Project Gutenberg''''s At the Deathbed of Darwinism, by Eberhard Dennert potx

Family Trees—ThePrinciple of MultipleOrigin—Extinction of theSaurians—"Darwinism Notthe Alpha and Omega of theDoctrine of Descent"—Steinmann's Conclusions60 CHAPTER V.—Eimer'sTheory of O

Project Gutenberg's At the Deathbed of Darwinism, by Eberhard Dennert

This eBook is for the use of anyone

anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at

www.gutenberg.org

Title: At the Deathbed of Darwinism

A Series of Papers

Author: Eberhard Dennert

Translator: Edwin V O'Harra

John H Peschges

Release Date: April 10, 2007 [EBook

#21019]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

AT THE DEATHBED OF DARWINISM ***

Produced by Bryan Ness, Jamie Atiga and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at

http://www.pgdp.ne

AT THE DEATHBED OF

DARWINISM

A SERIES OF PAPERS

By

Burlington, Iowa

Copyright 1904

CHAPTER II.—ProfessorGoethe on "The Present

Status of Darwinism"—Explains the Reluctance ofcertain men of Science toDiscard Darwinism 41

CHAPTER III.—ProfessorKorchinsky RejectsDarwinism—His Theory ofHeterogenesis—Professor

Haberlandt of Graz—Demonstration of a "VitalForce"—Its Nature—TheSudden Origination of aNew Organ—Importance ofthe Experiment 49

CHAPTER IV.—Testimony of aPalaeontologist, ProfessorSteinmann—On Haeckel's

Family Trees—ThePrinciple of MultipleOrigin—Extinction of theSaurians—"Darwinism Notthe Alpha and Omega of theDoctrine of Descent"—Steinmann's Conclusions

60

CHAPTER V.—Eimer'sTheory of Organic Growth

—Definite Lines ofDevelopment—Rejects

Darwin's Theory ofFluctuating Variations—Opposes Weismann—Repudiates Darwinian

"Mimicry"—Discards the

"Romantic" Hypothesis ofSexual Selection

—"Transmutation is aPhysiological Process, a

Phyletic Growth" 69

CHAPTER VI.—Admissions of a Darwinian

—Professor von Wagner'sExplanation of the Decay ofDarwinism—Darwinism

Rejects the InductiveMethod, Hence Unscientific

—Wagner's ContradictoryAssertions 90

CHAPTER VII.—Haeckel's Latest Production

—His Extreme Modesty—Reception of theWeltraetsel—Schmidt's

Apologia—The RomanesIncident—Men of ScienceWho Convicted Haeckel of

Deliberate Fraud 104

CHAPTER VIII.—Grottewitz Writes on

"Darwinian Myths"—Darwinism Incapable ofScientific Proof—"ThePrinciple of GradualDevelopment CertainlyUntenable"—"Darwin's

Theory of "Chance" aMyth" 118

CHAPTER IX.—ProfessorFleischmann of Erlangen—Doctrine of Descent NotSubstantiated—Missing

Links—"Collapse ofHaeckel's Theory"—Descent Hypothesis

"Antiquated"—Fleischmann

Formerly a Darwinian—Haeckel's DisreputableMethods of Defense 124

CHAPTER X.—Hertwig,the Berlin Anatomist,Protests Against theMaterialistic View ofLife"—No Empiric Proof

of Darwinism—"TheImpotence of NaturalSelection"—Rejects

Haeckel's "BiogeneticLaw" 137

CONCLUSION.—

Darwinism Abandoned byMen of Science—Supplanted by a Theory inHarmony With TheisticPrinciples 146

The general tendency of recentscientific literature dealing with theproblem of organic evolution may fairly

be characterized as distinctly andprevailingly unfavorable to the Darwiniantheory of Natural Selection In the series

of chapters herewith offered for the firsttime to English readers, Dr Dennert hasbrought together testimonies which leave

no room for doubt about the decadence ofthe Darwinian theory in the highestscientific circles in Germany And outside

of Germany the same sentiment is sharedgenerally by the leaders of scientificthought That the popularizers of

evolutionary conceptions have any Darwinian tendencies cannot, of course,

anti-be for a moment maintained For whowould undertake to popularize what is notnovel or striking? But a study of the bestscientific literature reveals the fact that theattitude assumed by one of our foremostAmerican zoologists, Professor ThomasHunt Morgan, in his recent work on

"Evolution and Adaptation," is far moregeneral among the leading men of sciencethan is popularly supposed ProfessorMorgan's position may be stated thus: Headheres to the general theory of Descent,i.e., he believes the simplest explanationwhich has yet been offered of the

structural similarities between species

within the same group, is the hypothesis of

a common descent from a parent species.But he emphatically rejects the notion—and this is the quintessence of Darwinism

—that the dissimilarities between species

have been brought about by the purelymechanical agency of natural selection

To find out what, precisely, Darwinmeant by the term "natural selection" let us

turn for a moment, to his great work, The

Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection In the second chapter of that

work, Darwin observes that small

"fortuitous" variations in individualorganisms, though of small interest to thesystematist, are of the "highestimportance" for his theory, since theseminute variations often confer on the

possessor of them, some advantage overhis fellows in the quest for the necessaries

of life Thus these chance individualvariations become the "first steps"towards slight varieties, which, in turn,lead to sub-species, and, finally, tospecies Varieties, in fact, are "incipientspecies." Hence, small "fortuitous"fluctuating, individual variations—i.e.,those which chance to occur withoutpredetermined direction—are the "first-steps" in the origin of species This is thefirst element in the Darwinian theory

In the third chapter of the same work

we read: "It has been seen in the lastchapter that amongst organic beings in astate of nature there is some individual

variability * * * But the mere existence ofindividual variability and of some fewwell-marked varieties, though necessary

as a foundation of the work, helps us but

little in understanding how species arise

in nature How have all those exquisiteadaptations of one part of the organization

to another part, and to the conditions oflife, and of one organic being to anotherbeing, been perfected? * * *" Again it may

be asked, how is it that varieties, which Ihave called incipient species, becomeultimately converted into good and distinctspecies, which in most cases obviouslydiffer from each other far more than do thevarieties of the same species? How dothose groups of species which constitutewhat are called distinct genera arise? All

of these results follow from the struggle

for life Owing to this struggle, variations,

however slight and from whatever causeproceeding, if they be in any degreeprofitable to the individuals of a species,

in their infinitely complex relations toother organic beings, and to their physicalconditions of life, will tend to thepreservation of such individuals and willgenerally be inherited by the offspring.The offspring also will thus have a betterchance of surviving, for of the manyindividuals of any species which areperiodically born, but a small number cansurvive I have called this principle bywhich each slight variation, if useful, ispreserved, by the term, "naturalselection." Mr Darwin adds that his

meaning would be more accuratelyexpressed by a phrase of Mr Spencer'scoinage, "Survival of the Fittest."

It may be observed that neither "naturalselection" nor "survival of the fittest"gives very accurate expression to the ideawhich Darwin seems to wish to convey.Natural selection is at best a metaphoricaldescription of a process, and "survival ofthe fittest" describes the result of thatprocess Nor shall we find the movingprinciple of evolution in individualvariability unless we choose to regardchance as an efficient agency.Consequently, the only efficient principleconceivably connected with the process isthe "struggle for existence;" and even this

has only a purely negative function in theorigination of species or of adaptations.For, the "surviving fittest" owe nothingmore to the struggle for existence than ourpensioned veterans owe to the death-

dealing bullets which did not hit them.

Mr Darwin has, however, obviated alldifficulty regarding precision of terms bythe remark that he intended to use his mostimportant term, "struggle for existence" in

"a large and metaphorical sense."

We have now seen the second element

of Darwinism, namely, the "struggle forlife." The theory of natural selection, then,postulates the accumulation of minute

"fortuitions" individual modifications,which are useful to the possessor of them,

by means of a struggle for life of such asanguinary nature and of such enormousproportions as to result in the destruction

of the overwhelming majority of adultindividuals These are the correlativefactors in the process of natural selection

In view of the popular identification ofDarwinism with the doctrine of evolution,

on the one hand, and with the theory ofstruggle for life, on the other hand, it isnecessary to insist on the Darwinianconception of small, fluctuating, usefulvariations as the "first-steps" in theevolutionary process For, this conceptiondistinguishes Darwinism from the morerecent evolutionary theory, e.g., of DeVries who rejects the notion that species

have originated by the accumulation offluctuating variations; and it is quite asessential to the Darwinian theory ofnatural selection as is the "struggle forlife." It is, in fact, an integral element inthe selection theory.

The attitude of science towardsDarwinism may, therefore, beconveniently summarized in its answer tothe following questions:

1 Is there any evidence that such astruggle for life among mature forms, asDarwin postulates, actually occurs?

2 Can the origin of adaptive structures

be explained on the ground of their utility

in this struggle, i.e., is it certain or even

probable that the organism would haveperished, had it lacked the particularadaptation in its present degree ofperfection? On the contrary, is there notconvincing proof that many, andpresumably most, adaptations cannot bethus accounted for?

The above questions are concernedwith "the struggle for life." Those whichfollow have to do with the problem ofvariations

3 Is there any reason to believe thatnew species may originate by theaccumulation of fluctuating individualvariations?

4 Does the evidence of the geological

record—which, as Huxley observed, isthe only direct evidence that can be had inthe question of evolution—does thisevidence tell for or against the origin ofexisting species from earlier ones bymeans of minute gradual modifications?

We must be content here with thebriefest outline of the reply of science tothese inquiries

1 Darwin invites his readers to "keepsteadily in mind that each organic being isstriving to increase in geometrical ratio."

If this tendency were to continueunchecked, the progeny of living beingswould soon be unable to find standingroom Indeed, the very bacteria would

quickly convert every vestige of organicmatter on earth into their own substance.For has not Cohn estimated that theoffspring of a single bacterium, at itsordinary rate of increase under favorableconditions, would in three days amount to4,772 billions of individuals with anaggregate weight of seven thousand fivehundred tons? And the 19,000,000elephants which, according to Darwin,should to-day perpetuate the lives of eachpair that mated in the twelfth century—surely these would be a "magna pars" inthe sanguinary contest When theimagination views these and similarfigures, and places in contrast to thismultitude of living beings, the limitedsupply of nourishment, the comparison of

nature with a huge slaughterhouse seemstame enough But reason, not imagination,

as Darwin observes more than once,should be our guide in a scientific inquiry

It is observed on careful reflection thatDarwin's theory is endangered by anextremely large disturbing element, viz.,accidental destruction Under this term weinclude all the destruction of life whichoccurs in utter indifference to the presence

or absence of any individual variationsfrom the parent form Indeed, the greatestdestruction takes place among immatureforms before any variation from the parentstock is discernible at all In thisconnection we may instance the vastamount of eggs and seeds destroyed

annually irrespective of any adaptiveadvantage that would be possessed by thematured form And the countless forms inevery stage of individual developmentwhich meet destruction through

"accidental causes which would not be inthe least degree mitigated by certainchanges of structure or of constitutionwhich would otherwise be beneficial tothe species." This difficulty, Darwinhimself recognized But he was of opinionthat if even "one-hundredth or one-thousandth part" of organic beingsescaped this fortuitous destruction, therewould supervene among the survivors astruggle for life sufficiently destructive tosatisfy his theory This suggestion,however, fails to meet the difficulty For,

as Professor Morgan points out, Darwinassumes "that a second competition takesplace after the first destruction ofindividuals has occurred, and thispresupposes that more individuals reachmaturity than there is room for in theeconomy of nature." It presupposes thatthe vast majority of forms that surviveaccidental destruction, succumb in thesecond struggle for life in which thedetermining factor is some slightindividual variation, e.g., a little longerneck in the case of the giraffe, or a wingshorter than usual in the case of an insect

on an island The whole theory of struggle,

as formulated by Darwin, is, therefore, aviolent assumption Men of science nowrecognize that "egoism and struggle play a

very subordinate part in organicdevelopment, in comparison with co-operation and social action." What,indeed, but a surrender of the paramountcy

of struggle for life, is Huxley's celebratedRomanes lecture in which he supplants thecosmic process by the ethical? The Frenchfree-thinker, Charles Robin, gaveexpression to the verdict of exact sciencewhen he declared: "Darwinism is afiction, a poetical accumulation ofprobabilities without proof, and ofattractive explanations withoutdemonstration."

2 The hopeless inadequacy of thestruggle for life to account for adaptivestructures has been dealt with at

considerable length by Professor Morgan

in the concluding chapters of the workalready mentioned We cannot here followhim in his study of the various kinds ofadaptations, e.g., form and symmetry,mutual adaptation of colonial forms,protective coloration, organs of extremeperfection, tropisms and instincts, etc., inregard to the origin of each of which he isforced to abandon the Darwinian theory Itwill suffice to call attention to hisconclusions concerning the phenomena ofregeneration of organs By his research inthis special field Professor Morgan haswon international recognition among men

of science It was while prosecuting hisstudies in this field that he becameimpressed with the utter bankruptcy of the

theory of natural selection whichDarwinians put forward to explain theacquisition by organisms of this mostuseful power of regeneration It is notdifficult to show that regeneration couldnot in many cases, and presumably innone, have been acquired through naturalselection (p 379) If an earth worm

(allolobophora foctida) be cut in two in

the middle, the posterior piece regenerates

at its anterior cut end, not a head but a tail

"Not by the widest stretch of theimagination can such a result be accountedfor on the selection theory." Quite thereverse case presents itself in certain

planarians If the head of planaria

lugubris is cut off just behind the eyes,

there develops at the cut surface of the

head-piece another head turned in theopposite direction "These and otherreasons," concludes Professor Morgan (p.381), "indicate with certainty thatregeneration cannot be explained by thetheory of natural selection."

The ingenuity of the Darwinianimagination, however, will hardly fail toassign some reason why two heads aremore useful than one in the aboveinstance, and thus reconcile thephenomenon with Darwinism For,according to Professor Morgan "toimagine that a particular organ is useful toits possessor and to account for its originbecause of the imagined benefit conferred,

is the general procedure of the followers

of the Darwinian school." "Personalconviction, mere possibility," writesQuatrefages, "are offered as proofs, or atleast as arguments in favor of the theory."

"The realms of fancy are boundless," isBlanchard's significant comment onDarwin's explanation of the blindness ofthe mole "On this class of speculation,"says Bateson in his "Materials for theStudy of Variation," referring toDarwinian speculation as to the beneficial

or detrimental nature of variations, "onthis class of speculation the onlylimitations are those of the ingenuity of theauthor." The general form of Darwin'sargument, declared the writer of acelebrated article in the North BritishReview, is as follows: "All these things

may have been, therefore my theory ispossible; and since my theory is apossible one, all those hypotheses which

it requires are rendered probable."

3 We pass now to the question of thepossibility of building up a new species

by the accumulation of chance individualvariations That species ever originate inthis way is denied by the advocates of theevolutionary theory which is nowsuperseding Darwinism Typical of thenew school is the botanist Hugo De Vries

of Amsterdam The "first-steps" in theorigin of new species according to DeVries are not fluctuating individualvariations, but mutations, i.e., definite andpermanent modifications According to the

mutation theory a new species arises fromthe parent species, not gradually butsuddenly It appears suddenly "withoutvisible preparation and withouttransitional steps." The wide acceptancewith which this theory is meeting must beattributed to the fact that men of science nolonger believe in the origin of species bythe accumulation of slight fluctuatingmodifications To quote the words of DeVries, "Fluctuating variation cannotoverstep the limits of the species, evenafter the most prolonged selection—stillless can it lead to the production of new,permanent characters." It has been thewont of Darwinians to base theirspeculations on the assumption that "aninconceivably long time" could effect

almost anything in the matter of specifictransformations But the evidence whichhas been amassed during the past fortyyears leaves no doubt that there is a limit

to individual variability which neithertime nor skill avail to remove As M

Blanchard asserts in his work, La vie des

etres animes (p 102), "All investigation

and observation make it clear that, whilethe variability of creatures in a state ofnature displays itself in very differentdegrees, yet, in its most astonishingmanifestations, it remains confined within

a circle beyond which it cannot pass."

It is interesting to observe how writers

of the Darwinian school attempt to explainthe origin of articulate language as a

gradual development of animal sounds "Itdoes not," observes Darwin, "appearaltogether incredible that some unusuallywise ape-like animal should have thought

of imitating the growl of a beast of prey,

so as to indicate to his fellow monkeys thenature of the expected danger And thiswould have been a first step in theformation of a language." But what atremendous step! An ape-like animal that

"thought" of imitating a beast mustcertainly have been "unusually wise." Inbridging the chasm which rational speechinterposes between man and the brutecreation, the Darwinian is forced toassume that the whole essentialmodification is included in the first step.Then he conceals the assumption by

parcelling out the accidental modification

in a supposed series of transitional stages

He endeavors to veil his inability toexplain the first step, as Chevalier Bunsenremarked, by the easy but fruitlessassumption of an infinite space of time,destined to explain the gradualdevelopment of animals into men; as ifmillions of years could supply the want of

an agent necessary for the first movement,for the first step in the line of progress

"How can speech, the expression ofthought, develop itself in a year or inmillions of years, out of unarticulatedsounds which express feelings ofpleasure, pain, and appetite? Thecommon-sense of mankind will alwaysshrink from such theories."

4 The hopes and fears of Darwinianshave rightly been centered on the history

of organic development as outlined in thegeological record It has been pointed outrepeatedly by the foremost men of sciencethat if the theory of genetic descent withthe accumulation of small variations bethe true account of the origin of species, acomplete record of the ancestry of anyexisting species would reveal nodistinction of species and genera.Between any two well-defined species, ifone be derived from the other, there must

be countless transition forms Butpalaeontology fails to support the theory

of evolution by minute variations.Darwinism has been shattered on thegeologic rocks "The complete absence of