At the Deathbed of Darwinism | Page 2

in the Darwinian theory.
In the third chapter of the same work we read: "It has been seen in the
last chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is
some individual variability. * * * But the mere existence of individual
variability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as
a foundation of the work, helps us but little in understanding how
species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of one
part of the organization to another part, and to the conditions of life,
and of one organic being to another being, been perfected? * * *"
Again it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called
incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct
species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more
than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of
species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise? All of
these results follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle,
variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they

be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their
infinitely complex relations to other organic beings, and to their
physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such
individuals and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The
offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving, for of the
many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a
small number can survive. I have called this principle by which each
slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term, "natural selection."
Mr. Darwin adds that his meaning would be more accurately expressed
by a phrase of Mr. Spencer's coinage, "Survival of the Fittest."
It may be observed that neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the
fittest" gives very accurate expression to the idea which Darwin seems
to wish to convey. Natural selection is at best a metaphorical
description of a process, and "survival of the fittest" describes the result
of that process. Nor shall we find the moving principle of evolution in
individual variability unless we choose to regard chance as an efficient
agency. Consequently, the only efficient principle conceivably
connected with the process is the "struggle for existence;" and even this
has only a purely negative function in the origination of species or of
adaptations. For, the "surviving fittest" owe nothing more to the
struggle for existence than our pensioned veterans owe to the
death-dealing bullets which did not hit them. Mr. Darwin has, however,
obviated all difficulty regarding precision of terms by the remark that
he intended to use his most important term, "struggle for existence" in
"a large and metaphorical sense."
We have now seen the second element of Darwinism, namely, the
"struggle for life." The theory of natural selection, then, postulates the
accumulation of minute "fortuitions" individual modifications, which
are useful to the possessor of them, by means of a struggle for life of
such a sanguinary nature and of such enormous proportions as to result
in the destruction of the overwhelming majority of adult individuals.
These are the correlative factors in the process of natural selection.
In view of the popular identification of Darwinism with the doctrine of
evolution, on the one hand, and with the theory of struggle for life, on

the other hand, it is necessary to insist on the Darwinian conception of
small, fluctuating, useful variations as the "first-steps" in the
evolutionary process. For, this conception distinguishes Darwinism
from the more recent evolutionary theory, e.g., of De Vries who rejects
the notion that species have originated by the accumulation of
fluctuating variations; and it is quite as essential to the Darwinian
theory of natural selection as is the "struggle for life." It is, in fact, an
integral element in the selection theory.
The attitude of science towards Darwinism may, therefore, be
conveniently summarized in its answer to the following questions:
1. Is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among mature
forms, as Darwin postulates, actually occurs?
2. Can the origin of adaptive structures be explained on the ground of
their utility in this struggle, i.e., is it certain or even probable that the
organism would have perished, had it lacked the particular adaptation
in its present degree of perfection? On the contrary, is there not
convincing proof that many, and presumably most, adaptations cannot
be thus accounted for?
The above questions are concerned with "the struggle for life." Those
which follow have to do with the problem of variations.
3. Is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by the
accumulation of fluctuating individual variations?
4. Does the evidence of the geological record--which, as Huxley
observed, is the only direct evidence that