Beauty in Nature.

Let us, however, leave this general argument for a while, and turn to another special case, which has been appealed to as conclusive against Mr. Darwin’s views. “Beauty” is, to some persons, as great a stumbling-block as “contrivance.” They cannot conceive a system of the Universe, so perfect, as necessarily to develop every form of Beauty, but suppose that when anything specially beautiful occurs, it is a step beyond what that system could have produced, something which the Creator has added for his own delectation.

Speaking of the Humming Birds, the Duke of Argyll says: “In the first place, it is to be observed of the whole group, that there is no connection which can be traced or conceived, between the splendour of the humming birds and any function essential to their life. If there were any such connection, that splendour could not be confined, as it almost exclusively is, to only one sex. The female birds are, of course, not placed at any disadvantage in the struggle for existence by their more sombre colouring.” And after describing the various ornaments of these birds, he says: “Mere ornament and variety of form, and these for their own sake, is the only principle or rule with reference to which Creative Power seems to have worked in these wonderful and beautiful birds.... A crest of topaz is no better in the struggle for existence than a crest of sapphire. A frill ending in spangles of the emerald is no better in the battle of life than a frill ending in spangles of the ruby. A tail is not affected for the purposes of flight, whether its marginal or its central feathers are decorated with white.... Mere beauty and mere variety, for their own sake, are objects which we ourselves seek when we can make the Forces of Nature subordinate to the attainment of them. There seems to be no conceivable reason why we should doubt or question, that these are ends and aims also in the forms given to living organisms” (“Reign of Law,” p. 248).

Here the statement that “no connection can be conceived between the splendour of the humming birds and any function essential to their life,” is met by the fact, that Mr. Darwin has not only conceived but has shown, both by observation and reasoning, how beauty of colour and form may have a direct influence on the most important of all the functions of life, that of reproduction. In the variations to which birds are subject, any more brilliant colour than usual would be attractive to the females, and would lead to the individuals so adorned leaving more than the average number of offspring. Experiment and observation have shown, that this kind of sexual selection does actually take place; and the laws of inheritance would necessarily lead to the further development of any individual peculiarity that was attractive, and thus the splendour of the humming birds is directly connected with their very existence. It is true that “a crest of topaz may be no better than a crest of sapphire,” but either of these may be much better than no crest at all; and the different conditions under which the parent form must have existed in different parts of its range, will have determined different variations of tint, either of which were advantageous. The reason why female birds are not adorned with equally brilliant plumes is sufficiently clear; they would be injurious, by rendering their possessors too conspicuous during incubation. Survival of the fittest, has therefore favoured the development of those dark green tints on the upper surface of so many female humming birds, which are most conducive to their protection while the important functions of hatching and rearing the young are being carried on. Keeping in mind the laws of multiplication, variation, and survival of the fittest, which are for ever in action, these varied developments of beauty and harmonious adjustments to conditions, are not only conceivable but demonstrable results.

The objection I am now combating is solely founded on the supposed analogy of the Creator’s mind to ours, as regards the love of Beauty for its own sake; but if this analogy is to be trusted, then there ought to be no natural objects which are disagreeable or ungraceful in our eyes. And yet it is undoubtedly the fact that there are many such. Just as surely as the Horse and Deer are beautiful and graceful, the Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus, and Camel are the reverse. The majority of Monkeys and Apes are not beautiful; the majority of Birds have no beauty of colour; a vast number of Insects and Reptiles are positively ugly. Now, if the Creator’s mind is like ours, whence this ugliness? It is useless to say “that is a mystery we cannot explain,” because we have attempted to explain one-half of creation by a method that will not apply to the other half. We know that a man with the highest taste and with unlimited wealth, practically does abolish all ungraceful and disagreeable forms and colours from his own domains. If the beauty of creation is to be explained by the Creator’s love of beauty, we are bound to ask why he has not banished deformity from the earth, as the wealthy and enlightened man does from his estate and from his dwelling; and if we can get no satisfactory answer, we shall do well to reject the explanation offered. Again, in the case of flowers, which are always especially referred to, as the surest evidence of beauty being an end of itself in creation, the whole of the facts are never fairly met. At least half the plants in the world have not bright-coloured or beautiful flowers; and Mr. Darwin has lately arrived at the wonderful generalization, that flowers have become beautiful solely to attract insects to assist in their fertilization. He adds, “I have come to this conclusion from finding it an invariable rule, that when a flower is fertilized by the wind it never has a gaily-coloured corolla.” Here is a most wonderful case of beauty being useful, when it might be least expected. But much more is proved; for when beauty is of no use to the plant it is not given. It cannot be imagined to do any harm. It is simply not necessary, and is therefore withheld! We ought surely to have been told how this fact is consistent with beauty being “an end in itself,” and with the statement of its being given to natural objects “for its own sake.”

How new Forms are produced by Variation and Selection.

Let us now consider another of the popular objections which the Duke of Argyll thus sets forth:—

“Mr. Darwin does not pretend to have discovered any law or rule, according to which new Forms have been born from old Forms. He does not hold that outward conditions, however changed, are sufficient to account for them.... His theory seems to be far better than a mere theory—to be an established scientific truth—in so far as it accounts, in part at least, for the success and establishment and spread of new Forms when they have arisen. But it does not even suggest the law under which, or by or according to which, such new Forms are introduced. Natural Selection can do nothing, except with the materials presented to its hands. It cannot select except among the things open to selection.... Strictly speaking, therefore, Mr. Darwin’s theory is not a theory on the Origin of Species at all, but only a theory on the causes which lead to the relative success or failure of such new forms as may be born into the world.” (“Reign of Law,” p. 230.)

In this, and many other passages in his work, the Duke of Argyll sets forth his idea of Creation as a “Creation by birth,” but maintains that each birth of a new form from parents differing from itself, has been produced by a special interference of the Creator, in order to direct the process of development into certain channels; that each new species is in fact a “special creation,” although brought into existence through the ordinary laws of reproduction. He maintains therefore, that the laws of multiplication and variation cannot furnish the right kinds of materials at the right times for natural selection to work on. I believe, on the contrary, that it can be logically proved from the six axiomatic laws before laid down, that such materials would be furnished; but I prefer to show there are abundance of facts which demonstrate that they are furnished.

The experience of all cultivators of plants and breeders of animals shows, that when a sufficient number of individuals are examined, variations of any required kind can always be met with. On this depends the possibility of obtaining breeds, races, and fixed varieties of animals and plants; and it is found, that any one form of variation may be accumulated by selection, without materially affecting the other characters of the species; each seems to vary in the one required direction only. For example, in turnips, radishes, potatoes, and carrots, the root or tuber varies in size, colour, form, and flavour, while the foliage and flowers seem to remain almost stationary; in the cabbage and lettuce, on the contrary, the foliage can be modified into various forms and modes of growth, the root, flower, and fruit remaining little altered; in the cauliflower and brocoli the flower heads vary; in the garden pea the pod only changes. We get innumerable forms of fruit in the apple and pear, while the leaves and flowers remain undistinguishable; the same occurs in the gooseberry and garden currant. Directly however, (in the very same genus) we want the flower to vary in the Ribes sanguineum, it does so, although mere cultivation for hundreds of years has not produced marked differences in the flowers of Ribes grossularia. When fashion demands any particular change in the form or size, or colour of a flower, sufficient variation always occurs in the right direction, as is shown by our roses, auriculas, and geraniums; when, as recently, ornamental leaves come into fashion sufficient variation is found to meet the demand, and we have zoned pelargoniums, and variegated ivy, and it is discovered that a host of our commonest shrubs and herbaceous plants have taken to vary in this direction just when we want them to do so! This rapid variation is not confined to old and well-known plants subjected for a long series of generations to cultivation, but the Sikim Rhododendrons, the Fuchsias, and Calceolarias from the Andes, and the Pelargoniums from the Cape are equally accommodating, and vary just when and where and how we require them.

Turning to animals we find equally striking examples. If we want any special quality in any animal we have only to breed it in sufficient quantities and watch carefully, and the required variety is always found, and can be increased to almost any desired extent. In Sheep, we get flesh, fat, and wool; in Cows, milk; in Horses, colour, strength, size, and speed; in Poultry, we have got almost any variety of colour, curious modifications of plumage, and the capacity of perpetual egg-laying. In Pigeons we have a still more remarkable proof of the universality of variation, for it has been at one time or another the fancy of breeders to change the form of every part of these birds, and they have never found the required variations absent. The form, size, and shape of bill and feet, have been changed to such a degree as is found only in distinct genera of wild birds; the number of tail feathers has been increased, a character which is generally one of the most permanent nature, and is of high importance in the classification of birds; and the size, the colour, and the habits, have been also changed to a marvellous extent. In Dogs, the degree of modification and the facility with which it is effected, is almost equally apparent. Look at the constant amount of variation in opposite directions that must have been going on, to develop the poodle and the greyhound from the same original stock! Instincts, habits, intelligence, size, speed, form, and colour, have always varied, so as to produce the very races which the wants or fancies or passions of men may have led them to desire. Whether they wanted a bull-dog to torture another animal, a greyhound to catch a hare, or a bloodhound to hunt down their oppressed fellow-creatures, the required variations have always appeared.

Now this great mass of facts, of which a mere sketch has been here given, are fully accounted for by the “Law of Variation” as laid down at the commencement of this paper. Universal variability—small in amount but in every direction, ever fluctuating about a mean condition until made to advance in a given direction by “election,” natural or artificial,—is the simple basis for the indefinite modification of the forms of life;—partial, unbalanced, and consequently unstable modifications being produced by man, while those developed under the unrestrained action of natural laws, are at every step self-adjusted to external conditions by the dying out of all unadjusted forms, and are therefore stable and comparatively permanent. To be consistent in their views, our opponents must maintain that every one of the variations that have rendered possible the changes produced by man, have been determined at the right time and place by the will of the Creator. Every race produced by the florist or the breeder, the dog or the pigeon fancier, the ratcatcher, the sporting man, or the slave-hunter, must have been provided for by varieties occurring when wanted; and as these variations were never withheld, it would prove, that the sanction of an all-wise and all-powerful Being, has been given to that which the highest human minds consider to be trivial, mean, or debasing. This appears to be a complete answer to the theory, that variation sufficient in amount to be accumulated in a given direction must be the direct act of the Creative Mind, but it is also sufficiently condemned by being so entirely unnecessary. The facility with which man obtains new races, depends chiefly upon the number of individuals he can procure to select from. When hundreds of florists or breeders are all aiming at the same object, the work of change goes on rapidly. But a common species in nature contains a thousand-or a million-fold more individuals than any domestic race; and survival of the fittest must unerringly preserve all that vary in the right direction, not only in obvious characters but in minute details, not only in external but in internal organs; so that if the materials are sufficient for the needs of man, there can be no want of them to fulfil the grand purpose of keeping up a supply of modified organisms, exactly adapted to the changed conditions that are always occurring in the inorganic world.

The Objection that there are Limits to Variation.

Having now, I believe, fairly answered the chief objections of the Duke of Argyll, I proceed to notice one or two of those adduced in an able and argumentative essay on the “Origin of Species” in the North British Review for July, 1867. The writer first attempts to prove that there are strict limits to variation. When we begin to select variations in any one direction, the process is comparatively rapid, but after a considerable amount of change has been effected it becomes slower and slower, till at length its limits are reached and no care in breeding and selection can produce any further advance. The race-horse is chosen as an example. It is admitted that, with any ordinary lot of horses to begin with, careful selection would in a few years make a great improvement, and in a comparatively short time the standard of our best racers might be reached. But that standard has not for many years been materially raised, although unlimited wealth and energy are expended in the attempt. This is held to prove that there are definite limits to variation in any special direction, and that we have no reason to suppose that mere time, and the selective process being carried on by natural law, could make any material difference. But the writer does not perceive that this argument fails to meet the real question, which is, not whether indefinite and unlimited change in any or all directions is possible, but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by selection. In the matter of speed, a limit of a definite kind as regards land animals does exist in nature. All the swiftest animals—deer, antelopes, hares, foxes, lions, leopards, horses, zebras, and many others, have reached very nearly the same degree of speed. Although the swiftest of each must have been for ages preserved, and the slowest must have perished, we have no reason to believe there is any advance of speed. The possible limit under existing conditions, and perhaps under possible terrestrial conditions, has been long ago reached. In cases, however, where this limit had not been so nearly reached as in the horse, we have been enabled to make a more marked advance and to produce a greater difference of form. The wild dog is an animal that hunts much in company, and trusts more to endurance than to speed. Man has produced the greyhound, which differs much more from the wolf or the dingo than the racer does from the wild Arabian. Domestic dogs, again, have varied more in size and in form than the whole family of CanidÆ in a state of nature. No wild dog, fox, or wolf, is either so small as some of the smallest terriers and spaniels, or so large as the largest varieties of hound or Newfoundland dog. And, certainly, no two wild animals of the family differ so widely in form and proportions as the Chinese pug and the Italian greyhound, or the bulldog and the common greyhound. The known range of variation is, therefore, more than enough for the derivation of all the forms of Dogs, Wolves, and Foxes from a common ancestor.

Again, it is objected that the Pouter or the Fan-tail pigeon cannot be further developed in the same direction. Variation seems to have reached its limits in these birds. But so it has in nature. The Fan-tail has not only more tail feathers than any of the three hundred and forty existing species of pigeons, but more than any of the eight thousand known species of birds. There is, of course, some limit to the number of feathers of which a tail useful for flight can consist, and in the Fan-tail we have probably reached that limit. Many birds have the oesophagus or the skin of the neck more or less dilatable, but in no known bird is it so dilatable as in the Pouter pigeon. Here again the possible limit, compatible with a healthy existence, has probably been reached. In like manner the differences in the size and form of the beak in the various breeds of the domestic Pigeon, is greater than that between the extreme forms of beak in the various genera and sub-families of the whole Pigeon tribe. From these facts, and many others of the same nature, we may fairly infer, that if rigid selection were applied to any organ, we could in a comparatively short time produce a much greater amount of change than that which occurs between species and species in a state of nature, since the differences which we do produce are often comparable with those which exist between distinct genera or distinct families. The facts adduced by the writer of the article referred to, of the definite limits to variability in certain directions in domesticated animals, are, therefore, no objection whatever to the view, that all the modifications which exist in nature have been produced by the accumulation, by natural selection, of small and useful variations, since those very modifications have equally definite and very similar limits.

Objection to the Argument from Classification.

To another of this writer’s objections—that by Professor Thomson’s calculations the sun can only have existed in a solid state 500,000,000 of years, and that therefore time would not suffice for the slow process of development of all living organisms—it is hardly necessary to reply, as it cannot be seriously contended, even if this calculation has claims to approximate accuracy, that the process of change and development may not have been sufficiently rapid to have occurred within that period. His objection to the Classification argument is, however, more plausible. The uncertainty of opinion among Naturalists as to which are species and which varieties, is one of Mr. Darwin’s very strong arguments that these two names cannot belong to things quite distinct in nature and origin. The Reviewer says that this argument is of no weight, because the works of man present exactly the same phenomena; and he instances patent inventions, and the excessive difficulty of determining whether they are new or old. I accept the analogy though it is a very imperfect one, and maintain that such as it is, it is all in favour of Mr. Darwin’s views. For are not all inventions of the same kind directly affiliated to a common ancestor? Are not improved Steam Engines or Clocks the lineal descendants of some existing Steam Engine or Clock? Is there ever a new Creation in Art or Science any more than in Nature? Did ever patentee absolutely originate any complete and entire invention, no portion of which was derived from anything that had been made or described before? It is therefore clear that the difficulty of distinguishing the various classes of inventions which claim to be new, is of the same nature as the difficulty of distinguishing varieties and species, because neither are absolute new creations, but both are alike descendants of pre-existing forms, from which and from each other they differ by varying and often imperceptible degrees. It appears, then, that however plausible this writer’s objections may seem, whenever he descends from generalities to any specific statement, his supposed difficulties turn out to be in reality strongly confirmatory of Mr. Darwin’s view.

The “Times,” on Natural Selection.

The extraordinary misconception of the whole subject by popular writers and reviewers, is well shown by an article which appeared in the Times newspaper on “The Reign of Law.” Alluding to the supposed economy of nature, in the adaptation of each species to its own place and its special use, the reviewer remarks: “To this universal law of the greatest economy, the law of natural selection stands in direct antagonism as the law of ‘greatest possible waste’ of time and of creative power. To conceive a duck with webbed feet and a spoon-shaped bill, living by suction, to pass naturally into a gull with webbed feet and a knife-like bill, living on flesh, in the longest possible time and in the most laborious possible way, we may conceive it to pass from the one to the other state by natural selection. The battle of life the ducks will have to fight will increase in peril continually as they cease (with the change of their bill) to be ducks, and attain a maximum of danger in the condition in which they begin to be gulls; and ages must elapse and whole generations must perish, and countless generations of the one species be created and sacrificed, to arrive at one single pair of the other.”

In this passage the theory of natural selection is so absurdly misrepresented that it would be amusing, did we not consider the misleading effect likely to be produced by this kind of teaching in so popular a journal. It is assumed that the duck and the gull are essential parts of nature, each well fitted for its place, and that if one had been produced from the other by a gradual metamorphosis, the intermediate forms would have been useless, unmeaning, and unfitted for any place, in the system of the universe. Now, this idea can only exist in a mind ignorant of the very foundation and essence of the theory of natural selection, which is, the preservation of useful variations only, or, as has been well expressed, in other words, the “survival of the fittest.” Every intermediate form which could possibly have arisen during the transition from the duck to the gull, so far from having an unusually severe battle to fight for existence, or incurring any “maximum of danger,” would necessarily have been as accurately adjusted to the rest of nature, and as well fitted to maintain and to enjoy its existence, as the duck or the gull actually are. If it were not so, it never could have been produced under the law of natural selection.