] Though somewhat
more a piece of evidence from experience, it has been observed, as
Darwin wrote, “No two individuals of the same race are quite alike. We
may compare millions of faces, and each will be distinct.” [13] In an
investigation of the military, it was found that it was an extremely
rare instance to find two soldiers with legs that had identical lengths.
[14] Though there are certain trends in how the human skull is
developed, some more rounded and others more elongated, Naturalists have
confirmed that skulls from the members of the same race will often
differ with great variation, even when comparing the skulls of
inhabitants of a confined area, such as the Sandwich Islands. [15] It
has been observed that the chief arteries that run through the body
differ immensely from individual to individual. [16] Teeth are so varied
from individual to individual, that they have often been used as a means
of identification. [17] It is well known that the feet muscles are not
the same in any two out of fifty humans. [18] The !Kung of Kalahari, a
tribe of aboriginals sometimes referred to as “Bushmen,” are known to be
able to identify individual members of game by their tracks. If a hunter
loses the track of his prey, and finds more tracks, they will be able to
identify that it is their prey and not another animal. So, too, a child
in this tribe can identify their mother’s footprints specifically, even
when there are numerous prints of other person’s around. To these
tribesmen, every footprint is identical when compared with the
footprints of others. [19] In thirty six individuals, there were 295
variations in muscles when compared to standard biology textbooks, and
in another set of individuals, there were 558 variations. A single body
presented 25 distinct abnormalities. [20] Professor Macalister describes
no less than twenty distinct variations in the muscle known as palmaris
accesorius. [21] The famous anatomist Wolff insists that variation of
the liver, kidneys, and lungs of the human are great. [22] The
naturalist Brehme has observed that in his tamed monkeys of Africa, no
two are alike in disposition and temper, and this is partly innate and
partly the result of the manner in which they were educated. [23] The
muscles of our hands and feet, like those of other primates and lower
animals, are highly apt to variation. [24]
In the late 1700’s, Thomas Malthus wrote, “It is probable that no two
grains of wheat are exactly alike.” [25] In the same era as Charles
Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley wrote, “...the sexual process, then we find
variation a perfectly constant occurrence, to a certain extent...” [26]
This premise of variation in reproduction seemed, considerably, to be a
very simple and acceptable observation of scientists as much as laymen.
Huxley also wrote, “The tendency to reproduce the original stock has, as
it were, its limits, and side by side with it there is a tendency to
vary in certain directions, as if there were two opposing powers working
upon the organic being, one tending to take it in a straight line, and
the other tending to make it diverge from that straight line, first to
one side and then to the other.” [27] Finally, I shall here quote an
excerpt from Huxley where he describes the genealogy of one human being
who was born with six fingers. He writes...
Reaumur, a famous French naturalist, a great many years ago, in an essay
which he wrote upon the art of hatching chickens,--which was indeed a
very curious essay,--had occasion to speak of variations and
monstrosities. One very remarkable case had come under his notice of a
variation in the form of a human member, in the person of a Maltese, of
the name of Gratio Kelleia, who was born with six fingers upon each
hand, and the like number of toes to each of his feet.
[...]
Gratio Kelleia, the Maltese, married when he was twenty-two years of
age, and, as I suppose there were no six-fingered ladies in Malta, he
married an ordinary five-fingered person. The result of that marriage
was four children; the first, who was christened Salvator, had six
fingers and six toes, like his father; the second was George, who had
five fingers and toes, but one of them was deformed, showing a tendency
to variation; the third was Andre; he had five fingers and five toes,
quite perfect; the fourth was a girl, Marie; she had five fingers and
five toes, but her thumbs were deformed, showing a tendency toward the
sixth.
These children grew up, and when they came to adult years, they all
married, and of course it happened that they all married five-fingered
and five-toed persons. Now let us see what were the results. Salvator
had four children; they were two boys, a girl, and another boy; the
first two boys and the girl were six-fingered and six-toed like their
grandfather; the fourth boy had only five fingers and five toes. George
had only four children; there were two girls with six fingers and six
toes; there was one girl with six fingers and five toes on the right
side, and five fingers and five toes on the left side, so that she was
half and half. The last, a boy, had five fingers and five toes. The
third, Andre, you will recollect, was perfectly well-formed, and he had
many children whose hands and feet were all regularly developed. Marie,
the last, who, of course, married a man who had only five fingers, had
four children; the first, a boy, was born with six toes, but the other
three were normal. [28]
The question of inheritance and variation are of no doubt, both in
regard to personal experience and to scientific inquiry. Any person with
a family will be able to verify it, just as any educated scientist will
come to similar conclusions. What is observed by a father, as he notices
his son’s height being close to his, is not entirely different when a
scientist observes that the ability to produce twins is hereditary.
Similarly, when a couple of parents notice that the color of their
child’s hair is different than both of theirs, it is not much different
than when a naturalist discovers hundreds of varieties of muscle
development in humans. Essentially, the rest of this work will be
written as though the principle of inheritance and variation, as above
described, are true. In ending this section, I will quote Charles Darwin
on the subject of inheritance and variation...
As a single bud out of the many thousands, produced year after year on
the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to
assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under
different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety-
for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on
common roses producing moss-roses- we clearly see that the nature of the
conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of
the organism in determining each particular form of variation... [29]
Aside from inheritance and variation, there is one other belief that is
not disputed among those familiar with the natural world. This belief is
that animals in the natural world are remarkably well adaptated to their
natural environments. Among even those who diverge from the theory of
Evolution, this is hardly doubted. It would take only a very small
examination of natural organisms to see that they are quite fit their
habitats. The question which may arise among naturalists, though, is not
if this is true or not, but why this is true — at least, this may have
been a cause for argument in the nineteenth century, when Darwin first
made his proposal of Natural Selection. In this section, I shall briefly
expand upon the idea that animals are well fit to the environments in
which they live.
The amphibians and reptiles, closely related phylums of the animal
kingdom, are very well fit to their environments, an attribute which
does not widely differ from other organisms. The frog, for example, is
covered with a skin that helps regulate temperature, water content, and
respiration, accompanied by legs which are remarkable at jumping to
avoid predators. [30] The newt has well developed eyes and is capable of
regrowing lost limbs. [31] The salamander’s skin secretes a protective,
milky poison, which is harmless to humans, and in times of severe
drought, they are known to burrow into the earth to avoid dehydration.
[32] A relative of the frog, the toad’s warty skin helps regulate
moisture, and they are known to secrete poisonous or irritating
substances from their skins when threatened by a predator. [33] The
crocodile, perhaps the most famous example of the reptile phylum, has a
fleshy valve at the back of its mouth to prevent water from going into
the air passages, and its webbed feet — a trait which many other aquatic
animals have — aids in swimming. [34] Most lizards have been observed to
change color to allow them to blend in with the current environment,
thus avoiding predators; some lizards have teeth on the roof of their
mouth to aid in hunting, while all lizards have scaly armor for
protection. [35] Related to the lizard is the snake, which also has
scaled protection; some snakes carry a poisonous venom to help
neutralize prey or fend off predators, while every snake has elastic
ligaments connecting the jaw to the skull, thus allowing consuming
larger animals whole. [36] The defense of the turtle is obvious: it’s
shell, and it is well known that, though it has no teeth, the edges of
the jaw are sharp for cutting food. [37]
Birds are also noted as being well fit to their environments, especially
with the aid of flight, which is sometimes absent in certain species.
The gull has webbed feet to help in aquatic movement and long narrow
wings that allow for the unsurpassed ability to soar. [38] The ostrich,
though devoid of the ability to fly, has long tough toenails, which it
is sometimes known to defend itself with when fleeing is unsuccessful,
and they have a keen sight for spotting potential predators. [39] The
owl is a superb predator, with a keen vision and hearing that make it
lethal to lower animals. [40] The pelican has webbed feet, which it uses
for running on water to gain acceleration so that it can fly with its
bulky frame, and it uses its huge beak to capture fish and other animals
living in water. [41] One of the most talked of birds, in regards to the
theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, is the woodpecker. There is
ample reason for this. The woodpecker’s first and fourth towards are
backward, whereas the second and third toes are forward, allowing it a
firm grip on tree branches, and giving it the ability to scale trees
fairly quickly. Since it’s appetite is mostly insects living in trees,
it has a hard bill fitted for tear off bark and a powerful neck for
hammering. Its tongue is sticky and barbed, which allows it to ensnare
insects. [42]
The case of mammals having a great deal of advantages should not come to
any surprise to an well-observed naturalist. In a very real way, higher
mammals mark the yet most advanced organism of this planet: the human.
The elephant is equipped with a long trunk to aid in getting water and
manipulating the physical world, as well as a thick skin for protection.
[43] The giraffe is the tallest living animal, the length aiding in
reaching high up for food; accompanying this length, the giraffe also
has an exemplary vision, helping the creature to see predators and
enemies from afar. [44] The kangaroo has powerful hind legs for
traveling quickly, and with this the animal also has a pouch for
carrying the young, as well as a sacculated (chambered) stomach, which
will keep moisture in the body when there is a drought — a serious
threat in an environment like Australia where rainfall is unpredictable.
[45] The koala bear has opposable digits, which allow it to grasp tree
branches better, and when extremely young, it attaches to the teets of
its mother, and it cannot be removed except with a forceful blow. [46]
An African king, the lion has an adequately developed sight and smell,
which aids it when it hunts at night. Also, the lion has powerful
forelimbs, which allow it to tackle prey double its size, as well as
strong jaw muscles, capable of breaking the vertebrae of its prey. [47]
The tiger, a relative of the lion, has well developed legs, allowing it
to leap thirty feet on to prey, and it is outfitted with canine teeth
for tearing flesh. [48]
Finally, we come to the case of fish, organisms which dominate the
largest size of habitat: the oceans. The catfish, which inhabits ponds,
builds nests to protect the unborn, and it in certain species, they are
known to walk from pond to pond, in search of food. [49] The eel has
dorsal and anal fins which aid in transportation. [50] Though the term
“minnow” has been used loosely to define any fish smaller than a man’s
finger, this is not the scientifically recognized definition. One of the
species of minnow is known to have teeth, specifically used to scraping
stones off of food. [51] The sting ray is equipped with a poisonous
sting for attacking prey, and with encounters with humans, it is usually
described as extremely painful and there are cases where it proves
lethal. [52] The swordfish is the fastest fish in all of the oceans, and
this would definitely serve as an advantage to this predator.
Furthermore, it uses its sword to spear its prey. [53]
The single purpose of this section was to demonstrate that animals are
fit to their environment. It was not my intention to argue that they
were perfectly adaptated to where they are living. How is it that the
state of organic organisms of our world today have reached their highly
adaptive form of today? The question of how has been of much speculation
for centuries, but science seems to have come to rest at this point,
with the satisfying conclusion of Evolution. There is still the theory
of Creationism, that argues that organisms of our world today are
perfect due to the idea of an omnipotent god creating them, whereas
scientists argue that Evolution through Natural Selection seems like a
better view of the problem. Some have argued that the weakest part of
the theory of Evolution is that all organic beings are considered
imperfect, or, to quote Charles Darwin, “...a distinguished German
naturalist has asserted that the weakest part of my theory is, that I
consider all organic beings as imperfect: what I have really said is,
that all are not as perfect as they might have been in relation to their
conditions; and this is shown to be the case by so many native forms in
many quarters of the world having yielded their places to intruding
foreigners.” [54] To quote Darwin, again...
....cases could be given of introduced plants which have become common
throughout whole islands in a period of less than ten years. Several of
the plants, such as the cardoon and a tall thistle, which are now the
commonest over the whole plains of La Plata, clothing square leagues of
surface almost to the exclusion of every other plant, have been
introduced from Europe; and there are plants which now range in India,
as I hear from Dr. Falconer, from Cape Comorin to the Himalaya, which
have been imported from America since its discovery. [55]
It is the nature of the study of biology to be focused on the different
adaptations and different attributes of organisms, which allow them to
survive and prevail over competitors. In a later work, Charles Darwin
describes some of the beneficial effects of some of the adaptations of
the orangutan...
Mr. Wallace, who has carefully studied the habits of the orang, remarks
that the convergence of the hair towards the elbow on the arms of the
orang may be explained as serving to throw off the rain, for this animal
during rainy weather sits with its arms bent, and with the hands clasped
round a branch or over its head. According to Livingstone, the gorilla
also “sits in pelting rain with his hands over his head.”* If the above
explanation is correct, as seems probable, the direction of the hair on
our own arms offers a curious record of our former state; for no one
supposes that it is now of any use in throwing off the rain; nor, in our
present erect condition, is it properly directed for this purpose. [56]
In the previous two sections, I dealt with concepts which I will
hereafter deal as fact. The first section dealt with inheritance and
variation, how offspring often times resemble their progenitors, though
differ in varying degrees. The second section, previously covered, deals
with how organisms are adaptated to this world imperfectly, but fit
enough to survive and reproduce. Finally, next there comes a sort of
theory to bind these two sections. The theory of Natural Selection
attempts to explain how organisms came about. To quote Charles Darwin...
Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever
cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals
of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic
beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the
preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the
offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of
surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are
periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this
principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by
the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power
of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of
the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient. [57]
Simply put, the theory of Natural Selection goes so far as to state that
organisms which are fit to survival in their current environment have a
better chance to survive. Using some of the examples I had in Section
II, consider if a pelican had been born with such a small beak, that it
was unable to scoop up any fish from the water? Or, consider for
example, if a frog or toad had been born that had skin that was not
poisonous to other creatures, or if a woodpecker was born without claws,
or if a turtle had been born without a shell? Under the current
conditions, if an individual was born with such an attribute, it can be
easy to see that they would have lesser chances of surviving.
Furthermore, the possibility of variation cannot be denied. In Section
I, I demonstrated very compelling evidence that organisms are likely to
vary greatly, even if in the most minor or major details. Consider,
again, for example, the man who could use his scalp muscles for moving a
set of heavy books. In one way, it demonstrates variability, and how
humans vary from each other, but in another way, it demonstrates
inheritance, as that person’s children were also capable of this same
ability. Every advantage that an organism has will give it a higher
chance of obtaining food and reproducing, thus creating more individuals
with like traits — and of these organisms, the one which has the
advantage to the highest degree, will have higher chances of success
with mating and survival. So it will continue, organisms breeding and
evolving, some species becoming extinct due to the fact that they could
no longer compete in their environment, and new beneficial variations
occurring To quote Charles Darwin...
It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting
those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently
and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the
improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and
inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in
progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then
so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages, that we see
only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly
were. [58]
It must be understood clearly, however, that Natural Selection is the
theory of well adaptated organisms surviving and reproducing, whereas
poorly adaptated organisms will have lower chances of survival and
reproduction. There is very little reason not to believe in the validity
of such a theory. Even if someone were to find the theory of Evolution
as unacceptable, there is no reason why they ought to doubt the theory
of Natural Selection, unless such a person is uneducated. However, there
is still another theory that often attaches itself to Natural Selection.
In several references in Origin of the Species, Darwin referred to it as
the Derivative Theory (or, sometimes simply known as “Evolution”): the
theory that all higher organisms that exist today evolved from lower
organisms through the processes of Natural Selection. There are some who
will doubt Evolution while holding the principles of Natural Selection
to be fact. The idea of Evolution, though, is simply that the organisms
that came about today exist because they formed variations that were
successful in their habitats and had offspring with these adaptations,
or they evolved. Again, to quote Charles Darwin...
Natural Selection acts exclusively by the preservation and accumulation
of variations, which are beneficial under the organic and inorganic
conditions to which each creature is exposed at all periods of life. The
ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more
improved in relation to its conditions. This improvement inevitable
leads to the gradual advancement of the organisation of the greater
number of living beings throughout the world. [59]
As we look upon the principles of inheritance and variation, and we look
to the natural world and see how organisms are extremely well fit to
where they live, it seems only to be a logical deduction that the Origin
of the Species came about through slight variations, each one leaning
towards a well-fit end result Sigmund Freud writes, “In the animal
kingdom we hold to the view that the most highly developed species have
proceeded from the lowest; and yet we find all the simple forms still in
existence to-day. The race of the great saurians is extinct and has made
way for the mammals; but a true representative of it, the crocodile,
still lives among us.” [60] In his work The Descent of Man, Darwin
describes Natural Selection as it happened between human tribes: “We can
see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the
most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who
were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of
offspring.” [61] Before ending this section, I will quote Darwin again
in regards to Natural Selection...
The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the
proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are
curiously parallel. But we can trace the formation of many words further
back than that of species, for we can perceive how they actually arose
from the imitation of various sounds. We find in distinct languages
striking homologies due to community of descent, and analogies due to a
similar process of formation. The manner in which certain letters or
sounds change when others change is very like correlated growth. We have
in both cases the re-duplication of parts, the effects of long-continued
use, and so forth. The frequent presence of rudiments, both in languages
and in species, is still more remarkable. The letter m in the word am,
means I; so that in the expression I am, a superfluous and useless
rudiment has been retained. In the spelling also of words, letters often
remain as the rudiments of ancient forms of pronunciation. Languages,
like organic beings, can be classed in groups under groups; and they can
be classed either naturally according to descent, or artificially by
other characters. Dominant languages and dialects spread widely, and
lead to the gradual extinction of other tongues. A language, like a
species, when once extinct, never, as Sir C. Lyell remarks, reappears.
The same language never has two birth-places. Distinct languages may be
crossed or blended together. We see variability in every tongue, and new
words are continually cropping up; but as there is a limit to the powers
of the memory, single words, like whole languages, gradually become
extinct. As Max Muller has well remarked:- “A struggle for life is
constantly going on amongst the words and grammatical forms in each
language. The better, the shorter, the easier forms are constantly
gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to their own inherent
virtue.” To these more important causes of the survival of certain
words, mere novelty and fashion may be added; for there is in the mind
of man a strong love for slight changes in all things. The survival or
preservation of certain favoured words in the struggle for existence is
natural selection. [62]
The purpose of this chapter was to lay out some fundamental principles
that were necessary to explaining, and then proving, the theory of
Evolution, namely the principles of inheritance, variation, the well-fit
nature of organisms today, and the theory of Natural Selection. I cannot
ask anyone to believe that the species of the world today is due to a
long chain of variations and alterations which eventually led to the
creation of where we are now. So far, such an assertion would be rather
speculative, though logical. At least, it would seem logical to make
such a conclusion, but we have no evidence. The following chapters shall
deal with the evidence of Evolution. While studying and researching the
works of Naturalists, I found an overwhelming amount of evidence.
However, the evidence seemed a great deal jumbled, or at least,
unorganized. In the following chapters, I will try to demonstrate the
evidence for the Derivative Theory in an organized manner. The evidences
I have for Evolution are as follows: results of Selective Breeding in
domestic organisms, similarities occurring in different organisms,
reversionary organs, and vestigial organs. Each piece of evidence is a
part of what I would call Interrelation: the theory that all organisms
are related to each other in some way. Vestigial organs, sometimes
called “rudiments” or “rudimentary organs,” are organs which serve no
purpose to an organism, yet would have served as a purpose to a life
form in a previous state, such as a progenitor evolving into the new
state and remnants of the older species are still found in the new one.
Reversionary organs — when appearing known simply as “reversion” — are
organs which are vestigial, yet unlike vestigial organs, they differ in
that they only appear in some individuals of a species. To quote Charles
Darwin, “These several reversionary structures, as well as the strictly
rudimentary ones, reveal The Descent of Man from some lower form in an
unmistakable manner.” [63] When vestigial or reversionary organs appear
in a being, they are often underdeveloped, to the point where even if
they once serve a purpose, today they do not. There is an Evolutionary
shift towards beings without any useless organs, but this shift is not
as strong as the one away from injurious organs or the shift towards
beneficial ones. The reason why it would be of use for an organism to
not have useless appendages is, as Darwin once wrote, “If under changed
conditions of life a structure, before useful, becomes less useful, its
diminution will be favoured, for it will profit the individual not to
have its nutriment wasted in building up an useless structure.” [64]
One of the primary arguments against the theory of Evolution is the
claim that the process of Natural Selection has never produced a new
species. I have often heard, “Evolution has never been observed to cause
extinction or new species.” However, this claim is false, and any person
would be able to see this, even if they had only a slight education of
the expansive field of breeding. For thousands of years, mankind has
been breeding and rearing domestic animals and crops. Typically, farmers
or ranchers will breed those animals which are best outfitted for the
harvesting purposes. As an example, a corn farmer will plant 100 crops,
and once these crops are each equipped with seeds and the farmer is read
to plant again, he will take 100 seeds from the tallest corn stalk, and
plant them again. According to the laws of inheritance, these 100 new
corn plants will be tall, and according to the laws of variation, these
100 new corn plants will also vary in height. Once the corn farmer has
done this process for several years, an entirely new species of corn
would have developed. This process is known as Selective Breeding. To
quote Charles Darwin, “The key is man’s power of accumulative selection:
nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain
directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for
himself useful breeds.” [65]
A great deal of our modern fruits and vegetables are often new species
related to an older, inedible model. The pear, for example, was
described by authors thousands of years ago as a fruit of inferior,
inedible quality, but today it is sold by every grocery store. [66]
Wheat, as well, has been domesticated by mankind over the process of
thousands of years. [67] It is not difficult to find an improvement in
the beauty of flowers, when we compare today’s flowers to drawings of
flowers from decades or centuries ago. [68] Domesticated dogs rarely
ever attack sheep or other domesticated animals, as this is seen in the
instance of Sheep Dogs particularly, but when foreigners take
undomesticated puppies from the natives of Tierra Del Fuego, the
instinct to attack livestock and even humans. [69] There remains little
doubt among naturalists today that domesticated rabbits are descendants
of wild rabbits [70] To quote Charles Darwin, “In the case of strongly
marked races of some other domesticated species, there is presumptive or
even strong evidence, that all are descended from a single wild stock.”
[71] In Britain, it was once shown that over the course of several
years, the cattle have increased in weight and maturity, a beneficial
factor to those who are in the slaughter business. [72] Bakewell and
Collins are also known for modifying their cattle through the process of
Natural Selection. [73] When two flocks of Leicester sheep were kept,
one by Mr. Buckley and one by Mr. Burgess, after some time, an observer
remarked that the sheep, “have been purely bred from the original stock
of Mr. Bakewell for upwards of fifty years. There is not a suspicion
existing in the mind of any one at all acquainted with the subject, that
the owner of either of them has deviated in any one instance from the
pure blood of Mr. Bakewell’s flock, and yet the difference between the
sheep possessed by these two gentlemen is so great that they have the
appearance of being quite different varieties.” [74] To quote Darwin,
“...to assert that we could not breed our cart- and race-horses, long
and short-horned cattle, and poultry of various breeds, and esculent
vegetables, for an unlimited number of generations, would be opposed to
all experience.” [75] A quote by Charles Darwin...
In practice, a fancier is, for instance, struck by a pigeon having a
slightly shorter beak; another fancier is struck by a pigeon having a
rather longer beak; and on the acknowledged principle that “fanciers do
not and will not admire a medium standard, but like extremes,” they both
go on (as has actually occurred with the sub-breeds of the
tumbler-pigeon) choosing and breeding from birds with longer and longer
beaks, or with shorter and shorter beaks. Again, we may suppose that at
an early period of history, the men of one nation or district required
swifter horses, whilst those of another required stronger and bulkier
horses. The early differences would be very slight; but, in the course
of time from the continued selection of swifter horses in the one case,
and of stronger ones in the other, the differences would become greater,
and would be noted as forming two sub-breeds. Ultimately, after the
lapse of centuries, these sub-breeds would become converted into two
well-established and distinct breeds. As the differences became greater,
the inferior animals with intermediate characters, being neither swift
nor very strong, would not have been used for, breeding, and will thus
have tended to disappear. [76]
Several decades after the death of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud writes,
“...the breeding of domesticated animals flourishes.” [77] Thomas
Malthus, a reverend of the 1700’s, would describe what was very much
common knowledge of that era, “Were it of consequence to improve pinks
and carnations, though we could have no hope of raising them as large as
cabbages, we might undoubtedly expect, by successive efforts, to obtain
more beautiful specimens than we at present possess.” [78] In a longer
section, he writes...
I am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle that you may
breed to any degree of nicety you please, and they found this maxim upon
another, which is that some of the offspring will possess the desirable
qualities of the parents in a greater degree. In the famous
Leicestershire breed of sheep, the object is to procure them with small
heads and small legs. Proceeding upon these breeding maxims, it is
evident that we might go on till the heads and legs were evanescent
quantities, but this is so palpable an absurdity that we may be quite
sure that the premises are not just and that there really is a limit,
though we cannot see it or say exactly where it is. In this case, the
point of the greatest degree of improvement, or the smallest size of the
head and legs, may be said to be undefined, but this is very different
from unlimited, or from indefinite, in Mr Condorcet’s acceptation of the
term. Though I may not be able in the present instance to mark the limit
at which further improvement will stop, I can very easily mention a
point at which it will not arrive. I should not scruple to assert that
were the breeding to continue for ever, the head and legs of these sheep
would never be so small as the head and legs of a rat. [79]
I again state, that the process of Selective Breeding must be admitted
as a great evidence on behalf of the theory of Evolution. If organisms
can change dramatically, into different races, species, or families,
under the hand of mankind, then why is it so difficult to believe that
it cannot happen in a natural state of things? The processes of
Selective Breeding and Evolution are nearly identical, with the solitary
difference being that the first happens with a human guide, while the
second with nature as a guide. Thomas Henry Huxley describes the process
of Selective Breeding as it occurs in the domestic dog...
...there are some dogs very much smaller than others; indeed, the
variation is so enormous that probably the smallest dog would be about
the size of the head of the largest; there are very great variations in
the structural forms not only of the skeleton but also in the shape of
the skull, and in the proportions of the face and the disposition of the
teeth.
The Pointer, the Retriever, Bulldog, and the Terrier, differ very
greatly, and yet there is every reason to believe that every one of
these races has arisen from the same source... [80]
With all of this evidence considered, I feel that there should be no
doubt that Selective Breeding is an active form of Evolution, but simply
under the hand of mankind.
The process of Evolution, when in the hands of man, has been clearly
observed to create new species of organisms. Natural Selection, though,
with wild organisms, seems to be much more thorough and accurate than
civilization. Whereas humans will judge an organism and choose which to
breed, nature — or at least, the laws that govern the physical Universe
— will kill those organisms which are not fit for survival or capable of
breeding. As far as the theory of Evolution explaining the Origin of the
Species as they exist today, it would seem adequate with the evidence
that can be attributed to Selective Breeding. However, while the
processes of Evolution can be shown to be adequate, as in the case of
Selective Breeding, is there any direct evidence that natural Evolution
is responsible for the creation of organisms as they exist today? I
shall proceed to answer this question in the following chapters.
While it seems that there is no doubt, that the processes of inheritance
and variation can be productively used with Selective Breeding, there
might be some arguments against such a theory being applied to the
natural world. When observing the natural world, there is no doubt that
every organism seems to be perfectly (or nearly perfectly, or at least,
perfectly enough) adaptated to its environment. From the teeth of the
tiger to the strong legs of the gazelle; from the powerful jaws of a
shark to the powerful fins of whales. Everywhere on this planet, there
is no doubt that organisms are well adaptated to their environments.
There are two responses to this observation: that organisms were created
perfectly by a creator, or that organisms evolved to their current state
through the processes of inheritance and variation serving them, and
consequently dividing them into the complex organization we have
afforded them. The enormous evidence on behalf of the theory of
Evolution is presented in this book. The evidence on behalf of a
creation theory, much to the dismay (or delusion) of Creationists, is
rather non-existent A person might ask how the pen they are holding was
placed in their hand, and if they have enough conviction and lack enough
reason, they might force themselves to honestly believe that god created
every molecule of the pen at that very moment. Witnesses might say that
they saw the person pick up the pen, that they saw it delivered to their
desk, that it came from a store, and then from a factory. They will deny
it, saying, “My theory explains it equally well.” And, so, we have the
essential arguments between Evolution scientists and religious
Creationists. However, it was not my intention to attack Creationism in
this book, but only to provide a sound foundation for the theory of
Evolution.
With all that said, there is one particular form of Natural Selection
that would seem particularly odd, if the world truly has a creator. In
nature, there appears to be a form of Sexual Selection. Sexual Selection
occurs when sex-related attributes of an organism are preserved through
inheritance. By sex-related, I mean things that might reflect beauty,
including ornaments and other aspects of an organism’s physiology that
would incline one person to think that it was not created, but came from
a long line of successive progenitors. To quote Charles Darwin...
There are many other structures and instincts which must have been
developed through sexual selection- such as the weapons of offence and
the means of defence- of the males for fighting with and driving away
their rivals- their courage and pugnacity- their various ornaments-
their contrivances for producing vocal or instrumental music- and their
glands for emitting odours, most of these latter structures serving only
to allure or excite the female. It is clear that these characters are
the result of sexual and not of ordinary selection, since unarmed,
unornamented, or unattractive males would succeed equally well in the
battle for life and in leaving a numerous progeny, but for the presence
of better endowed males. [81]
If it is true, that a creator created all of our organisms, I am quite
curious: why has he implemented such strong, marked attributes for sex?
After all, if there was such a creator, he could have created female
animals to simply desire the strongest male for a mate. The vocal chords
to produce music and sound, the glands for emitting odors, the physical
ornaments used simply to arouse partners, all of these things could not
have come about by simple natural selection, but rather, by a process
known as sexual selection. (On a similar contradiction, why would a god
ever create such strongly marked and powerful sexuality in organisms
when, apparently, his followers consider the sex act to be obscene and
blasphemous? Of course, I could use all the paper in the world if I
wanted to discuss the problems of Christianity, but this is a book on
Evolution.) With all this understood in good reason, I submit the
observed form of Sexual Selection as an evidence that Natural Selection
is effective in the wild and as an evidence that the organisms of the
planet evolved, and were not created. Elsewhere, Darwin further
describes other examples of Sexual Selection: “When we behold two males
fighting for the possession of the female, or several male birds
displaying their gorgeous plumage, and performing strange antics before
an assembled body of females, we cannot doubt that, though led by
instinct, they know what they are about, and consciously exert their
mental and bodily powers.” [82] and “...female birds in a state of
nature, have by a long selection of the more attractive males, added to
their beauty or other attractive qualities.” [83] and still “The absence
of bright tints or other ornaments may be the result of variations of
the right kind never having occurred, or of the animals themselves
having preferred plain black or white.” [84] In a longer excerpt, Darwin
describes the process of Sexual Selection...
Sexual selection acts in a less rigorous manner than natural selection.
The latter produces its effects by the life or death at all ages of the
more or less successful individuals. Death, indeed, not rarely ensues
from the conflicts of rival males. But generally the less successful
male merely fails to obtain a female, or obtains a retarded and less
vigorous female later in the season, or, if polygamous, obtains fewer
females; so that they leave fewer, less vigorous, or no offspring. In
regard to structures acquired through ordinary or natural selection,
there is in most cases, as long as the conditions of life remain the
same, a limit to the amount of advantageous modification in relation to
certain special purposes; but in regard to structures adapted to make
one male victorious over another, either in fighting or in charming the
female, there is no definite limit to the amount of advantageous
modification; so that as long as the proper variations arise the work of
sexual selection will go on. This circumstance may partly account for
the frequent and extraordinary amount of variability presented by
secondary sexual characters. Nevertheless, natural selection will
determine that such characters shall not be acquired by the victorious
males, if they would be highly injurious, either by expending too much
of their vital powers, or by exposing them to any great danger. The
development, however, of certain structures- of the horns, for instance,
in certain stags- has been carried to a wonderful extreme; and in some
cases to an extreme which, as far as the general conditions of life are
concerned, must be slightly injurious to the male. From this fact we
learn that the advantages which favoured males derive from conquering
other males in battle or courtship, and thus leaving a numerous progeny,
are in the long run greater than those derived from rather more perfect
adaptation to their conditions of life. We shall further see, and it
could never have been anticipated, that the power to charm the female
has sometimes been more important than the power to conquer other males
in battle. [85]
In another proof of Sexual Selection, Darwin writes, “The wild-duck
offers an analogous case, for the beautiful green speculum on the wings
is common to both sexes, though duller and somewhat smaller in the
female, and it is developed early in life, whilst the curled
tail-feathers and other ornaments of the male are developed later.” [86]
and elsewhere: “The males have thus become provided with weapons for
fighting with their rivals, with organs for discovering and securely
holding the female, and for exciting or charming her.” [87] Sexual
Selection was the primary discussion of the book The Descent of Man, but
Darwin did note on it in his earlier work...
Amongst birds, the contest is often of a more peaceful character. All
those who have attended to the subject, believe that there is the
severest rivalry between the males of many species to attract, by
singing, the females. The rock-thrush of Guiana, birds of paradise, and
some others, congregate; and successive males display with the most
elaborate care, and show off in the best manner, their gorgeous plumage;
they likewise perform strange antics before the females, which, standing
by as spectators, at last choose the most attractive partner. Those who
have closely attended to birds in confinement well know that they often
take individual preferences and dislikes: thus Sir R. Heron has
described how a pied peacock was eminently attractive to all his hen
birds. I cannot here enter on the necessary details; but if man can in a
short time give beauty and an elegant carriage to his bantams, according
to his standard of beauty, I can see no good reason to doubt that female
birds, by selecting, during thousands of generations, the most melodious
or beautiful males, according to their standard of beauty, might produce
a marked effect. Some well-known laws, with respect to the plumage of
male and female birds, in comparison with the plumage of the young, can
partly be explained through the action of sexual selection on variations
occurring at different ages, and transmitted to the males alone or to
both sexes at corresponding ages... [88]
With all of the evidence of the natural world before us, I think it is
admissible that the theory of Natural Selection is without a doubt true,
and this lends a great amount of evidence to the theory of Evolution.
One of the reasons to believe about the interrelation of all species is
the astounding amount of similarities between them all, which this
chapter will be devoted to. By drawing comparisons between different
forms of life, I hope to shine light on to the idea that such
similarities could not have come about except with a direct
interrelation between the species.
As Naturalists study the environment and try to classify different
organisms into different categories, such as family, species, race, they
are often met with problems. For instance, there are 182 British plants
which are regarded as varieties of another species, and one Naturalist
makes the claim that there are 251 forms which are varieties of another
species, while another claims that there are only 112 forms which are
varieties of another species — these “doubtful forms” (as they may be
called) are so closely related to their common progenitor, with only
slight and varying differences, that they have baffled scientists as to
whether they are their own species are related to another species. [89]
Several ornithologists believe that the British red grouse is a race of
the Norwegian species while another believe it is related to a species
peculiar to Britain. [90] One German author has found twelve distinct
varieties of the common Oak tree, which other Naturalists have
classified as distinct species. [91] The Naturalist Alphonse De Condolle
examined 600 species of Oak trees, and concluded that only 200 of them
actually fit the description of the term “species.” [92] To quote
Darwin, “How many of the birds and insects in North America and Europe,
which differ very slightly from each other, have been ranked by one
eminent naturalist as undoubted species, and by another as varieties,
or, as they are often called, geographical races!” [93] Mr. G. H. Lewes
remarks...
[The tadpole of the common salamander or water-newt] has gills, and
passes its existence in the water; but the Salamandra atra, which lives
high up among the mountains, brings forth its young full-formed. This
animal never lives in the water. Yet if we open a gravid female, we find
tadpoles inside her with exquisitely feathered gills; and when placed in
water they swim about like the tadpoles of the water-newt. Obviously
this aquatic organisation has no reference to the future life of the
animal, nor has it any adaptation to its embryonic condition; it has
solely reference to ancestral adaptations, it repeats a phase in the
development of its progenitors. [94]
In mankind, the muscles, bones, and even the brain is constructed the
same as it is in the lower animals. [95] Just as mankind can become
infected with hydrophobia, variola, the glanders, syphilis, cholera,
herpes, among others, so can other lower animals, just as the medicines
on humans have a similar effect on the lower creatures. [96] To quote
Darwin, “There appears to me a strong analogy between the same infection
or contagion producing the same result, or one closely similar, in two
distinct animals, and the testing of two distinct fluids by the same
chemical reagent.” [97] One Naturalist observed that monkeys are liable
to the same noninfective disease as humans are, such as apoplexy,
inflammation of the bowels, and cataract in the eye. [98] Monkeys are
also known to have a strong taste for coffee, tea, and nicotine, as they
have been observed to smoke cigarettes. [99] One Naturalist observed how
an African tribe captures wild baboons, by leaving out strong beer and
capturing them while they are inebriated. The following morning, they
are sick, and turn away in disgust when offered more beer, something not
uncommon to humans. [100] Darwin once remarked, “An American monkey, an
Ateles, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and
thus was wiser than many men.” [101] Parasites, both internal and
external, which infect mankind are known to also infect other mammals.
[102] When mankind is wounded, his wounds are healed in the same manner
as other organisms, even when compared to such a low life form such as
insects. [103] The hands and the feet of humans, when in the womb, are
the same form as other lower organisms when early in development, and to
quote Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, “quite in the later stages of
development that the young human being presents marked differences from
the young ape, while the latter departs as much from the dog in its
developments, as the man does. Startling as this last assertion may
appear to be, it is demonstrably true.” [104] The processes of courtship
to birth and nurturing the young are remarkably similar in humans as
they are in the lowest of mammals. [105] For a human fetus, like the
fetus of a primate, the heart is a simple pulsating vessel and the os
coccyx (or “tail bone”) extends beyond the legs of the fetus. [106] In
embryos, certain glands, known as corpora Wolffiana, act similar to the
kidneys of fish. [107] Bischoff says “that the convolutions of the brain
in a human foetus at the end of the seventh month reach about the same
stage of development as in a baboon when adult.” [108] Professor Owen
once remarked, “which forms the fulcrum when standing or walking, is
perhaps the most characteristic peculiarity in the human structure”;
[109] yet Professor Wyman found “that the great toe was shorter than the
others; and, instead of being parallel to them, projected at an angle
from the side of the foot, thus corresponding with the permanent
condition of this part in the Quadrumana.” [110] In the fifth metatarsal
of the foot, there is a muscle known as the ossis metatarsi quinti, and
just as it is present in humans, it as also present in anthropomorphous
apes. [111] Another similarity between humans and apes, to quote Charles
Darwin, “Monkeys seize thin branches or ropes, with the thumb on one
side and the fingers and palm on the other, in the same manner as we do.
They can thus also lift rather large objects, such as the neck of a
bottle, to their mouths.” [112] Yet, for some races of mankind that are
still living in what some would call “savagery,” their feet are
developed in a manner closer to other primates, in that they are very
well adaptated for scaling trees. [113] And, a quote by the father of
Natural Selection...
Thus we can understand how it has come to pass that man and all other
vertebrate animals have been constructed on the same general model, why
they pass through the same early stages of development, and why they
retain certain rudiments in common. [114]
The similarities between organisms of this planet is undeniable. In
fact, in the 1700’s, Voltaire would write, “If I glance at the animal
world, I find that all quadrupeds, and all wingless bipeds, reproduce
their kind by the same process of copulation, and all the females are
viviparous.” [115] In his book The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin would
offer more evidences on the similarities of all life forms. He would
write, “Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations,
which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and
transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower
animals.” [116] and also “His [mankind’s] body is constructed on the
same homological plan as that of other mammals. He passes through the
same phases of embryological development. “ [117] The reaction to drugs
of mankind and animals is very similar, as Darwin describes: “I gave, as
instances, our liability to the same diseases, and to the attacks of
allied parasites; our tastes in common for the same stimulants, and the
similar effects produced by them, as well as by various drugs, and other
such facts.” [118] Finally, he writes: “Every evolutionist will admit
that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype;
for they have much in common, especially during their embryonic state.”
[119]
The previous chapter simply dealt with similarities which are found
among the different species, and how they may demonstrate that one
species is related to another. Though this may be some distance away
from concrete evidence, it is always good to take it into consideration.
In this chapter, I will examine evidence that leads me to thoroughly
believe in the Derivative Theory, that mankind is little more than the
an evolutionary conclusion of the ancient organisms that once lived on
this planet, some of them still remaining. The evidence that I shall
examine is in reversionary organs, known as “reversion” when they
appear. When reversion occurs, it’s when an organism is born, yet has an
organ or a limb which serve it no purpose — though this organ is
identical, in structure and muscle tissue, to the organs of certain
lower animals, which today we are convinced are our ancestors. For
instance, if a penguin was born with a plumage of feathers, this would
be a perfect example. The question, though, is why would an organ of a
distant relative finally reappear? As far as personal experience can
verify, among humans, it is not unlikely for a person to retain their
grandparent’s attributes to a certain extent instead their direct
parent’s attributes. Similarly, I would not doubt it if someone were to
testify to me that a family member had retained attributes particular to
their a great grandparent. Yet, the further we go back in the family
tree, it seems less and less likely that one of the old attributes will
arise again. However, if Evolution is correct, then the further we go
back in the family tree, we will be running across new races and new
species. So, if an organism is born with a reversionary organ which is
similar to what we believe to be that organism’s ancestors, then it is
clear evidence that this modern creature is a descendant, and the theory
of Evolution holds true.
One of the most notable examples would be a human baby who was born with
a tail in the year 2002. [120] However, this is not the first instance
of a human baby with a tail; in 1982, Dr Fred Ledley wrote a report on
these occurrences [121] This is a clear sign that humans were once
related to fish.
It is well known among breeders that when two creatures breed which are
of a different race or species, it is likely for reversionary attributes
to reappear. For instance, it is well believed by scientists and
Evolutionary thinkers today that the several species of domesticated
pigeons all are descendants of the wild rock pigeon. When domestic
pigeons of different species have been cross-bred, it has been observed
that they tend to revert back to the colors of the rock-pigeon, colors
which did not occur in their direct parents. [122] Donkeys sometimes
have stripes on their legs, which are distinctly similar to those on
zebra, and there are numerous examples of stripes forming on species
which we believe are descendants of the zebra. [123] Pigs are known to
sometimes, though rarely, be born with a sort of proboscis, or
trunk-like nose. [124] Microcephalic idiots are another example of
reversion. These individuals, often times born from families that have
no traces of such a case happening in the known family tree, are known
to be unable to speak words, to ascend stairs on all fours, to smell
every mouthful of food before eating, as well as using their mouth in
aid as a third hand and in some cases they are remarkably hairy. [125]
To quote Charles Darwin, “The simple brain of a microcephalous idiot, in
as far as it resembles that of an ape, may in this sense be said to
offer a case of reversion.” [126] The molar bone of humans, which is two
bones when in the fetus at two months of age, sometimes remains in two
separate distinct bones, which is a natural part of the physiology of
other mammals. [127] Professor Vlacovich examined forty male subjects,
and he discovered a muscle, called by him the “ischio-pubic”, in
nineteen of them and in three others there was a ligament representing
this muscle. In only two out of thirty female subjects, this muscle was
developed on both sides yet in three others, there was a rudimentary
ligament for this muscle. [128] One out of every sixty men are believed
to have a powerful “levator claviculae,” a muscle on both sides of the
neck, and this muscle is also found in all higher and lower apes. There
is a similar case where men are sometimes known to have an abductor (or
a tissue that pulls muscles or organs in a certain direction) in the
metatarsal bone of the fifth digit. While it is in only some humans, it
is present in all apes. [129] The acromio-basilar muscle is related to
the walk of those animals which walk on all fours, and it is found in
all animals below man, but one is sixty human beings is born with this
muscle. [130] In apes and monkeys, in the humerus bone, there is a
passage known as the supra-condyloid foramen, where the nerve of the
fore limb and often the great artery pass. In humans, there is a trace
of it, but in certain humans, it appears even well developed, with the
nerve and great artery passing through. [131] The giraffe of Africa
typically has two horns attached to its skull, but there are occasions
where a third horn occurs. [132] In regard to reversionary organs,
Darwin has remarked, “That this unknown factor is reversion to a former
state of existence may be admitted as in the highest degree probable.”
[133] And, a quote by the father of Natural Selection...
No one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the
same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and
sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to
its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor; why a
peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one
sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex. [134]
In his later works, Darwin would describe other instances of reversion.
For example, he would write: “...injurious characters which tend to
reappear through reversion, such as blackness in sheep...” [135] And,
also...
Characters occasionally make their re-appearance in him, which we have
reason to believe were possessed by his early progenitors. If the origin
of man had been wholly different from that of all other animals, these
various appearances would be mere empty deceptions; but such an
admission is incredible. These appearances, on the other hand, are
intelligible, at least to a large extent, if man is the co-descendant
with other mammals of some unknown and lower form.
[...]
The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both
sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed, and capable of
movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper
muscles. Their limbs and bodies were also acted on by many muscles which
now only occasionally reappear, but are normally present in the
Quadrumana. [136]
The final piece of living evidence that I have to offer is that of
vestigial organs. In a very real sense, reversionary organs are equally
vestigial, or useless. But I have separated the two as a way to help
understanding of them both. A “vestigial organ” be may defined as an
organ which serves no purpose to an organism. Reversionary organs are
the same, but the difference that I have between this and the last
chapter is that vestigial organs always appear in a species, whereas
reversionary organs appear in only some cases.
As far as personal experience goes, it is undeniable that many of us
come into contact with vestigial organs, or can identify them on
ourselves personally. For instance, males have nipples, an organ which
serves a purpose to females but is entirely useless to men. [137] In
domestic cows, there are four developed mammae, capable of producing
milk and there are two other nipples which are rudimentary and serve no
purpose — yet there is a rare occurrence where these two rudimentary
nipples become well developed and produce milk. [138] So, in the case of
domestic cows, not only are they vestigial, but in some instances, they
show cases of reversion. It is not deniable that wisdom-teeth are
vestigial, in that many cases, not only do they fail to appear, but once
they do appear, they surgical must be removed. Though wisdom-teeth are
vestigial in the case of European humans, in the Melanian races, the
wisdom-teeth are furnished with three separate fangs and are generally
sound. [139] Professor Schaaffhausen argues that the reason why
wisdom-teeth are vestigial to European humans is due to the fact that
the jaw is shorter in European humans, and the reason for this
occurrence is believed that Europeans eat soft, cooked food, that extra
teeth become rudimentary. [140] To quote one scientific encyclopedia...
VESTIGIAL STRUCTURES. Elements appearing in various life forms which,
although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional
and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix
is an example. [141]
The logger-headed duck of South America and the domestic Aylesbury duck
cannot fly when they are adults with their wings, though their young are
capable of flight. [142] The ostrich is equipped with wings, yet it is
entirely incapable of flying. [143] In many of the male dung beetles,
the anterior tarsi, or the feet, have fallen off at an early stage in
their development, to the point where it is rare to find one with feet.
[144] In other insects, such as the Onites apelles and the Ateuchus (or
the sacred beetle of the Egyptians), the feet are so habitually lost,
that according to most records, they are described as not having them.
[145] In Madeira, a river in northwest Brazil, out of 550 species of
beetles, there are 200 beetles which have wings that are so deficient,
that they are incapable of flight, and even those who are amateur
Naturalists in almost any continent will be able to confess to
discovering such a creature. [146] Moles, a creature which burrow
underneath the earth’s surface, often have eyes which are covered in fur
and hair; in South America, the tuco-tuco (or Ctenomys), which are more
subterranean than the mole, are frequently blind, though they are born
with eyes. [147] Several creatures, inhabiting the caves of Carniola and
of Kentucky, are known to be blind though endowed with eyes. [148] In
some crabs, known to inhabit extremely dark places such as cave, the
foot stalk — which typically supports the eye — still exists, though the
eyes are gone. [149] Caverats, which typically are equipped with large
eyes, are typically blind, but after being exposed to light for about a
month, they acquire a dim perception of objects. [150] The Bathyscia, an
insect species, are known to appear in several varieties; typically,
those that inhabit caves are a sub-species, typically appearing blind
and reproducing blind offspring, whereas another sub-species, normally
inhabiting shady rocks not far from these caves, are known to be endowed
with full vision. [151] In the human fetus, on the neck there are slits,
representing gills, and there are arteries developing on the neck
showing where these slits would be, yet as the fetus develops both the
slits and arteries disappear. [152] In the world untainted by mankind’s
touch, the wild chickens flee from the sight of dogs, yet in
domesticated chickens, this instinct has been wholly lost. Furthermore,
when a wild hen feels danger, she lets off a danger call as she flies
away and her chicks hide in the thickets or grass nearby. In
domesticated chickens, they still have this instinct, but it is useless,
as they are incapable of flight. [153]
For many snakes, they are equipped with a functionless, underdeveloped
second lung. [154] Snakes in the family Boidae (boas and pythons)
occasionally don’t use both lungs, though they have a pelvis and
extremely poorly developed hind-legs; snakes in the family colubridae
(colubrid snakes), the left lung is either absent or extremely
underdeveloped. [155] The bastard wing, a tuft of feathers on the fifth
digit of many birds, is highly rudimentary, and in some cases it cannot
be used for flight. [156] When whales are still a fetus, they have been
observed to developed teeth, which disappear by the time they are
adults. [157] Unborn calves are a similar situation, where they develop
teeth in their jaws that never cut through the gums. [158] In some
beetles that are closely allied to flying insects, underneath the wing
covers, there appears to be two membranes connected together, not much
unlike those of the flying insects. [159] The Apteryx is a bird from New
Zealand, and though it is winged, it is incapable of flight. [160] In
the order of Dipnoi, there is an eel-shaped fish with vestigial organs
of the axis of a fin, with the lateral rays of branches aborted. [161]
Manatees are known to have nails on their flippers. [162] In regards to
vestigial organs appearing in domestic organs, I will here quote Charles
Darwin...
We have plenty of cases of rudimentary organs in our domestic
productions,- as the stump of a tail in tailless breeds,- the vestige of
an ear in earless breeds of sheep,- the reappearance of minute dangling
horns in hornless breeds of cattle, more especially, according to
Youatt, in young animals, [163]
The os coccyx of humans serves no purpose, though it is an internal tail
of human beings. It is constructed in the same manner that the os coccyx
of apes are developed, and the muscles and vertebrae of it are quite
similar to that of the tails of lower animals. [164] There are some who
will argue that the os coccyx is not vestigial and that it serves a
purpose. How would they respond, then, to those human beings whose os
coccyx has developed fully into a tail, and have no problems functioning
without an internal tail? Many animals are capable of twitching their
skin, such as horses, and humans retain some of these muscles, such as
the platysma myoides, which are developed on the back of the neck. [165]
It is not deniable that certain humans are capable of moving their ears
forward, backward, downward, and upward, muscles which serve no more
purpose than if we had muscles to move our nose. [166] To quote Darwin,
“The power of erecting and directing the shell of the ears to the
various points of the compass, is no doubt of the highest service to
many animals, as they thus perceive the direction of danger; but I have
never heard, on sufficient evidence, of a man who possessed this power,
the one which might be of use to him.” [167] The ears of the chimpanzee
and the orangutan are in a similar condition of man, with underdeveloped
muscles, and it is rare for a sighting of a such a primate moving their
ears. [168] It has been stated that the ear lobe is distinct only to
humans, but a rudiment of it may be found in the gorilla, and in some
individuals of African descent, it is absent altogether. [169] Humans
contain a secondary set of eyelids, known as the “semilunar fold”
(scientific name: plica semiluna’ris conjuncti’vae), and this can be
found in many of the lower animals, yet in mankind, there is no muscle
adaptated for moving this set of eyelids. [170] The sense of smell in
humans, compared to that of other animals, is considerably
underdeveloped and of almost no practical use; but, it is good to take
into consideration that aboriginal natives are capable of identifying
someone in the dark by their smell. [171] For some individuals of
European descent, there are tufts of hair on the shoulder; though there
tends to be a great deal of variability in the placement of hair on the
body of humans, typically it is common for a body to be naked of hair,
but the body hair can develop into thick, long, dark, and coarse hair —
a type of vestigial organ from our predecessors. [172] Some holly-trees,
for example, will bear only male seeds, yet they are equipped with a
rudimentary pistil, which can only be used by female trees for
reproduction. [173] It is doubted by no one that webbed feet are an
advantage for aquatic animals, yet upland geese and the frigate bird
have this adaptation, and they are non-aquatic, though there is reason
to believe there ancestors are. [174] In the human digestive system, as
in the digestive system of many other organisms, there is a caecum, a
pouch connected to the intestines. Though present in many lower
organisms, in humans it is extremely small, while in the koala it is
thrice its size, and in humans, there are instances where it is entirely
absent altogether. [175] Not only is it useless like the appendix, but
like the appendix, it can be a cause of death through cancer or
inflammation. [176] In the human jaw, canine teeth seem to serve no
purpose at all. The initial purpose is believed to be a sort of fighting
mechanism, but since man developed tools and weapons, it became a
vestige, and ancient skulls have been found where the canine teeth are
enormous. [177] To quote Charles Darwin...
He who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his own canines,
and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our
early forefathers having been provided with these formidable weapons,
will probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his descent. For though
he no longer intends, nor has the power, to use these teeth as weapons,
he will unconsciously retract his “snarling muscles” (thus named by Sir
C. Bell), so as to expose them ready for action, like a dog prepared to
fight. [178]
These vestigial organs serve no purpose, but in many instances, they are
existing remnants of species we are related to. I will quote Darwin...
Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the plain stamp of
inutility, are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature. It
would be impossible to name one of the higher animals in which some part
or other is not in a rudimentary condition. [179]
In his later work of The Descent of Man, Darwin offered a plethora of
evidences on behalf of the theory of Evolution. Among these evidences,
there are vestigial organs. He would write, “He [mankind] retains many
rudimentary and useless structures, which no doubt were once
serviceable.” [180] He also writes, “Hence we can see how it is that
resemblances in several unimportant structures, in useless and
rudimentary organs, or not now functionally active, or in an
embryological condition, are by far the most serviceable for
classification; for they can hardly be due to adaptations within a late
period; and thus they reveal the old lines of descent or of true
affinity.” [181] As I stated in an earlier chapter, if it is true that
there was a creator of all of the world’s creatures, then here is
another contradiction: the abundance of useless organs. In some recorded
cases, children are observed having hairy foreheads, with no distinction
between eyebrows and scalp: a sure sign of a reversion to an ape-like
progenitor. [182] Another reversionary example: “They often secrete a
few drops of milk at birth and at puberty: this latter fact occurred in
the curious case before referred to, where a young man possessed two
pairs of mammee.” [183] And, also: “It is also a noticeable fact that in
the prong-horned antelope, only a few of the females, about one in five,
have horns, and these are in a rudimentary state, though sometimes above
four inches long...” [184]
The evidence, or reasons why I believe in the theory of Evolution, have
been presented in the earlier chapters. This sole chapter is dedicated
to answering arguments often presented against the Theory of Evolution.
Though often not an argument against the theory of Natural Selection or
Evolution, it is often wondered how the consciousness of an animal
changes to adapt to its new body variations. I will here quote an
excerpt of Darwin...
Of cases of changed habits it will suffice merely to allude to that of
the many British insects which now feed on exotic plants, or exclusively
on artificial substances. Of diversified habits innumerable instances
could be given: I have often watched a tyrant flycatcher (Saurophagus
sulphuratus) in South America, hovering over one spot and then
proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and at other times standing
stationary on the margin of water, and then dashing into it like a
kingfisher at a fish. In our own country the larger titmouse (Parus
major) may be seen climbing branches, almost like a creeper; it
sometimes, like a shrike, kills small birds by blows on the head; and I
have many times seen and heard it hammering the seeds of the yew on a
branch, and thus breaking them like a nuthatch. In North America the
black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth,
thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water.
As we sometimes see individuals following habits different from those
proper to their species and to the other species of the same genus, we
might expect that such individuals would occasionally give rise to new
species, having anomalous habits, and with their structure either
slightly or considerably modified from that of their type. And such
instances occur in nature. Can a more striking instance of adaptation be
given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects
in the chinks of the bark? Yet in North America there are woodpeckers
which feed largely on fruit, and others with elongated wings which chase
insects on the wing. On the plains of La Plata, where hardly a tree
grows, there is a woodpecker (Colaptes campestris) which has two toes
before and two behind, a long pointed tongue, pointed tail-feathers,
sufficiently stiff to support the bird in a vertical position on a post,
but not so stiff as in the typical woodpeckers, and a straight strong
beak. The beak, however, is not so straight or so strong as in the
typical woodpeckers, but it is strong enough to bore into wood. Hence
this Colaptes in all the essential parts of its structure is a
woodpecker. Even in such trifling characters as the colouring, the harsh
tone of the voice, and undulatory flight, its close blood-relationship
to our common woodpecker is plainly declared; yet, as I can assert, not
only from my own observation, but from those of the accurate Azara, in
certain large districts it does not climb trees, and it makes its nest
in holes in banks! In certain other districts, however, this same
woodpecker, as Mr. Hudson states, frequents trees, and bores holes in
the trunk for its nest. I may mention as another illustration of the
varied habits of this genus, that a Mexican Colaptes has been described
by De Saussure as boring holes into hard wood in order to lay up a store
of acorns.
Petrels are the most aerial and oceanic of birds, but in the quiet
sounds of Tierra del Fuego, the Puffinuria berardi, in its general
habits, in its astonishing power of diving, in its manner of swimming
and of flying when made to take flight, would be mistaken by any one for
an auk or a grebe; nevertheless it is essentially a petrel, but with
many parts of its organisation profoundly modified in relation to its
new habits of life; whereas the woodpecker of La Plata has had its
structure only slightly modified. In the case of the waterouzel, the
acutest observer by examining its dead body would never have suspected
its subaquatic habits; yet this bird, which is allied to the thrush
family, subsists by diving- using its wings under water, and grasping
stones with its feet. All the members of the great order of
hymenopterous insects are terrestrial excepting the genus Proctotrupes,
which Sir John Lubbock has discovered to be aquatic in its habits; it
often enters the water and dives about by the use not of its legs but of
its wings, and remains as long as four hours beneath the surface; yet it
exhibits no modification in structure in accordance with its abnormal
habits. [185]
Though Natural Selection is hardly doubted, even by those who confess to
believe in a theory opposite of Evolution, there are still some to
oppose it, and argue that Natural Selection is fictitious, because
nature cannot choose anything, as it is not a sentient being. However,
when we speak of nature, understand that I am only speaking of the laws
that govern physical matter, the rules that man has defined to help him
understand the Universe better. So, when we speak of Natural Selection,
we are speaking of how the laws that govern our Universe eventually
result with one creature, or organism, reigning supreme over another,
thus, surviving and reproducing. [186]
One common argument against Evolution is, if organisms tend to rise and
advance in organization through the means of Natural Selection, and thus
become more adapted to their environment, why are there numerous
creatures inhabiting all the niches of the ecological system? For
instance, there are microscopic bacteria organisms. While they are small
and occupy a small space, one may wonder why, through the means of
Natural Selection, they do not rise and become more advanced and
organized? The answer is as simple as this: though there are organisms
of every level of organization, the reason for the existence of lower
level creatures is due to the fact that, in their ecological niche, they
are simple enough to gather enough energy, reproduce, and survive. If
bacteria were to evolve into something as complex as a mammal, over the
course of hundreds of millions of years, it would have been in vain if
there was no food for the mammal to eat. Hence, we can see why humans
have not advanced to the point where we are twenty or thirty feet tall —
while it would be an ecological advantage, it would require us to eat
massive amounts of food, unlike our current selves. The reason why
microscopic bacteria is not leaving its current place, though it may
evolve into other organisms that will fill other places where food is
available, the reason for this is because they currently have enough
food in their current place to survive and reproduce, which is enough
for any organism to live. [187]
Another hypothetical consideration for the idea of Natural Selection is,
if Natural Selection is reasonable, then would it not create an
indefinite number of species, or why has it not done this? The simple
reply to this is easy. Once an organism fills a place in nature where it
can survive and reproduce, the following generations will only be
adapted better to this current place in nature. There is not an
indefinite amount of places where food can be obtained, so there will
not be an indefinite amount of species surviving and reproducing. [188]
One may argue that the unique and advanced nature of the eye, for
instance, is by far too complex on organ for Natural Selection to
create. To quote Charles Darwin...
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the
sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind
declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei,
as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells
me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to
its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies
and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and
if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing
conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and
complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by
our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than
how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest
organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving
light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in
their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves,
endowed with this special sensibility.
In searching for the gradations through which an orgain in any species
has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal
progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to
look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the
collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the
state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw light
on the steps by which it has been perfected.
The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic
nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells, and covered by translucent skin, but
without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to
M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of
pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any
nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple
nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish
light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the
layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by
the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting
with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He
suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate
the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this
concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most
important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for
we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in
some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some
near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating
apparatus, and an image will be formed on it.
In the great class of the Articulata, we may start from an optic nerve
simply coated with pigment, the latter sometimes forming a sort of
pupil, but destitute of a lens or other optical contrivance. With
insects it is now known that the numerous facets on the cornea of their
great compound eyes form true lenses, and that the cones include
curiously modified nervous filaments. But these organs in the Articulata
are so much diversified that Muller formerly made three main classes
with seven subdivisions, besides a fourth main class of aggregated
simple eyes.
When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with
respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in
the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the
number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have
become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that
natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic
nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an
optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the
articulate class.
He who will go thus far, ought not to hesitate to go one step further,
if he finds on finishing this volume that large bodies of facts,
otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of modification
through natural selection; he ought to admit that a structure even as
perfect as an eagle’s eye might thus be formed, although in this case he
does not know the transitional states. It has been objected that in
order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument,
many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is
assumed, could not be done through natural selection; but as I have
attempted to show in my work on the variation of domestic animals, it is
not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all simultaneous,
if they were extremely slight and gradual. Different kinds of
modification would, also, serve for the same general purpose: as Mr.
Wallace has remarked, “if a lens has too short or too long a focus, it
may be amended either by an alteration of curvature, or an alteration of
density; if the curvature be irregular, and the rays do not converge to
a point, then any increased regularity of curvature will be an
improvement. So the contraction of the iris and the muscular movements
of the eye are neither of them essential to vision, but only
improvements which might have been added and perfected at any stage of
the construction of the instrument.” Within the highest division of the
animal kingdom, namely, the Vertebrata, we can start from an eye so
simple, that it consists, as in the lancelet, of a little sack of
transparent skin, furnished with a nerve and lined with pigment, but
destitute of any other apparatus. In fishes and reptiles, as Owen has
remarked, “the range of gradations of dioptric structures is very
great.” It is a significant fact that even in man, according to the high
authority of Virchow, the beautiful crystalline lens is formed in the
embryo by an accumulation of epidermic cells, lying in a sack-like fold
of the skin; and the vitreous body is formed from embryonic
sub-cutaneous tissue. To arrive, however, at a just conclusion regarding
the formation of the eye, with all its marvellous yet not absolutely
perfect characters, it is indispensable that the reason should conquer
the imagination; but I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural
selection to so startling a length.
It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We
know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued
efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the
eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this
inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator
works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the
eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick
layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid, and with a
nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this
layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate
into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different
distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly
changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power,
represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always
intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers; and
carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way
or in any degree, tends to produce a distincter image. We must suppose
each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each
to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to
be all destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight
alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and
natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement.
Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on
millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a
living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of
glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? [189]
The theory of Evolution is greatly supported from the method by which
naturalists organize life, into different kingdoms, then phylums, then
different orders, families, species, and races, until we are capable of
distinguishing the amount of difference between different organisms. We
notice, however, that there are some creatures of completely different
phylums or kingdoms, and yet they have developed similar organs. For
instance, the electric eel is capable of producing electricity, much
like the sting ray has a mechanism for producing a small amount of
electricity. Organisms of extreme distance in relation will inevitably
produce organs which suffice to the same function as each other. The
case is analogous to two inventors in different countries, working on
the same invention to solve the same problem. But like the inventors,
the organs which resemble each other in different organisms, though they
serve the same purpose, they are intrinsically built in completely
different methods from each other, whereas the construction of the
tissue around the os coccyx of the human is similar to that of the tails
on other tailed creatures. [190] What, though, may be said of the
absence or rarity of transitional forms, or linking organisms, such as
the one which links mankind to primates? Quoting Darwin...
The intermediate variety, consequently, will exist in lesser numbers
from inhabiting a narrow and lesser area; and practically, as far as I
can make out, this rule holds good with varieties in a state of nature.
I have met with striking instances of the rule in the case of varieties
intermediate between well-marked varieties in the genus Balanus. And it
would appear from information given me by Mr. Watson, Dr. Asa Gray, and
Mr. Wollaston, that generally, when varieties intermediate between two
other forms occur, they are much rarer numerically than the forms which
they connect. Now, if we may trust these facts and inferences, and
conclude that varieties linking two other varieties together generally
have existed in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, then
we can understand why intermediate varieties should not endure for very
long periods:- why, as a general rule, they should be exterminated and
disappear, sooner than the forms which they originally linked together.
[...]
For forms existing in larger numbers will have a better chance, within
any given period, of presenting further favourable variations for
natural selection to seize on, than will the rarer forms which exist in
lesser numbers. Hence, the more common forms, in the race for life, will
tend to beat and supplant the less common forms, for these will be more
slowly modified and improved. It is the same principle which, as I
believe, accounts for the common species in each country, as shown in
the second chapter, presenting on an average a greater number of
well-marked varieties than do the rarer species.
[...]
To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined
objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of
varying and intermediate links; first, because new varieties are very
slowly formed, for variation is a slow process, and natural selection
can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations
occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be
better filled by some modification of some one or more of its
inhabitants. And such new places will depend on slow changes of climate,
or on the occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a
still more important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming
slowly modified, with the new forms thus produced, and the old ones
acting and reacting on each other. So that, in any one region and at any
one time, we ought to see only a few species presenting slight
modifications of structure in some degree permanent; and this assuredly
we do see.
[...]
...when two or more varieties have been formed in different portions of
a strictly continuous area, intermediate varieties will, it is probable,
at first have been formed in the intermediate zones, but they will
generally have had a short duration. For these intermediate varieties
will, from reasons already assigned (namely from what we know of the
actual distribution of closely allied or representative species, and
likewise of acknowledged varieties), exist in the intermediate zones in
lesser numbers than the varieties which they tend to connect. From this
cause alone the intermediate varieties will be liable to accidental
extermination; and during the process of further modification through
natural selection, they will almost certainly be beaten and supplanted
by the forms which they connect; for these from existing in greater
numbers will, in the aggregate, present more varieties, and thus be
further improved through natural selection and gain further advantages.
[...] [...]
When we see any structure highly perfected for any particular habit, as
the wings of a bird for flight, we should bear in mind that animals
displaying early transitional grades of the structure will seldom have
survived to the present day, for they will have been supplanted by their
successors, which were gradually rendered more perfect through natural
selection. [191]
Some will claim that nature’s so-called “vestigial organs” are not
vestigial at all, but rather are created for the beauty of mankind. The
first point I will respond to this argument is the question of beauty.
Even in different nations of mankind, the definition of “beautiful” and
“ugly” varies greatly, ignoring altogether that one person’s concept of
these ideas may vary greatly from another, even if the two are related.
In regard to the appendix of the human, how is it that it may inspire
beauty? For millions of years, it had not been observed, and even today
it is embedded inside our bodies. When removed, there is nothing
particularly extraordinary about it. There are also vestigial muscles.
By what writ can anyone claim that they are beautiful? They are attached
to the os coccyx, and in instances of reversion, sometimes in the back
of the neck or other random parts, but how might they incite beauty?
Simply put, this argument that vestigial organs are created for beauty
is ignorant. [192]
Also, there is the question of why a bee has evolved in the way that it
is — that the proper usage of its sting will actually kill the creature.
If organisms evolve and change through Natural Selection so that they
can survive and reproduce, why is it that the mechanisms of the bee lead
it to suicide? However, in this case, we see that Natural Selection has
risen to an more advanced form. Those bee colonies that did not have
suicidal stingers, for instance, perished, because none were capable of
fending off invaders. Yet, those bee colonies that had suicidal
stingers, and successfully fended off invaders, did survive, and were
capable of reproducing. So we see here, Natural Selection is not a
system of survival simply with one organism versus another organism, but
it can be raised even higher, to one society versus another society. In
human terms, this is also observable: humans are kindly and even
charitable to one another in some instances, without personal gain.
[193] Finally, there is one real argument against Evolution and Natural
Selection that stands: how is it that such small advantages in an
organism be so important to its survival? On that question, I will end
with a quote by the father of Natural Selection...
The tail of the giraffe looks like an artificially constructed
fly-flapper; and it seems at first incredible that this could have been
adapted for its present purpose by successive slight modifications, each
better and better fitted, for so trifling an object as to drive away
flies; yet we should pause before being too positive even in this case,
for we know that the distribution and existence of cattle and other
animals in South America absolutely depend on their power of resisting
the attacks of insects: so that individuals which could by any means
defend themselves from these small enemies, would be able to range into
new pastures and thus gain a great advantage. It is not that the larger
quadrupeds are actually destroyed (except in some rare cases) by flies,
but they are incessantly harassed and their strength reduced, so that
they are more subject to disease, or not so well enabled in a coming
dearth to search for food, or to escape from beasts of prey. [194]
The theory of Evolution, that mankind today has come into existence
through many successive variations of older organisms, is a scientific
theory, based on evidence and observation. There is no doubt to the
principles of inheritance and variation, that offspring will often times
resemble their parents in a great deal of points, but differ in some
other points. Experience and experiments have confirmed this. There is
also little doubt that organisms of the world today are adapted well to
their environments. No naturalist is yet to dispute this. Finally, we
have the theory of Natural Selection, a very sound idea on how
adaptations occur. Those organisms that are fit to their environment
survive and reproduce, while the unfit do not survive or reproduce.
These few facts alone gave life to the idea that mankind came from lower
beings, yet ever since this suspicion, there has been a wealth of
evidence accumulated in favor of it. First, we have our own process of
Evolution, Selective Breeding, through which we used the laws of Natural
Selection to create vast amounts of new species and races. Second, we
have the similarities between the different species of this planet.
Baboons are similarly affected by alcohol as we are, and those diseases
which effect humans also effect lower creatures, and, finally, the
healing of damaged tissue is incredibly similar in man as it is in lower
animals. Third, we find a great deal of reversionary organs, or
development of tissue that is useless to the current form. For instance,
there is the possibility that a male mammal’s nipples are capable of
producing milk, and it is possible for humans to be born with a tail.
Fourth, the existence of vestigial organs, which serve no purpose, are
among all higher creatures. In humans, we have the appendix and the male
nipple, which serve no purpose. In manatees, there are nails on the tip
of their fins, and the ostrich is born with wings yet incapable of
flight. With reversionary and vestigial organs, we find the great deal
of these useless tissues are remnants of earlier creatures, which lead
us finally to believe that it is true, that humans ascended from lower
organisms, through the means of Natural Selection.
[1] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
introduction.
[2] “The Perpetuation of Living Beings, Hereditary Transmission and
Variation,” by Thomas Henry Huxley.
[3] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[4] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[5] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[6] Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, 1869.
[7] Section 6 of the DXM FAQ, by William White.
[8] Mr. Sedgwick, British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, July,
1863, p. 170.
[9] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[10] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[11] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[12] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[13] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[14] Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of
American Soldiers, by B. A. Gould, 1869, p. 256.
[15] With respect to the “ Cranial forms of the American aborigines,”
see Dr. Aitken Meigs in Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, May, 1868.
On the Australians, see Huxley, in Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, 1863, p.
87. On the Sandwich Islanders, Prof. J. Wyman, Observations on Crania,
Boston, 1868, p. 18.
[16] Anatomy of the Arteries, by R. Quain. Preface, vol. i., 1844.
[17] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 12, page 491.
[18] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[19] “The Desert” by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas (Continuation), from the
book The Harmless People by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas. Appearing in the
OneWorld Magazine.
[20] Proceedings Royal Society, 1867, p. 544; also 1868, pp. 483, 524.
There is a previous paper, 1866, p. 229.
[21] Proc. R. Irish Academy, vol. x., 1868, p. 141.
[22] Act. Acad. St. Petersburg, 1778, part ii., p. 217.
[23] Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., ss. 58, 87. Rengger,
Saugethiere von Paraguay, s. 57.
[24] Messrs. Murie and Mivart in their “Anatomy of the Lemuroidea”
(Transact. Zoolog. Soc., vol. vii., 1869, pp. 96–98) say, “ some muscles
are so irregular in their distribution that they cannot be well classed
in any of the above groups.” These muscles differ even on the opposite
sides of the same individual.
[25] “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” by Thomas Malthus,
Chapter 19, 1798.
[26] “The Perpetuation of Living Beings, Hereditary Transmission and
Variation,” by Thomas Henry Huxley.
[27] “The Perpetuation of Living Beings, Hereditary Transmission and
Variation,” by Thomas Henry Huxley.
[28] “The Perpetuation of Living Beings, Hereditary Transmission and
Variation,” by Thomas Henry Huxley.
[29] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[30] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 10, pages 421–422.
[31] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 17, page 465.
[32] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 20, page 372.
[33] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 22, page 341.
[34] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 7, page 491.
[35] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 14, page 705.
[36] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 21, page 105.
[37] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 22, pages 552–554.
[38] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 11, page 533.
[39] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 18, page 245.
[40] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 18, page 262.
[41] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 18, page 537.
[42] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 23, page 577.
[43] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 9, page 79.
[44] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 11, pages 106–107.
[45] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 13, page 715.
[46] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 14, page 129.
[47] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 14, page 675.
[48] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 22, page 314.
[49] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 5, page 562.
[50] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 8, page 628.
[51] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 16, page 330.
[52] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 21, page 532.
[53] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 21, page 712.
[54] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 7.
[55] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 3.
[56] Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6. Original
source: Quoted by Reade, African Sketch Book, vol i., 1873, p. 152.
[57] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 3.
[58] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[59] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[60] “Civilization and Its Discontents,” by Sigmund Freud, 1930.
Published by W.W. Norton & Company, translated and edited by James
Strachey (copyright 1961), with a biographical introduction by Peter
Gay. Chapter 1, pages 15–16.
[61] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 5.
[62] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[63] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[64] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[65] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[66] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[67] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[68] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[69] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 8.
[70] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[71] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[72] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[73] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[74] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[75] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[76] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[77] “Civilization and Its Discontents,” by Sigmund Freud, 1930.
Published by W.W. Norton & Company, translated and edited by James
Strachey (copyright 1961), with a biographical introduction by Peter
Gay. Chapter 3, page 45.
[78] “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” by Thomas Malthus,
Chapter 14, 1798.
[79] “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” by Thomas Malthus,
Chapter 9, 1798.
[80] “The Perpetuation of Living Beings, Hereditary Transmission and
Variation,” by Thomas Henry Huxley.
[81] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[82] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[83] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[84] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[85] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[86] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[87] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.
[88] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[89] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[90] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[91] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[92] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[93] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[94] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[95] Grosshirnwindungen des Menschen, 1868, s. 96.
[96] Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay has treated this subject at some length in
the Journal of Mental Science, July, 1871: and in the Edinburgh
Veterinary Review, July, 1858.
[97] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[98] Naturgeschichte der Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, s. 50.
[99] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[100] Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., 1864, 75, 86. On the
Ateles, s. 105. For other analogous statements, see ss. 25, 107.
[101] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[102] Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, Edinburgh Veterinary Review, July, 1858, p.
13.
[103] Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, by Charles
Darwin, vol. ii., p. 15.
[104] Man’s Place in Nature, by Thomas Henry Huxley, 1863, p. 67.
[105] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[106] Professor Wyman in Proceedings of the American Academy of
Sciences, vol. iv., 1860, p. 17.
[107] Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. i., p. 533.
[108] Die Grosshirnwindungen des Menschen 1868, s. 95.
[109] Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. ii., p. 553.
[110] Proc. Soc. Nat. Hist., Boston, 1863, vol. ix., p. 185.
[111] Mr. Champneys in Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, May, 1872, p.
421.
[112] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[113] Haeckel has an excellent discussion on the steps by which man
became a biped: Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte, 1868, s. 507. Dr.
Buchner (Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne, 1869, p. 135) has given
good cases of the use of the foot as a prehensile organ by man; and has
also written on the manner of progression of the higher apes; see also
Owen (Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 71) on this latter subject.
[114] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[115] “We Must Take Sides,” by Voltaire, translated by Joseph McCabe.
Quoted from “A Treatise on Toleration and Other Essays,” Prometheus
Books, 1994, page 10.
[116] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[117] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[118] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[119] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[120] Ananova News, “Baby with tail ‘reincarnation of Hindu god’”, 11:19
Friday 11^(th) January 2002.
[121] The New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, article by Dr Fred
Ledley.
[122] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1 and chapter 5.
[123] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[124] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 2.
[125] Memoires sur les Microcephales, by Vogt, 1867, pp. 50, 125, 169,
171, 184–198. And... Prof. Laycock sums up the character of brute-like
idiots by calling them theroid; Journal of Mental Science,, July, 1863.
Dr. Scott (The Deaf and Dumb, 2^(nd) ed., 1870, p. 10) has often
observed the imbeciles smelling their food. See, on this same subject,
and on the hairiness of idiots, Dr. Maudsley, Body and Mind, 1870, pp.
46–51. Pinel has also given a striking case of hairiness in an idiot.
[126] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[127] Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena, 1867, p. 83. Prof.
Canestrini gives extracts on this subject from various authorities.
Laurillard remarks, that as he has found a complete similarity in the
form, proportions, and connection of the two molar bones in several
human subjects and in certain apes, he cannot consider this disposition
of the parts as simply accidental. Another paper on this same anomaly
has been published by Dr. Saviotti in the Gazzetta delle Cliniche,
Turin, 1871, where he says that traces of the division may be detected
in about two per cent of adult skulls; he also remarks that it more
frequently occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in
others. See also G. Delorenzi on the same subject; “Tre nuovi casi
d’anomalia dell’ osso malare,” Torino, 1872. Also, E. Morselli, “Sopra
una rara anomalia dell’ osso malare,” Modena, 1872. Still more recently
Gruber has written a pamphlet on the division of this bone. I give these
references because a reviewer, without any grounds or scruples, has
thrown doubts on my statements.
[128] Quoted by Prof. Canestrini in the Annuario, della Soc. dei
Naturalisti, 1867, p. 90.
[129] See also Prof. Macalister in Proceedings, Royal Irish Academy,
vol. x., 1868, p. 124.
[130] Mr. Champneys in Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Nov., 1871, p.
178.
[131] With respect to inheritance, see Dr. Struthers in the Lancet, Feb.
15, 1873, and another important paper, ibid., Jan. 24, 1863, p. 83. Dr.
Knox, as I am informed, was the first anatomist who drew attention to
this peculiar structure in man; see his Great Artists and Anatomists, p.
63. See also an important memoir on this process by Dr. Gruber, in the
Bulletin de l’Acad. Imp. de St. Petersbourg, tom. xii., 1867, p. 448.
[132] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Lauren S. Bahr (editorial director) and
Bernard Johnston (editor in chief), volume 11, page 106.
[133] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[134] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 1.
[135] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 5.
[136] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[137] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14. The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[138] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[139] Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., pp. 320, 321, and 325.
[140] “On the Primitive Form of the Skull,” Eng. translat., in
Anthropological Review, Oct., 1868, p. 426.
[141] Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by
Douglas M. Considine, page 2281.
[142] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[143] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[144] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[145] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[146] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[147] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[148] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[149] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[150] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[151] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 5.
[152] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[153] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 8.
[154] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[155] Scientific and common names from J T Collins, Standard common and
current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles,
Third Edition, Soc Study Amph & Rept Herp Circular No , Order of
families from J L Behler and F W King, The Audubon Society Field Guide
to North American Reptiles and Amphibians, Alfred A Knopf. Compiled for
Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA
, by Doug Henderson and Dennis Paulson, October, 1995.
[156] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[157] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[158] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[159] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[160] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[161] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[162] “Underwater Adventure” by By Dave Ackerman, published by the
Columbus Dispatch, 2000.
[163] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[164] Revue d’Anthropologie, by Professor Broca, 1872; “La Constitution
des vertebres caudales.”
[165] Professor W. Turner, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, 1866–67, p. 65.
[166] Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti, Modena, 1897, p. 97.
[167] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 1.
[168] Professor A. Macalister, Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
vol. vii., 1871, p. 342.
[169] Mr. St. George Mivart, Elementary Anatomy, 1873, p. 396.
[170] Muller’s Elements of Physiology, Eng. translat., 1842, vol. ii.,
p. 1117. Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 260; ibid., on the
walrus, Proceedings of the Zoological Society, November 8, 1854. See
also R. Knox, Great Artists and Anatomists, p. 106. This rudiment
apparently is somewhat larger in Negroes and Australians than in
Europeans, see Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man, Eng. translat., p. 129.
[171] The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by
the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by
others. M. Houzeau (Etudes sur les Facultes Mentales, &c., tom. i.,
1872, p. 91) asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved
that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their
odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection
between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous
membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I
have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a
finer sense of smell than the white races. See his paper,
Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, London, vol. liii., 1870, p. 276.
[172] Eschricht, “Uber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen Korper,”
Muller’s Archiv fur Anat. und Phys., 1837, s. 47. I shall often have to
refer to this very curious paper. And... Paget, Lectures on Surgical
Pathology, 1853, vol. i., p. 71.
[173] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[174] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[175] Owen, Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., pp 416, 434, 441. And...
Annuario della Soc. d. Nat. Modena, 1867, p. 94.
[176]
M. C. Martins (“De l’Unite Organique,” in Revue des Deux Mondes, June
15, 1862, p. 16) and Haeckel (Generelle Morphologie, B. ii., s.
278), have both remarked on the singular fact of this rudiment
sometimes causing death.
[177] Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., 1868, p. 323. And... Generelle
Morphologie, 1866, B. ii., s. clv. And... Carl Vogt’s Lectures on Man,
Eng. translat., 1864, p. 151. And... C. Carter Blake, on a jaw from La
Naulette, Anthropological Review, 1867, p. 295. Schaaffhausen, ibid.,
1868, p. 426.
[178] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 2.
[179] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 14.
[180] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[181] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[182] “Uber die Richtung der Haare, &c.,” Muller’s Archiv fur Anat. und
Phys., 1837, s. 51.
[183] The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 6.
[184] “Antilocapra Americana. I have to thank Dr. Canfield for
information with respect to the horns of the female: see also his paper
in Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 1866, p. 109. Also Owen,
Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 627.” (From: The Descent of Man,
by Charles Darwin, 1871, chapter 8.)
[185] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[186] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[187] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[188] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 4.
[189] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[190] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[191] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[192] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[193] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.
[194] Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, 1859, Sixth Edition,
chapter 6.