a critical examination of on the origin of species-第4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!
far as experiments have gone; it has not been found possible to produce
this complete physiological divergence by selective breeding。 I stated
this very clearly before; and I now refer to the point; because; if it
could be proved; not only that this 'has' not been done; but that it
'cannot' be done; if it could be demonstrated that it is impossible to
breed selectively; from any stock; a form which shall not breed with
another; produced from the same stock; and if we were shown that this
must be the necessary and inevitable results of all experiments; I hold
that Mr。 Darwin's hypothesis would be utterly shattered。
But has this been done? or what is really the state of the case? It is
simply that; so far as we have gone yet with our breeding; we have not
produced from a common stock two breeds which are not more or less
fertile with one another。
I do not know that there is a single fact which would justify any one in
saying that any degree of sterility has been observed between breeds
absolutely known to have been produced by selective breeding from a
common stock。 On the other hand; I do not know that there is a single
fact which can justify any one in asserting that such sterility cannot
be produced by proper experimentation。 For my own part; I see every
reason to believe that it may; and will be so produced。 For; as Mr。
Darwin has very properly urged; when we consider the phenomena of
sterility; we find they are most capricious; we do not know what it is
that the sterility depends on。 There are some animals which will not
breed in captivity; whether it arises from the simple fact of their
being shut up and deprived of their liberty; or not; we do not know;
but they certainly will not breed。 What an astounding thing this is; to
find one of the most important of all functions annihilated by mere
imprisonment!
So; again; there are cases known of animals which have been thought by
naturalists to be undoubted species; which have yielded perfectly
fertile hybrids; while there are other species which present what
everybody believes to be varieties* which are more or less infertile
with one another。 There are other cases which are truly extraordinary;
there is one; for example; which has been carefully examined;of two
kinds of sea…weed; of which the male element of the one; which we may
call A; fertilizes the female element of the other; B; while the male
element of B will not fertilize the female element of A; so that; while
the former experiment seems to show us that they are 'varieties'; the
latter leads to the conviction that they are 'species'。
*'footnote' And as I conceive with very good reason; but if
any objector urges that we cannot prove that they have been
produced by artificial or natural selection; the objection
must be admittedultrasceptical as it is。 But in science;
scepticism is a duty。
When we see how capricious and uncertain this sterility is; how unknown
the conditions on which it depends; I say that we have no right to
affirm that those conditions will not be better understood by and by;
and we have no ground for supposing that we may not be able to
experiment so as to obtain that crucial result which I mentioned just
now。 So that though Mr。 Darwin's hypothesis does not completely
extricate us from this difficulty at present; we have not the least
right to say it will not do so。
There is a wide gulf between the thing you cannot explain and the thing
that upsets you altogether。 There is hardly any hypothesis in this
world which has not some fact in connection with it which has not been
explained; but that is a very different affair to a fact that entirely
opposes your hypothesis; in this case all you can say is; that your
hypothesis is in the same position as a good many others。
Now; as to the third test; that there are no other causes competent to
explain the phenomena; I explained to you that one should be able to
say of an hypothesis; that no other known causes than those supposed by
it are competent to give rise to the phenomena。 Here; I think; Mr。
Darwin's view is pretty strong。 I really believe that the alternative
is either Darwinism or nothing; for I do not know of any rational
conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific
position at all beside Mr。 Darwin's。 I do not know of any proposition
that has been put before us with the intention of explaining the
phenomena of organic nature; which has in its favour a thousandth part
of the evidence which may be adduced in favour of Mr。 Darwin's views。
Whatever may be the objections to his views; certainly all others are
absolutely out of court。
Take the Lamarckian hypothesis; for example。 Lamarck was a great
naturalist; and to a certain extent went the right way to work; he
argued from what was undoubtedly a true cause of some of the phenomena
of organic nature。 He said it is a matter of experience that an animal
may be modified more or less in consequence of its desires and
consequent actions。 Thus; if a man exercise himself as a blacksmith;
his arms will become strong and muscular; such organic modification is
a result of this particular action and exercise。 Lamarck thought that
by a very simple supposition based on this truth he could explain the
origin of the various animal species: he said; for example; that the
short…legged birds which live on fish had been converted into the
long…legged waders by desiring to get the fish without wetting their
bodies; and so stretching their legs more and more through successive
generations。 If Lamarck could have shown experimentally; that even
races of animals could be produced in this way; there might have been
some ground for his speculations。 But he could show nothing of the
kind; and his hypothesis has pretty well dropped into oblivion; as it
deserved to do。 I said in an earlier lecture that there are hypotheses
and hypotheses; and when people tell you that Mr。 Darwin's
strongly…based hypothesis is nothing but a mere modification of
Lamarck's; you will know what to think of their capacity for forming a
judgment on this subject。
But you must recollect that when I say I think it is either Mr。 Darwin's
hypothesis or nothing; that either we must take his view; or look upon
the whole of organic nature as an enigma; the meaning of which is
wholly hidden from us; you must understand that I mean that I accept it
provisionally; in exactly the same way as I accept any other hypothesis。
Men of science do not pledge themselves to creeds; they are bound by
articles of no sort; there is not a single belief that it is not a
bounden duty with them to hold with a light hand and to part with it
cheerfully; the moment it is really proved to be contrary to any fact;
great or small。 And if; in course of time I see good reasons for such
a proceeding; I shall have no hesitation in coming before you; and
pointing out any change in my opinion without finding the slightest
occasion to blush for so doing。 So I say that we accept this view as
we accept any other; so long as it will help us; and we feel bound to
retain it only so long as it will serve our great purposethe
improvement of Man's estate and the widening of his knowledge。 The
moment this; or any other conception; ceases to be useful for these
purposes; away with it to the four winds; we care not what becomes of
it!
But to say truth; although it has been my business to attend closely to
the controversies roused by the publication of Mr。 Darwin's book; I
think that not one of the enormous mass of objections and obstacles
which have been raised is of any very great value; except that
sterility case which I brought before you just now。 All the rest are
misunderstandings of some sort; arising either from prejudice; or want
of knowledge; or still more from want of patience and care in reading
the work。
For you must recollect that it is not a book to be read with as much
ease as its pleasant style may lead you to imagine。 You spin through
it as if it were a novel the first time you read it; and think you know
all about it; the second time you read it you think you know rather
less about i