[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; C/E quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [CED blog]
The following are quotes added to my Unclassified Quotes database in June 2008.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]
9/06/2008 "On the evolution-hypothesis we are obliged to assume that the earliest living things-probably minute units of protoplasm smaller than any the microscope reveals to us-had the ability to appropriate directly from the inorganic world both the nitrogen and the materials for carbohydrates without both of which protoplasm cannot be formed; since in the absence of preceding organic matter there was no other source. The general law of evolution as well as the observed actions of Protozoa and Protophyta, suggest that these primordial types simultaneously displayed animal-life and plant-life. For whereas the developed animal-type cannot form from its inorganic surroundings either nitrogenous compounds or carbo-hydrates; and whereas the developed plant-type, able to form carbo-hydrates from its inorganic surroundings, depends for the formation of its protoplasm mainly, although indirectly, on the nitrogenous compounds derived from preceding organisms, as do also most of the plants devoid of chlorophyll-the fungi; we are obliged to assume that in the beginning, along with the expending activities characterizing the animal-type, there went the accumulating activities characterizing both of the vegetal types -forms of activity by-and-by differentiated." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.63-64) 9/06/2008 "Though the successive steps in the artificial formation of organic compounds have now gone so far that substances simulating proteids, if not identical with them, have been produced, yet we have no clue to the conditions under which proteids arose; and still less have we a clue to the conditions under which inert proteids became so combined as to form active protoplasm. The essential fact to be recognized is that living matter, originated as we must assume during a long stage of progressive cooling in which the infinitely varied parts of the Earth's surface were slowly passing through appropriate physical conditions, possessed from the outset the power of assimilating to itself the materials from which more living matter was formed; and that since then all living matter has arisen from its self-increasing action. But now, leaving speculation concerning these anabolic changes as they commenced in the remote past, let vs contemplate them as they are carried on now-first directing our attention to those presented in the vegetal world." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.64) 9/06/2008 "The relation of these facts here sketched in rude outline to the doctrine of Evolution at large should be observed. Already we have seen how (§ 8a), in the course of terrestrial evolution, there has been an increasingly heterogeneous assemblage of increasing heterogeneous compounds, preparing the way for organic life. And here we may see that during the development of plant-life from its lowest algoid and fungoid forms up to those forms which constitute the chief vegetal world, there has been an increasing number of complex organic compounds formed; displayed at once in the diversity of them contained in the same plant and in the still greater diversity displayed in the vast aggregate of species, genera, orders, and classes of plants." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.67) 9/06/2008 "As, in the course of evolution, we rise from the smallest to the largest aggregates by a process of integration, so do we rise by a process of differentiation from the simplest to the most complex aggregates. The initial types of life are at once extremely small and almost structureless. Passing over those which swarm in the air, the water, and the soil, and are now some of them found to be causes of diseases, we may set out with those ordinarily called Protozoa and Protophyta: the lowest of which, however, are either at once plants and animals, or are now one and now the other." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.181) 9/06/2008 "That the first living things were minute portions of simple protoplasm is implied by the general theory of Evolution; but we have no evidence that such portions exist now." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.181) 9/06/2008 "Thus the hypothesis of evolution prepares us for those two radical modifications of the cell-doctrine which the facts oblige us to make. It leads us to expect that as structureless portions of protoplasm must have preceded cells in the process of general evolution; so, in the special evolution of each higher organism, there will be an habitual production of cells out of structureless blastema. And it leads us to expect that though, generally, the physiological units composing a structureless blastema, will display their inherited proclivities by cell-development and metamorphosis; there will nevertheless occur cases in which the tissue to be formed, is formed by direct transformation of the blastema." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.20) 9/06/2008 "Before closing the chapter, it will be useful to compare the definition of Life here set forth, .with the definition of Evolution set forth in First Principles. Living bodies being bodies which display in the highest degree the structural changes constituting Evolution; and Life being made up of the functional changes accompanying these structural changes; we ought to find a certain harmony between the definitions of Evolution and of Life. Such a harmony is not wanting. The first distinction we noted between the kind of change shown in Life, and other hinds of change, was its serial character. We saw that vital change is substantially unlike non-vital change, in being made up of successive changes. Now since organic bodies display so much more than inorganic bodies those continuous differentiations and integrations which constitute Evolution; and since the re-distributions of matter thus carried so far in a comparatively short period, imply concomitant re-distributions of motion; it is clear that in a given time, organic bodies must undergo changes so comparatively numerous as to render the successiveness of their changes a marked characteristic. And it will follow a priori, as we found it to do a posteriori, that the organisms exhibiting Evolution in the highest degree, exhibit the longest or the most rapid successions of changes, or both. Again, it was shown that vital change is distinguished from non-vital change by being made up of many simultaneous changes; and also that creatures possessing high vitality are marked off from those possessing low vitality, by the far greater number of their simultaneous changes. Here, too, there is entire congruity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.107. Emphasis original) 9/06/2008 too, must have gradually passed into their concrete shapes through processes of growth. Growth is, indeed, as being an integration of matter; the primary trait of Evolution; and if Evolution of one kind or other is universal, growth is universal-universal, that is, in the sense that all aggregates display it in some way at some period." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.135) 9/06/2008 "If all organisms have arisen by Evolution, it is of course not to be expected that such several modes of development can be absolutely demarcated: we are sure to find them united by transitional modes. ...In ordinary speech Development is often used as synonymous with Growth. It hence seems needful to say that Development as here and here after used, means increase of structure and not increase of bulk.. It may be added that the word Evolution, comprehending growth as well as Development, is to be reserved for occasions when both are implied." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.162. Emphasis original) 10/06/2008 "Any one well acquainted with the facts, may readily raise objections to this arrangement. He may name forms which do not obviously come under any of these heads. He may point to plants that are for a time multicentral but afterwards develop axially. And from lower types of animals he may choose many in which the continuous and discontinuous modes are both displayed. But, as already hinted, an arrangement free from such anomalies must be impossible, if the various kinds of organization have arisen by Evolution. The one above sketched out is to be regarded as a rough grouping of the facts, which helps us to a conception of them in their totality; and, so regarded, it will be of service when we come to treat of Individuality and Reproduction. ... From these most general external. aspects of organic development, let us now turn to its internal and more special aspects. When treating of Evolution as a universal process of things, a rude outline of the course of structural changes in organisms was given ( First Principles, §§ 17.0, 119, 132). Here it will be proper to describe these changes more fully." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.166-167) 10/06/2008 "Thus in each of the organic sub-kingdoms, we see this change from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneity to a coherent, definite heterogeneity, illustrated in a quadruple way. The originally-like units called cells, become unlike in various ways, and in ways more numerous and marked as the development goes on. The several tissues which these several classes of cells form by aggregation, grow little by little distinct from each other; and little by little put on those structural complexities that arise from differentiations among their component units. In the shoot, as in the limb, the external form, originally very simple, and having much in common with simple forms in general, gradually acquires an increasing complexity, and an increasing unlikeness to other forms. Meanwhile, the remaining parts of the organism to which the shoot or limb belongs, having been severally assuming structures divergent from one another and from that of this particular shoot or limb, there has arisen a greater heterogeneity in the organism as a whole. ... One of the most remarkable inductions of embryology comes next in order. And here we find illustrated the general truth that in mental evolution as in bodily evolution the progress is from the indefinite and inexact to the definite and exact. For the first statement of this induction was but an adumbration of the correct statement." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.170-171) 10/06/2008 "It may be argued that on the hypothesis of Evolution, Life necessarily comes before organization. On this hypothesis, organic matter in a state of homogeneous aggregation must precede organic matter in a state of heterogeneous aggregation. But since the passing from a structureless state to a structured state, is itself a vital process, it follows that vital activity must have existed while there was yet no structure: structure could not else arise. That function takes precedence of structure, seems also implied in the definition of Life." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.210-211) 10/06/2008 "That organic types should be comparatively stable, might be anticipated on the hypothesis of Evolution. The structure of any organism being a product of the almost infinite series of actions and reactions to which ancestral organisms have been exposed; any unusual actions and reactions brought to bear on an individual, can have but an infinitesimal effect in permanently changing the structure of the organism as a whole. The new set of forces, compounded with all the antecedent sets of forces, can but inappreciably modify that moving equilibrium of functions which all these antecedent sets of forces have established. Though there may result a considerable perturbation of certain functions-a considerable divergence from their ordinary rhythms-yet the general centre of equilibrium cannot be sensibly changed. On the removal of the perturbing cause the previous balance will be quickly restored: the effect of the new forces being almost obliterated by the enormous aggregate of forces which the previous balance expresses." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.242) 10/06/2008 "On the hypothesis of Evolution, perplexities of this nature are just such as we might anticipate. If Life in general commenced with minute and simple forms, like those out of which all organisms, however complex, now originate; and if the transitions from these primordial units to organisms made up of groups of such units, and to higher organisms made up of groups of such groups took place by degrees; it is clear that individualities of the first and simplest order would merge gradually in those of a larger and more complex order, and these again in others of an order having still greater bulk and organization. Hence it would be impossible to say where the lower individualities ceased and the higher individualities commenced." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.247-248) 10/06/2008 "We may infer that in a way parallel to that just indicated, cell-evolution was, under one of its aspects, a change from a stage in which the exciting substance and the substance excited were mingled with approximate uniformity, to a stage in which the exciting substance was gathered together into the nucleus and finally into the chromosomes: leaving behind the substance excited, now distinguished as cytoplasm." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.262) 10/06/2008 "In Chapters III and IIIa of the First Part, reasons were given for concluding that in the animal organism nitrogenous substances play the part of decomposing agents to the carbo-hydrates-that the molecular disturbance set up by the collapse of a proteid molecule destroys the equilibrium of sundry adjacent carbohydrate molecules, and causes that evolution of energy which accompanies their fall into molecules of simpler compounds. Here, if the foregoing argument is valid, we may conclude that this highly complex phosphorized compound which, chromatin contains, plays, the same part to the adjacent nitrogenous compounds as these play to the carbo-hydrates. If so, we see arising a stage earlier that `general physiological method' illustrated in § 23f. It was there pointed out that in animal organisms the various structures are so arranged that evolution of a small amount of energy in one, sets up evolution of a larger amount of energy in another; and often this multiplied energy undergoes a second multiplication of like kind." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.262-263) 10/06/2008 "But, notwithstanding the immense divergences of structure so produced, the varieties inter-breed. To this, however, it may be replied that sufficient time has not elapsed- that the process by which a structural adaptation so reacts on the constitution as to make it a distinct one, possibly, or probably, takes many thousands of years. Let` us accept for the moment Lord Kelvin's low estimate of the geologic time during which life has existed-one hundred million years. Suppose we divide that time into as many parts as there are hours occupied in the development of a human foetus. And suppose that during these hundred million years there has been going on with some uniformity the evolution of the various organic types now existing. Then the amount of change undergone by the foetus in an hour, will be equivalent to thet to the amount of change undergone by an evolving organic form in fifteen thousand years. That is to say, during general evolution it may have taken fifteen thousand years to establish, as distinct, two species differing from one another no more than the foetus differs from itself after the lapse of an hour. Hence, though we lack proof that adaptive modifications become specific traits, it is quite possible that they are in course of becoming specific traits." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.565-566) 12/06/2008 "Either the multitudinous kinds of organisms which now exist, and the far more multitudinous kinds which have existed during past geologic eras, have been from time to time separately made; or they have arisen by insensible steps, through actions such as we see habitually going on. Both hypotheses imply a Cause. The last, certainly as much as the first, recognizes this Cause as inscrutable. The point at issue is, how this inscrutable Cause has worked in the production of living forms. This point, if it is to be decided. at all, is to be decided only by examination of evidence. Let us inquire which of these antagonist hypotheses is most congruous with established facts." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.415) 12/06/2008 "EARLY ideas are not usually true ideas. Undeveloped intellect, be it that of an individual or that of the race, forms conclusions which require to be revised and re revised, before they reach a tolerable correspondence with realities. Were it otherwise there would be no discovery, no increase of intelligence. What we call the progress of knowledge, is the bringing of Thoughts into harmony with Things; and it implies that the first Thoughts are either wholly out of harmony with Things, or in very incomplete harmony with them. If illustrations be needed the history of every science furnishes them. The primitive notions of mankind as to the structure of the heavens were wrong; and the notions which replaced them were successively less Wrong. The original belief respecting the form of the Earth was wrong; and this wrong belief survived through the first civilizations. The earliest ideas that have come down to us concerning the natures of the elements were wrong; and only in quite recent times has the composition of matter in its various forms been better understood. The interpretations of mechanical facts, of meteorological facts, of physiological facts, were at first wrong. In all these cases men set out with beliefs which, if not absolutely false, contained but small amounts of truth disguised by immense amounts of error. Hence the hypothesis that living beings resulted from special creations, being a primitive hypothesis, is probably an untrue hypothesis. It would be strange if, while early men failed to reach the truth in so many cases where it is comparatively conspicuous, they reached it in a case where it is comparatively hidden. ... Besides the improbability given to the belief in special creations, by its association with mistaken beliefs in general, a further improbability is given to it by its association with a special class of mistaken beliefs. It belongs to a family of beliefs which have one after another been destroyed by advancing knowledge; and is, indeed, almost the only member of the family surviving among educated people." (Spencer, H., "The Principlesogy," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.417-418. Emphasis original) 12/06/2008 "The belief in special creations of organisms arose among men during the era of profoundest darkness; and it belongs to a family of beliefs which have nearly all died out as enlightenment has increased. It is without a solitary established fact on which to stand; and when the attempt is made to put it into definite shape in the mind, it turns out to be only a pseud-idea. This mere verbal hypothesis, which men idly accept as a real or thinkable hypothesis, is of the same nature as would be one, based on a day's observation of human life, that each man and woman was specially created -an hypothesis not suggested by evidence but by lack of evidence-an hypothesis which formulates ignorance into a semblance of knowledge. Further, we see that this hypothesis, failing to satisfy men's intellectual need of an interpretation, fails also to satisfy their moral sentiment. It is quite inconsistent with those conceptions of the divine nature which they profess to entertain. If infinite power was to be demonstrated, then, either by the special creation of every individual, or by the production of species by some method of natural genesis, it would be better demonstrated than by the use of two methods, as assumed by the hypothesis. And if infinite goodness was to be demonstrated, then, not only do the provisions of organic structure, if they are specially devised, fail to demonstrate it, but there is an enormous mass of them which imply malevolence rather than benevolence. Thus the hypothesis of special creations turns out to be worthless by its derivation; worthless in its intrinsic incoherence; worthless as absolutely without evidence; worthless as not supplying an intellectual need; worthless as not satisfying a moral want. We must therefore consider it as counting for nothing, in opposition to any other hypothesis respecting the origin of organic beings." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.429-430) 12/06/2008 "JUST as the supposition that races of organisms have been specially created, is discredited by its origin; so, conversely, the supposition that races of organisms have been evolved, is credited by its origin. Instead of being a conception suggested and accepted when mankind were profoundly ignorant, it is a conception born in times of comparative enlightenment. Moreover, the belief that plants and animals have arisen in pursuance of uniform laws, instead of through breaches of uniform laws, is a belief which has come into existence in the most-instructed class, living in these better-instructed times. Not among those who have disregarded the order of Nature, has this idea made its appearance; but among those who have familiarized themselves with the order of Nature. Thus the derivation of this modern hypothesis is as favourable as that of the ancient hypothesis is unfavourable." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.431. Emphasis original) 12/06/2008 "A kindred antithesis exists between the two families of beliefs, to which the beliefs we are comparing severally belong. While the one family has been dying out the other family has been multiplying. As fast as men have ceased to regard different classes of phenomena as caused by special personal agents, acting irregularly; so fast have they come to regard these different classes of phenomena as caused by a general agency acting uniformly-the two changes being correlatives. And as, on the one hand, the hypothesis that each species resulted from a supernatural act, having lost nearly all its kindred hypotheses, may be expected soon to die; so, on the other hand, the hypothesis that each species resulted from the action of natural causes, being one of an increasing family of hypotheses, may be expected to survive." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.431-432) 12/06/2008 "The hypotheses of Special Creation and Evolution, are no less contrasted in respect of their legitimacy as hypotheses. While, as we have seen, the one belongs to that order of symbolic conceptions which are proved to be illusive by the impossibility of realizing them in thought; the; other is one of those symbolic conceptions which are more or less fully realizable in thought." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.433) 12/06/2008 "In all respects, then, the hypothesis of evolution contrasts favourably with the hypothesis of special creation. It has arisen in comparatively-instructed times and in the most cultivated class. It is one of those beliefs in the uniform concurrence of phenomena, which are gradually supplanting beliefs in their irregular and arbitrary concurrence; and it belongs to a genus of these beliefs which has of late been rapidly spreading. It is a definitely-conceivable hypothesis; being simply an extension to the organic world at large, of a conception framed from our experiences of individual organisms; just as the hypothesis of universal gravitation was an extension of the conception which our experiences of terrestrial gravitation had produced. This definitely-conceivable hypothesis, besides the support of numerous analogies, has the support of direct evidence. We have proof that there is going on a process of the kind alleged; and though the results of this process, as actually witnessed, are minute in comparison with the totality of results ascribed to it, yet they bear to such totality a ratio as great as that by which an analogous hypothesis is justified. Lastly, that sentiment which the doctrine of special creations is thought necessary to satisfy, is much better satisfied by the doctrine of evolution; since this doctrine raises no contradictory implications respecting the Unknown Cause, such as are raised by the antagonist doctrine." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.439-440) 12/06/2008 "On considering the `General Aspects of the Special-creation hypothesis,' we discovered it to be worthless. Discredited by its origin, and wholly without any basis of observed fact, we found that it was not even a thinkable hypothesis; and, while thus intellectually illusive, it turned out to have moral implications irreconcilable with the professed beliefs of those who hold it. Contrariwise, the `General Aspects of the Evolution-hypothesis' begot the stronger faith in it the more nearly they were considered. By its lineage and its kindred, it was found to be as closely allied with the proved truths of modern science, as is the antagonist hypothesis with the proved errors of ancient ignorance. We saw that instead of being a mere pseud-idea, it admits of elaboration into a definite conception: so showing its legitimacy as an hypothesis. Instead of positing a purely fictitious process, the process which it alleges proves to be one actually going on around us. To which add that, morally considered, this hypothesis presents no radical incongruities. Thus, even were we without further means of judging there could be no rational hesitation which of the two views should be entertained." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.554-555) 12/06/2008 "But the experiences which most clearly illustrate the process of general evolution, are our experiences of special evolution, repeated in every plant and animal.. Each organism exhibits, within a short time, a series of changes which, when supposed to occupy a period indefinitely great, and to go on in various ways instead of one way, give us a tolerably clear conception of organic evolution at large. In an individual development, we see brought into a comparatively infinitesimal time, a series of metamorphoses equally great with each of those which the hypothesis of evolution assumes to have taken place during immeasurable geologic epochs. A tree differs from a seed in every respect-in bulk, ucture, in colour, in form, in chemical composition. Yet is the one changed in the course of a few years into the other: changed so gradually, that at no moment can it be said-Now the seed ceases to be and the tree exists. What can be more widely contrasted than a newly-born child and the small, semi-transparent, gelatinous spherule constituting the human ovum? The infant is so complex in structure that a cyclopoedia is needed to describe its constituent parts. The germinal vesicle is so simple that it may be defined in a line. Nevertheless, nine months suffice to develop the one out of the other; and that, too, by a series of modifications so small, that were the embryo examined at successive minutes, even a microscope would not disclose any sensible changes. Aided by such facts, the conception of general evolution may be rendered as definite a conception as any of our complex conceptions can be rendered. If, instead of the successive minutes of a child's foetal life, we take the lives of successive generations of creatures-if we regard the successive generations as differing from one another no more than the foetus differs in successive minutes; our imaginations must indeed be feeble if we fail to realize in thought, the evolution of the most complex organism out of the simplest. If a single cell, under appropriate conditions, becomes a man in the space of a few years; there can surely be no difficulty in understanding how, under appropriate conditions, a cell may, in the course of untold millions of years, give origin to the human race." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.434-435) 12/06/2008 "The hypothesis of evolution is contrasted with the hypothesis of special creations, in a further respect. It is not simply legitimate instead of illegitimate, because representable in thought instead of unrepresentable; but it has the support of some evidence, instead of being absolutely unsupported by evidence. Though the facts at present assignable in direct proof that by progressive modifications, races of organisms which are apparently distinct from antecedent races have descended from them, are not sufficient; yet there are numerous facts of the order required. Beyond all question unlikenesses of structure gradually arise among the members of successive generations. We find that there is going on a modifying process of the kind alleged as the source of specific differences: a process which, though slow, does, in time, produce conspicuous changes-a process which, to all appearance, would produce in millions of years, any amount of change." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.435-436) 13/06/2008 "Why should the insect Aphis and the swift-flying Emperor-butterfly be constructed on the same fundamental plan? It cannot be by chance that there exist equal numbers of segments in all these multitudes of species. There is no reason to think it was necessary, in the sense that no other number would have made a possible organism: And to say that it is the result of design- to say that the Creator followed this pattern throughout, merely for the purpose of maintaining the pattern-is to assign an absurd motive. No rational interpretation of these and countless like morphological facts, can be given except by the hypothesis of evolution; and from the hypothesis of evolution they are corollaries." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.469) 13/06/2008 "'Why should one crustacean, which has an extremely complex mouth formed of many parts consequently always have fewer legs; or conversely, those with many legs have simpler mouths? Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils in any individual flower, though fitted for such widely-different purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern?' [Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species,", John Murray: London, Sixth Edition, 1872, p.384] To these and countless similar questions, the theory of evolution furnishes the only rational answer. In the course of that change from homogeneity to heterogeneity of structure displayed in evolution under every form, it will necessarily happen that from organisms made up of numerous like parts, there will arise organisms made up of parts more and more unlike: which unlike parts will nevertheless continue to bear traces of their primitive likeness." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.472) 13/06/2008 "Here, as before, the teleological doctrine fails utterly; for these rudimentary organs are useless, and occasionally even detrimental; as is the appendix vermiformis, in Man-a part of the caecum which is of no value for the purpose of absorption but which, by detaining small foreign bodies, often causes severe inflammation and death. The doctrine of typical plans is equally out of court; for while, in some members of a group, rudimentary organs completing the general type are traceable, in other members of the same group such organs are unrepresented. There remains only the doctrine of evolution; and to this, these rudimentary organs offer no difficulties. On the contrary, they are among its most striking evidences." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.474-475) 13/06/2008 "Let us consider next, how the hypothesis of evolution corresponds with the facts of distribution, not over different areas but through different media. If all forms of organisms have descended from some primordial form, it follows that since this primordial form must have inhabited some one medium out of the several media now inhabited, the peopling of other media by its descendants implies migration from one medium to others-implies adaptations to media quite unlike the original medium. To speak specifically-water being the medium in which the lowest living forms exist, the implication is that the earth and the air have been colonized from the water." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.479) 13/06/2008 "In whatever way it is formulated, or by whatever language it is obscured, this ascription of organic evolution to some aptitude naturally possessed by organisms, or miraculously imposed on them, is unphilosophical. It is one of those explanations which explain nothing-a shaping of ignorance into the semblance of knowledge. The cause assigned is not a true cause-not a cause assimilable to known causes- not a cause that can be anywhere shown to produce analogous effects. It is a cause unrepresentable in thought: one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions which cannot by any mental process be elaborated into a real conception. In brief, this assumption of a persistent formative power inherent in organisms, and making them unfold into higher types, is an assumption no more tenable than the assumption of special creations: of which, indeed, it is but a modification; differing only by the fusion of separate unknown processes into a continuous unknown process." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.492) 14/06/2008 "In First Principles, when considering the phenomena of Evolution at large, the leading characters and causes of those changes which constitute organic evolution were briefly traced. Under each of the derivative laws of force to which the passage from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneity to a coherent, definite heterogeneity, conforms, were given illustrations drawn from the metamorphoses of living bodies." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.508) 14/06/2008 "Our postulate being that organic evolution in general commenced with homogeneous organic matter, we have first to remember that the state of homogeneity is an unstable state ( state (First Principles, § 149)." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.508-509) 14/06/2008 "When considering the causes of evolution in general, we further saw (First Principles, § 156), that the multiplication of effects aids continually to increase that heterogeneity into which homogeneity inevitably lapses. It was pointed out that since `the several parts of an aggregate are differently modified by any incident force;' and since `by the reactions of the differently modified parts the incident force itself must be divided into differently modified parts;' it follows that `each differentiated division of the aggregate thus becomes a centre from which a differentiated division of the original force is again diffused. And since unlike forces must produce unlike results, each of these differentiated forces must produce, throughout the aggregate, a further series of differentiations.' " (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.511) 14/06/2008 "Returning from these extensive classes of facts for which Mr. Darwin's hypothesis does not account, to the still more extensive classes of facts for which it does account, and which are unaccountable on any other hypothesis; let us consider in what way this hypothesis is expressible in terms of the general doctrine of evolution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.542-543) 14/06/2008 "Passing from the evidence that evolution has taken place, to the question-How has it taken place? we find in known agencies and known processes, adequate causes of its phenomena. In astronomic, geologic, and meteorologic changes, ever in progress, ever combining in new and more involved ways, we have a set of inorganic factors to which all organisms are exposed; and in the varying and. complicating actions of organisms on one another, we have a set of organic factors that alter with increasing rapidity. Thus, speaking generally, all members of the Earth's Flora and Fauna experience perpetual re-arrangements of external forces. Each organic aggregate, whether considered individually or as a continuously-existing species, is modified afresh by each fresh distribution of external forces. To its pre-existing differentiations new differentiations are added; and thus that lapse to a more heterogeneous state, which would have a fixed limit were the circumstances fixed, has its limit perpetually removed by the perpetual change of the circumstances. These modifications upon modifications which result in evolution structurally considered, are the accompaniments of those functional. alterations continually required to reequilibrate inner with outer actions.(Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.556-557) 14/06/2008 "Even were this the whole of the evidence assignable for the belief that organisms have been gradually evolved, it would have a warrant higher than that of many beliefs which are regarded as established. But the evidence is far from exhausted." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.557-558) 14/06/2008 "SINCE the first edition of this work was published, and more especially since the death of Mr. Darwin, an active discussion of the Evolution hypothesis has led to some significant results. That organic evolution has been going on from the dawn of life down to the present time; is now a belief almost universally accepted by zoologists and botanists-'almost universally,' I say, because the surviving influence of Cuvier prevents acceptance of it by some of them in France. Omitting the ideas of these, all biological interpretations, speculations, and investigations, tacitly assume that organisms of every kind in every era and in every region have come into existence by the process of descent with modification. But while concerning the fact of evolution there is agreement, concerning its causes there is disagreement." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.559. Emphasis original) 14/06/2008 "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called `natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.' That there goes on a process of this kind throughout the organic world, Mr. Darwin's great work on the Origin of Species has shown to the satisfaction of nearly all naturalists. Indeed, when once enunciated, the truth of his hypothesis is so obvious as scarcely to need proof. Though evidence may be required to show that natural selection accounts for everything ascribed to it, yet no evidence is required to show that natural selection has always been going on, is going on now, and must ever continue to go on. Recognizing this as an a priori certainty, let us contemplate it under its two distinct aspects." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.530-531) 14/06/2008 "The problems of Morphology fall into two distinct classes, answering respectively to the two leading aspects of Evolution. In things which evolve there go on two processes -increase of mass and increase of structure. Increase of mass is primary, and in simple evolution takes place almost alone. Increase of structure is secondary, accompanying or following increase of mass with more or less regularity, wherever evolution rises above that form which small inorganic bodies, such as crystals, present to us. As the fundamental antagonism between Dissolution and Evolution consists in this, that while the one is an integration of motion and disintegration of matter, the other is an integration of matter and disintegration of motion; and as this integration of matter accompanying disintegration of motion, is a necessary antecedent to the differentiation of the matter so integrated; it follows that questions concerning the mode in which the parts are united into a whole, must be dealt with before questions concerning the mode in which these parts become modified." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.4-5) 14/06/2008 "The task before us is to trace throughout these phenomena the process of evolution; and to show how, as displayed in them, it conforms to those first principles which evolution in general conforms to." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.7-8) 27/06/2008 "Though we may frame sundry comprehensive propositions respecting the arrangements of their organs, considered as so many inert parts; and though we may establish several wide conclusions respecting the separate and combined actions of their organs, without knowing anything definite respecting the forms and positions of these organs; yet we cannot reach such a rationale of the facts as the hypothesis of Evolution aims at, without contemplating structures and functions in their mutual relations. Everywhere structures in great measure determine functions; and everywhere functions are incessantly modifying structures. In Nature the two are inseparable co-operators; and Science can give no true interpretation of Nature without keeping their co-operation constantly in view. An account of organic evolution, in its more special aspects, must be essentially an account of the inter-actions of structures and functions, as perpetually altered by changes of conditions." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.3-4) 27/06/2008 "The factors of the second class which we have to keep in view throughout our interpretations, are the formative tendencies of organisms themselves -the proclivities inherited by them from antecedent organisms, and which past processes of evolution have bequeathed. ... Moreover, we have to take into account, not, only the characters of immediately-preceding ancestors, but also those of their ancestors, and ancestors of all degrees of remoteness. Setting out with rudimentary types, we have to consider how, in each successive stage of evolution, the structures acquired during previous stages have been obscured by further integrations and further differentiations; Or, conversely, how the lineaments of primitive organisms have all along continued to manifest themselves under the superposed modifications." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.8-9) 27/06/2008 "THAT any formula should be capable of expressing a common character in the shapes of things so unlike as a tree and a cow, a flower and a centipede, is a remarkable fact; and is a fact which affords strong prima facie evidence of truth. For in proportion to the diversity and multiplicity of the cases to which any statement applies, is the probability that it sets forth the essential relations. Those connexions which remain constant under all varieties of manifestation, are most likely to be the causal connexions. Still higher will appear the likelihood of an alleged law of organic form possessing so great a comprehensiveness, when we remember that on the hypothesis of Evolution, there must exist between all organisms and their environments, certain congruities expressible in terms of their actions and reactions. The forces being, on this hypothesis, the causes of the forms, it is inferable, a priori, that the forms must admit of generalization in terms of the forces; and hence, such a generalization arrived at a posteriori, gains the further probability due to fulfilment of anticipation." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.231-232. Emphasis original) 27/06/2008 "Nearer yet to certainty seems the conclusion thus reached, on finding that it does but assert in their special manifestations, the laws of Evolution in general-the laws of that universal re-distribution of matter and motion which hold throughout the totality of things, as well as in each of its parts." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.231-232) 27/06/2008 "That process of integration which every plant displays during its life, we found reason to think has gone on during the life of the vegetal kingdom as a whole. Protoplasm into cells, cells into folia, folia into axes, axes into branched combinations-such, in brief, are the stages passed through by every shrub; and such appear to have been the stages through which plants of successively-higher kinds have been evolved from lower kinds." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.232) 27/06/2008 "This broad statement of the correspondence between the general facts of Morphological Development and the principles of Evolution at large, may be reduced to statements of a much more specific kind. The phenomena of symmetry and unsymmetry and asymmetry, which we have traced out among organic forms, are demonstrably in harmony with those laws of the re-distribution of matter and motion to which Evolution conforms." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.234) 27/06/2008 "The proposition arrived at when dealing with the causes of Evolution, `that in the actions and reactions of force and matter, an unlikeness in either of the factors necessitates an unlikeness in the effects; and that in the absence of unlikeness in either of the factors the effects must be alike' (First Principles, § 169), is a proposition which implies all these particular likenesses and unlikenesses of parts which we have been tracing. ... And here, indeed, we may see clearly that these truths are corollaries from that ultimate truth to which all phenomena of Evolution are referable. It is an inevitable deduction from the persistence of force, that organic forms which have been progressively evolved, must present just those fundamental traits of form which we find them present." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.234-235) 27/06/2008 "EVOLUTION implies insensible modifications and gradual transitions, which render definition difficult- which make it impossible to separate absolutely the phases of organization from one another. And this indefiniteness of distinction, to be expected a priori, we are compelled to recognize a posteriori, the moment we begin to group morphological phenomena into general propositions. Thus, on inquiring what is the morphological unit, whether of plants or of animals, we find that the facts refuse to be included in any rigid formula. The doctrine that all organisms are built up of cells, or that cells are the elements out of which every tissue is developed, is but approximately true." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.17. Emphasis original) 27/06/2008 "The rationale of these truths appears to be furnished by the hypothesis of evolution. We set out with molecules some degrees higher in complexity than those molecules of nitrogenous colloidal substance into which organic matter is resolvable; and we regard these very much more complex molecules as having the implied greater instability, greater sensitiveness to surrounding influences, and consequent greater mobility of form. Such being the primitive physiological units, organic evolution must begin with the formation of a minute aggregate of them-an aggregate showing vitality by a higher degree of that readiness to change its form of aggregation which colloidal matter in general displays; and by its ability to unite the nitrogenous molecules it meets with, into complex molecules like those of which it is composed. Obviously, the earliest forms must have been minute; since, in the absence of any but diffused organic matter, no form but a minute one could find nutriment. Obviously, too, it, must have been structureless ; since, as differentiations are producible only by the unlike actions of incident forces, there could have been no differentiations before such forces had had time to work. Hence, distinctions of parts like those required to constitute a cell were necessarily absent at first." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.18-19) 27/06/2008 "And we need not therefore be surprised to find, as we do find, specks of protoplasm manifesting life, and yet showing no signs of organization. A further stage of evolution is implied when the imperfectly integrated molecules forming one of these minute aggregates, become more coherent; at the same time as they pass into a state of heterogeneity, gradually increasing in its definiteness. That is to say, we may look for the assumption by them, of some distinctions of parts, such as we find in cells and in what are called unicellular organisms. They cannot retain their primordial uniformity; and while in a few cases they may depart from it bid, slightly, they will, in the great majority of cases, acquire a decided multiformity : there will result the comparatively integrated and comparatively differentiated Protophyta and Protozoa. The production of minute aggregates of physiological units being the first step, and the passage of such minute aggregates into more consolidated and more complex forms being the second step, it must naturally happen that all higher organic types, subsequently arising by further integrations and differentiations, will everywhere bear the impress of this earliest phase of evolution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.19) 27/06/2008 "A criticism passed on the general argument set forth in the foregoing sections, runs as follows:-`I have already pointed out that the process of evolution by which you believe the Liverworts with a distinct- axis and appendages to have been produced from the thalloid forms is not founded on sound evidence either in comparative morphology or development. But even if we admit that such an integration of a proliferously-produced colony might have given rise to the leafy Jungermanniaceae, there are even more weighty objections to the supposition that the same process produced the shoot structures of the flowering plants. In the first place the flowering plant-body is not homologous with the liverwort plant-body, since they represent different generations. The liverwort plant-body or gametophyte, i.e., the generation bearing sexual organs, is homologous with the prothallus of ferns and other Pteridophytes, and in the Flowering Plants with reduced structures contained within the spores (embryo-sac and pollen-grain) but still giving rise to sexual cells. The liverwort spore-capsule and its accessory parts (in fact everything produced from the fertilized egg) is homologous with the sporogonium of the mosses, and, as most botanists think, with the leafy plant-body of Pteridophytes and Phanerogams. This generation is called the sporophyte and from the spores which it produces are developed the gametophytes of the next generation.'" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.80. Emphasis original) 27/06/2008 "I may, however, indicate the line of defence I should take were I to go again into the matter. The objections are based on the structure of existing Liverworts and Phaenogams. But I have already referred to the probability-or, indeed, the certainty-that in conformity with the general principle set forth in the note to Chapter I, we must conclude that the early types of Liverworts out of which the Phaenogams are supposed to have evolved, as well as the early types of Phaenogams in which the stages of evolution were presented, no longer exist. We must infer that forms simpler than any now known, and more intermediate in their traits, were the forms concerned; and if so, it may be held that the incongruities with the hypothesis which are presented by existing forms, do not negative it. The scepticism my critic himself expresses respecting the current interpretation is a partial justification of this view. Moreover, his admission that the theory set forth `fits in well with the phenomena exhibited by phanerogamic shoots,' must, I think, be regarded as weighty evidence. On the Evolution-hypothesis we are obliged to suppose that the Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons respectively arose by integration of fronds; and if to the question after what manner the integration took place, there is an hypothesis which renders it comprehensible, and agrees both with the structures of the two kinds of shoots and the structures of the two kinds of seeds, as well as with various of the other phenomena the two types present, it has strong claims for acceptance." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.83-84. Emphasis original) 27/06/2008 "As, hitherto, we have concerned ourselves with those most general phenomena of organic form which, holding irrespective of class and order and sub-kingdom, illustrate the processes of integration and differentiation characterizing Evolution at large; so, now, we have to concern ourselves with the evidences of those differentiations and integrations of organic functions which have simultaneously arisen, and which similarly transcend the limits of zoological and botanical divisions." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.239) 27/06/2008 "Though the subject-matter of Physiology is as broadly distinguished from the subject-matter of Morphology as motion is from matter; yet, just as the laws of motion cannot be known apart from some matter moved, so there can be no knowledge of function without a knowledge of some structure as performing function. Much more than this is obvious. The study of functions, considered from our present point of view as arising by Evolution, must be carried on mainly by the study of the correlative structures." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.240) 27/06/2008 "The problems of Physiology, in the wide sense above described, are, like the problems of Morphology, to be considered as problems to which answers must be given in terms of incident forces. On the hypothesis of Evolution these specializations of tissues and accompanying concentrations of .functions, must, like the specializations of shape in an organism and its component divisions, be due to the actions and reactions which its intercourse with the environment involves; and the task before us is to explain how they are wrought-how they are to be comprehended as results of such actions and reactions." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.241) 27/06/2008 "Manifestly our data are so scanty that nothing more than very general and approximate interpretations of this kind are possible. If the hypothesis of Evolution furnishes us with a rude conception of the way in which the more conspicuous and important differentiations of functions have arisen, it is as much as can be expected. ... For though, in tracing up Morphological Evolution, we have to study those processes of integration by which organic aggregates are formed, before studying the differentiations that arise among their parts; we must, contrariwise, in tracing up Physiological Evolution, study the genesis of the different functions before we study the interdependence that eventually arises among them and constitutes physiological unity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.242-243) 27/06/2008 "THE brain is an incredibly fragile organ. Evolution certainly thinks so -- it has surrounded this mass of nerves and cells with a solid case of bone to guard against physical trauma, and lined its blood vessels with an almost impermeable membrane to guard against chemical and biological threats. As long as these defences remain unbreached, the brain is relatively safe." (Nogrady, B., "Implant infection answer a winner," The Australian, June 21, 2008. Emphasis original) 27/06/2008 "Mitochondria are found not just in photocells, but in most other cells. Each one can be thought of as a chemical factory which, in the course of delivering its primary product of usable energy processes more than 700 different chemical substances, in long, interweaving assembly-lines strung out along the surface of its intricately folded internal membranes. The round globule ... is the nucleus. Again, this is characteristic of all animal and plant cells. Each nucleus ... contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together ... The total number of cells in the body (of a human) is about 10 trillion. When you eat a steak, you are shredding the equivalent of more than 100 billion copies of the Encyclopaedia Britannica." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.17-18. Emphasis original) 28/06/2008 "As I mentioned ... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. I don't know the comparable figure for a willow seed or an ant, but it will be of the same order of staggeringness. There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas. Amazingly, only about 1 per cent of the genetic information in, for example, human cells, seems to be actually used: roughly the equivalent of one volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica ... A bacterium has a smaller information capacity than a human cell, by a factor of about 1,000, and it probably uses nearly all of it ... Its DNA could 'only' hold one copy of the New Testament! Modern genetic engineers already have the technology to write the New Testament or anything else into a bacterium's DNA. The 'meaning' of the symbols in any information technology is arbitrary, and there is no reason why we should not assign combinations, say triplets, from DNA's 4-letter alphabet, to letters of our own 26-letter alphabet (there would be room for all the upper and lower-case letters with 12 punctuation characters). Unfortunately, it would take about five man-centuries to write the New Testament into a bacterium, so I doubt if anybody will bother. If they did, the rate of reproduction of bacteria is such that 10 million copies of the New Testament could be run off in a single day, a missionary's dream if only people could read the DNA alphabet but, alas, the characters are so small that all 10 million copies of the New Testament could simultaneously dance upon the surface of a pin's head." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.115-116) 28/06/2008 "The the spontaneous generation held that organisms could arise spontaneously. It esly. It explained, for example, why rats could always be found in garbage dumps-somehow they spontaneously arose from the garbage. Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur in the nineteenth century, and with its passing biology embraced the law of biogenesis, which stated that all life comes only from preexisting life: omne vivum ex vivo-all that is alive came from something living." (Hunter, C.G.*, "Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2001, pp.96-97. Emphasis original) 28/06/2008 "In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of science is the Law of Biogenesis. This law was set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence showed to be true among living organisms-that life comes only from preceding life of its own type or kind. David Kirk has observed: `By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum "All life from preexisting life" became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent ([Kirk, D., "Biology Today," Random House: New York]1975, p.7). The experiments which formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) In Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning Virchow that "His aphorism 'omnis cellula e cellula' (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur's 'omne vivum e vivo' (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology" (see Ackerknect, [E.H., "Rudolph Virchow," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 23] 1973, p.35). Through the years, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the Law of Biogenesis as just that-a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life. Interestingly, the Law of Biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories." (Thompson, B.*, "The Scientific Case for Creation", , Apologetics Press, Montgomery AL, Revised Edition, 1993, pp.29-30) 28/06/2008 "The later events in the complex history of the cell theory were taking place while Virchow was a youth, and at Wurzburg he began to realize that that form of the cell theory that postulated the origin of every cell from a pre-existing cell and not from amorphous material could give new insight into pathological processes. In this he was influenced by the work of many others, notably by the views of John Goodsir of Edinburgh on the cell as a centre of nutrition and by the researches of Robert Remak, a German neuroanatomist and embryologist, who in 1852 was one of the first to point out that the multiplication of cells to form tissues was accompanied by cell division. By that year Remak had concluded that in pathological tissues also new cells arose from existing cells. But Remak's writings had little. influence on pathologists and medical practitioners. Thus the idea expressed by Virchow's omnis cellula e cellula ('every cell is derived from a [pre-existing] cell') is not completely original. Even this aphorism is not Virchow's; it was coined by François Vincent Raspail in 1825. But Virchow made cellular pathology into a system of overwhelming importance." (Underwood, E.A., "Virchow, Rudolf," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 19, pp.150-151. http://library.eb.com.au/all/eb/article-9075460) 28/06/2008 "Historians point out, however, that Schwann and Schleiden were not alone in contributing to this great generalization of natural science-strong intimations of the cell theory occur in the work of their predecessors. Recognizing that the basic problem was the origin of cells, these early investigators invented a hypothesis of `free cell formation,' according to which cells developed de novo out of an unformed substance, a `cytoblastema,' by a sequence of events in which first the nucleolus develops, ` then the nucleus, the cell body, and finally the cell membrane. The best physical model of the generation of formed bodies then available was crystallization, and their theory was inspired by that model. In retrospect, the hypothesis of free cell formation would not seem to have been justified, however, since cell division, a feature not characteristic of crystallization processes, had frequently been observed by earlier microscopists, especially among single-celled organisms. Even though cell division was observed repeatedly in the following decades, the theory of free cell formation lingered throughout most of the 19th century; however, it came to be thought of more and more as a possible exception to the general principle of the reproduction of cells by division. The principle of division of cells was affirmed in 1855 by a German biologist of great prestige: Rudolph Virchow asserted that `omnis cellula e cellula' ('all cells come from cells'); but doubt remained." ("Cell Theory and Classification," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 3, p.1059) 28/06/2008 "Biogenesis Vs Evolution The experiments and scientific methodology of Redi, Pasteur and Spallanzani are held in very high esteem by the scientific community. The overturning of the spontaneous generation hypothesis is taught to students world over to demonstrate modern, rational, experimental science. The Encyclopedia Britannica states concerning Rudolf Virchow: "His aphorism 'omnis cellula e cellula' (every cell arises from a pre-existing cell) ranks with Pasteur's 'omne vivum e vivo' (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology." [Ackerknecht, E.H., "Rudolf Virchow," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 23, 1973, p.35] A student learns the historical greatness of these facts from his natural science teacher on one day in class, but on the next, so to speak, is taught spontaneous generation as a truth concerning the origin of life. ... The terminology is changed from spontaneous generation to biopoiesis, abiogenesis, biochemical predestination, mutations and natural selection, and the event is removed to the remote past, but the meaning remains. The creationist is quick to remind evolutionists that biopoiesis and evolution describe events that stand in stark naked contradiction to an established law. The law of biogenesis says life arises only from preexisting life, biopoiesis says life sprang from dead chemicals; evolution states that life forms give rise to new, improved and different life forms, the law of biogenesis says that kinds only reproduce their own kinds. Evolutionists are not oblivious to this law. They simply question it. They say that spontaneous generation was disproved under the conditions of the experimental models of Pasteur, Redi and Spallanzani. This, they contend, does not preclude the spontaneous formation of life under different conditions." (Wysong, R.L.*, "The Creation- Evolution Controversy," Inquiry Press: Midland MI, 1976, p.182. Emphasis original) 28/06/2008 "Law of Biogenesis The law of biogenesis is the "principle that a living organism can arise only from another living organism, a principle contrasting with concepts such as that of the spontaneous generation of living from non-living matter..." [Allaby, M., ed, "Oxford Dictionary of Natural History," Oxford University Press, 1985, p.77]. That law, perhaps "the most fundamental in biology," is the axiom that life only comes from life, as Medawar defines it: `In its affirmative form, the law of Biogenesis states that all living organisms are the progeny of living organisms that went before them. The familiar Latin tag is omne vivum ex vivo- All that is alive came from something living; in other words, every organism has an unbroken genealogical pedigree extending back to the first living things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the occurrence (or even the possibility) of spontaneous generation. Moreover, the progeny of mice are mice and of men, men-"homogenesis," or like begetting like. The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental in biology, for evolution may be construed as a form of biogenesis that provides for the occasional begetting of a variant form...' [Medawar, P. & Medawar, J., "Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology", Harvard University Press, 1983, p.39] (Bird, W.R.*, "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pp.311-312) 28/06/2008 "Pasteur won the prize for a series of meticulous and conclusive experiments that showed that microorganisms came only from other microorganisms, and that a genuinely sterile broth or solution would remain sterile indefinitely unless contaminated by living creatures. The old aphorism, Omne vivum ex vivo (All life from life) became dogma. ... Pasteur answered an old question, but raised a new and tougher one: If all life comes from preexisting life, where did the first life come from? If one believed in Darwin's new theory of evolution, how could one avoid the logical trap that ultimately the first living organism could not have descended from an earlier one? (Had the Fundamentalists been thinking fast enough, they might have seized upon a combination of the ideas of Pasteur and Darwin as a proof of the initial special creation of life.) Pasteur appeared to leave only two alternatives: Either life was created at a specific time in the past, or life had always existed, somewhere else in the universe if not on Earth. Darwin dismissed the entire controversy as pointless and premature: `It will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, etc., generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant `appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to J. D. Hooker, 29 March 1863, in Darwin, F., ed., "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Vol III, John Murray, London, 1887, p17). With very few exceptions, most serious biologists and chemists accepted Darwin's verdict for more than another 70 years." (Wilson, E.O., et. al., "Life on Earth", Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1973, Third printing, 1975, p.594) 28/06/2008 "Virchow, Rudolph German medical microscopist (1821-1902) who did most to dispel the notion, current from the time of Hippocrates, that disease resulted from imbalance in body 'humours'. Replaced it by a cell- based theory, arguing that cells are derived only from other cells (omnis cellula a cellula), broadening and deepening CELL THEORY." (Thain, M. & Hickman, M., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology," , Penguin Books: London, Tenth Edition, 2000, p.664. Emphasis original) 28/06/2008 "Yet, seen from the standpoint of modern cell theory, the writings of both Schleiden and Schwann have a murky quality, which results mostly from their aim of forcing a mechanistic interpretation upon their observations. They wanted to demonstrate that life could be interpreted in terms of mathematics and chemistry and, in the rational spirit of the century, this was often associated with the idea of spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter. In Schwann's special, limited version of spontaneous generation, nuclei and eventually cells formed themselves out of structureless substance. This gives their theory an entirely different weight and import from modern cell theory, which states that nuclei come only from preexisting nuclei, cells only from preexisting cells. Modern theory is much closer to the outlook of Pasteur, which implies that the ultimate living units are of such complexity that new ones are formed only by growth and division of preexisting units. The Schleiden-Schwann cell theory had immediate repercussions in medicine. The German pathologist, anthropologist, and politician Rudolph Virchow conceived of illness as the sickness of individual cells, and in fact the microscopic examination of tissues added valuable new tools for diagnosis, with certain cell abnormalities being associated with specific diseases. His ideas and observations were brought together in the influential Die Cellular Pathologie in 1858, which was within two years published in translation in England. This book was mainly concerned with establishing microscopy as a branch of medicine, but is known in biology for its theory that all cells come from preexisting cells. The doctrine omnis cellula e cellula was eventually accepted, and accounted for a subtle shift of emphasis away from the idea that the whole organism directly controlled the minutest details of body functioning, including the controlled emergence of cells from diffuse materials, and toward the concept that there was an intermediate level of organization between the chemical and the whole- organism level, in which more or less autonomous cells were the significant unit. Virchow's theoretical grasp of cellular pathology was weakened by the fact that the germ theory of disease was not yet developed, and the mode of cell and nuclear division was not yet known, but his work nevertheless was a well-placed stepping-stone in both the history of medicine and of the cell theory." (Lanham, U., "Origins of Modern Biology," Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1968, Second printing, 1971, pp.198-199) 28/06/2008 "For Schwann and Schleiden the cell still was primarily a structural element, but already in the 1840s other authors stressed the physiological, particularly developmental, nutritional, role of cells. As the knowledge of cells and their constituents (particularly the nucleus) grew, the meaning of the concept `cell theory' gradually shifted. Schleiden's theory had the immediate effect of stimulating exceedingly active research on dividing cells of animals and plants. In 1852 R. Remak (1815-1865) showed that the frog egg is a cell and that new cells in the developing frog embryo are formed by the division of previously existing cells. He emphatically rejected free cell formation. In this he was joined by Rudolf Virchow (1855), who showed for many normal and pathological animal and human tissues that every cell originated by division from a preexisting cell. He established `as a general principle, that no development of any kind begins de novo, and consequently [one must] reject the theory of [spontaneous] generation just as much in the history of the development of individual parts as we do in that of entire organisms' (Virchow, 1858: 54). Kolliker, as well as several botanists, arrived at the same conclusion at about the same time, even though Schleiden's authority tended to delay its acceptance in botany. In 1868 (II: 370) Darwin was still uncertain whether or not free cell formation occurs. In due time Virchow's famous aphorism omnis cellula e cellula (1855)-'every cell from a pre-existing cell'-was accepted by everyone, even though the details of the process of division, particularly of the nucleus, were not understood at that time ..." (Mayr, E.W., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, pp.657-658) 28/06/2008 "Given an originally-homogeneous portion of protoplasm, and it follows from the general laws of Evolution (First Principles, §§ 149-155), first, that it must lose its homogeneity, and, second, that the leading dissimilarities must arise between the parts most-dissimilarly conditioned-that is, between the outside and the inside. The exterior must bear amounts and kinds of force unlike the amounts and kinds which the interior bears; and from the persistence of force it follows inevitably that unlike effects must be wrought on them-they must be differentiated. What is the limit towards which the differentiation tends? We have seen that the re-distribution of matter and motion whence, under certain conditions, evolution results, can never cease until equilibrium is reached - proximately a moving equilibrium, and finally a complete equilibrium (First Principles, §§ 170-175). Hence, the differentiation must go on until it establishes such differences in the parts as shall balance the differences in the forces acting on them. When dealing with equilibration in general, we saw that this process is what is called adaptation (First Principles, § 173) ; and, in this work, we saw that by it the totality of functions of an organism is brought into correspondence with the totality of actions affecting it (§§ 159-163)." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.245) 28/06/2008 "In summing up the special truths illustrative of this general truth, it will be proper here to contemplate more especially their dependence on first principles. Dealing with biological phenomena as phenomena of evolution, we have to interpret not only the increasing morphological heterogeneity of organisms, but also their increasing physiological heterogeneity, in terms of the re-distribution of matter and motion. While we make our rapid re-survey of the facts, let us then more particularly observe how they are subordinate to the universal course of this re-distribution." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.384) 28/06/2008 "THAT from the beginning of life there has been an ever-increasing heterogeneity in the Earth's Flora and Fauna, is a truth recognized by all biologists who accept the doctrine of evolution. In discussing the origin of species Mr. Darwin and others have been mainly occupied in explaining the genesis of now this and now that form of organism, considered as a member of one or other series, and regarded as becoming differentiated from its allies. But by implication, if not avowedly, there has been simultaneously accepted the belief that the forms continually produced by divergences and re-divergences, have constituted an assemblage increasingly multiform in its included kinds. And this, which we are shown by the process of organic evolution as followed out in its details, is a corollary from the doctrine of evolution at large, as was pointed out in § 159 of First Principles. Meanwhile there has been little if any recognition of an accompanying change, no less fundamental. In the general transformation which constitutes Evolution, differentiation and integration advance hand in hand; so that along with the production of unlike parts there progresses the union of these unlike parts into a whole." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.396. Emphasis original) 28/06/2008 "All these general and special relations between plants and animals have arisen since the phaenogamic type came into existence-have, indeed, arisen since the higher members of that type, the Angiosperms, have appeared; for the Gymnosperms do not play any part in this intercommunion. But so far as we can judge of present results of geologic explorations, there were no Angiosperms during the Eozoic and Paleozoic periods. So that this class of connexions between animals and vegetals must have been established since carboniferous times-a period long, indeed, but far shorter than that which organic evolution at large has occupied." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.407) 28/06/2008 "Genesis so as to include all processes aiding the formation and perfecting of new individuals; we see that the two are fundamentally opposed. Assuming other things to remain the same-assuming that environing conditions as to climate, food, enemies, &c., continue constant; then, inevitably, every higher degree of individual evolution is followed by a lower degree of race-multiplication, and vice versa. Progress in bulk, complexity, or activity, involves retrogress in fertility; and progress in fertility involves retrogress in bulk, complexity, or activity." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.430) 28/06/2008 "We might rest on these deductions and their several corollaries. Without going further we might with safety assert the general truths that, other things equal, advancing evolution must be accompanied by declining fertility; and that, in the highest types, fertility must still further decrease if evolution still further increases. We might be sure that if, other things equal, the relations between an organism and its environment become so changed as permanently to diminish the difficulties of self-preservation, there will be a permanent increase in the rate of multiplication; and, conversely, that a decrease of fertility will result where altered circumstances make self-preservation more laborious." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.431) 29/06/2008 "The proposition at which we have thus arrived is, then, that excess of fertility, through the changes it is ever working in -Man's environment, is itself the cause of Man's further evolution; and the obvious corollary here to be drawn is, that Man's farther evolution so brought about, itself necessitates a decline in his fertility." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.528-529) 29/06/2008 "Those higher feelings presupposed by the better self-regulation. which, in a better society, can alone enable the individual to leave a persistent posterity, are, other things equal, the correlatives of a more complex brain; as are also those more numerous, more varied, more general, and more abstract ideas, which must also become increasingly requisite for successful life as society advances. And the genesis of this larger quantity of feeling and thought, in a brain thus augmented in size and developed in structure, is, other things equal, the correlative of a greater wear of nervous tissue and greater consumption of materials to repair it. So that both in original cost of construction and in subsequent cost of working, the nervous system must become a heavier tax on the organism. Already the brain of the civilized man is larger by nearly thirty per cent. than the brain of the savage. Already, too, it presents an increased heterogeneity-especially in the distribution of its convolutions. And further changes like these which have taken place under the discipline of civilized life, we infer will continue to take place. But everywhere and always, evolution is antagonistic to procreative dissolution. Whether it be in greater growth of the organs which subserve self- maintenance, whether it be in their added complexity of structure, or whether it be in their higher activity, the abstraction of the required materials implies a diminished reserve of materials for race-maintenance." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.529-530) 29/06/2008 "Whether the interests of the species are most subserved by a higher evolution of the individual joined with a diminished fertility, or by a lower evolution of the individual joined with an increased fertility, are questions ever being experimentally answered. If the more-developed and less-prolific variety has a greater number of survivors, it becomes established and predominant. If, contrariwise, the conditions of life being simple, the larger or more-organized individuals gain nothing by their greater size or better organization; then the greater fertility of the less evolved ones, will insure to their descendants an increasing predominance." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.528-529) 29/06/2008 "Each increment of evolution entails a decrement of reproduction which is not accurately proportionate, but somewhat less than proportionate. The gain in the one direction is not wholly cancelled by a loss in the other direction, but only partially cancelled: leaving a margin of profit to the species. Though augmented power of self-maintenance habitually necessitates diminished power of race-propagation, yet the product of the two factors is greater than before; so that the forces preservative of race become, thereafter, in excess of the forces destructive of race, and the race spreads. We shall soon see why this happens. Every advance in evolution implies an economy. That any increase in bulk, or structure, or activity, may become established, the life of the organism must be to some extent facilitated by the change-the cost of self-support must be, on the average, reduced." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.501) 29/06/2008 "In another way, the same thing must result from those additions to bulk or complexity or activity that are due to survival of the fittest. Any change which prolongs individual life will, other things remaining the same, further the production of offspring. Even when it is not, like the foregoing, a means of economizing the forces of the individual, still, if it increases the chances of escaping destruction, it increases the chances of leaving posterity. Any further degree of evolution, therefore, will be established only where the cost of it is more than repaid: part of the gain being shown in the lengthened life of the individual, and part in the greater production of other individuals." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.502) 29/06/2008 "The inverse variation of Individuation and Genesis is, therefore, but approximate. Recognizing the truth that every increment of evolution which is appropriate to the circumstances of an organism, brings an advantage somewhat in excess of its cost; we see the general law, as more strictly stated, to be that Genesis decreases not quite so fast as Individuation increases. Whether the greater Individuation takes the form of a larger bulk and accompanying access of strength; whether it be shown in higher speed or agility; whether it consists in a modification of structure which facilitates some habitual movement, or in a visceral change that helps to utilize better the absorbed aliment; the ultimate effect is identical. There is either a more economical performance of the same actions, internal or external, or there is a securing of greater advantages by modified actions, which cost no more, or have an increased cost less than the increased gain." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.504-505) 29/06/2008 "In any case the result is a greater surplus of vital capital, part of which goes to the aggrandizement of the individual, and part to the formation of new individuals. While the higher tide of nutritive matters, everywhere filling the parent-organism, adds to its power of self-maintenance, it also causes a reproductive overflow larger than before. Hence every type which is best adapted to its conditions, (and this on the average means every higher type), has a rate of multiplication that insures a tendency to predominate. Survival of the fittest, acting alone, is ever replacing inferior species by superior species. But beyond the longer survival, and therefore greater chance of leaving offspring, which superiority gives, we see here another way in which the spread of the superior is insured. Though the more-evolved organism is the less fertile absolutely, it is the more fertile relatively." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.505) 29/06/2008 "ANY further evolution in the most-highly evolved of terrestrial beings, Man, must be of the same nature as evolution in general. Structurally considered, it may consist in greater integration, or greater differentiation, or both-augmented bulk, or increased heterogeneity and definiteness, or a combination of the two. Functionally considered, it may consist in a larger sum of actions, or more multiplied varieties of actions, or both-a larger amount of sensible and insensible motion generated, or motions more numerous in their hinds and more intricate and exact in their co-ordinations, or motions that are greater alike in quantity, complexity, and precision." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.505. Emphasis original) 29/06/2008 "Expressing the change in terms of that more special evolution displayed by organisms; we may say that it must be one which further adapts the moving equilibrium of organic actions. As was pointed out in First Principles, § 173, `the maintenance of such a moving equilibrium, requires the habitual genesis of internal forces corresponding in number, directions, and amounts to the external incident forces-as many inner functions, single or combined, as there are single or combined outer actions to be met.' And it was also pointed out that `the structural complexity accompanying functional equilibration, is definable as one in which there are as many specialized parts as are capable, separately and jointly, of counteracting the separate and joint forces amid which the organism exists.' Clearly, then, since all incompletenesses in Man as now constituted, are failures to meet certain of the outer actions (mostly involved, remote, irregular), to which he is exposed; every advance implies additional co-ordinations of actions and accompanying complexities of organization." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.522-523) 29/06/2008 "Or, to specialize still further this conception of future progress, we may consider it as an advance towards completion. of that continuous adjustment of internal to external relations, which Life shows us. In Part I. of this work, where it was shown that the correspondence between inner and outer actions which under its phenomenal aspect, we call Life, is a particular kind of what, in terms of Evolution, we called a moving equilibrium; it was shown that the degree of life varies as the degree of correspondence. Greater evolution or higher life implies, then, such modifications of human nature as shall make more exact the existing correspondences, or shall establish additional correspondences, or both. Connexions of phenomena of a rare, distant, unobtrusive, or intricate kind, which we either suffer from or do not take advantage of, have to be responded to by new connexions of ideas, and acts properly combined and proportioned: there must be increase-of knowledge, or skill, or power, or of all these. And to effect this more extensive, more varied, and more accurate, co-ordination of actions, there must be organization of still greater heterogeneity and definiteness." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.523) 29/06/2008 "Let its, before proceeding, consider in what particular ways this further evolution, this higher life, this greater co-ordination of actions, may be expected to show itself. Will it be in strength? Probably not to any considerable degree. Mechanical appliances are fast supplanting brute force, and doubtless will continue doing this. Though at present civilized nations largely depend for self-preservation on vigour of limb, and are likely to do so while wars" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.523-524) 29/06/2008 "Thus, looking at the several possibilities, and asking what direction this further evolution, this more complete moving equilibrium, this better adjustment of inner to outer relations, this more perfect coordination of actions, is likely to take; we conclude that it must take mainly the direction of a higher intellectual and emotional development. ... This conclusion we shall find equally forced on us if we inquire for the causes which are to bring about such results. No more in the case of Man than in the case of any other being, can we presume that evolution has taken place, or will hereafter take place, spontaneously. In the past, at present, and in the future, all modifications, functional and organic, have been, are, and must be, immediately or remotely consequent on surrounding conditions. What, then, are those changes in the environment to which, by direct or indirect equilibration, the human organism has been adjusting itself, is adjusting itself now, and will continue to adjust itself? And how do they necessitate a higher evolution of the organism?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.525-526) 29/06/2008 "There now remains but to inquire towards what limit this progress tends. So long as the fertility of the race is more than sufficient to balance the diminution by deaths, population must continue to increase. So long as population continues to increase, there must be pressure on the means of subsistence. And so long as there is pressure on the means of subsistence, further mental development must go on, and further diminution of fertility must result; provided that the actions and reactions which have been described are not artificially interfered with. I append this qualifying clause advisedly, and especially emphasize it, because these actions and reactions have been hitherto, and are now, greatly interfered with by governments, and the continuance of the interferences may retard, if not stop, that further evolution which would else go on." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.531-532) 29/06/2008 "I refer to those hindrances to the survival of the fittest which in earlier times resulted from the undiscriminating charities of monasteries and in later times from the operation of Poor Laws. Of course if the competition which increasing pressure of population entails, is prevented from acting on a considerable part of the community, such part, saved from the needed intellectual and moral stress, will not undergo any further mental development; and must ever tend to leave a posterity, and an increasing posterity, in which none of that higher individuation which checks genesis takes place. Such State-meddlings with the natural play of actions and reactions produce a further evil equally great or greater. For those who are not self- maintained, or but partially self-maintained, are supplied with the means they lack by the better members of the community; and these better members have thus not only to support themselves and their offspring, but also to support or aid the inferior members and their offspring. The under-working of one part is accompanied by the over-working of the other part-by a working which at each stage of progress exceeds that which the normal conditions necessitate, and results sometimes in illness, premature age, or death, or in lessened number of children, or in imperfect rearing of children: the bad are fostered and the good are repressed." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.532) 29/06/2008 "It does not follow that the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest must be left to work out their effects without mitigation. It is contended only that there shall not be a forcible burdening of the superior for the support of the interior. Such aid to the inferior as the superior voluntarily yield, kept as it will be within moderate limits, may be given with benefit to both-relief to the one, moral culture to the other. And aid willingly given (little to the least worthy and more to the most worthy) will usually be so given as not to further the increase of the unworthy. For in proportion as the emotional nature becomes more evolved, and there grows up a higher sense of parental responsibility, the begetting of children that cannot be properly reared will be universally held intolerable. If, as we see, public opinion in many places and times becomes coercive enough to force men to fight duels, we can scarcely doubt that at a higher stage of evolution it may become so coercive as to prevent men from marrying improvidently. If the frowns of their fellows can make men commit immoral acts, surely they may make men refrain from immoral acts specially when the actors themselves feel that the threatened frowns would be justified. Hence with a higher moral nature will come a restriction on the multiplication of the inferior." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, p.533) 29/06/2008 "In brief, the sole requirement is that there shall be no extensive suspension of that natural relation between merit and benefit which constitutes justice. Holding, then, that this all-essential condition will itself come to be recognized and enforced by a more evolved humanity, let us consider what is the goal towards which the restraint on genesis by individuation progresses. ... Supposing the Sun's light and heat, on which all terrestrial life depends, to continue abundant for a period long enough to allow the entire evolution we are contemplating; there are still certain changes which must prevent such complete adjustment of human nature to surrounding conditions, as would permit the rate of multiplication to become equal to the rate of mortality. " (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.533-534) 29/06/2008 "Evolution under all its aspects, general and special, is an advance towards equilibrium. We have seen that the theoretical limit towards which the integration and differentiation of every aggregate advances, is a state of balance between all the forces to which its parts are subject, and the forces which its parts oppose to them (First Prin. § 170). And we have seen that organic evolution is a progress towards a moving equilibrium completely adjusted to environing actions. It has been also pointed out that, in civilized Man, there is going on a new class of equilibrations-those between his actions and the actions of the societies he forms (First Prin. § 175). Social restraints and requirements are ever altering his activities and by consequence his nature; and as fast as his nature is altered, social restraints and requirements undergo more or less re-adjustment. Here the organism and the conditions are both modifiable; and by successive conciliations of the two, there is effected a progress towards equilibrium. More recently we have seen that in every species, there establishes itself an equilibrium of an involved kind between the total race-destroying forces and the total race-preserving forces-an equilibrium which implies that where the ability to maintain individual life is small, the ability to propagate must be great, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the evolution of a race more in equilibrium with the environment, is also the evolution of a race in which there is a relative approach towards equilibrium between the number of new individuals produced and the number which survive and propagate." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. II, Revised, 1910, pp.536-538) 29/06/2008 "The distribution in Space cannot be said to imply that organisms have been designed for their particular habitats and placed in them; since, besides the habitat in which each kind of organism is found there are commonly other habitats, as good or better for it, from which it is absent-habitats to which it is so much better fitted than organisms now occupying them, that it extrudes these organisms when allowed the opportunity. Neither can we suppose that the purpose has been to establish varieties of Floras and Faunas; since, if so, why are the Floras and Faunas but little divergent in widely-sundered areas between which migration is possible, while they are markedly divergent in adjacent areas between which migration is impossible?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.411-412) 29/06/2008 "Passing to distributions in Time, there arise the questions -why during nearly the whole of that vast period geologically recorded have there existed none of those highest organic forms which have now overrun the Earth?-how is it that we find no traces of a creature endowed with large capacities for knowledge and happiness? The answer that the Earth was not, in remote times, a fit habitation for such a creature, besides being unwarranted by the evidence, suggests the equally awkward question-why during untold millions of years did the Earth remain fit only for inferior creatures? What, again, is the meaning of extinction of types? To conclude that the saurian type was replaced by other types at the beginning of the tertiary period, because it was not adapted to the conditions which then arose, is to conclude that it could not be modified into fitness for the conditions; and this conclusion is at variance with the hypothesis that creative skill is shown in the multiform adaptations of one type to many ends." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.412) 29/06/2008 "We all know that the savage thinks of each striking phenomenon, or group of phenomena, as caused by some separate personal agent; that out of this conception there grows up a polytheistic conception, in which these minor personalities are variously generalized into deities presiding over different divisions of nature; and that these are eventually further generalized. This progressive consolidation of causal agencies may be traced in the creeds of all races, and is far from complete in the creed of the most advanced races. The unlettered rustics who till our fields, do not let the consciousness of a supreme power wholly absorb the aboriginal conceptions of good and evil spirits, and of charms or secret potencies dwelling in particular objects. The earliest mode of thinking changes only as fast as the constant relations among phenomena are established. Scarcely less familiar is the truth, that while accumulating knowledge makes these conceptions of personal causal agents gradually more vague, as it merges them into general causes, it also destroys the habit of thinking of them as working after the methods of personal agents. We do not now, like Kepler, assume guiding spirits to keep the planets in their orbits. It is no longer the universal belief that the sea was once for all mechanically parted from the dry land; or that the mountains were placed where we see them by a sudden creative act. All but a narrow class have ceased to suppose sunshine and storm to be sent in some arbitrary succession. The majority of educated people have given up thinking of epidemics of punishments inflicted by an angry deity. Nor do even the common people regard a madman as one possessed by a demon. That is to say, we everywhere see fading away the anthropomorphic conception of Cause. In one case after another, is abandoned the ascription of phenomena to a will analogous to the human will, working by methods analogous to human methods." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.418-419) 29/06/2008 "If, then, of this once-numerous family of beliefs the immense majority have become extinct, we may not unreasonably expect that the few remaining members of the family will become extinct. One of these is the belief we are here considering-the belief that each species of organism was specially created. Many who in all else have abandoned the aboriginal theory of things, still hold this remnant of the aboriginal theory. Ask any well-informed man whether he accepts the cosmogony of the Indians, or the Greeks, or the Hebrews, and he will regard the question as next to an insult. Yet one element common to these cosmogonies he very likely retains: not bearing in mind its origin. For whence did he get the doctrine of special creations? Catechise him, and he is forced to confess that it was put into his mind in childhood, as one portion of a story which, as a whole, he has long since rejected. Why this fragment is likely to be right while all the rest is wrong, he is unable to say. May we not then expect that the relinquishment of all other parts of this story, will by and by be followed by the relinquishment of this remaining part of it?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.419) 30/06/2008 "Virchow and Remak rejected free-cell formation and spontaneous generation. By 1854 Virchow was convinced that `there is no life but through direct succession,' that is, all cells were derived from preexisting cells. In 1855 Virchow published a paper on `cellular pathology,' which included the famous motto omnis cellula e cellula. ... For Virchow the cell was the fundamental link in the great chain that formed the hierarchy of tissues, organs, systems, and, ultimately, the complete organism." (Magner, L.N., "A History of the Life Sciences," Marcel Dekker: New York NY, Second Edition, 1994, p.203) 30/06/2008 "More and more investigators began to suspect that the division of an existing cell was the sole mechanism for producing new cells. This was an exceedingly difficult hypothesis to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The microscopes and the techniques for studying cells in the early 1800s were most inadequate by later standards, and it took many observations on different sorts of organisms and tissues before the German pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) was to express the view, in 1855, Omnis cellula e cellula (`all cells from cells') and have it generally accepted. In a lecture given in 1858 he put it thus: `A new cell can [never] build itself up out of any noncellular substance. Where a cell arises, there a cell must have previously existed (Omnis cellula e cellula), just as an animal can spring only from an animal, a plant only from a plant. In this manner, although there are still a few spots in the body where absolute demonstration has not yet been afforded, the principle is nevertheless established, that in the whole series of living things, whether they be entire plants or animal organisms, or essential constituents of the same, an eternal law of continuous development prevails.' (Virchow 1863, lecture 2)" (Moore, J.A., "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1993, pp.260-261. Emphasis original) 30/06/2008 "Not everyone agreed with Virchow that all cells and all organisms come from preexisting cells, but as the nineteenth century progressed this hypothesis became ever more probable. In a few decades the experiments of the French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) would establish the improbability of spontaneous generation of living organisms and the cells within them. Thus by the end of the nineteenth century it had been established beyond all reasonable doubt that: Omnis vivo e vivo [and] Omnis cellula e cellula" (Moore, J.A., "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1993, p.261) 30/06/2008 "The belief which we find thus questionable; both as being a primitive belief and as being a belief belonging to an almost-extinct family, is a belief not countenanced by a single fact. No one ever saw a special creation; no one ever found proof of an indirect kind that a special creation had taken place. It is significant, as Dr. Hooker remarks, that naturalists who suppose new species to be miraculously originated, habitually suppose the origination to occur in some region remote from human observation. Wherever the order of organic nature is exposed to the view of zoologists and botanists, it expels this conception; and the conception survives only in connexion with imagined places, where the order of organic nature is unknown." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.419-420) 30/06/2008 "Besides being absolutely without evidence to give it external support, this hypothesis of special creations cannot support itself internally-cannot be framed into a coherent thought. It is one of those illegitimate symbolic conceptions which are mistaken for legitimate symbolic conceptions (First Principles, § 9), because they remain untested. Immediately an attempt is made to elaborate the idea into anything like a definite shape, it proves to be a pseud-idea, admitting of no definite shape. Is it supposed that a new organism, when specially created, is created out of nothing? If so, there is a supposed creation of matter; and the creation of matter is inconceivable-implies the establishment of a relation in thought between nothing and something-a relation of which one term is absent-an impossible relation. Is it supposed that the matter of which the new organism consists is not created for the occasion, but is taken out of its pre-existing forms and arranged into a new form? If so, we are met by the question-how is the re-arrangement effected? Of the myriad atoms going to the composition of the new organism, all of them previously dispersed through the neighbouring air and earth, does each, suddenly disengaging itself from its combinations, rush to meet the rest, unite with them into the appropriate chemical compounds, and then fall with certain others into its appointed place in the aggregate of complex tissues and organs? Surely thus to assume a myriad supernatural impulses, differing in their directions and amounts, given to as many different atoms, is a multiplication of mysteries rather than the solution of a mystery. For every one of these impulses, not being the, result of a force locally existing in some other form, implies the creation of force; and the creation of force is just as inconceivable as the creation of matter. It is thus with all attempted ways of representing the process." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.420-421) 30/06/2008 "The old Hebrew idea that God takes clay and moulds a new creature, as a potter moulds a vessel, is probably too grossly anthropomorphic to be accepted by any modern defender of the special-creation doctrine. But having abandoned this crude belief, what belief is he prepared to substitute? If a new organism is not thus produced, then in what way is one produced? or rather-in what way does he conceive a new organism to be produced? We will not ask for the ascertained mode, but will be content with a mode which can be consistently imagined. No such mode, however, is assignable. Those who entertain the proposition that each kind of organism results from a divine interposition, do so because they refrain from translating words into thoughts. They do not really believe, but rather believe they believe. For belief, properly so called, implies a mental representation of the thing believed, and no such mental representation is here possible." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.420-421) 30/06/2008 "If we imagine mankind to be contemplated by some being as short-lived as an ephemeron, but possessing intelligence like our own-if we imagine such a being studying men and women, during his few hours of life, and speculating as to the mode in which they came into existence; it is manifest that, reasoning in the usual way, he would suppose each man and woman to have been separately created. No appreciable changes of structure occurring in any of them during the time over which his observations extended, this being would probably infer that no changes of structure were taking place, or had taken place; and that from the outset each man and woman had possessed all the characters then visible-had been originally formed with them. The application is obvious. A human life is ephemeral compared with the life of a species; and even the period over which the records of all human lives extend, is ephemeral compared with the life of a species. There is thus a parallel contrast between the immensely-long series of changes which have occurred during the life of a species, and that small portion of the series open to our view. And there is no reason to suppose that the first conclusion drawn by mankind from this small part of the series visible to them, is any nearer the truth than would be the conclusion of the supposed ephemeral being respecting men and women." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.421-422) 30/06/2008 "This analogy, suggesting as it does how the hypothesis of special creations is merely a formula for our ignorance, raises the question-What reason have we to assume special creations of species but not of individuals; unless it be that in the case of individuals we directly know the process to be otherwise, but in the case of species do not directly know it to be otherwise? Have we any ground for concluding that species were specially created, except the ground that we have no immediate knowledge of their origin? And does our ignorance of the manner in which they arose warrant us in asserting that they arose by special creation?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.422) 30/06/2008 "Another question is suggested by this analogy. Those who, in the absence of immediate evidence of the way in which species arose, assert that they arose not in a natural way allied to that in which individuals arise, but in a supernatural way, think that by this supposition they honour the Unknown Cause of things; and they oppose any antagonist doctrine as amounting to an exclusion of divine power from the world. But if divine power is demonstrated by the separate creation: of each species, would it not have been still better demonstrated by the separate creation of each individual? Why should there exist this process of natural genesis? Why should not omnipotence have been proved by the supernatural production of plants and animals everywhere throughout the world from hour to hour? Is it replied that the Creator was able to make individuals arise from one another in a natural succession, but not to make species thus arise? This is to assign a limit to power instead of magnifying it. Either it was possible or not possible to create species and individuals after the same general method. To say that it was not possible is suicidal in those who use this argument; and if it was possible, it is required to say what end is served by the special creation of species which would not have been better served by the special creation of individuals." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.422-423) 30/06/2008 "Again, what is to be thought of the fact that the immense majority of these supposed special creations took place before mankind existed? Those who think that divine power is demonstrated by special creations, have to answer the question-to whom demonstrated? Tacitly or avowedly, they regard the demonstrations as being for the benefit of mankind. But if so, to what purpose were the millions of these demonstrations which took place on the Earth when there were no intelligent beings to contemplate them? Did the Unknowable thus demonstrate his power to himself? Few will have the hardihood to say that any such demonstration was needful. There is no choice but to regard them, either as superfluous exercises of power, which is a derogatory supposition, or as exercises of power that were necessary because species could not be otherwise produced, which is also a derogatory supposition." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.423) 30/06/2008 "Other implications concerning the divine character must be recognized by those who contend that each species arose by divine fiat. It is hardly supposable that Infinite Power is exercised in trivial actions effecting trivial changes. Yet the organic world in its hundreds of thousands of species shows in each sub-division multitudinous forms which, though unlike enough to be classed as specifically distinct, diverge from one another only in small details which have no significance in relation to the life led. Sometimes the number of specific distinctions is so great that did they result from human agency we should call them whimsical." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.423-424) 30/06/2008 "For example, in Lake Baikal are found 115 species of an amphipod, Gammarus; and the multiplicity becomes startling on learning that this number exceeds the number of all other species of the genus: various as are the conditions to which, throughout the rest of the world, the genus is subject. Still stranger seems the superfluous exercise of power on examining the carpet of living forms at the bottom of the ocean. Not dwelling on the immense variety of creatures unlike in type which live miles below the surface in absolute darkness, it will suffice to instance the Polyzoa alone: low types of animals so small that a thousand of them would not cover a square inch, and on which, nevertheless, there has been, according to the view we are considering, an exercise of creative skill such that by small variations of structure more than 350 species have been produced!" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.424) 30/06/2008 "Kindred illustrations are furnished by the fauna of caverns. Are we to suppose that numerous blind creatures-crustaceans, myriapods, spiders, insects, fishes-were specially made sightless to fit them for the Mammoth Cave? Or what shall we say of the Proteus, a low amphibian with rudimentary eyes, which inhabits certain caves in Carniola, Carinthia and Dalmatia and is not found elsewhere. Must we conclude that God went out of his way to devise an animal for these places? More puzzling still is a problem presented to the special-creationist by a batrachian inhabiting Central Australia. In a region once peopled by numerous animals but now made unfit by continuous droughts, there exists a frog which, when the pools are drying up, fills itself with water and burrowing in the mud hibernates until the next rains; which may come in a year or may be delayed for two years. What is to be thought of this creature? Were its structure and the accompanying instinct divinely planned to fit it to this particular habitat? Many such questions might be asked which, if answered as the current theory necessitates, imply a divine nature hardly like that otherwise assumed." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.424-425) 30/06/2008 "Those who espouse the aboriginal hypothesis entangle themselves in yet other theological difficulties. This assumption that each kind of organism was specially designed, carries with it the implication that the designer intended everything which results from the design. There is no escape from the admission that if organisms were severally constructed with a view to their respective ends, then the character of the constructor is indicated both by the ends themselves, and the perfection or imperfection with which the organisms are fitted to them. Observe the consequences." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.425) 30/06/2008 "Without dwelling on the question recently raised, why during untold millions of years there existed on the Earth no beings endowed with capacities for wide thought and high feeling, we may content ourselves with asking why, at present, the Earth is largely peopled by creatures which inflict on one another so much suffering? Omitting the human race, whose defects and miseries the current theology professes to account for, and limiting ourselves to the lower creation, what must we think of the countless different pain-inflicting appliances and instincts with which animals are endowed? Not only now, and not only ever since men have lived, has the Earth been a scene of warfare among all sentient creatures; but palaeontology shows us that from the earliest eras geologically recorded; there has been going on this universal carnage. Fossil structures, in common with the structures of existing animals, show us elaborate weapons for destroying other animals. We have unmistakable proof that throughout all past time, there has been a ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong. How is this to be - explained? How happens it that animals were so designed as to render this bloodshed necessary? How happens it that in almost every species the number of individuals annually born is such that the majority die by starvation or by violence before arriving at maturity ? Whoever contends that each kind of animal was specially designed, must assert either that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Creator to produce these results, or that there was an inability to prevent them. Which alternative does he prefer?-to cast an imputation on the divine character or to assert a limitation of the divine power?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.425-426) 30/06/2008 "It is useless for him to plead that the destruction of the less powerful by the more powerful, is a means of preventing the miseries of decrepitude and incapacity, and therefore works beneficently. For even were the chief mortality among the aged instead of among the young, there would still arise the unanswerable question-why were not animals constructed in such ways as to avoid these evils? why were not their rates of multiplication, their degrees of intelligence; and their propensities, so adjusted that these sufferings might be escaped? And if decline of vigour was a necessary accompaniment of age, why was it not provided that the organic actions should end in sudden death, whenever they fell below the level required for pleasurable existence? Will any one who contends that organisms were specially designed; assert that they could not have been so designed as to prevent suffering? And if he admits that they could have been made so as to prevent suffering, will he assert that the Creator preferred making them in such ways as to inflict suffering?" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.426) 30/06/2008 "Already in § 52, where the generalization of von Baer respecting the relations of embryos was set forth, there was given the warning, above repeated with greater distinctness, that it is only an adumbration. In the words of his translator, he `found that in its earliest stage, every organism has the greatest number of characters in common with all other organisms in their earliest stages; that at a stage somewhat later, its structure is like the structures displayed at corresponding phases by a less extensive multitude of organisms; that at each subsequent stage, traits are acquired which successively distinguished the developing embryo from groups of embryos that it previously resembled-thus step by step diminishing the class of embryos which it still resembles; and that thus the class of similar forms is finally narrowed to the species of which it is a member.'" (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.451-452) 30/06/2008 "Assuming for a moment that this generalization is true as it stands, or rather, assuming that the qualifications needed are not such as destroy its correspondence with the average facts, we shall see that it has profound significance. For if we follow out in thought the implications-if we conceive the germs of all hinds of organisms simultaneously developing, and imagine that after taking their first step together, at the second step one half of the vast multitude diverges from the other half; if, at the next step, we mentally watch the parts of each great assemblage beginning to take two or more routes of development; if we represent to ourselves such bifurcations going on, stage after stage, in all the branches; we shall see that there must result an aggregate analogous, in its arrangement of parts, to a tree. If this vast genealogical tree be contemplated as a whole, made up of trunk, main branches, secondary branches, and so on as far as the terminal twigs; it will be perceived that all the various kinds of organisms represented by these terminal twigs, forming the periphery of the tree, will stand related to one another in small groups, which are united into groups of groups, and so on. The embryological tree, expressing the developmental relations of organisms, will be similar to the tree which symbolizes their classificatory relations. That subordination of classes, orders, genera, and species, to which naturalists have been gradually led, is just that subordination which results from the divergence and re-divergence of embryos, as they all unfold. On the hypothesis of evolution this parallelism has a meaning-indicates that primordial kinship of all organisms, and that progressive differentiation of them, which the hypothesis alleges. But on any other hypothesis the parallelism is meaningless; or rather, it raises a difficulty; since it implies either an effect without a cause or a design without a purpose." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.452-453) 30/06/2008 "This conception of a tree, symbolizing the relationships of types and a species derived from the same root, has a concomitant conception. The implication is that each organism, setting out from the simple nucleated cell, must in the course of its development follow the line of the trunk, some main branch, some sub-branch, some sub-sub-branch, &c., of this embryological tree; and so on till it reaches that ultimate twig representing the species of which it is a member. It must in a general way go through the particular line of forms which preceded it in all past times: there must be what has been aptly called a `recapitulation' of the successive ancestral structures. This, at least, is the conclusion necessitated by the generalization we are considering under its original crude form." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.452-453) 30/06/2008 "Von Baer lived in the days when the Development Hypothesis was mentioned only to be ridiculed, and he joined in the ridicule. What he conceived to be the meaning of these groupings of organisms and these relations among their embryological histories, is not obvious. The only alternative to the hypothesis of Evolution is the hypothesis of Special Creation; and as he did not accept the one it is inferable that he accepted the other. But if he did this he must in the first place have found no answer to the inquiry why organisms specially created should have the embryological kinships he described. And in the second place, after discovering that his alleged law was traversed by many and various nonconformities, he would have been without any explanation of these." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.453-454) 30/06/2008 "If it be said that the conditions of the case necessitated the derivation of all organisms from simple germs, and therefore necessitated a morphological unity in their primitive states; there arises the obvious answer, that the morphological unity thus implied, is not the only morphological unity to be accounted for. Were this the only unity, the various kinds of organisms, setting out from a common primordial form, should all begin from the first to diverge individually, as so many radii from a centre; which they do not. If, otherwise, it be said that organisms were framed upon certain types, and that those of the same type continue developing together in the same direction, until it is time for them to begin putting on their specialities of structure; then the answer is, that when they do finally diverge they ought severally to develop in direct lines towards their final forms. No reason can be assigned why, having parted company, some should progress towards their final forms by irregular or circuitous routes. On the hypothesis of design such deviations are inexplicable." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.454) 30/06/2008 "The hypothesis of evolution, however, while it pre-supposes those kinships among embryos in their early forms which are found to exist, also leads us to expect nonconformities in their courses of development. If, as any rational theory of evolution implies, the progressive differentiations of types from one another during past times, have resulted from the direct and indirect effects of external conditions-if races of organisms have become different, either by immediate adaptations to unlike habits of life, or by the mediate adaptations resulting from preservation of the individuals most fitted for such habits of life, or by both; and if most embryonic changes are significant of changes that were undergone by ancestral races; then these irregularities must be anticipated. For the successive changes in modes of life pursued by successive ancestral races, can have had no regularity of sequence. In some cases they must have been more numerous than in others; in some cases they must have been greater in degree than in others; in some cases they must have been to simpler modes, in some cases to more complex modes, and in some cases to modes neither higher nor lower. Of two cognate races which diverged in the remote past, the one may have had descendants that have remained tolerably constant in their habits, while the other may have had descendants that have passed through widely-aberrant modes of life; and yet some of these last may have eventually taken to modes of life like those of the other races derived from the same stock. And if the metamorphoses of embryos indicate, in a general way, the changes of structure undergone by ancestors; then, the later embryologic changes of such two allied races will be somewhat different, though they may end in very similar forms." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.454-455) 30/06/2008 "Hence, remembering the perpetual intrusions of organisms on one another's modes of life, often widely different; and remembering that these intrusions have been going on from the beginning; we shall be prepared to find that the general law of embryonic parallelism is qualified by irregularities which are mostly small, in many cases considerable, and occasionally great. The hypothesis of evolution accounts for these: it does more-it implies the necessity of them." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.455-456) 30/06/2008 "The substitutions of organs and the suppressions of organs, are among those secondary embryological phenomena which harmonize with the belief in evolution but cannot be reconciled with any other belief: Some embryos, during early stages of development; possess organs that afterwards dwindle away, as there arise other organs to discharge the same functions. And in other embryos organs make their appearance, grow to certain points, have no functions to discharge, and disappear by absorption. We have a remarkable instance of substitution in the temporary appliances for respiration, which some embryos exhibit. During the first phase of its development, the mammalian embryo possesses a system of blood-vessels distributed over what is called the area vasculosa-a system of vessels homologous with one which, among fishes, serves for aerating the blood until the permanent respiratory organs come into play. Now since this system of blood- vessels, not being in proximity to an oxygenated medium, cannot be serviceable to the mammalian embryo during development of the lungs, as it is serviceable in the embryo-fish during development of the gills, this needless formation of it is unaccountable as a result of design. But it is quite congruous with the supposition that the mammalian type arose out of lower vertebrate types. For in such case the mammalian embryo, passing through states representing in a general way those which its remote ancestors had in common with the lower Vertebrata, develops this system of vessels in like manner with them." (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, pp.456-457) 30/06/2008 "An instance more significant still is furnished by certain Amphibia. One of the facts early made familiar to the natural-history student is that the tadpole breathes by external branchiae, and that these, needful during its aquatic life, dwindle away as fast as it develops the lungs fitting it for terrestrial life. But in one of the higher Amphibia, the viviparous Salamander, these transformations ordinarily undergone during the free life of the larva, are undergone by the embryo in the egg. The branchiae are developed though there is no use for them: lungs being substituted as breathing appliances before the creature is born. Even more striking than the substitutions of organs are the suppressions of organs. Mr. Darwin names some cases as `extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; ... It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds.' Irreconcilable with any teleological theory, these facts do not even harmonize with the theory of fixed types which are maintained by the development of all the typical parts, even where not wanted; seeing that the disappearance of these incipient organs during foetal life spoils the typical resemblance. But while to other hypotheses these facts are stumbling-blocks, they yield strong support to the hypothesis of evolution. (Spencer, H., "The Principles of Biology," , D. Appleton & Co: New York NY, Vol. I, Revised, 1910, p.457)
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists. However, lack of
an asterisk does not necessarily mean that an author is an evolutionist.
Copyright © 2008-2010, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 30 April, 2008. Updated: 15 March, 2010.