essays on life, art and science-第43章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


not　incessant　revolution　that　both　parties　are　upholding；　and　this
being　so；　rapid　visible　modification　must　be　the　exception；　not　the
rule。　　I　have　quoted　direct　evidence　adduced　by　competent　observers；
which　is；　I　believe；　sufficient　to　establish　the　fact　that　offspring
can　be　and　is　sometimes　modified　by　the　acquired　habits　of　a
progenitor。　　I　will　now　proceed　to　the　still　more；　as　it　appears　to
me；　cogent　proof　afforded　by　general　considerations。

What；　let　me　ask；　are　the　principal　phenomena　of　heredity？　　There
must　be　physical　continuity　between　parent；　or　parents；　and
offspring；　so　that　the　offspring　is；　as　Erasmus　Darwin　well　said；　a
kind　of　elongation　of　the　life　of　the　parent。

Erasmus　Darwin　put　the　matter　so　well　that　I　may　as　well　give　his
words　in　full；　he　wrote：…

〃Owing　to　the　imperfection　of　language　the　offspring　is　termed　a　new
animal；　but　is　in　truth　a　branch　or　elongation　of　the　parent；　since
a　part　of　the　embryon　animal　is；　or　was；　a　part　of　the　parent；　and
therefore；　in　strict　language；　cannot　be　said　to　be　entirely　new　at
the　time　of　its　production；　and　therefore　it　may　retain　some　of　the
habits　of　the　parent　system。

〃At　the　earliest　period　of　its　existence　the　embryon　would　seem　to
consist　of　a　living　filament　with　certain　capabilities　of
irritation；　sensation；　volition；　and　association；　and　also　with　some
acquired　habits　or　propensities　peculiar　to　the　parent；　the　former
of　these　are　in　common　with　other　animals；　the　latter　seem　to
distinguish　or　produce　the　kind　of　animal；　whether　man　or　quadruped；
with　the　similarity　of　feature　or　form　to　the　parent。〃　｛39｝

Those　who　accept　evolution　insist　on　unbroken　physical　continuity
between　the　earliest　known　life　and　ourselves；　so　that　we　both　are
and　are　not　personally　identical　with　the　unicellular　organism　from
which　we　have　descended　in　the　course　of　many　millions　of　years；
exactly　in　the　same　way　as　an　octogenarian　both　is　and　is　not
personally　identical　with　the　microscopic　impregnate　ovum　from　which
he　grew　up。　　Everything　both　is　and　is　not。　　There　is　no　such　thing
as　strict　identity　between　any　two　things　in　any　two　consecutive
seconds。　　In　strictness　they　are　identical　and　yet　not　identical；　so
that　in　strictness　they　violate　a　fundamental　rule　of　strictness
namely；　that　a　thing　shall　never　be　itself　and　not　itself　at　one　and
the　same　time；　we　must　choose　between　logic　and　dealing　in　a
practical　spirit　with　time　and　space；　it　is　not　surprising；
therefore；　that　logic；　in　spite　of　the　show　of　respect　outwardly
paid　to　her；　is　told　to　stand　aside　when　people　come　to　practice。
In　practice　identity　is　generally　held　to　exist　where　continuity　is
only　broken　slowly　and　piecemeal；　nevertheless；　that　occasional
periods　of　even　rapid　change　are　not　held　to　bar　identity；　appears
from　the　fact　that　no　one　denies　this　to　hold　between　the
microscopically　small　impregnate　ovum　and　the　born　child　that
springs　from　it；　nor　yet；　therefore；　between　the　impregnate　ovum　and
the　octogenarian　into　which　the　child　grows；　for　both　ovum　and
octogenarian　are　held　personally　identical　with　the　newborn　baby；
and　things　that　are　identical　with　the　same　are　identical　with　one
another。

The　first；　then；　and　most　important　element　of　heredity　is　that
there　should　be　unbroken　continuity；　and　hence　sameness　of
personality；　between　parents　and　offspring；　in　neither　more　nor　less
than　the　same　sense　as　that　in　which　any　other　two　personalities　are
said　to　be　the　same。　　The　repetition；　therefore；　of　its
developmental　stages　by　any　offspring　must　be　regarded　as　something
which　the　embryo　repeating　them　has　already　done　once；　in　the　person
of　one　or　other　parent；　and　if　once；　then；　as　many　times　as　there
have　been　generations　between　any　given　embryo　now　repeating　it；　and
the　point　in　life　from　which　we　startedsay；　for　example；　the
amoeba。　　In　the　case　of　asexually　and　sexually　produced　organisms
alike；　the　offspring　must　be　held　to　continue　the　personality　of　the
parent　or　parents；　and　hence　on　the　occasion　of　every　fresh
development；　to　be　repeating　something　which　in　the　person　of　its
parent　or　parents　it　has　done　once；　and　if　once；　then　any　number　of
times；　already。

It　is　obvious；　therefore；　that　the　germ…plasm　（or　whatever　the　fancy
word　for　it　may　be）　of　any　one　generation　is　as　physically　identical
with　the　germ…plasm　of　its　predecessor　as　any　two　things　can　be。
The　difference　between　Professor　Weismann　and；　we　will　say；
Heringians　consists　in　the　fact　that　the　first　maintains　the　new
germ…plasm　when　on　the　point　of　repeating　its　developmental
processes　to　take　practically　no　cognisance　of　anything　that　has
happened　to　it　since　the　last　occasion　on　which　it　developed　itself；
while　the　latter　maintain　that　offspring　takes　much　the　same　kind　of
account　of　what　has　happened　to　it　in　the　persons　of　its　parents
since　the　last　occasion　on　which　it　developed　itself；　as　people　in
ordinary　life　take　of　things　that　happen　to　them。　　In　daily　life
people　let　fairly　normal　circumstances　come　and　go　without　much　heed
as　matters　of　course。　　If　they　have　been　lucky　they　make　a　note　of
it　and　try　to　repeat　their　success。　　If　they　have　been　unfortunate
but　have　recovered　rapidly　they　soon　forget　it；　if　they　have
suffered　long　and　deeply　they　grizzle　over　it　and　are　scared　and
scarred　by　it　for　a　long　time。　　The　question　is　one　of　cognisance　or
non…cognisance　on　the　part　of　the　new　germs；　of　the　more　profound
impressions　made　on　them　while　they　were　one　with　their　parents；
between　the　occasion　of　their　last　preceding　development；　and　the
new　course　on　which　they　are　about　to　enter。　　Those　who　accept　the
theory　put　forward　independently　by　Professor　Hering　of　Prague
（whose　work　on　this　subject　is　translated　in　my　book；　〃Unconscious
Memory〃）　｛40｝　and　by　myself　in　〃Life　and　Habit；〃　｛41｝　believe　in
cognizance；　as　do　Lamarckians　generally。　　Weismannites；　and　with
them　the　orthodoxy　of　English　science；　find　non…cognisance　more
acceptable。

If　the　Heringian　view　is　accepted；　that　heredity　is　only　a　mode　of
memory；　and　an　extension　of　memory　from　one　generation　to　another；
then　the　repetition　of　its　development　by　any　embryo　thus　becomes
only　the　repetition　of　a　lesson　learned　by　rote；　and；　as　I　have
elsewhere　said；　our　view　of　life　is　simplified　by　finding　that　it　is
no　longer　an　equation　of；　say；　a　hundred　unknown　quantities；　but　of
ninety…nine　only；　inasmuch　as　two　of　the　unknown　quantities　prove　to
be　substantially　identical。　　In　this　case　the　inheritance　of
acquired　characteristics　cannot　be　disputed；　for　it　is　postulated　in
the　theory　that　each　embryo　takes　note　of；　remembers　and　is　guided
by　the　profounder　impressions　made　upon　it　while　in　the　persons　of
its　parents；　between　its　present　and　last　preceding　development。　　To
maintain　this　is　to　maintain　use　and　disuse　to　be　the　main　factors
throughout　organic　development；　to　deny　it　is　to　deny　that　use　and
disuse　can　have　any　conceivable　effect。　　For　the　detailed　reasons
which　led　me　to　my　own　conclusions　I　must　refer　the　reader　to　my
books；　〃Life　and　Habit〃　｛42｝　and　〃Unconscious　Memory；〃　｛42｝　the
conclusions　of　which　have　been　often　adopted；　but　never；　that　I　have
seen；　disputed。　　A　brief　resume　of　the　leading　points　in　the
argument　is　all　that　space　will　here　allow　me　to　give。

We　have　seen　that　it　is　a　first　requirement　of　heredity　that　there
shall　be　physical　continuity　between　parents　and　offspring。　　This
holds　good　with　memory。　　There　must　be　continued　identity　between
the　person　remembering　and　the　person　to　whom　the　thing　that　is
remembered　happened。　　We　cannot　remember　things　that　happened　to
some　one　else；　and　in　our　absence。　　We　can　only　remember　having
heard　of　them。　　We　have　seen；　however；　that　there　is　as　much　bona…
fide　sameness　of　personality　between　parents　and　offspring　up　to　the
time　at　which　the　offspring　quits　the　parent's　body；　as　there　is
between　the　different　states　of　the　parent　himself　at　any　two
consecutive　moments；　the　offspring　therefore；　being　one　and　the　same
person　with　its　progenitors　until　it　quits　them；　can　be　held　to
remember　what　happened　to　them　within；　of　course；　the　limitations　to
which