The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (6th ed) | Page 6

difficulty in
ascertaining affinities; SECOND, of another impulse connected with
the vital forces, tending, in the course of generations, to modify organic
structures in accordance with external circumstances, as food, the
nature of the habitat, and the meteoric agencies, these being the
'adaptations' of the natural theologian." The author apparently believes
that organisation progresses by sudden leaps, but that the effects
produced by the conditions of life are gradual. He argues with much
force on general grounds that species are not immutable productions.
But I cannot see how the two supposed "impulses" account in a
scientific sense for the numerous and beautiful coadaptations which we
see throughout nature; I cannot see that we thus gain any insight how,
for instance, a woodpecker has become adapted to its peculiar habits of
life. The work, from its powerful and brilliant style, though displaying
in the early editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of
scientific caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my
opinion it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention
to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground
for the reception of analogous views.
In 1846 the veteran geologist M.J. d'Omalius d'Halloy published in an
excellent though short paper ("Bulletins de l'Acad. Roy. Bruxelles",
tom. xiii, page 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new
species have been produced by descent with modification than that they
have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion
in 1831.
Professor Owen, in 1849 ("Nature of Limbs", page 86), wrote as
follows: "The archetypal idea was manifested in the flesh under diverse
such modifications, upon this planet, long prior to the existence of
those animal species that actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or
secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such
organic phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are
ignorant." In his address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks
(page li) of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative power,

or of the ordained becoming of living things." Further on (page xc),
after referring to geographical distribution, he adds, "These phenomena
shake our confidence in the conclusion that the Apteryx of New
Zealand and the Red Grouse of England were distinct creations in and
for those islands respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in
mind that by the word 'creation' the zoologist means 'a process he
knows not what.'" He amplifies this idea by adding that when such
cases as that of the Red Grouse are "enumerated by the zoologist as
evidence of distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, he
chiefly expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be
there, and there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing
such ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their
origin to a great first Creative Cause." If we interpret these sentences
given in the same address, one by the other, it appears that this eminent
philosopher felt in 1858 his confidence shaken that the Apteryx and the
Red Grouse first appeared in their respective homes "he knew not
how," or by some process "he knew not what."
This address was delivered after the papers by Mr. Wallace and myself
on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, had been read
before the Linnean Society. When the first edition of this work was
published, I was so completely deceived, as were many others, by such
expressions as "the continuous operation of creative power," that I
included Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly
convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears ("Anat. of
Vertebrates", vol. iii, page 796) that this was on my part a preposterous
error. In the last edition of this work I inferred, and the inference still
seems to me perfectly just, from a passage beginning with the words
"no doubt the type- form," etc.(Ibid., vol. i, page xxxv), that Professor
Owen admitted that natural selection may have done something in the
formation of a new species; but this it appears (Ibid., vol. iii. page 798)
is inaccurate and without evidence. I also gave some extracts from a
correspondence between Professor Owen and the editor of the "London
Review", from which it appeared manifest to the editor as well as to
myself, that Professor Owen claimed to have promulgated the theory of
natural selection before I had done so; and I expressed my surprise and
satisfaction at this announcement; but as far as it is possible to

understand certain recently published passages (Ibid., vol. iii. page 798)
I have either partially or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory
to me that others find Professor Owen's controversial writings as
difficult to understand and