<p class="center"><span class="huge"><SPAN name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></SPAN>CHAPTER VIII</span></p>
<p class="center">MECHANISM AND LIFE</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span class="smcap">Recapitulatory.</span>—We have already observed the mechanical theory, in the
hands of Descartes, expanding itself to cover organisms and the
phenomena of life, and in La Mettrie's <i>L'Homme Machine</i>, reducing even
human beings to the status of automata. These theories were, however,
known to be insecurely based upon somewhat hasty generalisations, for,
in point of fact, the science of biology was as yet in its infancy; the
<i>data</i> for a complete vindication of the mechanical position were as yet
wanting.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Advance of Biology.</span>—Biological science, however, during the first half
of the nineteenth century made considerable advances, and research
continually kept bringing to light facts which seemed to substantiate
the brilliant, if premature, hypothesis of Descartes. It will not be
necessary for us to do more than take hasty note of certain important
developments.</p>
<p>It was in 1828 that the German chemist Whöler (1800-1882) for the first
time in biological history prepared an organic compound (urea) from
inorganic materials—an achievement universally recognised to be of the
utmost significance. As a distinguished historian of the science of
chemistry puts it:</p>
<p>"This discovery destroyed the difference which was then considered to
exist between organic and<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</SPAN></span> inorganic bodies, viz. that the former could
only be formed under the influence of vegetable or animal vital forces,
whereas the latter could be artificially produced."<SPAN name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</SPAN></p>
<p>Ten years later another German, Schleider (1804-1881) propounded the
cellular theory of the structure and growth of plants, a theory which
was soon extended to animal organisms by Schwann (1810-1882). The
publication of this famous theory was described by a contemporary as "a
burst of daylight"; it indeed illuminated what had hitherto been buried
in mystery and mythology—the structure and method of growth of plants
and animals. It seemed to render superfluous any form of the old
conception of a "vital force" to explain the phenomena of growth, if it
could now be assumed that the cells automatically absorbed outside
material, increased in number by the division of individuals, and built
up the organism by continual repetition of this process.</p>
<p>Schwann was also responsible for initiating a number of minute
physiological investigations which led to a far more intimate knowledge
of the action of nerves and muscles, and interpreted these in mechanical
terms. "Investigations which were carried on with all the resources of
modern physics regarding the phenomena of animal movements, gradually
substituted for the miracles of the 'vital forces' a molecular
mechanism, complicated, indeed, and likely to baffle our efforts for a
long time to come, but intelligible, nevertheless, as a mechanism."<SPAN name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</SPAN></p>
<p>Subsequent researches, notably of Helmholtz (1821-1895) and Meyer, lent
strong support to this interpretation.<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</SPAN></span> The conception of the
conservation of energy (an important axiom of the mechanical theory) was
successfully applied by them to the economy of organisms. The organism
was found not to <i>create</i> energy, but only to contain remarkably
efficient means of deriving it from materials absorbed as food. Thus
animal warmth and the power of motion are originally "sunlight
transformed in the organism of the plant," and afterwards appropriated
by the animal. The power with which we move our limbs is as much the
product of combustion as is the power of a steam engine, the only
difference being that the organism is, of the two, the more efficient
converter of energy.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Mechanical Theory Substantiated.</span>—Thus, whether biologists were
considering the <i>structure</i> or the <i>behaviour</i> of organisms, they were
arriving at the same conclusions. The structure was revealed as physical
and chemical structure, and the behaviour as the resultant of familiar
physical and chemical processes. Hence biology came to be regarded as a
compartment of physics and chemistry, for life itself was nothing but a
complex physical or chemical phenomenon. Life could thus be
satisfactorily expressed in terms of matter and energy. The speculations
of Descartes seemed to be established by experimental science.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Final Obstacle.</span>—The situation, already satisfactory to those whose
hope it was to see the mechanical theory impregnably established, was
marred, however, by one untoward circumstance. The phenomena of organic
structure, growth, and behaviour having been reduced to order, and
expressed in terms of physics and chemistry, certain important facts
still resisted<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</SPAN></span>
explanation, and stood out as a last stronghold of the older view.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Origin of Species.</span>—The existence of definite forms of animal and
vegetable life, whose infinite variety and complexity was continually
being increased by research<SPAN name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</SPAN>—still remained a mystery. How did these
innumerable species naturally and automatically come into being? was the
question that must be satisfactorily answered before the mechanical view
could be held to cover all the facts.</p>
<p>The direction in which to look for a reply had been indicated by a
number of thinkers. The French naturalist Buffon, the philosopher Kant,
and the poet Goethe—besides other thinkers—had already in the
eighteenth century familiarised the idea that species are not immutable,
but that, by some means or other, new forms of life are derived from
pre-existing ones. The conception had gained a firm foothold in England,
where it was hospitably entertained by Mr. Herbert Spencer, and where it
formed the staple of a book which caused a good deal of controversy in
its day, and which is not yet forgotten.<SPAN name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</SPAN></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Lamarck.</span>—The evolutionary idea, however, though attractive to
philosophers, and even to men of science, was insufficient as an
explanation of the origin of species so long as the processes of
transformation remained obscure. Naturalists could not accept an
hypothesis for which there seemed to be such imperfect evidence. An
ingenious French scientist, J. Baptiste<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</SPAN></span> de Lamarck (1744-1829) had
indeed, in 1809, propounded the theory—ever since known by his
name—that the use or disuse of particular organs might, after a long
series of generations, result in the formation of new species. (The
ideas denoted by the words "environment," "adaptation," "acquired
habits"—now so familiar—may be said to have been introduced by him).
But the scientific prejudices of the time were against Lamarck's
theories, and he had to lament their inhospitable reception. Indeed
Lamarck's critics did not hesitate to exercise their powers of ridicule,
or to make fun of the giraffe who derived his long neck from the
attempts of his ancestors to browse on high trees. Darwin himself talks
of "Lamarck's nonsense," and of his "veritable rubbish"—language,
however, which he was subsequently able to retract.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The New Geology.</span>—Perhaps the most stubborn obstacle which Lamarckian
theories had to meet was the current prejudice as to the age (or youth)
of the earth. Contemporary geologists were by no means prepared to grant
Lamarck the illimitable periods of time which his transformation
processes seemed to require. Consequently it is not surprising that the
new theories, perhaps for the first time, received a measure of justice
at the hands of one who himself became responsible for a revolution in
the science of geology.</p>
<p>"I devoured Lamarck <i>en voyage</i>," writes Charles Lyell, describing a
journey from Oxford in 1827. "His theories delighted me more than any
novel I ever read, and much in the same way, for they address themselves
to the imagination.... That the earth is quite as old as he supposes,
has long been my creed."<SPAN name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</SPAN></p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</SPAN></span>In spite of the fascination of these theories, however, Lyell was not
carried away by them, and it was not for some years that he estimated
them at their true value. Meanwhile the new geology made its appearance
with the publication of the three volumes of his own <i>Principles of
Geology</i>, between 1829 and 1833. The significance of the book for
biological speculation—for theories of the origin of species—lay in
its thesis that the present condition of the earth is the product of
geological processes incalculably long. Hitherto the "catastrophic
theory" had been dominant—the notion that a series of immense
catastrophic events (like the Deluge) had been responsible for the
present condition of the earth's surface. For this Lyell substituted his
"Evolutionary Theory," according to which the almost invisibly slow
geological processes which we may now see operating around us, are
typical of the behaviour of the crust of this planet for incalculable
periods of time; for even the slowest changes, if sufficient time is
allowed them, are capable of producing the most stupendous results.
Lyell may be said to have extended the age of the earth <i>ad infinitum</i>.
Just as Galileo removed all barriers of space, Lyell removed those of
time. Their joint achievement was to present to humanity a universe
infinite both in space and time—a staggering conception.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Results of Lyell's Theory.</span>—Though Lyell's boldness disturbed a good
many of his contemporaries, those biologists who were engaged upon
seeking the origin of species were thankful to one who had removed the
chief obstacle to the solution of their difficulties. They were now
relieved of one embarrassment: Lyell gave them the power to draw on the
Bank <span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</SPAN></span>of Time to any extent; bankruptcy was no longer possible.<SPAN name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</SPAN></p>
<p>Indeed, Lyell seems himself to have been convinced of the evolutionary
origin of species (though the mode of its operation still remained a
mystery for him no less than for the biologists themselves). In fact, it
became quite evident that the idea of "continuity" which the <i>Principles
of Geology</i> had established in the inorganic world, must be equally
applicable to the organic world.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Darwin.</span>—The theory of a common descent of species had occurred, as
early as 1837, to an enthusiastic student of Lyell's writings, who was
also a personal friend. Charles Darwin had collected much geological,
botanical, and zoological matter on his voyage with the <i>Beagle</i> round
the world, and continued for twenty years to accumulate an immense
volume of <i>data</i> to substantiate a theory which had first suddenly
suggested itself to him in 1838 as the result of reading for amusement
Malthus' <i>Essay on the Principle of Population</i>.</p>
<p>This celebrated book, first published in 1798, had attempted to describe
the forces which ensure the multiplication, or check the increase of
population. The proposition laid down by Malthus was that population
tends to vary with the means of subsistence. He had studied his problem
from a social or political point of view, but the same principle was
seen by Darwin to apply to all living creatures. Two forces are seen
everywhere in conflict: (a) the luxuriant powers of reproduction
possessed by and exercised<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</SPAN></span> by each species; (b) the difficulties and
obstacles by which the species tend to be eliminated. The contest
between the powers of reproduction and those of elimination—this
"over-production" and "crowding-out"—is what was afterwards termed the
"struggle for existence."</p>
<p><span class="smcap">"Natural Selection."</span>—Darwin's momentous theory was that this struggle,
proceeding for untold ages, had resulted in the continual formation of
new species. Granted that the numerous offspring of any individual
member of a species tend to vary, those variations survive which happen
to be best fitted to cope with the environment. These in their turn
leave offspring, the variations and the selections are repeated, and so
on <i>ad infinitum</i>; and the result is that entirely new species are
formed by a long process of insignificant changes. This, briefly put, is
the celebrated theory of "Natural Selection."</p>
<p>The habit of scientific caution was characteristic of Darwin, who at
first would not write down "even the briefest sketch" of his hypothesis,
but devoted nearly twenty years to the accumulation of evidential
<i>data</i>. His friends continually warned him that he would be forestalled,
and this actually occurred, as is well known, in 1858, when the book
which was to give the new theory to the world was already half written.
The naturalist, Alfred Russell Wallace, on a collecting expedition in
the East Indies, "in a flash of insight" while sick with fever, found
the same solution of the mystery that had puzzled biologists so long.
Wallace's letter to Darwin, containing the abstract of his theory, came
"like a bolt from the blue."</p>
<p>The behaviour of the two men was worthy of the highest traditions of
scientific research. The matter<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</SPAN></span> was put into the hands of Lyell, and
Wallace's paper, together with certain extracts from Darwin's
unpublished notes, were read before the Linnean Society, and the
preparation of Darwin's book was hurried on. In November, 1859, <i>The
Origin of Species</i> was published.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Results of Darwin's Theory.</span>—The importance (for the general trend of
thought) of this joint achievement of Darwin and Wallace was
considerable, and could not but be regarded as an extension of the
mechanical theory. The origin of species might still to some extent
remain mysterious (for "natural selection" was soon realised to be only
one of many factors at work in evolution), yet the area of mystery was
patently reduced, and the "inexplicable" driven further back. A formula
had been provided, which seemed to be as valid, and likely to prove as
permanent and fruitful in biological research as Newton's law of gravity
had been in the realm of physics.</p>
<p>In point of fact, Darwin had only substituted new problems of
"variation" and "heredity" for the old one of the diversity of species;
but an impression was created by the new discoveries that a purely
mechanical explanation of the origin of life and even of mind was within
reach.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Descent of Man.</span>—With regard to "mind," the impression was
re-inforced by Darwin's next book—the <i>Descent of Man</i>, where the gap
between man and the animals was finally bridged. The work was merely an
extension of the principles previously applied by him, and as a theory
it had been present to Darwin's mind as far back as 1837. As soon as he
had become "convinced that species were mutable productions," he could
not "avoid the belief that man<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</SPAN></span> must come under the same law."<SPAN name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</SPAN>
Indeed the Descent was nothing more than a corollary to the <i>Origin of
Species</i>. The earlier work contains the whole of Darwinism.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Position Reached.</span>—And with the full publication of Darwin's
theories a point was reached when a more or less consistently
materialistic position seemed possible. The foundations of such a
position had been strengthened by the scientific atomism of Dalton, and
the results of German research in the field of <i>organic</i> chemistry
seemed to open up possibilities of expressing even life in terms of
matter. And, finally, the evolutionary hypothesis had reduced some of
the most obscure biological problems to manageable proportions. The
prospects for a purely naturalistic philosophy were phenomenally
bright.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />