"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
A Reading from the Book of Darwin.
- Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species. Chapter VI - Difficulties of the Theory. Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication.
7 comments:
He writes so well, the science is almost poetic...
Thanks. I try. Actually I get that a lot.:)
The eye is 'perfect'?? I'm surprised he chooses those words. 'Extrememly well adapted' seems more Darwinian. Only multifocal eyes are perfect.
in case you wondered as I did:
Sarcode
\Sar"code\, n. [Gr. ? fleshy; sa`rx, flesh + e'i^dos form. Cf. Sarcoid.] (Biol.) A name applied by Dujardin in 1835 to the gelatinous material forming the bodies of the lowest animals; protoplasm.
anonymous,
Interesting point re use of the word perfect. I guess Darwin was not so Darwinian as many of today's Darwinians.
In fact "perfect" is not really a scientific word at all when you think about it. I can't think of any example where one would be justified to use the word "perfect" to describe anything written in a scientific paper today.
Even more surprising is the fact that Darwin is is using the word to evoke idea of the "Perfect Creation". As in God's Perfect Creation. Although today there is much debate over the apparent conflict between evolution and creationism, Darwin seems to have gone to great lengths to frame evolution as the instrument of the divine Creator. Whether he believed that it really was is another question. Stay tuned for more on this in a future edition of the Gospel According to Darwin...
You have to be mindful of the historical context when judging language use. The usage of "perfect" for Darwin's contemporaries may be analogous to "most parsimonious" now.
AC,
Hold that thought. I think you'll be shocked by the next Darwin quote...
Post a Comment