The Evolution of Man, vol 1, Ernst Haeckel [books to read this summer TXT] 📗

less complete in proportion as a varying adaptation to new conditions increases the disturbing factors in the development (or cenogenesis).

The cenogenetic alterations or distortions of the original palingenetic course of development take the form, as a rule, of a gradual displacement of the phenomena, which is slowly effected by adaptation to the changed conditions of embryonic existence during the course of thousands of years. This displacement may take place as regards either the position or the time of a phenomenon.

The great importance and strict regularity of the time-variations in embryology have been carefully studied recently by Ernest Mehnert, in his Biomechanik (Jena, 1898). He contends that our biogenetic law has not been impaired by the attacks of its opponents, and goes on to say: “Scarcely any piece of knowledge has contributed so much to the advance of embryology as this; its formulation is one of the most signal services to general biology. It was not until this law passed into the flesh and blood of investigators, and they had accustomed themselves to see a reminiscence of ancestral history in embryonic structures, that we witnessed the great progress which embryological research has made in the last two decades.” The best proof of the correctness of this opinion is that now the most fruitful work is done in all branches of embryology with the aid of this biogenetic law, and that it enables students to attain every year thousands of brilliant results that they would never have reached without it.

It is only when one appreciates the cenogenetic processes in relation to the palingenetic, and when one takes careful account of the changes which the latter may suffer from the former, that the radical importance of the biogenetic law is recognised, and it is felt to be the most illuminating principle in the science of evolution. In this task of discrimination it is the silver thread in relation to which we can arrange all the phenomena of this realm of marvels—the “Ariadne thread,” which alone enables us to find our way through this labyrinth of forms. Hence the brothers Sarasin, the zoologists, could say with perfect justice, in their study of the evolution of the Ichthyophis, that “the great biogenetic law is just as important for the zoologist in tracing long-extinct processes as spectrum analyses is for the astronomer.”

Even at an earlier period, when a correct acquaintance with the evolution of the human and animal frame was only just being obtained—and that is scarcely eighty years ago!—the greatest astonishment was felt at the remarkable similarity observed between the embryonic forms, or stages of foetal development, in very different animals; attention was called even then to their close resemblance to certain fully-developed animal forms belonging to some of the lower groups. The older scientists (Oken, Treviranus, and others) knew perfectly well that these lower forms in a sense illustrated and fixed, in the hierarchy of the animal world, a temporary stage in the evolution of higher forms. The famous anatomist Meckel spoke in 1821 of a “similarity between the development of the embryo and the series of animals.” Baer raised the question in 1828

how far, within the vertebrate type, the embryonic forms of the higher animals assume the permanent shapes of members of lower groups. But it was impossible fully to understand and appreciate this remarkable resemblance at that time. We owe our capacity to do this to the theory of descent; it is this that puts in their true light the action of heredity on the one hand and adaptation on the other. It explains to us the vital importance of their constant reciprocal action in the production of organic forms. Darwin was the first to teach us the great part that was played in this by the ceaseless struggle for existence between living things, and to show how, under the influence of this (by natural selection), new species were produced and maintained solely by the interaction of heredity and adaptation. It was thus Darwinism that first opened our eyes to a true comprehension of the supremely important relations between the two parts of the science of organic evolution—Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

Heredity and adaptation are, in fact, the two constructive physiological functions of living things; unless we understand these properly we can make no headway in the study of evolution. Hence, until the time of Darwin no one had a clear idea of the real nature and causes of embryonic development. It was impossible to explain the curious series of forms through which the human embryo passed; it was quite unintelligible why this strange succession of animal-like forms appeared in the series at all. It had previously been generally assumed that the man was found complete in all his parts in the ovum, and that the development consisted only in an unfolding of the various parts, a simple process of growth. This is by no means the case. On the contrary, the whole process of the development of the individual presents to the observer a connected succession of different animal-forms; and these forms display a great variety of external and internal structure. But WHY each individual human being should pass through this series of forms in the course of his embryonic development it was quite impossible to say until Lamarck and Darwin established the theory of descent. Through this theory we have at last detected the real causes, the efficient causes, of the individual development; we have learned that these mechanical causes suffice of themselves to effect the formation of the organism, and that there is no need of the final causes which were formerly assumed. It is true that in the academic philosophies of our time these final causes still figure very prominently; in the new philosophy of nature we can entirely replace them by efficient causes. We shall see, in the course of our inquiry, how the most wonderful and hitherto insoluble enigmas in the human and animal frame have proved amenable to a mechanical explanation, by causes acting without prevision, through Darwin’s reform of the science of evolution. We have everywhere been able to substitute unconscious causes, acting from necessity, for conscious, purposive causes. ( The monistic or mechanical philosophy of nature holds that only unconscious, necessary, efficient causes are at work in the whole field of nature, in organic life as well as in inorganic changes. On the other hand, the dualist or vitalist philosophy of nature affirms that unconscious forces are only at work in the inorganic world, and that we find conscious, purposive, or final causes in organic nature.)

If the new science of evolution had done no more than this, every thoughtful man would have to admit that it had accomplished an immense advance in knowledge. It means that in the whole of philosophy that tendency which we call monistic, in opposition to the dualistic, which has hitherto prevailed, must be accepted. ( Monism is neither purely materialistic nor purely spiritualistic, but a reconciliation of these two principles, since it regards the whole of nature as one, and sees only efficient causes at work in it. Dualism, on the contrary, holds that nature and spirit, matter and force, the world and God, inorganic and organic nature, are separate and independent existences. Cf. The Riddle of the Universe chapter 12.) At this point the science of human evolution has a direct and profound bearing on the foundations of philosophy. Modern anthropology has, by its astounding discoveries during the second half of the nineteenth century, compelled us to take a completely monistic view of life. Our bodily structure and its life, our embryonic development and our evolution as a species, teach us that the same laws of nature rule in the life of man as in the rest of the universe. For this reason, if for no others, it is desirable, nay, indispensable, that every man who wishes to form a serious and philosophic view of life, and, above all, the expert philosopher, should acquaint himself with the chief facts of this branch of science.

The facts of embryology have so great and obvious a significance in this connection that even in recent years dualist and teleological philosophers have tried to rid themselves of them by simply denying them. This was done, for instance, as regards the fact that man is developed from an egg, and that this egg or ovum is a simple cell, as in the case of other animals. When I had explained this pregnant fact and its significance in my History of Creation, it was described in many of the theological journals as a dishonest invention of my own.

The fact that the embryos of man and the dog are, at a certain stage of their development, almost indistinguishable was also denied. When we examine the human embryo in the third or fourth week of its development, we find it to be quite different in shape and structure from the full-grown human being, but almost identical with that of the ape, the dog, the rabbit, and other mammals, at the same stage of ontogeny. We find a bean-shaped body of very simple construction, with a tail below and a pair of fins at the sides, something like those of a fish, but very different from the limbs of man and the mammals.

Nearly the whole front half of the body is taken up by a shapeless head without face, at the sides of which we find gill-clefts and arches as in the fish. At this stage of its development the human embryo does not differ in any essential detail from that of the ape, dog, horse, ox, etc., at a corresponding period. This important fact can easily be verified at any moment by a comparison of the embryos of man, the dog, rabbit, etc. Nevertheless, the theologians and dualist philosophers pronounced it to be a materialistic invention; even scientists, to whom the facts should be known, have sought to deny them.

There could not be a clearer proof of the profound importance of these embryological facts in favour of the monistic philosophy than is afforded by these efforts of its opponents to get rid of them by silence or denial. The truth is that these facts are most inconvenient for them, and are quite irreconcilable with their views. We must be all the more pressing on our side to put them in their proper light. I fully agree with Huxley when he says, in his “Man’s Place in Nature”: “Though these facts are ignored by several well-known popular leaders, they are easy to prove, and are accepted by all scientific men; on the other hand, their importance is so great that those who have once mastered them will, in my opinion, find few other biological discoveries to astonish them.”

We shall make it our chief task to study the evolution of man’s bodily frame and its various organs in their external form and internal structures. But I may observe at once that this is accompanied step by step with a study of the evolution of their functions. These two branches of inquiry are inseparably united in the whole of anthropology, just as in zoology (of which the former is only a section) or general biology. Everywhere the peculiar form of the organism and its structures, internal and external, is directly related to the special physiological functions which the organism or organ has to execute. This intimate connection of structure and function, or of the instrument and the work done by it, is seen in the science of evolution and all its parts. Hence the story of the evolution of structures, which is our immediate concern, is also the history of the development of functions; and this holds good of the human organism as of any other.

At the same time, I must admit that our knowledge of the evolution of functions is very far from being as complete as our acquaintance with the evolution of structures.