| Search Help New search |
| Results 1641-1660 of 3236 for « +text:evolution » |
| 17% |
to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants could not possibly have been acquired by habit (p. 206). These passages have a great historical interest quite apart from the doctrine of Evolution. They show the cloudy metaphysics which then hung around the whole question of instinct. In consequence of this metaphysical puzzle, Darwin's task of dealing with instinct was rendered
|
| 17% |
differences between queens, workers, and drones are largely, if not altogether, due to differences in food. This is only another way of saying it is a chemical difference. Geddes and Thompson, in their remarkable book on The Evolution of Sex, p. 43, say: Nor are there many facts more significant than this simple and well-known one, that within the first eight days of larval life the addition of a little food will determine the striking structural and functional differences between worker and
|
| 17% |
CHAPTER XI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD MR. HERBERT SPENCER, in First Principles, p. 30, says: Respecting the origin of the universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent; or that it is self-created; or that it is created by an external agency. By the aid of Dean Mansel, he proves that each of these suppositions is inconceivable. The Very Reverend Dean says: The conception of the Absolute and the Infinite, from whatever side we view it
|
| 17% |
We come down, then, finally to force as the ultimate of ultimates. Space, time, matter, motion, as we know them, are all either built up of, or abstracted from, experiences of force. These scrappy quotations from First Principles are not given as representing Mr. Spencer's argument, but merely to clear the way for our inquiry into the Evolution of the World. Perhaps it would be of help to some readers to refer to Professor Karl Pearson's newer setting of this doctrine. Many great minds have
|
| 17% |
unlike forces previously existing i.e., all forces manifested at any time must link on to those which went before. This shows one of the necessary conditions of all evolution viz., continuity. (3) There is no such thing as matter at rest, absolutely. The molecules of matter are in incessant motion, even in those masses which we think are quite fixed. (4) There is no such thing as empty space. Matter is everywhere, and is either ponderable or imponderable as ether. This imponderable ether it is
|
| 17% |
most general phenomena of nature into two groups: they may be regarded as the function of ether or the function of ponderable matter. This may be called the first division of labour in the development of matter. After this very bald outline, we may follow Haeckel in his monistic view of the evolution of the world. He holds that the nebular hypothesis is still the best of all the attempts to explain the origin of the world, etc., on monistic and mechanical lines. It has recently been strongly
|
| 17% |
differently affected in its functions; and they indirectly bring about complicated alterations in the environing agencies by carrying each species into the presence of new physical conditions (Ibid, 148). I have quoted Mr. Spencer thus fully because the action of these forces is so often forgotten by many who wish to think of the doctrine of Evolution. But these changes, important as they are, by no means complete the list of forces which are constantly acting to modify living things. For
|
| 17% |
could be imagined than this which we see in operation in the world, with its ever-changing organisms. Hence it is that we find progression to result, not from a special inherent tendency in living bodies, but from a general average effect of their relations to surrounding agencies. This outline is far too incomplete; but it shows, at any rate, that there is no lack of number and variety in forces to produce organic evolution. And when some ill-informed [page] 20
|
| 17% |
Evolutionist, when he looks for the first living forms, looks for something smaller and simpler than infusoria. To expect advanced or organised beings to appear straightway out of the inorganic is not evolution, but that miracle called the John Milton creation: The grassy clods now calved; now half appears The tawny lion, pawing to get free His hinder parts. There can be nothing more comic than this notion of Milton's, except the fact that many people now living in Britain believe it. Again, I
|
| 17% |
We must either accept some such origin of living organisms, or believe in a miracle, and say that Evolution only partly applies to the development of living things. Since Haeckel wrote this, other discoveries have been made, especially that on the voyage of the Challenger, when peculiar little bodies were found largely diffused over the bottom of the deep sea. These very small bodies are known as Coccoliths. Their size ranges in length from 1/2700 to 1/11000 of an inch. The man who can form
|
| 17% |
On page 346 Professor Pearson states the case clearly: Those who accept the evolution of all forms of life from some simple unit, a protoplasmic drop or grain and this scientific formula is so powerful as a means of classification and description that no rational mind is likely to discard it will hardly feel satisfied to stop at this stage. They will demand some still more wide-embracing formula, which will bring under one statement their perceptual experience of both the living and the
|
| 17% |
F1548.1
Book:
Darwin, Francis & Seward, A. C. eds. 1903. More letters of Charles Darwin. A record of his work in a series of hitherto unpublished letters. London: John Murray. Volume 1
Text
Image
PDF
CHAPTER III. EVOLUTION, 1859-1863. Letter 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859. I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November 30th. The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes to publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which must be read by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the introduction1 I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairly noticed your paper in the
|
| 17% |
F1548.1
Book:
Darwin, Francis & Seward, A. C. eds. 1903. More letters of Charles Darwin. A record of his work in a series of hitherto unpublished letters. London: John Murray. Volume 1
Text
Image
PDF
CHAPTER IV. EVOLUTION. 1864-1869. Letter 173. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 1st, 1864. I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: I read lately with gusto Wallace's exposé of the Dublin man on Bees' cells, etc. 1 Now, though I cannot read at present, I much want to know where this is published, that I may procure a copy. Further on, Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's paper on Glaciers in the Atlantic
|
| 15% |
, perfectly unified knowledge, or the investigation of those principles on which all knowledge and all being ultimately rest. Now, as we do not know the ultimate nature of anything, it is clear that any philosophy must be speculative, or, in other words, rest on assumption. This accounts for the fact that one system of philosophy usually contradicts another. Evolution is rather a science than a philosophy, though Ernst Haeckel, Herbert Spencer, and others, have done much to give us a system of
|
| 15% |
were missed. No wonder they said man is a mountain rising alone in his grandeur from the landscape of life. When the discovery of Evolution was new, all sorts of prejudices arose against it. Less than fifty years ago foolish doctrines were held as the unalterable facts of all life history, and really learned men were blinded by the rude devices of early man when he sought to explain many of the problems of our common daily life. We may well pause and inquire before we dogmatise, when we
|
| 15% |
he adds that at no period of their development do their brains perfectly agree, nor could perfect agreement be expected, for otherwise their mental powers would have been the same (Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 6). Just so! If man agreed perfectly with an ape, he would be an ape, and Evolution would have stopped at apes. But we shall return to this point and deal with it more fully. [page] 3
|
| 15% |
of Evolution they mean vestiges relics of a past time when they used to be developed and useful in some other organism. No one of the higher animals can be named which does not bear some part in a rudimentary condition; and man forms no exception to the rule. These organs are either absolutely useless, such as the paps of male quadrupeds, or the incisor teeth of ruminants which never cut through the gums; or they are of such slight service to their present possessors that we can hardly suppose
|
| 15% |
developed in the two lower divisions of mammals (monotremes and marsupials) and in a few higher mammals, as in the walrus; but in man, all the monkey family, and most other mammals it is a mere rudiment, the semilunar fold. Smell is of the highest importance to many mammals; but it is of extremely slight service to us, or even to the dark-coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in white and civilised races. Evolution does not show that this sense was acquired by man for his
|
| 15% |
FIGURE 7. This is a reproduction (by permission) of plate Vii. from Haeckel's Evolution of Man, vol. i. The figures show the early stages of the growth of a hog, calf, rabbit, and man, and their likeness to each other is striking. In the earlier stages the likeness is still greater. It is striking that the nearer we go to the origin of life the more nearly are all the animals alike. The first row across (I.) shows a very early stage with gill openings, and without limbs. The second row (II
|
| 15% |
arrangement of the aortic arches in the adult amphibian is the result of evolution from the fish-like tadpole form, so we may reason that the present arrangement of the one aortic arch in man is the result of development from pre-existing conditions identical with those now persistent in fish. If this be not the truth, are we not entitled to cry out to the holders of the antique belief, To what purpose is this waste? Why are there to begin with six pairs of arches when only one is ultimately to
|