The Quotable Darwin
Page 9
Origin 1859, 476–77
The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse,—the same number of vertebræ forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant,—and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications.
Origin 1859, 479
Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely,—that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind,—that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable,—and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.
Origin 1859, 459
Design and Free Will
The old argument of design in nature, as given by [William] Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
Autobiography, 87
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.—I am bewildered.—I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
22 May [1860], DCP 2814
On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
22 May [1860], DCP 2814
No astronomer in showing how movements of Planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the planets shd. pursue the courses which they pursue.—I cannot believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species, than in the course of the planets.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
17 June [1860], DCP 2833
One word more on “designed laws’” & “undesigned results”. I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun & kill it, I do this designedly.—An innocent & good man stands under tree & is killed by flash of lightning. Do you believe (& I really shd like to hear) that God designedly killed this man? Many or most persons do believe this; I can’t & don’t.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
3 July [1860], DCP 2855
Some one has sent us “Macmillan”; and I must tell you how much I admire your article; though at the same time I must confess that I could not clearly follow you in some parts, which probably is in main part due to my not being at all accustomed to metaphysical trains of thought…. The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, namely, in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design.
Darwin to his niece Julia Wedgwood,
11 July [1861], Life and Letters,
vol. 1, 313–14
Astronomers do not state that God directs the course of each comet & planet.—The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, & indeed takes whole case of appearance of new species out of the range of science.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
[1 August 1861], DCP 3230
If an architect were to rear a noble and commodious edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting from the fragments at the base of a precipice wedge-formed stones for his arches, elongated stones for his lintels, and flat stones for his roof, we should admire his skill and regard him as the paramount power. Now, the fragments of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice built by him the same relation which the fluctuating variations of each organic being bear to the varied and admirable structures ultimately acquired by its modified descendants. Can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice?
Variation, vol. 2, 430–31
I have often felt much difficulty about the proper application of the terms, will, consciousness, and intention. Actions, which were at first voluntary, soon became habitual, and at last hereditary, and may then be performed even in opposition to the will. Although they often reveal the state of the mind, this result was not at first either intended or expected.
Expression, 357
Variation and Heredity
No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the very same mould. These individual differences are highly important for us, as they afford materials for natural selection to accumulate, in the same manner as man can accumulate in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.
Origin 1859, 45
I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception. Several reasons make me believe in this; but the chief one is the remarkable effect which confinement or cultivation has on the functions of the reproductive system.
Origin 1859, 8
The number and diversity of inheritable deviations of structure, both those of slight and those of considerable physiological impor tance, is endless…. No breeder doubts how strong is the tendency to inheritance: like produces like is his fundamental belief.
Origin 1859, 12
I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.
Origin 1859, 131
I venture to advance the hypothesis of Pangenesis, which implies that the whole organisation, in the sense of every separate atom or unit, reproduces itself. Hence ovules and pollen-grains,—the fertilised seed or egg, as well as buds,—include and consist of a multitude of germs thrown off from each separate atom of the organism.
Variation, vol. 2, 357–58
These granules for the sake of distinctness may be called cell-gemmules, or, as the cellular theory is not fully established, simply gemmules. They are supposed to be transmitted from the parents to the offspring, and are generally developed in the generation which immediately succeeds, but are often transmitted in a dormant state during many generations and are then developed.
Variation, vol. 2, 374
The existence of free gemmules is a gratuitous assumption, yet can hardly
be considered as very improbable, seeing that cells have the power of multiplication through the self-division of their contents…. The gemmules in each organism must be thoroughly diffused; nor does this seem improbable considering their minuteness, and the steady circulation of fluids throughout the body.
Variation, vol. 2, 378, 379
This principle of Reversion is the most wonderful of all the attributes of Inheritance…. What can be more wonderful than that characters, which have disappeared during scores, or hundreds, or even thousands of generations, should suddenly reappear perfectly developed, as in the case of pigeons and fowls when purely bred, and especially when crossed; or as with the zebrine stripes on dun-coloured horses, and other such cases?
Variation, vol. 2, 372, 373
When we hear it said that a man carries in his constitution the seeds of an inherited disease, there is much literal truth in the expression.
Variation, vol. 2, 404
I wish I had known of these views of Hippocrates, before I had published, for they seem almost identical with mine—merely a change of terms—& an application of them to classes of facts necessarily unknown to this old philosopher. The whole case is a good illustration of how rarely anything is new.—The notion of pangenesis has been a wonderful relief to my mind, (as it has to some few others) for during long years I could not conceive any possible explanation of inheritance, development &c &c, or understand in the least in what reproduction by seeds & buds consisted. Hippocrates has taken the wind out of my sails, but I care very little about being forestalled
Darwin to William Ogle,
6 March [1868], DCP 5987
Pangenesis has very few friends, so let me beg you not to give it up lightly. It may be foolish parental affection, but it has thrown a flood of light on my mind in regard a great series of complex phenomena.
Darwin to T. H. Farrer,
29 October [1868], DCP 6435
In the earlier editions of my “Origin of Species” I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure. I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work.
Descent 1871, vol. 1, 152
I have lately i.e. in new Edit, of Origin been moderating my zeal, & attributing much more to mere useless variability.
Darwin to A. R. Wallace,
27 March [1869], DCP 6684
I am aware that my view [on pangenesis] is merely a provisional hypothesis or speculation; but until a better one be advanced, it may be serviceable by bringing together a multitude of facts which are at present left disconnected by any efficient cause. As [William] Whewell, the historian of the inductive sciences, remarks:—“Hypotheses may often be of service to science, when they involve a certain portion of incompleteness, and even of error.”
Variation, vol. 2, 357
When, therefore, Mr. Galton concludes from the fact that rabbits of one variety, with a large proportion of the blood of another variety in their veins, do not produce mongrelised offspring, that the hypothesis of Pangenesis is false, it seems to me that his conclusion is a little hasty. His words are, “I have now made experiments of transfusion and cross circulation on a large scale in rabbits, and have arrived at definite results, negativing, in my opinion, beyond all doubt the truth of the doctrine of Pangenesis.” If Mr. Galton could have proved that the reproductive elements were contained in the blood of the higher animals, and were merely separated or collected by the reproductive glands, he would have made a most important physiological discovery.
Darwin 1871, 503
Origin of Life
I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype…. probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Origin 1859, 483–44
A celebrated author and divine [Charles Kingsley] has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”
Origin 1861, 525
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Origin 1861, 525
It will be some time before we see “slime, snot or protoplasm” (what an elegant writer) generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared’” by some wholly unknown process.—It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
[29 Mar 1863], DCP 4065
But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
1 February [1871], DCP 7471
Survival of the Fittest
I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly or at all, the self acting & necessary effects of Nat Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself & your mode of illustrating it, however clear & beautiful to many of us are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalist public…. I wish therefore to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work, (if not now too late) & also in any future editions of the “Origin”, and I think it may be done without difficulty & very effectually by adopting [Herbert] Spencer’s term (which he generally uses in preference to Nat. Selection) viz. “Survival of the fittest.”
A. R. Wallace to Darwin,
2 July 1866, DCP 5140
I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer’s excellent expression of “the survival of the fittest.” This however had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; & that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words natural selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural & artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage.
Darwin to A. R. Wallace,
5 July [1866], DCP 5145
The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad & at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, & with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend “on the survival of the fittest.”
Darwin to A.R. Wallace,
5 July [1866], DCP 5145
This preservation, during the battle for life, of varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct, I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term “natural selection” is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice; but thi
s will be disregarded after a little familiarity.
Variation, vol. 1, 6
The power of Selection, whether exercised by man, or brought into play under nature through the struggle for existence and the consequent survival of the fittest, absolutely depends on the variability of organic beings. Without variability nothing can be effected; slight individual differences, however, suffice for the work, and are probably the sole differences which are effective in the production of new species.
Variation, vol. 2, 192
Responses to On the Origin of Species
I am infinitely pleased & proud at the appearance of my child…. I am so glad that you were so good as to undertake the publication of my Book.
Darwin to John Murray,
[3 November 1859], DCP 2514
For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, & can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution I mean the relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the proofs, & the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I dont feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I dont in the least know if every thing now living were fossilized whether the palæontologists could distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts wont fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.
Erasmus Alvey Darwin to Darwin,
23 November [1859], DCP 2545
I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous—You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? … There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.