Introduction
Man has
pondered his origins for thousands of years, but until recently, his only
source of ideas consisted of notions drawn from religious teachings and
various philosophical systems. Not until modern times, and the arrival of
data of a different kind, has he been able to approach the problem of his
origins from a new angle. We live
in a time where reason and the conquests of science claim to provide logical
answers to all the great questions asked by the human intellect. Likewise,
the problem of the origin of man has primarily been presented by some as a
matter that can be perfectly explained by secular knowledge. This
statement concerning the origins of man came as a profound shock to all those
who remained faithful to the teachings of the Bible, for they believed that
man was created by God. Moreover, the very idea of the evolution of species
contradicted the words of the Bible, which stated quite clearly that the
species were fixed and immutable. Secular theory and religious teaching were
at odds, and the consequences of this confrontation were far reaching indeed.
It was maintained that the Bible until that time considered to be the word of
God had been found wrong. Credence could no longer be given to it, and for
many, that meant rejection of the entire text of the Bible. As a result, the
theory gained ground that scientific data undermined the faith in God. At
first glance, this argument seems logical, but it does not hold water today
because when talking of the Biblical texts, we now possess certain facts that
were only beginning to be discovered at the end of the nineteenth century.
The idea of a text of revelation to be accepted without questioning a single
sentence gave way to the notion of a text inspired by God. The text of
inspiration was written by mortal men at different points in time, it took
its cue from ideas of the day, and included the traditions, myths and superstitions
prevalent at the time it was written. "The scientific errors in the
Bible are the errors of mankind, for long ago man was like a child, as yet
ignorant of science:" This quotation from the work of the eminent
Christian thinker Jean Guitton (1978) leads us to view the texts of the Bible
from an angle very different from what was once the rule. Indeed,
the texts referred to here were consistently, thought to have been written by
Moses himself. In actual fact however the longest part of Genesis: '(the Sacerdotal
narrative)' was written by priests in the sixth century B.C. There is,
however, a second narration, the Yahvist version, that probably dates back to
the ninth or tenth century B.C. In view of this, it is difficult to take
archaic ideas seriously. I have given a detailed account of this question in
`La Bible, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science] [Published by Seghers, Paris, 9th edition, 1983, Also
available in English from the same publisher.], and if we add
to it ideas put forward on the texts by Christian exegetes themselves, we may
conclude that there is no need' to prolong the antagonism between the
supremacy of scientific fact and the primacy of Biblical teachings. Later
on, we shall see that the situation is quite different for other Scriptures,
on account of their origin as well as their content. Here again, however, the
age-old antagonism between religion and science is no longer justified. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that many scientists continue to view with disdain or at
least with indifference any comment that touches on the supernatural, an
attitude which appears to have hardened over the last few decades: Science is
the key to everything, and sooner or later it must reveal facts that will
enable us to form an exact picture of the origins of life, the formation and
functioning of living matter; the appearance on earth of organisms ranging
from the most basic to the most complex, and last but not least, the origins
of man. In view of this, we may well ask whether religious teachings have not
been superseded by progress. How indeed can we fail to be impressed by the
stupendous discoveries of modern times particularly in molecular biology and
genetics when these discoveries have enabled us to acquire an astonishingly precise
insight into the field of cellular physiology? It is
easy to understand the excitement of researchers. Aware of their immense
scope for discovery and action, they have even developed projects concerning
the man of the future. In their view, certain of his qualities or
characteristics could be `oriented' a concept that is today seen as a
theoretical possibility. Many scientists researching the practical
applications of genetics are undoubtedly appalled at the consequences that
might arise if possibilities became realities. All the same, the very fact of
wielding such power - if only theoretical power is surely a source of great
excitement for researchers. In the minds of many scientists, the knowledge
that such a power exists may lead them to consider that the ability to change
living matter according to their fancy - for that is what it comes down to
renders obsolete any theory on the origins of life that incorporates the
supernatural. The same applies to those who confidently expect one day to see
primary living matter created in the laboratory. Greatly to their credit is
the fact that they have contributed data of immense value to our knowledge of
life. They are seriously in error, however, when they imagine that from their
laboratory and only from their laboratory (along with additional mathematical
studies) have come, or will come; definitive data concerning man and the
origins of life. In
actual fact, the subject of man's origins and evolution is extremely complex:
It embraces so many disciplines that it is questionable whether a single
person could make a detailed confrontation between the great mass of data,
hypotheses and judgements that has been formed. Under the circumstances, we
cannot fail to be sceptical when we are told that a certain idea drawn from a
study limited to a single field provides us with the definitive answer to the
question in hand. Clearly, this kind of zeal for an idea that often derives
from mere supposition or foregone conclusion is detrimental to our overall
knowledge of the subject. Some
researchers seem to be driven by the misguided wish to defend ideologies that
have nothing to do with science. This fact is stressed by P.P. Grass', who
for 30 years held the Chair of Evolutionary Studies at the Sorbonne, in his
recent work entitled `L'Homme en accusation' [Man
Stands Accused] [Published by Albin Michel, Paris, 1980], in which he is
extremely critical of today's neo Darwinism. In the present work, I shall be
citing many of the ideas put forward by this eminent zoologist, for I am
convinced that his theories are correct. Grasse' concludes that while the
fact of evolution is beyond question, there are great gaps in our knowledge
of the way it operates, and there is no valid explanation of the factors
determining it: The random mutations that take place in the genes which
control heredity are insufficient to play a determinant role in evolution
itself: 1n the case of man, a fact such as the development of the brain since
the Australopithecus, over, a period covering at the very most 80,000
generations, is inconceivable in neo Darwinian terms. One of the great
mysteries of human evolution is the (almost total) loss of man's innate
behaviour, a feature that has remained present and active in apes. Man's
evolution cannot be compared point for point with that of the rest of the
animal kingdom. In
spite of this, we are constantly supplied with inaccurate data to support the
opposite theory. Not long ago, for example, I listened to a radio interview
with a 'member of an important research institute. The interview was aired as
part of the main news programme of the day and reached hundreds of thousands
of listeners. During the interview, the scientist in question supported by
the prestige attached to his position stated firmly that the relationship
between man and the apes had been clearly established by experiments pleading
to the creation of hybrid genes: A new chemical complex had been constituted
at the level of the molecule, made from components taken from both man and
apes.. While this may be perfectly feasible in theory; it tells us absolutely
nothing. The fallacy lies in the fact that the gene was presented as a
`messenger' capable of carrying information, and hence of triggering the
creation of new living tissue, a statement for which there is not one jot of
evidence. What a pity it is that we live in an age where sensational but
erroneous information is more likely to capture the public imagination than
carefully weighed judgements expressing reservations and pointing toward the
existence of facts as yet unknown. Perhaps
it is enough to remain at this stage, simply devoting our discussion of the
origins of man to a review of the facts that modern scientific knowledge
allows us to present as certainties or hypotheses, and at the same time
refuting ideas that appear incorrect. What, indeed, is the point of bringing
into the discussion the Holy Scriptures of the monotheistic religions? First
let me reply to those who consider their scientific knowledge to be one thing
and their religious beliefs to be another a group that has continued to grow
over the past few decades. To the atheist, mention of the supernatural will
seem anachronistic, even in cases where science encounters enigmas the
genetic code, for example. The idea of approaching a question such as this in
metaphysical terms is unacceptable to the atheist, even though there is
little room for any alternative solution. The existence of this separation
between science and religious belief is in keeping with the reasoned ways of
modern thought. As far as I am concerned, however, the separation provides
grounds for a discussion of the reverse theory one, which seems to me to
correspond to the reality of the situation. The `separatists' could just as
easily be believers in God who harbour a certain fear that science will raise
questions about their religion through a comparison they have often been told
is dangerous. Many
other reasons abound, not least of which is incomprehension. This has often
been noted between those of different faiths, who know little of other
religions (and often little of their own Scriptures as well). We must bear in
mind the fact that the monotheistic religions [I
have not studied the ideas on the origins of man expressed in the religions
of In the
case of the Bible, the information provided on the Biblical authors has modified
archaic or obsolete opinions, and has helped us distinguish the human factor
in the texts. One of them is short, possibly having been truncated long ago,
and it sheds light on what people in the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.
thought about the origins of man : This is the Yahvist version of the
Creation. The best-known text, the Sacerdotal version, is the work of priests
in the sixth century B.C. It is the time-honoured description of the
Creation, which appears in the first part of Genesis, setting forth the
traditions of the day. Later on, the Christian religion adopted the Biblical
tradition and reproduced in the New Testament data concerning the length of
time man had been on earth. For centuries, the data were faithfully repeated
in Bibles, and Y can remember seeing in 1930 a manual of religious
instruction, which stated that according to the Bible, man's appearance on
earth should be placed at roughly 4,000 B.C. That is the sort of instruction
budding young Christians received in my day! Mistaken
ideas regarding the Qur'an have been common in Christian countries for a very
long time. They still persist, as far as the history and content of the
Qur'an are concerned. Because of this, the data in the Qur'an on the subject
of man's origins must be preceded by a description of the way in which the
Qur'an was communicated to man. The assertions on the origins of man to be
found in the Qur'an will undoubtedly astonish many people, just as they
astonished me when I first discovered them. The comparison of the Biblical
and Qur'anic texts is moreover highly revealing: Both of them speak of God
the Creator, but the scientifically unacceptable detail in the Biblical
description of the Creation is absent from the Qur'an. In fact, the Qur'an
contains statements concerning man that are astounding: It is impossible to
explain their presence in human terms; given the state of knowledge at the
time the Qur'an was communicated. In the West, such statements had never
before formed the subject of a scientific communication until When
taken together with Qur'anic statements on other natural phenomena, the
details in the Qur'an on the origins of man form an important factor in the
age-old debate between science and religion. They reopen the discussion by
focusing on new arguments. In view of such significant points of agreement
between firmly established scientific data and a Holy Scripture, we must
reconsider hasty judgements, which have devoted more attention to abstract
concepts than facts. From
the nineteenth century onward, religion and, science have been set in opposition
in the West. The argument in favour of this has been the discrepancy between
the Biblical text and scientific data. If we adhere strictly to 'the facts,
however, we shall see that the opposition between the two was totally
deprived of meaning from the moment the human origin of the texts in dispute
was established. It is important to remember that the authors of the Biblical
texts are considered by Christian exegetes themselves to have been inspired
by God. All the same, the Biblical authors may have introduced inaccuracies
to the text, without in the least betraying their divine inspiration. These
inaccuracies could have arisen from the language of the day, or through
references to traditions still honoured during the period. In the light of
this, the presence of scientific error is hardly surprising. What would be
surprising, from a logical point of view, would be the absence of any errors
at all., The opinions of modern Christian exegetes on the Biblical texts are
now clearly in agreement with the discoveries of science concerning the
discrepancy between scientific data and the contents of the texts. According
to the document adopted by the Second Vatican Council (1962 1965), the books
of the Old Testament contain material that is `imperfect and obsolete'.
Although the document does not actually state which material, in reading
this, I do not think we can find a better confirmation of the accuracy of the
theory put forward in the present work. I have
every reason to believe that similar opinions prevail in the most enlightened
circles of Judaism. I refer in particular to my conversation several years
ago with an extremely important figure in the Jewish world; the main subject
of which was the, Sacerdotal narrative of Genesis. In the course of our meeting,
we agreed that the scientific errors in the text could be explained by the
fact that the main preoccupation of the priests of the sixth century B.C. was
to instruct the faithful on the omnipotence of God. To do this, they related
a story traditional at the time describing the origins of the heavens, the
earth, living creatures and man. The story was cast in images and words that
could be readily understood by the priests' contemporaries. The length of
time that has elapsed since man first appeared on earth, as stated in the
Hebrew calendar, should also be viewed in this light. Indeed, the statement
of Biblical teaching that is most obviously at odds with science is that man
first appeared on earth 5,742 years ago (calculated from late 1981). The
moment we accept the existence of arguments that prevent us from taking this
affirmation at face value, we can no longer use it as a legitimate accusation
against the Bible in the confrontation between science and the Scriptures: It
must be placed in its human context. In the
case of man, by comparing the Scriptural texts and modern knowledge, it
became clear that the data in Genesis referred to here ought to be set apart
for the reasons already mentioned. If we accept this, there is no longer any
incompatibility between the teachings of the Scriptures and modern scientific
discoveries, concerning the general concept of the creation of man and other
views on the first stages of humanity. This is undoubtedly an unusual way of
introducing the supernatural, but that does not alter its validity or
usefulness. This approach avoids appealing to sentimental arguments that rely
on people's emotions or their spiritual state the accusation usually levelled
by materialist thinkers at those who tend to offer arguments based on faith. Why
should the idea of God not grow from extremely logical reflection concerning
the infinitely large or the infinitely small? The strict order to be seen in
both cases is patently obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to find out
about them objectively and impartially. Similarly, in the field dealt with in
this book, we shall arrive at the idea that there exists an amazing degree of
organization in the functioning and evolution of living matter. Needless to
say, God does not manifest Himself scientifically, yet it is perfectly
possible to conceive of Him in scientific terms. My personal outlook remains
profoundly rational, and although I have adopted the conclusions of modern
science (when these are firmly established facts and not mere conjectures), I
cannot find any incompatibility between scientific findings and Scriptural
teachings. At the same time, however, the origin and history of the
Scriptural texts must also be taken into, consideration. If we omit this
aspect, we shall make an uneven assessment of the Scriptures, for we shall
have failed to make allowance for the part played by error or human
interpretation. I am convinced that such errors of interpretation were the
result of lack of information. The present book grew from the conviction that
on the extremely sensitive subject of man's origins, a comparison between
scientific data and Scriptural teachings might help clarify points too often
left obscure. I hope that the discussion of the answers provided by both
sources will show that it is time for past antagonisms to disappear. |
|||
Chapter 1: Evolution in the Animal Kingdom established facts
and gaps in our Knowledge
The Origins of Life and the
Diversity of Living Beings
If we
are to believe certain researchers and their statements concerning the
phenomenon of life, there are no more secrets left to discover today "The
origins of life no longer form the subject of laboratory investigation",
stated an eminent specialist in molecular biology in 1972. Always assuming
these words still carry a meaning, we may conclude that life does not contain
any facts we do not know. In reality, however, the situation is quite
different, and there are plenty of mysteries that still surround the origins
of life. Ingenious
experiments have for many years been repeatedly performed by biochemists and
biophysicians in an attempt to prove the possibility of spontaneously
obtaining infinite quantities of certain chemical compounds found in cells
that are structurally highly complex. The scientists in question are of the
opinion that due to favourable physical influences, the compounds were able
spontaneously to combine together in an organized fashion, and by uniting,
were able to produce the fantastic complex we call the cell, or even more
rudimentary living organisms. A statement such as this is tantamount to
saying that the possibility of spontaneously forming steel particles from
iron ore and coal at high temperature could have led to the construction of
the Those
who ardently defend the role of chance base their opinions on experiments of
this kind, which claim to reproduce the possible origins of life. They repeat
the views of Miller, who in 1955 induced the formation of complex chemical
compounds; such as the amino acids present in cellular proteins, using
electric sparks in an atmosphere of gas composed of steam, methane, ammonia
and hydrogen. Needless to say, such experiments do not provide any
explanation for the organization of the components; nor do we have any idea
whether this favourably composed gas really existed in the earth's atmosphere
two or three billion years ago. A theory cannot be built on unknown facts
such as these. Even if a gas of this kind did exist in the earth's atmosphere;
even if certain physical conditions did trigger high-powered electrical
phenomena; even if complex organic chemical compounds had formed as a result
of this fortunate combination of circumstances, there is nothing to prove
that they could have induced the creation of living matter. The determining
factor for this phenomenon remains unknown. Some researchers admit that there
is an enigma in this. Others point to chance a convenient loophole that
excuses them from acknowledging their ignorance. We shall come back later to
the reasons why it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of life in terms
such as these. We must
indeed turn to disciplines other than biochemistry to find the first clues to
the problem, and in particular we must look toward palaeontology. Certain
prehistoric animals and vegetals were not totally destroyed after their
death. Their remains lay buried in sedimentary terranes, protected thereby
from disintegration, and thus providing us with vestiges of these prehistoric
life forms. The state in which the vestiges are found sometimes allows us
''to draw certain conclusions concerning the morphology and age of these once
living beings [The material studied by Paleontology is limited to
the bones and teeth]. It is in fact possible to gain an immediate idea of their age
by establishing the date of the terranes. This can be done by various
methods, in particular by radioactive measurements (radio chronology). For
terranes that are geologically less ancient, carbon 14 tests are used, while
strontium and rubidium tests are employed for older terranes. Having carried
out these tests, experts can then determine the age of the specimens under
investigation. Tests
such as these lead us to think that living beings existed in a unicellular
state roughly one billion years ago [The earth is 4.5 billion
years old]. Although it cannot be stated for sure, other forms may have
existed before them. P: P. Grasse', in his book entitled `Evolution
du Vivant' [The Evolution of Living Organisms] [Published
by Albin Michel, Paris, 1973], mentions the discovery of vestiges of
much older organisms: for example, the existence of organized life forms
roughly 3.2 billion years ago in the rock formations of the Transvaal. These
forms could possibly represent tiny bacteria, smaller than 1 / 10,000
millimetres, as well as particles of amino acids. These organisms may have
employed amino acids, or possibly proteins contained in the sea...Other
microorganisms may also have been present in the sediments, such as
cyanophilous algae containing chlorophyll. The latter is a basic agent in
photosynthesis, a process by which complex organic compounds are formed from
simple components through the effect of light. Fossilized vegetation
resembling algae and filamentous bacteria have been found in more recent rock
formations (2.3 billion years old) near the shores of The
pluricellular stage was to follow, but "in the animal kingdom, between
uni and pluricellular forms, there was still a hiatus". Two basic
notions must be mentioned immediately
This
growing complexity is ever present throughout evolution: We find similar
fossilized vegetation at a much more `recent' period, 500 million years ago.
We cannot be certain, of course, that today's bacteria are identical to those
said to have appeared on earth as the first living organisms. They may have
evolved since then, although bacteria such as Escherichia Coli have indeed
remained the same for 250 million years. Whatever
the answer, the origins of life definitely appear to be aquatic. According to
today's thinking, it is impossible to conceive of life without water. Any
search for traces of life on other. planets begins with the question: Has
water been present there? On the earth's surface, the combination of certain
conditions including the presence of water was required for life to exist at
all. The
complexity of living matter in those very first organisms is not likely to
have been as great as it is in today's cells. Nevertheless, as P: P. Grasse'
points out: "In order for life to exist, there must be a production and
exchange of energy. This is only physically possible within a system that is
heterogeneous and complex. The established facts at the command of the
biologist provide a reason for him to concede that the first living form was
of necessity an organized entity". This leads Like
the amoeba, unicellular life forms are composed of differentiated elements.
Their structure is amazingly complex, even though the cells are measured in
units of 1 / 1,000 of a millimetre. Within the fundamental substance of
unicellular forms, called cytoplasm, whose chemical structure is highly
complex, there are numerous differentiated elements, the most important of
which is the nucleus. This is composed of many parts, in particular the
chromosomes containing the genes. These control every single aspect of the
cell's functioning. They give orders through a system of information
transfer, using transmitters and a system to receive the orders as they come
in. The chemical vehicle supporting the genes has been clearly identified: It
is deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.), a molecule of complex structure. The
`messenger' is a related molecule known as ribonucleic acid, R.N.A for short.
Within the cell, it is this system that ensures the formation of new proteins
from simpler chemical elements (synthesis of proteins). It is
difficult not to feel tremendous admiration for the molecular biologists that
first discovered these extremely complex mechanisms systems so perfectly
regulated to maintain life that the slightest malfunction leads to
deformities or monstrous growths (cancer is a case in point) and ends in
death. As far as I am concerned, however, the brilliant analysis of the way
this system works (for each and every cell is a kind of computer comprised of
innumerable interrelations) is just as amazing as the general conclusions
cited above concerning the supposed resolution of unexplained facts on the
origins of life. One very important question immediately springs to mind,
based on the results of these investigations: How could 'a system as complex
as this have been formed? Was it the work of chance, following a host of
trials and errors? That seems most unlikely. What other logical theories are
there? It is common knowledge that a computer will only function if it has
been programmed, a fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect,
that provides the information required to operate the system. That is the
problem facing all thinking people who seek an explanation to such questions;
people who refuse to accept mere words of groundless theories; people who
will only acknowledge conclusions based on facts. Given the present state of
knowledge, however, science has not provided any answer to this precise
point. The Diversity of Living
Beings
There
is tremendous diversity among living beings. From the most ancient times,
human observers have noted this diversity and have taken great pains to
analyse it in minute detail. Naturalists record the striking precision of
certain primitive peoples in their ability to distinguish between the species
of animals surrounding them. Having received no instruction from outside,
these peoples have compiled inventories that are not far off the work of an
expert. The
first distinction to be made between living beings is the separation of the
animal and vegetable kingdoms. Although they share a common basic element the
cell as well as numerous constituent substances, they are different in
several ways. The vegetable kingdom is directly dependent on the earth for
its nourishment. It also requires a much greater capacity for producing
complex chemical compounds from simple bodies and light. The animal kingdom,
on the other hand; depends on the vegetable kingdom for its nourishment (at
least with regard to animals that have attained a certain degree of
complexity), and carnivores depend on other species of animal. Henceforth,
we shall concentrate uniquely on the animal kingdom, which is extraordinarily
varied and large. There may be as many as 1.5 million species living on our
planet. The list has continued to grow, especially in recent decades, with
the discoveries made in the marine world. Ever since the natural sciences
gained stature and importance in the seventeenth century, format
classifications have constantly appeared, each updated in turn as new data
are discovered. Aristotle
drew a distinction between animals with red blood and those without, but no
other studies of a serious nature were undertaken until the seventeenth
century, when more interesting characteristics began to attract attention.
For example: Some observers were struck by the question of respiration
through the lungs or the branchiae (fish gills), the existence or absence of
a vertebral skeleton (backbone), the anatomy of the heart (number of
ventricles), or the existence of hair as opposed to feathers. ' In the
classifications that were to follow, characteristics such as these remained
distinctive of certain animal groups. The
distribution of distinguishing attributes opened the way for classification
by group, with series of subdivisions. Thus the phyla [Plural
of Phylum] characterise the broad basic divisions of the living beings
presenting similar features, allowing us to put them in the same group. Each
phylum can be divided into clearly defined classes; these are also determined
by a certain number of specific characteristics. Similarly, each class
contains several clearly differentiated orders, which nevertheless maintain
the general features of their class and phylum. An order consists of various
families, the families are composed of genera [Plural
of genus], and the genera contain different species displaying both
collective and specific characteristics. Classification is further
complicated, however, by the existence of intermediary forms. The
first phylum of this classification is composed of unicellular forms, known
as protozoans. It includes the most primitive beings, which very probably
divided at some point in time, thus giving birth to pluricellular forms: This
is the first example of evolution in the course of time. The
structure of these pluricellular forms (spongiae, cnidariae and ctenophores)
became more complex as some acquired more specialized functions, without
however constituting organs with clearly defined attributes. For example,
some provided the covering of animals, others developed the ability to
contract, or became sensitive to outside stimuli, and others acquired
reproductory functions. The system grew more involved when a cavity appeared
that served as a digestive tract (cnidariae and ctenophores) and the sensory
organs made their appearance. This group did not as yet possess a head,
however. Embryological
data have been of great value in establishing the various classifications in
the animal kingdom. Thus an important stage in the growth of a structural
complexity was reached with the early appearance during embryonic development
of an extra germ layer. The number of layers thus grew from two to three,
each layer ensuring the formation of clearly defined organs. Animals with
three germ layers were in turn divided into 2 groups: those containing a
single cavity (the digestive tract) and those with cavities that developed
next to the digestive tract and which were responsible for the formation of
tissues and various other organs. The broad divisions of the animal kingdom,
here reduced to their most basic terms, already seem to suggest a methodical
organization. The
latter guided, the birth of the various phyla, of which 20 emerged (very
unevenly) into the following four groups
Nevertheless,
the gaps in our knowledge of the transitions from one of these groups to
another are very wide indeed. In the case of the insects, one of the most
important groups, we know nothing whatsoever of their origins (P. P. Grasse)
Likewise, there are no fossils left to indicate the beginnings of the various
phyla. "Every explanation of the mechanism that governs the creative
evolution of the basic organizational plans is weighed down with hypotheses.
This statement should figure at the beginning of any book dealing with
evolution. Since we have no firm documentary evidence; statements on the
origins of the phyla can only be suppositions, opinions whose degree of
feasibility we have no way of measuring." P. P. Grasse's observation on
the phyla should caution any statement on the origins of the major basic
divisions. From this point of view, the determining causes of the phenomena
in question are just as mysterious as the birth of the most rudimentary life
forms. The Concept of Evolution in
the Animal Kingdom: The Difficulty of Solving the Problem
It is
difficult to say at what period prior to the nineteenth century the question
of evolution in the animal kingdom was first raised. In the centuries before
Christ, several Greek philosophers had already perceived that the living
world was subject to transformations. Observers coming after them sometimes displayed
startling flashes of intuitive insight. Inevitably, however, their
conclusions arose from philosophical ideas or pure speculations. The fact
that they later proved to be correct, although the product of sheer
guesswork; does not lend any particular value to these early philosophical
concepts. Indeed, we should always bear in mind that during the same period,
the same philosophers maintained totally inaccurate theories with complete
equanimity: the theories concerning the existence of the universe in an
identical state throughout eternity, for example. In
1801, however, Lamarck became the very first naturalist to put forward the
idea of evolution.. It appeared in his `Discours d'ouverture' (Inaugural
Speech), eight years ahead .of his `Philosophie
zoologique' (Zoological Philosophy). For the rest of his
life, Lamarck collected arguments to support his theory. Cuvier, the other
famous French naturalist of the nineteenth century, published his `Histoire
des ossements fossiles' (History of Fossilized Bones)
in 1812. He compares present day animals with fossilized remains,
demonstrating the existence of extinct species. Cuvier's study does not,
however, support the idea of evolution. J. P. Lehmann suggests the following
reason for this: Cuvier thought that the fossils in question could not be
older than the maximum figure of several millennia allotted by the Bible to
the earth and the animal kingdom. Because, for example, the Egyptian mummy of
an ibis did not indicate that a change had taken place in today's animal,
evolution did not exist. In 1859, Darwin introduced the idea of the natural
selection of species, and it was not long before others attributed to
Darwin's theory the general concept of evolution. J. Roger has indeed pointed
out "the actual word `evolution' is not part of Darwin's original
terminology. It did not appear until the sixth edition of On
the Origin of Species, and even then it was used more as a general denial of the
fixity of the created species than an affirmation of Darwinian transformism
proper." Hence, if we are to follow the theories of P: P. Grasse in `L'homme
en accusation' [Man Stands Accused] and of J. Roger, we shall
see that the true father of evolution is Lamarck (even though his name is
always associated with transformism), while Darwin is little more than a
transformist (even though he has always been considered the first naturalist
firmly to introduce the idea of evolution.) Later on, we shall take a closer
look at the ideas of both Lamarck and Darwin. However
that may be, the data provided by zoology and palaeontology combined clearly
furnished firm arguments from which to approach the question at issue.
Zoology strove to classify the different groups of orders, families, genera
and species, basing its distinctions mainly on anatomy, physiology, and
embryology. Palaeontology, on the other hand, ascertained (or tried to
ascertain) at what periods in time life forms appeared similar to those of
today, and at what periods beings now extinct first appeared then
disappeared. This is an important concept to remember, otherwise we run the
risk of misinterpreting the information provided by palaeontology: For
example, the discovery of certain fossil specimens in terranes dating from a
precise geological age does not necessarily mean that these life forms were
inexistent before or after the age in question. Errors of this kind are less
likely to occur when fossilized forms are highly numerous within a certain
period, especially when there are no specimens to be found in fossils pre- or
postdating the specific period: In the case of man, however, whenever there
are very few genuine or supposedly genuine remains, and whenever such
vestiges are limited to bone fragments, the way is open for a host of errors,
as we shall see later on. In spite
of these reservations, we can derive many ideas from observing how a clearly
defined anatomical form present at a certain point in time has succeeded a
similar form with a less developed morphology existing in older terranes.
This change over a period of time may possibly reflect a better adaptation to
what may well have been new conditions of life. Observations such as these
must, however, be repeated with many different examples before one can
seriously talk of evolution. Only palaeontology can provide us with proof of
this kind. Having started promisingly in the early nineteenth century
Palaeontology really came, into its own after Darwin. The English naturalist
did not employ any decisive arguments from palaeontology: In most cases, his
opinions rested on the study of present day animals, suggesting an apparent
natural selection that did not, however, explain everything. Thus, Darwin's
arguments are by no means conclusive. What
can we say today about the definite or extremely probable data of palaeontology
when combined with facts drawn from our knowledge of zoology? As we
have, already seen, pluricellular life forms most, probably developed. from
unicellular forms. The most primitive pluricellular beings are likely to have
been the spongiae (sponges), which although not possessing clearly
differentiated organs already display a reproductive organization that is
sexual. From these primitive forms probably derive the cnidarian and
ctenophores mentioned earlier. The latter possess the rudiment's of organs
and cells that have acquired nervous and muscular functions: _ They are
likely to have been formed less than one billion years ago., The first
invertebrates probably appeared 500 or. 600 million years ago, along with
molluscs, annulated worms, and the first insects. The vertebrates came later,
roughly 450 million years ago, and likewise certain fishes, which continued
to develop, thereafter. The first. Terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians and
reptiles) appeared some 350 million years ago, and following them came the
mammals (180 million years ago) and the birds (I35 million years ago). Life
forms not only appeared however, they also disappeared, sometimes in. very,
large; quantities. The reptiles provide an example of this phenomenon::
Having predominated for 200~million years, they went into decline, so that
today we have few vestiges to account for reptile life over the past 60 or 70
million years. The mammals have taken their `place' if one may call it that. This
deliberately brief and generalized survey shows, the magnitude; of the
evolution toward ever more developed and. complex forms. Also evident is the
extent to which forms could disappear (and not just the reptiles), thus
bringing considerable changes to the general, aspect of: the living world. ,
Finally we must mention forms that have remained unchanged for hundreds of
millions of years cockroaches, to take an example from the insect world.
There are, however, many other groups, to which we shall later return, Each
and every one of these data raises considerable problems, thus indicating,
the complexity of evolution. We are forced to account not only for
progressions, and regressions, but also, for extinctions. In view
of this, the problem of the general evolution of life forms is fantastically,
vast and complex. It requires us to search into extremely diverse fields: the
natural sciences (botany and zoology), comparative anatomy, palaeontology,
embryology, and chemistry to mention only those that seem to have provided
the most evidence. There are, however, many evolutionary studies published by
researchers who, though undoubtedly extremely well informed in their fields,
have an unfortunate tendency to draw generalized conclusions without any
detailed knowledge of what experts from other fields have to say oh the same
subject. The
matter at hand is indeed so vast that very few specialists are able to master
each and every aspect of it: To do so would require tremendous experience, as
well as knowledge spanning a whole range of different disciplines. It is for
this reason that the observer who by definition is willing to accept any
proposition providing it is supported by solid arguments remains very
sceptical of conclusions too heavily based on data from a single field of
study. Thus it is difficult to accept certain theories, based on molecular
biology or mathematical research in genetics concerning the evolution of
living forms, when the authors of these theories quite obviously attach very
little importance to the work of their colleagues in other branches of
knowledge. For example, what about the work of researchers in the field of
palaeontology excavating ancient fossilized forms? What about the wealth of
relevant facts supplied by comparative anatomy and embryology? Sadly, we must
note that specialists in the basic sciences, preoccupied as they are with the
origins of life, the beginnings of man and the evolution of living forms,
have lost their appetite for arguments based on solid facts from the past. This
criticism is, in no way intended to undermine the tremendous value of
evolutionary data gleaned from the cell. It is simply aimed at the overly
exclusive use of these data, devoid of any interpretation. Unfortunately,
this shortcoming is very common nowadays. So many problems containing
countless facets are examined by specialists from a wide range of
disciplines, only to be viewed in the light that is most congenial to the
eyes of the specialists in question. A further difficulty is the frequent and
unfortunate intervention of ulterior motives of a religious or metaphysical
kind, that quite obviously underlie the opinions of many researchers. For
example, a theorist f may rely heavily on a material argument, glad to have
discovered it if he thinks the argument will support his cherished materialistic
theory. But those who are not informed may think it is dangerous to
acknowledge the idea of evolution, even in the animal kingdom, for fear that
by extending this view to man, they may go against the religious teachings
they wish to uphold. In so doing, they are unaware of the fact that certain
aspects of modern discoveries that are usually employed to support
materialistic views may indeed offer a solid argument to those of
diametrically opposed opinions. All of which is to say, that questions of
this kind ought to be approached without any preconceived ideas at all. Lamarck & Transformation
Nowadays,
there is a colossal quantity of data at the disposal of the specialists who
seek an answer to the questions raised here. In the past, however, the material
available for constructing a theory was very limited indeed. The opinions
expressed were strongly influenced by philosophical ideas and religious
beliefs. In spite of this however, certain ideas did escape these influences,
and in view of the concepts prevalent at the time, they were absolutely
revolutionary. In the
sixth century B.C., Anaximander of Miletus put forward the notion of
evolution in the animal kingdom. His theory appeared at the time the so
called Sacerdotal version of Genesis was being written on the other side of
the Mediterranean, in which there is mention of the creation of living beings
`each according to its kind'. In the century after, Empedocles appears to
have sided with the general concept of evolution. He does not, however, seem
able to have produced anything but a bizarre account of the origins of man
that is entirely the work of his vivid imagination. Lucretius, on the other,
hand, expresses ideas in his work `De Natura Rerum' [On
Nature] that favour the notion of a process of 'natural selection
that preserves the strongest species and eliminates the weakest. The
Bible was responsible for the widespread notion that the species were fixed
and unchanging, a concept that held sway until the nineteenth century. Even
so, Saint Augustine and several other Fathers of the Church mention certain
possibilities of transformation as a result of the potential attributes that
God bestowed on the world when He created it. Buffon
was the first thinker to uphold the idea of evolution, but he did so with a
certain amount of timidity. Initially, he had considered the species to be
fixed and unchanging, but as he grew older and his knowledge of nature
increased, he came to view them as in a state of evolution. To be precise,
however, he considered the families of animals to have come from a single
species, having acquired various characteristics in the course of time while
remaining within a certain biological framework. The fact is, he was not
prepared to admit that one species could transform itself into another; he
only accepted the existence of limited variations. For Buffon, conditions of
life climate, food, and domestication were the prime factors in the changes
that took place in animals. His doubts and hesitations are mentioned in P. P.
Grass6's book `Biologie Animale' [Animal
Biology] [Co-author M. Aron and P. P. Grasse, published by
Masson, Paris 1935]: "Buffon's work gives the impression that the naturalist did
not want to follow his thoughts through to the very end. Anxious to preserve
his peace and quiet, he was afraid of coming into violent conflict with the
preconceived ideas of his day. When the Sorbonne sharply called him back into
line, he agreed to everything they asked." Lamarck,
on the other hand, enjoyed a far greater freedom to say what he liked. Lamarck, the Father of
Evolution
Although
Lamarck had been the official Botanist to the French king, when the
Revolution broke out, he was lucky enough to secure himself a position where
he could study and teach without hindrance. Thus, in 1794, he occupied a
teaching post at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle [French National
Museum of Natural History]. Seven years later, in 1801, he outlined the
theory of evolution in his `Discours d'ouverture du 21
Floreal An 8' [Inaugural Speech of the 21st: Day of Floreal, Year 8]
[According to the Revolutionary calender] several years
before his masterwork `La Philosophie zoologique' [Zoological
Philosophy], which appeared in 1809. Until his dying day, Lamarck
worked tirelessly, amassing copious evidence to support his theories.
Although they are open to criticism on certain points his opinions are
unacceptable today they nevertheless represent a step forward so enormous,
that there is every reason to call Lamarck the `Father of Evolution'. But for
all this, he died in dreadful intellectual isolation; criticized and mocked
by his contemporaries, misjudged and underestimated, in spite of the
importance of his work as a naturalist. Lamarck
had shown the "relative unchangeability" of species, which are
"only temporarily invariable." If their conditions of life changed,
Lamarck considered that the species would change in "size, form,
proportion between their various parts, colour, firmness, agility and
industriousness... Changes in their environment modify their needs or create
new ones; new habits lead to greater use of certain organs and the neglect of
others. When an organ is left unused, it shrinks and may finally disappear
altogether". (I owe to P. P. Grasse this synopsis of Lamarck's ideas on
the influence of environment.) Indeed,
it has been observed that the teeth of animals that do not chew their food
(the anteater or the whale, for example) tend to atrophy or not to emerge at
all. Another example is the mole; whose eyes are so tiny they often see
absolutely nothing. Going in the opposite direction, intense use of an organ
leads to its development The
feet of birds that live in water become webbed as a result of swimming, the
tongue of the anteater grows longer as a result of the way it extends its
tongue to catch and coat its victims with a sticky substance. The study of
these variations led Lamarck to conclude that when a change occurred, it was
toward a more complex organ (in the case of organs that develop as a result
of intensive use), and that variations of this kind were transmitted by
heredity. Critical Assessment of
Lamarck's Theories
In
criticizing Lamarck's theories, one must bear in mind the nature of the data
on which, in his day, Lamarck was able to base his ideas. While there are undoubtedly
points that he treats somewhat superficially, his ideas nevertheless contain
an element of truth. In Lamarck's eyes, the evidence was so striking that in
an age where others denied such evidence, the truth had to be proclaimed. All
the same, Lamarck overestimated the influence of environment, and his idea
that characteristics are automatically transferred by heredity is no longer
acceptable. Zoologists
have indeed pointed to the existence of changes that were induced by
environment the influence of food on the digestive tract, for example. It is
a well-known fact, however, that overworked muscles become hypertrophied.
Similarly, when a duplicate organ is removed, the remaining organ is quite
likely to grow bigger, although it does not change at all from a structural
point of view. An issue is the usefulness to the individual of the change
thus created, a point that has not been proven in the least. Nor is the
change definitive within the history of the species, for the hereditary
nature of acquired characteristics is a purely intellectual notion. Tests
carried out after a change of environment have shown that new characteristics
are not passed on to descendants. This is the sharpest criticism to be made
of Lamarck's theory. Nevertheless, Lamarck did indeed show the existence of a
kind of evolution in the animal kingdom: Where he went wrong was in his
assessment of the amplitude of evolution, as gauged through his observations.
The explanation he provided was unconvincing, and thus Lamarck was unable to
gain acceptance for his ideas. Cuvier, who favoured the concept of the fixity
of species, vigorously challenged him and it was Cuvier and those of his
opinion who won the day. Lamarck's
ideas did not come into favour until several decades after his death, when
palaeontologists produced evidence lacking while Lamarck was alive of
morphological changes due to variations in environment. Moreover, the phrase
`influence of the environment' needs to be better understood, for we seem
here to be faced with a question of terminology requiring explanation. If by
`environment' we mean all the influences that are likely to produce an effect
on living organisms, then quite obviously changes may occur under such
conditions. Not all of Lamarck's theories are to be dissuaded. Darwin and Natural
Selection, or a Hypothesis survives through Ideology
In
order to establish his doctrine, some fifty years after Lamarck; Darwin
advanced many more seemingly significant facts than his predecessor.
Unfortunately, however; Darwin thought everything could be explained through
the postulate of the all-pervading power of natural selection. There is no
doubt, moreover, that Darwin was strongly motivated by sociological
considerations, factors which should have no place in a scientific doctrine,
and yet his work is still very well known today. The following reasons may
account for his continuing fame: Darwin's arguments are extremely cleverly
presented, and often subtlety is more effective than the rigorousness of the
arguments themselves. Nor should we overlook the satisfaction of certain
scientists who were quick to use Darwin's theory to discredit Biblical
teachings on the subject of the origins of man and the fixity of species.
Indeed, with regard to the evolution of species, Darwin's theory was used to
prove that man was descended from the great apes. In fact, however, the
animalistic origin of man is an idea that was first put forward by Haeckel in
1868. It is
quite common today for people to confuse Darwinism with evolution a misconception
that is extremely annoying because it is totally wrong. Darwin himself
presented his theory in quite a different way, as the following extract from
On the Origin of Species [The full title reads On
the Origin of Species by Means Of Natural Selection or The Preservation of
Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life, London 1859. The texts
quoted here are taken from the Pelican Classics Edition, published by Penguin
Books, 1982.] shows: "Hence,
as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in
every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of
the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the
physical conditions of life... Can it, then, be thought improbable, Being
that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other
variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle
of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If
such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born
than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This
preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious
variations, I call Natural Selection." In
actual fact, Darwin indicated that he intended to put forward a theory on the
origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life. This became the banner of the
evolutionists, which they brandished in the fight between materialistic
philosophy and religious faith. The same banner is still being waved today in
the same spirit. Darwin has remained one of the idols of the atheistic
arsenal, always ready to support whatever ideas bring grist to their mill. As
the reader of the present book will see in chapter after chapter, the
existence of evolution, even when applied to the human species, no longer
constitutes an argument that undermines religious faith. Indeed, the latest
studies of biological processes within the cell reveal facts that are
significant in a different way from the flimsily based questions, which once
formed the subject of discussion. They raised points concerning the
organization of life and in fact lead us in a direction totally opposite to
the main subject of past controversies. All in
all, Darwin's doctrine is very straight forward. He notes the obvious fact
that there is a wide variety in the number of characteristics present in
individuals belonging to a particular species, and he provides reasons for
this that are fairly similar to those of Lamarck. Darwin states that the
reproductive cells are modified as well, and that newly acquired attributes
are hereditary. He goes further than Lamarck, however, when tie talks of the
advantages derived from certain modifications that nature, by means of
selection, perpetuates through the elimination of the weakest in favour of
those most able to survive this pitiless process. According to Darwin, there
is also a process of sexual selection in which the females choose the
strongest males... The
concept of natural selection exercised a tremendous fascination, and even
today, the followers of Darwin consider the advocate of natural selection to
be the greatest genius who ever worked in the field of natural sciences. He
still remains one of the most venerated zoologists. The highest honours were
accorded to him at his death. Although his work had provided arguments to
support atheism in the confrontation between religion and science that raged
in the second half of the nineteenth century, his mortal remains were
interred by the British nation in Westminster Abbey, London. | |||