Chapter 16 Chapter 8 Evolutionary thought before Darwin-2
Even more remarkable was the fact that he did not draw the conclusions he should have drawn from the fossil record, which is now obvious.
This is all the more surprising since Cuvier was very knowledgeable about the fossil record and often asked insightful questions.
He insisted that fossils cannot be natural products of rocks but must be the remains of living things that existed in the past.Unlike Lamarck, he gave full weight to the significance of extinction: "Innumerable creatures fell prey to these cataclysms...their races were extinct even, leaving no trace but certain fragments which the naturalist finds difficult to decipher." He recognized how important fossils are to understanding Earth's history. 'Everyone knows that the birth of the theory of the earth depends entirely on fossils; without fossils one would never have dreamed of successive periods and a series of different actions in the formation of the earth.He does not refer to any supernatural process to account for these alternations of fauna. "I don't think that new creations are required for the existence of existing animal groups. I only emphasize that they did not occupy the same place in nature in ancient times, and they must have come from some other place on the earth." Cuvier posed the following series of questions:
Are there animals and plants that are limited to specific formations and cannot be found in other formations?Which species came first?
Which is next?Do the two species sometimes co-occur?Is there a constant relationship between the age of the strata and the similarity or dissimilarity between fossils and living organisms?Does the same climate change relationship exist between fossils and among the living organisms most similar to them?Did the plants and animals live where their remains were found or were they moved from elsewhere?Are they still present somewhere or have they been partially or totally eliminated?
Cuvier himself provided partial or complete answers to most of the above questions, but he ultimately denied the evolution of fauna from certain fauna to higher strata, or, more generally, he did not admit that There is evolutionary evolution throughout the stratigraphic series.This negation is possible as long as the stratigraphy of other regions or continents is not known, and it is also conceivable that the new fauna is the result of immigration from other regions.However, further geological exploration revealed that the fossil sequences were similar around the world.In terms of modern stratigraphy, there are typical fauna of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Early Tertiary and Late Tertiary.As we know, it was precisely Cuvier himself who demonstrated that the fossils in the highest strata belonged to species or genuses which still had extant representatives, but the deeper the stratigraphic sequence, the more the fossils differed from the existing organisms.Many special reptiles (such as dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterodactyls) unrelated to modern reptiles were found in the Mesozoic strata, while mammals appeared only in higher levels: once they appeared, the first representative type It is completely different from the existing species.Cuvier, however, was so steadfast in his refusal to recognize any order of animals, high or low, that the sequence of its fossils carried no evolutionary information for him.
Later Cuvier simply refused to face reality.The evolutionary progression of animals through geological time is well established, the problem is to explain why.There seem to be only two possibilities: either the old flora evolved and passed into the infant flora (something Cuvier strongly disagreed with), or the new flora were recreated after each cataclysm.Accepting the latter would introduce theology into science, which Cuvier again rejected.So Cuvier adopted an ostrich policy and simply ignored this annoying question.
As far as human beings are concerned, Cuvier accepted Descartes' opinion that human beings are qualitatively different from all animals.Contrary to Aristotle and other early anatomists, he rejected the idea that zoology included comparisons of ("bad") animals and ("perfect") humans.Research on humans and research on the four major phyla are completely different things.Humans are so special that one cannot expect to find it in the fossil record.Indeed, when Cuvier died (1832) no hominid fossils had been found, in fact not even any primate fossils, and the first hominid fossil was not found until 1837.
Cuvier's conception of the biological world was generally consistent in its content, although there were certain contradictions and important prejudices.To abandon the essentialist model and use new facts to develop an alternative requires genuinely innovative thinking.Cuvier was not such a character.As Coleman points out, Cuvier was essentially a conservative, a champion of the status quo.Although he is knowledgeable, hard-working, sharp-minded and fluent in eloquence, he is not a revolutionary intellectual.After his death, the rapid accumulation of facts and data made the non-evolutionary explanation even more difficult to believe.Some of Cuvier's followers, however, such as Agassiz, Owen, Flourens, and d'Orbigny, were less modest and more dogmatic than Cuvier.This leads them to the real fanaticism of catastrophism.
Cuvier himself, for all his string of victories against evolutionary-minded opponents, died too early to realize that he had lost the whole of the war.
The situation in England during the first half of the nineteenth century was in many ways fundamentally different from that in France and Germany.For example, the natural sciences are all dominated by geology; no other country in the world made as brilliant a contribution to geology as Great Britain between 1790 and 1850.Britain is also unique in its close alliance between science and Christian teaching.Most of the teaching work of science courses in British universities is undertaken by clergy. Some famous scientists have inherited the tradition established by Newton, Boyle, Ray, etc., and at the same time, they are looking forward to the research of science and theology.
Piety prompts physicists to place a very different emphasis on manifestations of Creator power than biologists.The order and harmony of the universe prompts physicists to explore the laws set by the Creator and the system by which the universe operates.Everything in nature has a reason, but this is the second reason, which is controlled by the first reason, the Creator, and the laws (laws) set.Physicists study these laws and their effects in order to best serve their Creator.
Biologists (including naturalists) also study the qualities of the Creator, but his focus is not on mechanical activities such as the motion of falling bodies or the motion of planets around the sun, but on the wonderful adaptations of living things.These adaptations are not so easily explained by general laws such as gravity, heat, light and motion.The marvelous adaptations of nearly all living things are so unique that it would be absurd to say that they arise by "law."But how should these phenomena be explained?It seems that they are so special that they can only be explained by the direct intervention of the Creator.Thus, the functional activities of living things, their nature and their diverse interactions provide sufficient evidence for design and constitute unquestionable proof of the existence of a Creator.Otherwise, how can all the strange adaptation phenomena in the biological world appear?
The approaches taken by these two different types of researchers (physicists and biologists) are also quite different.A God who at the same time created laws and then relinquished power in favor of a secondary cause is much more remote than the God of the naturalist, who imprints the imprint of God's design on every detail of biological activity superior.It can be said that deism (deism), the belief in an impersonal, lawful god (rather than the god of revelation), is almost an inevitable logical result of the development of physics.Naturalists, on the other hand, take what is commonly called "natural theology"
(Natural Theology) Faith.Natural theology holds that the fitness of all structures and the apparent perfection in the interactions of living things are evidence of a Creator's design.Everything in nature is the masterpiece or immutable masterpiece of God's wisdom, omnipotence and mercy.And what better way to pay homage to our Creator than to study his work?For Ray, studying nature is truly "preparing for divinity."Indeed, the study of the wonders of nature became the fascinated fascination of countless country clergymen throughout England at the time.
British natural theology differs from mainland natural theology in many respects.German physical theology is man-centred.God created the world for the benefit of man, and the function of every creature is to be useful to man.Humanity only appeared on Earth after creation was in place.British natural theology puts more emphasis on the harmony and coordination of the whole natural world, which leads to the study of the Creator's design in all mutual adaptations.The longevity of English natural theology is probably due to its more engaging conceptualization.While the tide of deism and the Enlightenment swept away physical theology on the Continent, natural theology in England maintained its full vigor in the eighteenth century (despite Hume's disapproval) and became popular in the first half of the nineteenth century A new climax occurred with the publication of Paley's book Natural Theology (1802) and the eight Bridgewater Papers (1833–1836).In these eight essays, the eight authors demonstrate with breadth of scholarship and utter seriousness "the power, wisdom, and benevolence of God manifested in creation," using diverse scientific topics.Science and theology were already a single subject among many scientists at that time, such as geologists Sedswick, Buckland, Murchison, naturalist Agassiz, and even their scientific treatises were courses in natural theology.
Lyell's Principles of Geology is no exception.
What was especially surprising to a late century scientist was the willingness with which natural theologians accepted "supernatural evidence" as well as natural evidence.Not only is creation accepted as a fact, but so is God's subsequent intervention in world affairs, so long as such intervention is God's will.
Yet the alliance between natural theology and science eventually produced difficulties and contradictions.There is a growing contradiction between the principles of objective science and attempts to intervene with the help of supernatural forces.Especially to reconcile the increasingly irreconcilable contradictions between the appearance of degenerative organs, parasites and infectious diseases, and devastating cataclysms like the Lisbon earthquake, etc., with the design of a benevolent Creator.We are about to see that many of Darwin's arguments in the book make use of these contradictions.Auxiliary hypotheses proposed to explain the sequence of fossils and the pattern of worldwide geographic distribution may temporarily delay the decline of natural theology, but they cannot prevent its eventual decline.
Criticism comes not only from science but also from philosophy.Hume clearly pointed out in his article "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779) that natural theology lacks both scientific and philosophical foundations, and Kant opposed teleology lacking judgment in "Critique of Judgment" (1790).But this leaves a gap in interpretation, because before the theory of natural selection was put forward, science did not have a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of adaptation, and Lamarck's speculation was completely unconvincing.In fact many devout scientists and philosophers such as Lyell, Whewell, Herschel, and Sedgwick seem to be very afraid of natural explanation, fearing that it will undermine the moral foundation.This is perhaps the main reason why natural theology continued to exist in England until it was published.
Natural theology has played a particularly ambiguous role in the history of evolutionism.Darwin's staunchest opponents were the natural theologians, whose vivid descriptions of biological adaptations provide some of the most convincing evidence for evolution, so long as design is replaced by natural selection.
The inclusion of geology into natural theology is characteristic of England (Gillispie, 1951).It is an attempt to reconcile the new discoveries of geology and paleontology (ie, fossils) with the biblical Genesis legend and conception of design.
Two pieces of evidence commonly cited to support the agreement between geological events and Moses' account are: first, the absence of humans in the fossil record (the creation of man was the last act of creation); and second, the "Great Flood" ( Great Deluge) evidence.
Already in the 18th century Blumenbach had suspected that there was only one flood.When the records of one fossil flora after another were established, it was found that the front and rear flora were almost all separated by blank areas.In Cuvier's rather moderate interpretation (see 8.2), the destruction or disappearance of the fauna is regarded as "revolution," but among his followers the concept of repeated catastrophe prevailed.Although Cuvier circumvented the issue of sectoral rotation, it was emphasized among some of his followers that a new creation occurred after each catastrophe, and that each subsequent creation reflected a changed world condition .This concept is known as progressivism (Rudwiek, 1972, Bowler, 1976).In a sense, it is a new dress or reinvention of the natural ladder by creationists.
The nature of the evolution of the fauna over time was gradually understood.Cuvier's discoveries were mainly concerned with the Tertiary changes in the mammalian fauna.Only after the discovery of large fossil reptiles (mostly marine reptiles to begin with) did they become known to have lived earlier than mammals (i.e. the Mesozoic, so the discovery of Jurassic mammals in Oxford, UK, was a surprise) .Previously, the later Paleozoic rocks contained fish fossils, while earlier deposits contained only invertebrate fossils.There were heated debates about the causes of progress (from a creationist perspective) and raised questions about which beings were "lower" or "higher," and whether human progress was the end point.Every scholar has his own opinion.Agassiz and some of his students took the curious view that each new creation after a previous cataclysm reflected God's current view of his own creation, and that the alternation of the fauna represented the creation in God's mind. The program is gradually maturing.He didn't realize how blasphemous such a view was.It repeatedly implies that God created an imperfect world, which he would destroy completely in order to create better next time, yet failed again and again until his most recent creation.
For a long time, by T. H．Huxley's view that "when the principles of uniformitarianism are applied to biology, it will inevitably lead to evolution" has become an established principle among British historians.Since Lyell was an active supporter of uniformitarianism, some people think that Darwin's evolutionary ideas came directly from Lyell.This becomes all the more suspicious when we discover how strongly the uniformitarian Lyell was against the idea of evolution.The shortcomings of Huxley's argument have only been pointed out in recent years by Hooykaas, Cannon, Rudwick, Meyer, Simpson, et al.Yet the geological arguments of the 1820s and 1830s were extremely important in shaping the minds of some biologists for whom the history of life on Earth was a major problem.Although primarily concerned with geology, an introduction to uniformitarianism is an essential premise when discussing the origin of Darwin's evolutionary ideas.
Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are both new words coined by the British philosopher William Whewell in 1832 when he commented on Leyle's "Principles of Geology", referring to two opposites in geology. school of thought.In fact, these two terms are often misunderstood, because the main issue is not whether catastrophe occurs, but whether geological discoveries support the stable world theory of Hutton and Leyle or support including catastrophists and progressives in the world. The directionalist theory of most other geologists in the field.The main argument of the directionalists is that life on Earth has changed over geological time.This is a fairly new concept, and it is Cuvier's discovery of fossils in the Paris Basin and the subsequent showing that successive strata often have very different fauna, which are often separated from each other by violent fractures; and The lower (earlier) flora consist mainly (or are entirely) of extinct animals and so forth as a result of a series of discoveries.Moreover, directional theory also believes that these changes are progressive, which can be seen from the sequence of invertebrates-fish-reptiles-mammals. The phytostratigraphy of Adolphe Brongniart also supports the existence of such progressive sequences.He distinguished three periods: the first (Carboniferous), characterized by the flourishing of primitive cryptogamous plants; the second (Mesozoic), gymnosperms (and a few cryptogamous plants); the third (Tertiary), Angiosperms begin to dominate.Whether in animals or plants, the "highest" forms arose late in the history of the earth.Lyell denies the existence of this progressive (type), and when he admits it later, he interprets it as part of a cycle that turns around again (Ospovat, 1977).
The term uniformitarianism refers to a much more complex set of theories than catastrophism.In fact it implies at least six concepts or reasons.
Table 1 attempts to list the most obvious differences between the two opposing camps.As Table 2 indicates, Lyell has a in all but one case; but among the catastrophists one finds a different deployment among the various alternatives.It is worth noting that Darwin's model seems to me to be closer to Lamarck than to Lyell.But I must warn the reader that my classification is quite subjective and that other classifications are possible.
Although most of the six components of uniformitarianism identified here are primarily relevant only to geologists, they can be briefly explained as an illustration of the categories used in Table 1.
(1) Naturalism.All of the scholars involved in the controversy were devout Christians without exception, and the only point of disagreement was the extent to which they envisioned God's intervention in their affairs.There are those in both camps who believe that only secondary causes are at work after creation.All creation, whether initially once created or created many times after each cataclysm, is obviously the direct action of the Creator.Lyell's critics criticized Lyell's inability to apply this principle consistently to the introduction of new species, since he believed that all geological processes in the world were the result of secondary cause activity and did not require supernatural intervention. , and this introduction of new species Table 1 Uniformitarian component phenomena or processes
(1) The theological nature of the cause (naturalistic or supernaturalistic) Uniformist view:
(a) Naturalistic (even though originally emphasizing direct intervention by God, it is now thought to be due to secondary causes)
(b) Naturalistic in general, but allowing for God's occasional intervention by catastrophists or directionalists
(C) always allow direct intervention from God
(2) Causes manifested through geological time (realism) Uniformitarian view
(a) The same reasons (the laws of physics) carry through to the catastrophist or directionalist point of view
(b) Different causes were at work early in Earth's history
(3) The Uniformitarian Viewpoint of the Intensity of Power That Constitutes the Cause
(a) is always the same strong catastrophist or directionalist view as it is now
(b) Irregular, with variations over geological periods
(C) steady decline over geological time
(4) Viewpoints of Uniformitarians of Structural Causes
(a) Always the same catastrophist or directionalist view
(b) Not the same in some previous geological period
(5) The rate of change (gradualism) Uniformitarian view
(a) some changes are gradual, but some changes are sudden (catastrophic) view of catastrophists or directionalists
(b) Lots of real drastic changes
(6) The directional change of the world from the point of view of uniformitarians
(a) No; the world is forever in a steady state, at best a cyclical change catastrophist or directionalist view
(b) Consent; the world is historically changing and more or less directional Table 2 Supporters and opponents of evolutionism and their adoption of the various components of uniformitarianism [a,b , the meaning of c is shown in Table 1
Red: Darwin agrees with Lamarck and against Lyell.
Blue: Darwin for Lyell, against Lamarck.The process has all the hallmarks of creationism despite Lyell's objections.
(2) Realism (actualism).This principle asserts that the same causes (laws of physics) operate throughout geological time because the intrinsic characteristics of the world remain the same forever.The most important consequence of this principle is that, as Lyell puts it in the subtitle of his Principles of Geology, it is reasonable to "try to explain past changes in the earth's surface in terms of causes now at work."
(3) Intensity of causal forces.Lyell and other extreme uniformitarians maintain that the strength of geological forces is the same at all times, and that the time factor will cause a phenomenon of increasing strength over a certain period of time.Some of his opponents believe that the intensity of geological phenomena (such as volcanic activity, orogeny) has steadily declined as the Earth cooled.It is unclear whether some scholars support the third possibility, that the intensity of geological phenomena shows irregular rise or fall. (4) Structural reasons (Configurational causes).The term was coined by Simpson to refer to the possibility that the same factors could produce very different results due to different combinations, a possibility that thorough or orthodox uniformitarians completely ignore.The transformation of the earth's atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing, the emergence of irregular ice ages, the impact of plate tectonics on the continental area and the shallow sea area of the continental shelf, and the degree of volcanic activity all fall into this category.
As a result, existing physical conditions on Earth do not necessarily accurately reflect conditions in Earth's early history.Questions like the origin of life cannot be solved if structural causes are ignored.However, Lyell first noticed the structural reason for the impact of continental position changes on climate (Ospovat, 1977).
(5) Gradualism.Before the rise of catastrophism, most scholars believed that the historical change of the earth's surface was gradual.This view was shared by Leibniz, Buffon (in part), Lamarck, and most of Darwin's predecessors.Embracing incrementalism becomes all the more difficult after discovering that the strata are often fractured.The greatest achievement of Leyle's uniformitarianism is that despite many new discoveries it still emphasizes the gradual nature of geological change.Lyell and later Darwin were fully aware that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions could produce dramatic effects, but these effects were several orders of magnitude smaller than the catastrophes proposed by some geologists.Modern geological research shows that some events in the past history of the earth can actually be regarded as catastrophes (Baker, 1978; Alvarez, 1980).
(6) Directionalism.Lyell adopted the concept of a steady state world from Hutton; this concept was expressed by Hutton (1795) as "a vestige without beginning and expectation of end" and was prevalent among pre-Socratic philosophers of.Lyell's opponents argue that all evidence points to a directional, if not progressive, component to Earth's history.This point (and not the other five) is the fundamental disagreement between Lyell and other so-called catastrophists (Rudwick, 1971; but see also Wilson, 1980).
What Darwin got from Uniformitarianism Some analyzes in recent years have shown that, however much Darwin owed intellectually to Lyell, Uniformitarianism actually hindered the development of his theory of evolution more than Much more than a boost.Gradualism, naturalism and realism were popular concepts from Buffon to Kant and Lamarck.The most prominent feature of Lyell's uniformitarianism is his steady state (and cyclical) theory, which is completely opposed to the theory of evolution.
Lyell is not only a geologist, but a perusal of his Principles of Geology reveals his mastery of biology, including biogeography and ecology (the "struggle for existence").He was authoritative when it came to biological issues, yet, in retrospect, his creationism and essentialism clearly led him to contradict himself.
Leyle studied law and tended to take an extreme, if not ironic, view of opposing views in his scientific debates.He therefore often lashes out at individual errors in catastrophist statements regardless of well-documented directional changes in them, such as fossil content and content in stratigraphic sequences.
Apparently, he thought his opponents were proposing a strictly natural-stepped sequence of fossils, and complacently believed that this had been refuted by the discovery of fossil mammals in Paulian formations ("in the reptilian age"), without realizing that Considering that these are triconodonts (an ancient animal) fossils, they fit well with the directional series.He denies that Lamarck's theory of internal tendencies towards perfection is correct, but he ignores that Lamarck also proposes another kind of evolution, that of constant adjustment to ever-changing circumstances ("situations"), which of course Inevitably it comes down to constant evolutionary evolution.For Lyell, an essentialist, this constant evolution is meaningless.
Because of T. H．Huxley's erroneous claim that Lyell's uniformitarianism necessarily led to Darwinism, and Whewed's misleading use of the terms uniformitarianism and catastrophism, have long led to Lyell's writings being completely misunderstood.
His steady-state world is not a completely static world, but undergoes never-ending cycles related to the movement of continents and climate change.Extinction is an inevitable consequence of a changing world no longer suitable for certain species.Of course, species that disappear in a steady-state world must be replaced by "introducing" new species.Since species disappear and their replacement by new species proceeds at a steady rate due to extinction, Lyell insists that he is following strict uniformitarian principles.
What is most important to the history of evolutionism is not Lyell's uniformitarianism but his shift of emphasis from Lamarck's vague speculations about progress, increasing completeness, and other aspects of "vertical evolution" to the specific phenomena of species .The question of what caused species extinction raises all sorts of biological questions.These questions, and the question of how the displaced species were introduced, were some of the questions Darwin encountered while reading the Principles of Geology during and after the voyage of the Beagle.These questions became central to Darwin's research programs thanks to Lyell's writings.
This relationship between Lyell and Darwin points to an almost textbook relationship that often occurs between scientists.It is a copy of "Pioneer".It is often rightly said that Lamarck, though a true evolutionist, was not really a precursor of Darwin.Darwin can never be said to have laid his foundations on Lamarck, but rather on Lyell, and yet it is difficult to call Lyell a forerunner of Darwin, because he was stubbornly opposed to evolution, he was an essentialist. Creationist, whose whole conceptual framework is incompatible with Darwin's.Yet he was the first to focus explicitly on the pivotal role of species in evolution, and prompted Darwin to choose that approach to the evolutionary problem, although Lyell's solutions later proved to be wrong.What should be called a man who points the way but is not a pioneer in the traditional sense?A similar situation is that in the research work on geographical speciation and biological species, he has been deeply carried out because he opposed Goldschmidt's proposal to solve the problem of speciation through systematic mutation.There are indeed many examples in the history of science that a pioneer asked a question but got the wrong answer, and opposing this answer led to the right answer instead.
In an earlier article (Mayr, 1972) I analyzed the concepts that prevented people from accepting the theory of evolution earlier.This includes natural theology and the close integration of creationism and essentialism.Paradoxically, the progress of scientific knowledge within this conceptual framework increasingly calls for explanations in reference to natural forces.For example, the continuous fauna discovered by stratigraphers requires abandoning the notion of a unique one-time creation.Agassiz dared to propose that there were 50-80 extinctions of life on earth in total, and an equal number of new creations.Even someone as serious as Lyell tended to attribute natural phenomena to creation.This excludes the fact of evolution from the realm of scientific analysis.Of course, nothing is impossible in creation.Lyell once said: "It seems that creation requires omnipotence (omnipotence), so we cannot evaluate it."
Evolutionism seems to have died out of the minds of British scientists since Lyell defeated Lamarck in Principles of Geology.Rejection of evolutionism is widespread, from philosophers like Whewell and Herschel to geologists, anatomists, and botanists.It seems that people are content with the natural theological view that the world was created by a skilled designer.In this peaceful Victorian atmosphere, a bomb exploded in 1844 that shook the entire British intelligentsia, and it was the publication of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.The content of this book is so outrageous that the author tried his best to keep his name.Everyone is guessing who the author is, including Lyell, Darwin, and even Queen Victoria's husband.The repercussions were huge, and Sedgwick, a professor at the University of Cambridge and president of the Geological Society, was furious.He used more than 400 pages of printed matter to express his dissatisfaction, and his mood can be represented by the following words: "The world will never tolerate such a reversal of right and wrong, and we are determined to fight to the end with any words and actions that violate our solemn principles and social customs. ...Our motto is that all things must be in their place if they are to be of any use...Our virtuous ladies cannot listen to the temptations of this author if they will not stain their fingers with an anatomist's dirty knife Poisoning one's happy heart and quiet feelings, this author appears wearing a hypocritical philosophical mask."
Not surprisingly, thanks to such advertising, The Remains became a bestseller at the time, being published eleven times between 1844 and 1860, with sales in the first ten years (24,000 copies) far exceeding Lyell's Principles of Geology
Or Darwin's, which sold only 9,500 copies in the decade after publication.
Who is the author of "The Remains" was not clarified until after the author's death in 1871. It turned out that he was Robert Chambers, the famous editor of "Chambers Encyclopedia" (Chambers Encyclopedia), who was also Author of many popular books.Although Chambers is well-read and knowledgeable, he is after all an amateur, a layman, and has some weaknesses of a layman.Yet it was he who saw the forest when many famous British scientists (except Darwin, who had not yet published his work) saw the forest for the trees.
Oddly enough, it was not atheism but deism that led him to the evolutionary view.He once said that if there is a choice between creationism and the role of the general laws established by the Creator, "I think I would rather choose the latter, because it shows the power and dignity of God more." Because in the non-biological world There is nothing "that cannot be explained by the operation of the general forces of nature," so why not consider that "plants and animals are likewise produced in a natural way." He objected to the idea that the origin and development of life were beyond our ability to inquire. "I am very reluctant to believe that there is anything in nature that restricts exploration for any reason... and firmly believes that our conception of a Creator is in no way compromised by our increased understanding of what God does."
His research finally led him to propose the "Principle of Progressive Development" as the most concise explanation of the slow and gradual movements or tendencies in nature we see every day, which is appealed to and connected with science, rather than on ignorant dogmatic speculation." Chambers saw two things soberly from the evidence available at the time: (1) that the world's fauna evolved through geological periods, (2) ) change is slow, gradual and independent of any catastrophe in the environment.
Although Chambers also had some derogatory comments on Lamarck, his main argument is the same as Lamarck's original theory in many respects, that is, the evolutionary line is gradually perfected.Apart from also proposing evolution, Chambers was by no means a forerunner of Darwin.
Chambers sets out his evidence as follows:
(1) The fossil record refers to the oldest strata without biological remains, the next strata are the age of invertebrate fossils, followed by fishes as the only vertebrate fossils, and then reptiles, but not yet birds and mammals, etc.
（2）在一切动物的主要门类中都是从简单进（步）为复杂，“最高级和最典型的类型总是最后才出现。”
（3）比较解剖学的研究表明，各种主要类别的动物都具有基本协调统一的结构。
（4）由冯贝尔（von Baer）的胚胎学研究表明胚胎都要经历较其更原始的相近生物相类似的阶段。
虽然钱伯斯的议论有很多错误与概念不清之处，但他在斟酌证据时所显示的大量常识却是当时反对进化论者的着述中所极度缺乏的。在分析古生物学家Pictet（当时他还反对进化观点）的论点时，钱伯斯不禁叫道“像他这样的专家竟然这样难于接受由自然规律导致的动物区系变化真是令人难于想像。”
钱伯斯真正做到了的事情是将均变论的原则应用于生物界。反映在自然系统中的动物等级结构如果不接受进化论就毫无意义。这正和讨论化石记录一样，他的论点和达尔文在中的论点十分相似。和达尔文一样，他一直反复强调有多少现象，如退化器官，是可以用进化的结果来解释，但用神创论观点看就毫无意义。根据所有这些证据，“作者领悟到进步性发展原则是假定的生物起源历史。”
上面这些看来都是非常合理的，然而钱伯斯的批评者们，包括当时英国最着名的一些科学家，却把他批评得一无是处。例如赫胥黎就曾写过一篇措辞激烈的评论，后来赫胥黎本人也感到过意不去。这些批评者很容易地就指出钱伯斯所提出的进化机制十分荒谬，因为钱伯斯所依据的是普遍而又经常的自然发生。重演是他的学说的根据之一，进步性发展的整个概念奠基于与“发生”（generation）相类似的，即和个体发生（ontogeny）相似的基础之上。和很多业余爱好者相仿，钱伯斯非常容易上当受骗。他还用各式各样的民间传说和神话来支持他对自然发生的坚信不疑。然而他有时又能作出非常精辟的猜想。例如，他认为自然发生不再会出现，原因之一可能是由于它是“一种完全由情况（或条件）决定的现象，情况是暂时的，因而结果也是暂时的。”当然，这就是人们目前所接受的关于生命起源时的情况的解释。
钱伯斯虽然是19世纪达尔文以前的唯一的英国进化论者，但是他并不值得更多地加以介绍。他曾影响了一些人并使之转向进化主义，其中最重要的是华莱士（A．R．Wallace）；斯宾塞（Herbert Spencer）显然也受过影响。他使德国哲学家叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer）和美国诗人及散文家爱默生（R．W．Emerson）深信进化思想。
毫无疑问很多人是通过钱伯斯才习惯于进化思想的。甚至达尔文也承认，“在我看来（《遗迹》的出版）在这个国家中对引起人们对这个问题的关注和消除偏见起了非常好的作用。”就达尔文来说还有另外的理由，即对《遗迹》的批评为达尔文提供了反对进化的观点的详细目录，这些反对观点或意见达尔文在中都特别谨慎地作了答复。
从《遗迹》一书中科学史家可以得出两点影响深远的概括性结论：首先，缺乏专门知识的外行钱伯斯在当时所有的有资格的专家被表面上的矛盾所困惑时（达尔文除外，他将他的发现扣压了二十年才发表）却清醒地察觉了一个复杂现象。其次，钱伯斯清醒地领悟并很好地描述了进化过程，虽然他对进化过程的解释不仅是错误的而且有时还是幼稚的。人们所常说的除非同时作出了解释否则就不能提出科学学说的说法显然是不合实际的。达尔文也是一个例子；他提出了遗传变异的无限性并以之作为他的自然选择学说的基础，然而他的关于遗传学说的全部意见或判断都是十分错误和不充分的。
就钱伯斯而言，最令人吃惊的也许是他在英国的孤立无援。他几乎没有支持者，只有欧文（Owen）对他并不持全然否定的态度（Millhauser，1959）。实际上当时所有的英国知名科学家都公开反对进化，不仅像Buckland，塞吉威克，Whewell这样一些自然神论者，而且达尔文的朋友莱伊尔，霍克以及赫胥黎等也都如此。尽管有利于进化论的证据一直在增加，然而英国的舆论气氛竟然是如此强烈的反对进化思想以致没有博物学家对之进行认真考虑。这要求一种实在的努力去改变舆论气氛，而不是像钱伯斯这样的业余爱好者的浅尝即止，这种努力直到1859年才出现。
时常有人提到在提出进化学说这一点上斯宾塞要早于达尔文，然而这种说法并没有多少根据。对斯宾塞来说，进化是一个形而上学的抽象原则。斯宾塞学说的空洞性可由他的定义清楚看出：“进化是物质和伴随的运动散逸的整合统一，在这整合过程中物质从不确定的、不联贯的均一性转变为确定的、联贯的不均一性；与此同时被保留的运动也发生了相应的改变。”在讨论进化时强调物质，运动以及力是18世纪类型的对生物系统终极原因所作的物理学家解释的典型例子，和真正的生物学毫无关系。当斯宾塞于1852年第一次发表关于进化的文章时对生物学知之甚少，他所依据的是钱伯斯的《遗迹》
和莱伊尔对拉马克的反驳。和钱伯斯相仿，斯宾塞也是从个体发生的类比得出他的进化概念。他将这些程序目的性现象转变成目的论原则，后者冒充了启蒙运动中Condorcet与其它哲学家所采取的进步原则。
斯宾塞的观点对达尔文思想并没有积极影响，反之，他的观点后来倒成为引起某些混乱的原因。斯宾塞曾建议用“最适者生存”（survival of the fittest）来代替自然选择，他又是获得性状遗传在英国的主要支持者（在他与魏斯曼的着名辩论中）。最糟的是，他后来成为了奠基于残酷无情的生存竞争之上的一种社会学说（一般称之为社会达尔文主义，很容易引起误解）的主要代言人（Hofstadter，1955）。
在一本生物学思想史中完全不提斯宾塞也是十分合理的，因为他的正面贡献等于零。
然而由于斯宾塞的观点更接近干某些普遍的错误概念，因而对人类学、心理学以及社会科学都具有重要影响。对上述领域中的绝大多数学者来说，在达尔文之后的一个多世纪中“进化”这个词意味着朝向更高水平和更复杂化所必要的进步，这也就是斯宾塞（而不是达尔文）所理解的。这一点必须强调以便消除这种持续很长时间的荒诞说法。遗憾的是；现在仍然有少数社会科学家把这种斯宾塞式的思想强加于达尔文。
进化主义在德国是沿着一条不同于英国和法国的途径而兴起的，这有几个原因。早在18世纪由于Wolff和Reimarus的影响，自然神学在德国已发展到极点，而且远比英国的“干预论者”的自然神学更加自然神化。德国从赫德（Herder）到18世纪40年代没有继续致力干自然神学的发展而是经历了一段热情洋溢的浪漫主义时期。这是一次乐观主义的运动，到处都可以看到发展与进步，一种奋勉向上、向更完美水平的精神；从而培育了从自然阶梯导源的观念以及从启蒙运动哲学家之间广泛流行的进步概念所形成的思想观念。这一运动产生了哲学的一个特殊分支或学派，“自然哲学派”。现在也许还不十分清楚究竟各种不同的浪漫主义运动，特别是自然哲学派，在多大程度上背叛了还原论和牛顿主义的机械论。对这一点谁也不如歌德在他的一些着作（特别是《色彩学》一书）中说得那样清楚。将生物界每一现象和每一过程还原为运动和力，或者还原成热和引力，对绝大多数博物学家来说当然是不能接受的，他们提出了各种各样的供选择的办法。例如，他们可以倒退回到自然神学并且按创造和设计的观点来解释一切事物。凡不愿意求助于上帝来解释自然界一切的人们则苦心设计了一种新的、强烈受到莱布尼茨影响的自然观，它特别强调性质、发展、独特性，通常还有一个结局性的部分。谢林（Sch elling）和奥肯（Oken）的过激言辞如果没有对牛顿主义的“无情”机械论的普遍憎恶也不会受到人们如此热情的欢迎。自然哲学派主要是对复杂的生物现象作幼稚的机械论解释的一种反作用，对这种头脑简单的物理学家解释是无从接受的。由于自然哲学派的最着名的代表——谢林、奥肯和卡洛斯——最终是本质论者，因而根本不可能提出共同祖先学说。然而他们全都大谈特谈发展，这发展指的是两种截然不同的过程中的一个：或者是展示一种事前即已存在的潜力（而不是去改变模式本身），或者是由骤变产生新模式（通过非生命物质的自然发生或现有模式的自然发生）。这一类文献，尤其是奥肯的着作，有很多是空想的（如果不是滑稽的话）。绝大多数结论都以类比为基础，而且大多是荒唐可笑、牵强附会的类比。
评价这些文献及其持久的影响非常困难。有些历史学家的结论是它阻碍了进化主义进入德国，而另外一些历史学家则认为它为进化主义在德国的发展铺平了道路，达尔文及其进化论在德国比其它任何国家更受欢迎就由于此。在德国和达尔文以前的英国之间有明显的区别倒是确实的。在英国没有一个有名望的科学家相信进化，而接受进化观点在德国却显然是很普遍的。胚胎学家冯贝尔于1872年曾讲过，在他的1828年的一篇文章中“我曾着重表明我自己是反对当时占支配地位的演变学说（theory oftransmutation）的。”1834年他再一次谈到他认为“一切动物通过互相转化而发展是不可能的，”然而就在同一文章中他对以前由布丰和林奈所阐述的观点：一个属中的种“可能来自一个共同的原型”表示赞赏''。
在J． F． Meckel（1781－1833）主编的大型比较解剖手册中有一定的篇幅专门讨论进化，特别是关于新物种的起源。他列举了四种可能机制：（1）经常发生的自然发生；（2）倾向于变化的内部冲动；（3）环境的直接影响；（4）杂交。在他的陈述中最值得注意的是他把进化归因于自然过程视为理所当然，甚至根本没有提起上帝或创造。这和同时代的英国的气氛是多么不同！
有一些历史学家（如Potonie，Schindewolf，Temkin）提出了很多德国早期进化主义者，这些人的名字过去一直湮灭无闻。坦白的讲，要公正的评价这四人（如kielmeyer，Tiedemann，Reinecke，Voight，Tauscher，Ballenstedt等）以及其它一些在1793年（Kielmeyer）到1852年（Unger）出版过有关着作的人很困难。因为这些人的着作是高明观点与荒谬思想的特殊大杂烩，看来它们往往反映了布丰，赫德，拉马克，杰弗莱和居维叶的着作观点，但又从不注明出处。需要非常仔细的比较分析才能确定这些作者的着作中哪些有价值，哪些是创新的见解。由于他们之中没有人对后世产生过重要影响，因而进行这种分析是否值得看来就是一个问题。总而言之，这些作者显然属于钱伯斯类型而不是达尔文型。
考虑到在19世纪前半期进化思想在德国普遍流行的情况，而在这种背景下竟然没有一个德国生物学家努力提出内容充实的进化学说不能不说是奇怪的现象。尤其是当时其它的欧洲国家都不如德国拥有那样多有才华的动物学家和比较解剖学家，包括Authenrieth，冯贝尔，布鲁门巴赫，Burdach，Dollinger，Ehrenberg，Emmert，Heusinger，Kielmeyer，Leuckart，J.Muller，Pander，Rathke，Reichert，Rudolphi，Siebold，Tiedemann，Wiedemann。产生这种情况有多方面原因，最重要的是当时德国哲学深受本质论支配，这影响了每个人的思想。模式思想由于对居维叶权威的崇拜而得到加强，这充分反映在当时伪某些卓越的比较解剖学者的着作中。
另一个原因是自然哲学派的进化主义是如此的偏重理论或臆测，同时又是如此枯燥而无益，因而产生了激烈的反作用，使得一些最优秀的动物学家专注于纯粹的描述性研究，这在Leuckart，Ehrenbers，Muller，Tiedemann的着述中表现得最清楚。这种反作用是如此强烈，当魏斯曼在50年代还是一个大学生时，他所在的大学竟然从来没有提到过进化。19世纪20年代的进化热当时已被完全忘却。
对臆测的排斥由于另外的两点原因而得到加强。博物学家对自然研究得愈多愈深入，就越发感到完美的适应的普遍性。由于当时的机械论影响不允许采取目的论或超自然力的解释，于是便按照康德的《判断力批判》的例子采取不可知论的态度。另外，19世纪的30、40、50年代实验生物学，包括生理学，细胞学和胚胎学，得到空前发展，德国的许多着名科学家都投身于功能过程的研究。他们在研究中能够成功地运用物理科学所惯用的解释模式，而这种模式当运用于生物进化时就极不合适。进化主义的复苏不能来自实验室；它必须像在英国一样，由研究自然种群和物种的科学家发起。不幸的是，德国的一些优秀的年轻博物学家Kuhl和Boie在研究东印度的热带病时牺牲了，Illiger在青年时死于结核病。
尽管有魏斯曼的不利言论，进化主义在19世纪50年代的德国并没有完全销声愿迹。
Broon曾写过几篇有关进化主义的文章，虽然最后又放弃了这种研究（Schumacher，1975）。尼安德特人颅骨（早期智人化石）的共同发现者Hermann schaffhausen（1816－1893）曾明确指出，“大多数科学家认为是自然规律的物种不变性并没有被证实，因为物种并没有明确的和不可改变的特征，种和亚种之间的界限是摇曳不定的。世界上的一切生物看来是受繁殖和发育影响的连续系列的生物。”（Temkin，1959）他特别反对下面的论点；活着的动物不可能来自早期的动物，因为我们现在并没有发现物种的变化。
Schaaffhausen指出，因为这种变化“需要千百万年”，所以要直接观察到这种变化是完全不现实的。
在达尔文的许多先驱者之中，最值得提到的是维也纳的植物学家温格（FranzUnger，1800一1870）。在他的《植物界的历史》（Attempt of a History of thePlant world，1852）一书中，他专门拿出一章讨论进化，这一章的标题是“植物的起源；它们的繁殖与各种模式的由来。”他指出简单的淡水植物和海洋植物在复杂的植物之前存在：
正是在这含有菌藻植物，特别是藻类的海洋植物中应该去寻找一切植物相继发生的原胜。毫无疑问这种经验式的重建途径在理论上可以倒过来继续追索，一直到最后追寻到一种原始植物（Uroflanze），它实际上就是产生整个植物界的原始细胞。这种植物（或细胞）最终是怎样起源的对我们来说则更加是一个秘密。然而这一点可以肯定，即它必然是被指定为一切生命的原始，从而也是一切高级发展的原始样本。
他还继续谈到，乍看起来人们会认为物种是固定不变的，因为双亲永远只产生它们自己类型的后代。然而这就要求所有的新物种像那“原始植物”一样是通过某种自然发生的过程产生的。因为所有的证据都和这种可能性搁矛盾，“所以没有选择余地，只有去寻找植物世界本身中的全部多样性的根源，不仅是物种，而且还有尼和较高级的阶元、”他还非常透彻地补充谈到物种关系中的规矩太多以致不能认为新物种的起源完全是由于外部影响。“这清楚地表明植物的多样性的原因不可能是外界的，而只能是内部。
的…简单一句话，每一个新产生的植物物种……必然来自另一个物种。”一旦接受了这一点，整个植物界就成为一个单一的生物单位。“届时低等的和高级的阶元都不再被看作是偶然的集群、一种任意的思维结构，而是彼此由遗传方式联系起来的，从而形成了一个真正固有的实质性单位。”后来他还提出了一些别的进化问题，譬如一个物种作为整体经历了变态作用是不是能成为新的物种？只有一个个体或少数个体的变化能不能成为新种的祖种？他确实非常重视产生新种的变异根源。孟德尔是温格的学生，孟德尔曾经讲过，正是由于温格对引起新物种产生的变异的性质与根源的关注促使他从事于遗传学实验研究。
自从拉马克的《动物哲学》于1809年出版以后，没有谁在讨论物种、动物区系、分布、化石、灭绝以及多样性的其它方面时能够继续忽视进化的可能性。这并不是忽视，正如屡次提到拉马克或提到“发展”时所证明的。这是因为已经觉察到进化主义的“威胁”；为了对付这种威胁，莱伊尔在他的《地质学原理》一书中花了很多章来驳斥。事实上从1809年到1859年这一段时间对思想史家来说具有极大的想力。在这段时间里有一个合理的学说，一个动态的进化中的世界的学说；在这期间支持这个异端新学说的证据日益增多；也正是在这段时间里有越来越多的学者还吞吞吐吐地谈起进化演变的可能性。
鉴于这类情况，科学史家那夫乔（Arthur Lovejoy）提出了这样一个令人寻味的问题：
“在哪一天才能够说支持生物进化论的证据完全够了？”这问题的答案当然要根据抵抗力的大小而定。可以从早期居维叶发现（1812）巴黎盆地的哺乳类化石随着地质年代的增加其分类学上的差异也愈明显的事实开始作为对进化的不能反驳的证据，当然这要把神创论者除外。那夫乔和迈尔也都指出，19世纪30年代和40年代还有很多其它证据也能导致相同的结论。这些包括否定了物种不变的地理性变异（例如，Gloger，1833），这后来成为达尔文的主要证据。每一件新发现的生物地理事实也论证了这一点。某些类型动物的长期继续存在的事实，例如腕足类动物Lingula以及某些软体动物经历了许多地质时期（可以远溯到志留纪），就驳倒了普遍灾变的论点。后来发现并不是所有的种间杂种都是不育的这一事实也有助于否定物种完全隔离的观点。正如钱伯斯正确指出的，退化器官的存在是和神创论者的完善设计解释相抵触的。由比较解剖学者所发现的“模式一致”（“Unity of type”），哺乳动物中耳骨的同源现象（Reichert，1837）以及脊椎动物的其它同源现象，陆地脊椎动物的胚胎具有鳃弓以及其它比较胚胎学的发现，这些都是达尔文于1859年令人信服的加以运用然而是早先发现的许多其它证据都支持进化学说。中至少有二十个地方提到这些证据，达尔文所提出的论点也与之完全相符。达尔文曾经讲到，只有当我们采纳进化学说时这些证据才有意义，如果采用神创论者的解释，则这些证据就会表明有一个非常善变的造物主存在。
正如我们在前面见到的，有不少学者实际上是在达尔文之前就作出了这一结论。然而动物学、植物学和地质学中的一些权威学者却继续反对进化学说。由于英国的莱伊尔，Bentham，胡克尔，塞吉威克和Wollaston以及他们在法国及德国的同道都是具有高度智慧和学识渊博的科学家，因而不能将他们的对抗读之于愚笨和无知。生物地理学、系统学、地层学和比较解剖学方面日益增多的进化证据并没有像那夫乔所想的那样，“把他们自己的假说贬低为可笑的荒谬”，而只是由他们作出了某种妥协：或者是用一个稳定的、新近创造的世界；或者是用一个稳态的循环式世界，或者是用一系列灾变来谋求妥协。这一类的态度只能用下面的假定来解释（一切证据也都支持这种假定），即进化学说的反对者发现用他们的根深蒂固的概念框架来和新的事实取得妥协比采纳进化新概念要容易得多。新观念的胜利所需要的是一种赢得一切的激变。这就是查尔斯·达尔文于1859年11月24日出版的。
Red: Darwin agrees with Lamarck and against Lyell.
Blue: Darwin for Lyell, against Lamarck.The process has all the hallmarks of creationism despite Lyell's objections.
(2) Realism (actualism).This principle asserts that the same causes (laws of physics) operate throughout geological time because the intrinsic characteristics of the world remain the same forever.The most important consequence of this principle is that, as Lyell puts it in the subtitle of his Principles of Geology, it is reasonable to "try to explain past changes in the earth's surface in terms of causes now at work."
(3) Intensity of causal forces.Lyell and other extreme uniformitarians maintain that the strength of geological forces is the same at all times, and that the time factor will cause a phenomenon of increasing strength over a certain period of time.Some of his opponents believe that the intensity of geological phenomena (such as volcanic activity, orogeny) has steadily declined as the Earth cooled.It is unclear whether some scholars support the third possibility, that the intensity of geological phenomena shows irregular rise or fall. (4) Structural reasons (Configurational causes).The term was coined by Simpson to refer to the possibility that the same factors could produce very different results due to different combinations, a possibility that thorough or orthodox uniformitarians completely ignore.The transformation of the earth's atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing, the emergence of irregular ice ages, the impact of plate tectonics on the continental area and the shallow sea area of the continental shelf, and the degree of volcanic activity all fall into this category.
As a result, existing physical conditions on Earth do not necessarily accurately reflect conditions in Earth's early history.Questions like the origin of life cannot be solved if structural causes are ignored.However, Lyell first noticed the structural reason for the impact of continental position changes on climate (Ospovat, 1977).
(5) Gradualism.Before the rise of catastrophism, most scholars believed that the historical change of the earth's surface was gradual.This view was shared by Leibniz, Buffon (in part), Lamarck, and most of Darwin's predecessors.Embracing incrementalism becomes all the more difficult after discovering that the strata are often fractured.The greatest achievement of Leyle's uniformitarianism is that despite many new discoveries it still emphasizes the gradual nature of geological change.Lyell and later Darwin were fully aware that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions could produce dramatic effects, but these effects were several orders of magnitude smaller than the catastrophes proposed by some geologists.Modern geological research shows that some events in the past history of the earth can actually be regarded as catastrophes (Baker, 1978; Alvarez, 1980).
(6) Directionalism.Lyell adopted the concept of a steady state world from Hutton; this concept was expressed by Hutton (1795) as "a vestige without beginning and expectation of end" and was prevalent among pre-Socratic philosophers of.Lyell's opponents argue that all evidence points to a directional, if not progressive, component to Earth's history.This point (and not the other five) is the fundamental disagreement between Lyell and other so-called catastrophists (Rudwick, 1971; but see also Wilson, 1980).
What Darwin got from Uniformitarianism Some analyzes in recent years have shown that, however much Darwin owed intellectually to Lyell, Uniformitarianism actually hindered the development of his theory of evolution more than Much more than a boost.Gradualism, naturalism and realism were popular concepts from Buffon to Kant and Lamarck.The most prominent feature of Lyell's uniformitarianism is his steady state (and cyclical) theory, which is completely opposed to the theory of evolution.
Lyell is not only a geologist, but a perusal of his Principles of Geology reveals his mastery of biology, including biogeography and ecology (the "struggle for existence").He was authoritative when it came to biological issues, yet, in retrospect, his creationism and essentialism clearly led him to contradict himself.
Leyle studied law and tended to take an extreme, if not ironic, view of opposing views in his scientific debates.He therefore often lashes out at individual errors in catastrophist statements regardless of well-documented directional changes in them, such as fossil content and content in stratigraphic sequences.
Apparently, he thought his opponents were proposing a strictly natural-stepped sequence of fossils, and complacently believed that this had been refuted by the discovery of fossil mammals in Paulian formations ("in the reptilian age"), without realizing that Considering that these are triconodonts (an ancient animal) fossils, they fit well with the directional series.He denies that Lamarck's theory of internal tendencies towards perfection is correct, but he ignores that Lamarck also proposes another kind of evolution, that of constant adjustment to ever-changing circumstances ("situations"), which of course Inevitably it comes down to constant evolutionary evolution.For Lyell, an essentialist, this constant evolution is meaningless.
Because of T. H．Huxley's erroneous claim that Lyell's uniformitarianism necessarily led to Darwinism, and Whewed's misleading use of the terms uniformitarianism and catastrophism, have long led to Lyell's writings being completely misunderstood.
His steady-state world is not a completely static world, but undergoes never-ending cycles related to the movement of continents and climate change.Extinction is an inevitable consequence of a changing world no longer suitable for certain species.Of course, species that disappear in a steady-state world must be replaced by "introducing" new species.Since species disappear and their replacement by new species proceeds at a steady rate due to extinction, Lyell insists that he is following strict uniformitarian principles.
What is most important to the history of evolutionism is not Lyell's uniformitarianism but his shift of emphasis from Lamarck's vague speculations about progress, increasing completeness, and other aspects of "vertical evolution" to the specific phenomena of species .The question of what caused species extinction raises all sorts of biological questions.These questions, and the question of how the displaced species were introduced, were some of the questions Darwin encountered while reading the Principles of Geology during and after the voyage of the Beagle.These questions became central to Darwin's research programs thanks to Lyell's writings.
This relationship between Lyell and Darwin points to an almost textbook relationship that often occurs between scientists.It is a copy of "Pioneer".It is often rightly said that Lamarck, though a true evolutionist, was not really a precursor of Darwin.Darwin can never be said to have laid his foundations on Lamarck, but rather on Lyell, and yet it is difficult to call Lyell a forerunner of Darwin, because he was stubbornly opposed to evolution, he was an essentialist. Creationist, whose whole conceptual framework is incompatible with Darwin's.Yet he was the first to focus explicitly on the pivotal role of species in evolution, and prompted Darwin to choose that approach to the evolutionary problem, although Lyell's solutions later proved to be wrong.What should be called a man who points the way but is not a pioneer in the traditional sense?A similar situation is that in the research work on geographical speciation and biological species, he has been deeply carried out because he opposed Goldschmidt's proposal to solve the problem of speciation through systematic mutation.There are indeed many examples in the history of science that a pioneer asked a question but got the wrong answer, and opposing this answer led to the right answer instead.
In an earlier article (Mayr, 1972) I analyzed the concepts that prevented people from accepting the theory of evolution earlier.This includes natural theology and the close integration of creationism and essentialism.Paradoxically, the progress of scientific knowledge within this conceptual framework increasingly calls for explanations in reference to natural forces.For example, the continuous fauna discovered by stratigraphers requires abandoning the notion of a unique one-time creation.Agassiz dared to propose that there were 50-80 extinctions of life on earth in total, and an equal number of new creations.Even someone as serious as Lyell tended to attribute natural phenomena to creation.This excludes the fact of evolution from the realm of scientific analysis.Of course, nothing is impossible in creation.Lyell once said: "It seems that creation requires omnipotence (omnipotence), so we cannot evaluate it."
Evolutionism seems to have died out of the minds of British scientists since Lyell defeated Lamarck in Principles of Geology.Rejection of evolutionism is widespread, from philosophers like Whewell and Herschel to geologists, anatomists, and botanists.It seems that people are content with the natural theological view that the world was created by a skilled designer.In this peaceful Victorian atmosphere, a bomb exploded in 1844 that shook the entire British intelligentsia, and it was the publication of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.The content of this book is so outrageous that the author tried his best to keep his name.Everyone is guessing who the author is, including Lyell, Darwin, and even Queen Victoria's husband.The repercussions were huge, and Sedgwick, a professor at the University of Cambridge and president of the Geological Society, was furious.He used more than 400 pages of printed matter to express his dissatisfaction, and his mood can be represented by the following words: "The world will never tolerate such a reversal of right and wrong, and we are determined to fight to the end with any words and actions that violate our solemn principles and social customs. ...Our motto is that all things must be in their place if they are to be of any use...Our virtuous ladies cannot listen to the temptations of this author if they will not stain their fingers with an anatomist's dirty knife Poisoning one's happy heart and quiet feelings, this author appears wearing a hypocritical philosophical mask."
Not surprisingly, thanks to such advertising, The Remains became a bestseller at the time, being published eleven times between 1844 and 1860, with sales in the first ten years (24,000 copies) far exceeding Lyell's Principles of Geology
Or Darwin's, which sold only 9,500 copies in the decade after publication.
Who is the author of "The Remains" was not clarified until after the author's death in 1871. It turned out that he was Robert Chambers, the famous editor of "Chambers Encyclopedia" (Chambers Encyclopedia), who was also Author of many popular books.Although Chambers is well-read and knowledgeable, he is after all an amateur, a layman, and has some weaknesses of a layman.Yet it was he who saw the forest when many famous British scientists (except Darwin, who had not yet published his work) saw the forest for the trees.
Oddly enough, it was not atheism but deism that led him to the evolutionary view.He once said that if there is a choice between creationism and the role of the general laws established by the Creator, "I think I would rather choose the latter, because it shows the power and dignity of God more." Because in the non-biological world There is nothing "that cannot be explained by the operation of the general forces of nature," so why not consider that "plants and animals are likewise produced in a natural way." He objected to the idea that the origin and development of life were beyond our ability to inquire. "I am very reluctant to believe that there is anything in nature that restricts exploration for any reason... and firmly believes that our conception of a Creator is in no way compromised by our increased understanding of what God does."
His research finally led him to propose the "Principle of Progressive Development" as the most concise explanation of the slow and gradual movements or tendencies in nature we see every day, which is appealed to and connected with science, rather than on ignorant dogmatic speculation." Chambers saw two things soberly from the evidence available at the time: (1) that the world's fauna evolved through geological periods, (2) ) change is slow, gradual and independent of any catastrophe in the environment.
Although Chambers also had some derogatory comments on Lamarck, his main argument is the same as Lamarck's original theory in many respects, that is, the evolutionary line is gradually perfected.Apart from also proposing evolution, Chambers was by no means a forerunner of Darwin.
Chambers sets out his evidence as follows:
(1) The fossil record refers to the oldest strata without biological remains, the next strata are the age of invertebrate fossils, followed by fishes as the only vertebrate fossils, and then reptiles, but not yet birds and mammals, etc.
（2）在一切动物的主要门类中都是从简单进（步）为复杂，“最高级和最典型的类型总是最后才出现。”
（3）比较解剖学的研究表明，各种主要类别的动物都具有基本协调统一的结构。
（4）由冯贝尔（von Baer）的胚胎学研究表明胚胎都要经历较其更原始的相近生物相类似的阶段。
虽然钱伯斯的议论有很多错误与概念不清之处，但他在斟酌证据时所显示的大量常识却是当时反对进化论者的着述中所极度缺乏的。在分析古生物学家Pictet（当时他还反对进化观点）的论点时，钱伯斯不禁叫道“像他这样的专家竟然这样难于接受由自然规律导致的动物区系变化真是令人难于想像。”
钱伯斯真正做到了的事情是将均变论的原则应用于生物界。反映在自然系统中的动物等级结构如果不接受进化论就毫无意义。这正和讨论化石记录一样，他的论点和达尔文在中的论点十分相似。和达尔文一样，他一直反复强调有多少现象，如退化器官，是可以用进化的结果来解释，但用神创论观点看就毫无意义。根据所有这些证据，“作者领悟到进步性发展原则是假定的生物起源历史。”
上面这些看来都是非常合理的，然而钱伯斯的批评者们，包括当时英国最着名的一些科学家，却把他批评得一无是处。例如赫胥黎就曾写过一篇措辞激烈的评论，后来赫胥黎本人也感到过意不去。这些批评者很容易地就指出钱伯斯所提出的进化机制十分荒谬，因为钱伯斯所依据的是普遍而又经常的自然发生。重演是他的学说的根据之一，进步性发展的整个概念奠基于与“发生”（generation）相类似的，即和个体发生（ontogeny）相似的基础之上。和很多业余爱好者相仿，钱伯斯非常容易上当受骗。他还用各式各样的民间传说和神话来支持他对自然发生的坚信不疑。然而他有时又能作出非常精辟的猜想。例如，他认为自然发生不再会出现，原因之一可能是由于它是“一种完全由情况（或条件）决定的现象，情况是暂时的，因而结果也是暂时的。”当然，这就是人们目前所接受的关于生命起源时的情况的解释。
钱伯斯虽然是19世纪达尔文以前的唯一的英国进化论者，但是他并不值得更多地加以介绍。他曾影响了一些人并使之转向进化主义，其中最重要的是华莱士（A．R．Wallace）；斯宾塞（Herbert Spencer）显然也受过影响。他使德国哲学家叔本华（Arthur Schopenhauer）和美国诗人及散文家爱默生（R．W．Emerson）深信进化思想。
毫无疑问很多人是通过钱伯斯才习惯于进化思想的。甚至达尔文也承认，“在我看来（《遗迹》的出版）在这个国家中对引起人们对这个问题的关注和消除偏见起了非常好的作用。”就达尔文来说还有另外的理由，即对《遗迹》的批评为达尔文提供了反对进化的观点的详细目录，这些反对观点或意见达尔文在中都特别谨慎地作了答复。
从《遗迹》一书中科学史家可以得出两点影响深远的概括性结论：首先，缺乏专门知识的外行钱伯斯在当时所有的有资格的专家被表面上的矛盾所困惑时（达尔文除外，他将他的发现扣压了二十年才发表）却清醒地察觉了一个复杂现象。其次，钱伯斯清醒地领悟并很好地描述了进化过程，虽然他对进化过程的解释不仅是错误的而且有时还是幼稚的。人们所常说的除非同时作出了解释否则就不能提出科学学说的说法显然是不合实际的。达尔文也是一个例子；他提出了遗传变异的无限性并以之作为他的自然选择学说的基础，然而他的关于遗传学说的全部意见或判断都是十分错误和不充分的。
就钱伯斯而言，最令人吃惊的也许是他在英国的孤立无援。他几乎没有支持者，只有欧文（Owen）对他并不持全然否定的态度（Millhauser，1959）。实际上当时所有的英国知名科学家都公开反对进化，不仅像Buckland，塞吉威克，Whewell这样一些自然神论者，而且达尔文的朋友莱伊尔，霍克以及赫胥黎等也都如此。尽管有利于进化论的证据一直在增加，然而英国的舆论气氛竟然是如此强烈的反对进化思想以致没有博物学家对之进行认真考虑。这要求一种实在的努力去改变舆论气氛，而不是像钱伯斯这样的业余爱好者的浅尝即止，这种努力直到1859年才出现。
时常有人提到在提出进化学说这一点上斯宾塞要早于达尔文，然而这种说法并没有多少根据。对斯宾塞来说，进化是一个形而上学的抽象原则。斯宾塞学说的空洞性可由他的定义清楚看出：“进化是物质和伴随的运动散逸的整合统一，在这整合过程中物质从不确定的、不联贯的均一性转变为确定的、联贯的不均一性；与此同时被保留的运动也发生了相应的改变。”在讨论进化时强调物质，运动以及力是18世纪类型的对生物系统终极原因所作的物理学家解释的典型例子，和真正的生物学毫无关系。当斯宾塞于1852年第一次发表关于进化的文章时对生物学知之甚少，他所依据的是钱伯斯的《遗迹》
和莱伊尔对拉马克的反驳。和钱伯斯相仿，斯宾塞也是从个体发生的类比得出他的进化概念。他将这些程序目的性现象转变成目的论原则，后者冒充了启蒙运动中Condorcet与其它哲学家所采取的进步原则。
斯宾塞的观点对达尔文思想并没有积极影响，反之，他的观点后来倒成为引起某些混乱的原因。斯宾塞曾建议用“最适者生存”（survival of the fittest）来代替自然选择，他又是获得性状遗传在英国的主要支持者（在他与魏斯曼的着名辩论中）。最糟的是，他后来成为了奠基于残酷无情的生存竞争之上的一种社会学说（一般称之为社会达尔文主义，很容易引起误解）的主要代言人（Hofstadter，1955）。
在一本生物学思想史中完全不提斯宾塞也是十分合理的，因为他的正面贡献等于零。
然而由于斯宾塞的观点更接近干某些普遍的错误概念，因而对人类学、心理学以及社会科学都具有重要影响。对上述领域中的绝大多数学者来说，在达尔文之后的一个多世纪中“进化”这个词意味着朝向更高水平和更复杂化所必要的进步，这也就是斯宾塞（而不是达尔文）所理解的。这一点必须强调以便消除这种持续很长时间的荒诞说法。遗憾的是；现在仍然有少数社会科学家把这种斯宾塞式的思想强加于达尔文。
进化主义在德国是沿着一条不同于英国和法国的途径而兴起的，这有几个原因。早在18世纪由于Wolff和Reimarus的影响，自然神学在德国已发展到极点，而且远比英国的“干预论者”的自然神学更加自然神化。德国从赫德（Herder）到18世纪40年代没有继续致力干自然神学的发展而是经历了一段热情洋溢的浪漫主义时期。这是一次乐观主义的运动，到处都可以看到发展与进步，一种奋勉向上、向更完美水平的精神；从而培育了从自然阶梯导源的观念以及从启蒙运动哲学家之间广泛流行的进步概念所形成的思想观念。这一运动产生了哲学的一个特殊分支或学派，“自然哲学派”。现在也许还不十分清楚究竟各种不同的浪漫主义运动，特别是自然哲学派，在多大程度上背叛了还原论和牛顿主义的机械论。对这一点谁也不如歌德在他的一些着作（特别是《色彩学》一书）中说得那样清楚。将生物界每一现象和每一过程还原为运动和力，或者还原成热和引力，对绝大多数博物学家来说当然是不能接受的，他们提出了各种各样的供选择的办法。例如，他们可以倒退回到自然神学并且按创造和设计的观点来解释一切事物。凡不愿意求助于上帝来解释自然界一切的人们则苦心设计了一种新的、强烈受到莱布尼茨影响的自然观，它特别强调性质、发展、独特性，通常还有一个结局性的部分。谢林（Sch elling）和奥肯（Oken）的过激言辞如果没有对牛顿主义的“无情”机械论的普遍憎恶也不会受到人们如此热情的欢迎。自然哲学派主要是对复杂的生物现象作幼稚的机械论解释的一种反作用，对这种头脑简单的物理学家解释是无从接受的。由于自然哲学派的最着名的代表——谢林、奥肯和卡洛斯——最终是本质论者，因而根本不可能提出共同祖先学说。然而他们全都大谈特谈发展，这发展指的是两种截然不同的过程中的一个：或者是展示一种事前即已存在的潜力（而不是去改变模式本身），或者是由骤变产生新模式（通过非生命物质的自然发生或现有模式的自然发生）。这一类文献，尤其是奥肯的着作，有很多是空想的（如果不是滑稽的话）。绝大多数结论都以类比为基础，而且大多是荒唐可笑、牵强附会的类比。
评价这些文献及其持久的影响非常困难。有些历史学家的结论是它阻碍了进化主义进入德国，而另外一些历史学家则认为它为进化主义在德国的发展铺平了道路，达尔文及其进化论在德国比其它任何国家更受欢迎就由于此。在德国和达尔文以前的英国之间有明显的区别倒是确实的。在英国没有一个有名望的科学家相信进化，而接受进化观点在德国却显然是很普遍的。胚胎学家冯贝尔于1872年曾讲过，在他的1828年的一篇文章中“我曾着重表明我自己是反对当时占支配地位的演变学说（theory oftransmutation）的。”1834年他再一次谈到他认为“一切动物通过互相转化而发展是不可能的，”然而就在同一文章中他对以前由布丰和林奈所阐述的观点：一个属中的种“可能来自一个共同的原型”表示赞赏''。
在J． F． Meckel（1781－1833）主编的大型比较解剖手册中有一定的篇幅专门讨论进化，特别是关于新物种的起源。他列举了四种可能机制：（1）经常发生的自然发生；（2）倾向于变化的内部冲动；（3）环境的直接影响；（4）杂交。在他的陈述中最值得注意的是他把进化归因于自然过程视为理所当然，甚至根本没有提起上帝或创造。这和同时代的英国的气氛是多么不同！
有一些历史学家（如Potonie，Schindewolf，Temkin）提出了很多德国早期进化主义者，这些人的名字过去一直湮灭无闻。坦白的讲，要公正的评价这四人（如kielmeyer，Tiedemann，Reinecke，Voight，Tauscher，Ballenstedt等）以及其它一些在1793年（Kielmeyer）到1852年（Unger）出版过有关着作的人很困难。因为这些人的着作是高明观点与荒谬思想的特殊大杂烩，看来它们往往反映了布丰，赫德，拉马克，杰弗莱和居维叶的着作观点，但又从不注明出处。需要非常仔细的比较分析才能确定这些作者的着作中哪些有价值，哪些是创新的见解。由于他们之中没有人对后世产生过重要影响，因而进行这种分析是否值得看来就是一个问题。总而言之，这些作者显然属于钱伯斯类型而不是达尔文型。
考虑到在19世纪前半期进化思想在德国普遍流行的情况，而在这种背景下竟然没有一个德国生物学家努力提出内容充实的进化学说不能不说是奇怪的现象。尤其是当时其它的欧洲国家都不如德国拥有那样多有才华的动物学家和比较解剖学家，包括Authenrieth，冯贝尔，布鲁门巴赫，Burdach，Dollinger，Ehrenberg，Emmert，Heusinger，Kielmeyer，Leuckart，J.Muller，Pander，Rathke，Reichert，Rudolphi，Siebold，Tiedemann，Wiedemann。产生这种情况有多方面原因，最重要的是当时德国哲学深受本质论支配，这影响了每个人的思想。模式思想由于对居维叶权威的崇拜而得到加强，这充分反映在当时伪某些卓越的比较解剖学者的着作中。
另一个原因是自然哲学派的进化主义是如此的偏重理论或臆测，同时又是如此枯燥而无益，因而产生了激烈的反作用，使得一些最优秀的动物学家专注于纯粹的描述性研究，这在Leuckart，Ehrenbers，Muller，Tiedemann的着述中表现得最清楚。这种反作用是如此强烈，当魏斯曼在50年代还是一个大学生时，他所在的大学竟然从来没有提到过进化。19世纪20年代的进化热当时已被完全忘却。
对臆测的排斥由于另外的两点原因而得到加强。博物学家对自然研究得愈多愈深入，就越发感到完美的适应的普遍性。由于当时的机械论影响不允许采取目的论或超自然力的解释，于是便按照康德的《判断力批判》的例子采取不可知论的态度。另外，19世纪的30、40、50年代实验生物学，包括生理学，细胞学和胚胎学，得到空前发展，德国的许多着名科学家都投身于功能过程的研究。他们在研究中能够成功地运用物理科学所惯用的解释模式，而这种模式当运用于生物进化时就极不合适。进化主义的复苏不能来自实验室；它必须像在英国一样，由研究自然种群和物种的科学家发起。不幸的是，德国的一些优秀的年轻博物学家Kuhl和Boie在研究东印度的热带病时牺牲了，Illiger在青年时死于结核病。
尽管有魏斯曼的不利言论，进化主义在19世纪50年代的德国并没有完全销声愿迹。
Broon曾写过几篇有关进化主义的文章，虽然最后又放弃了这种研究（Schumacher，1975）。尼安德特人颅骨（早期智人化石）的共同发现者Hermann schaffhausen（1816－1893）曾明确指出，“大多数科学家认为是自然规律的物种不变性并没有被证实，因为物种并没有明确的和不可改变的特征，种和亚种之间的界限是摇曳不定的。世界上的一切生物看来是受繁殖和发育影响的连续系列的生物。”（Temkin，1959）他特别反对下面的论点；活着的动物不可能来自早期的动物，因为我们现在并没有发现物种的变化。
Schaaffhausen指出，因为这种变化“需要千百万年”，所以要直接观察到这种变化是完全不现实的。
在达尔文的许多先驱者之中，最值得提到的是维也纳的植物学家温格（FranzUnger，1800一1870）。在他的《植物界的历史》（Attempt of a History of thePlant world，1852）一书中，他专门拿出一章讨论进化，这一章的标题是“植物的起源；它们的繁殖与各种模式的由来。”他指出简单的淡水植物和海洋植物在复杂的植物之前存在：
正是在这含有菌藻植物，特别是藻类的海洋植物中应该去寻找一切植物相继发生的原胜。毫无疑问这种经验式的重建途径在理论上可以倒过来继续追索，一直到最后追寻到一种原始植物（Uroflanze），它实际上就是产生整个植物界的原始细胞。这种植物（或细胞）最终是怎样起源的对我们来说则更加是一个秘密。然而这一点可以肯定，即它必然是被指定为一切生命的原始，从而也是一切高级发展的原始样本。
他还继续谈到，乍看起来人们会认为物种是固定不变的，因为双亲永远只产生它们自己类型的后代。然而这就要求所有的新物种像那“原始植物”一样是通过某种自然发生的过程产生的。因为所有的证据都和这种可能性搁矛盾，“所以没有选择余地，只有去寻找植物世界本身中的全部多样性的根源，不仅是物种，而且还有尼和较高级的阶元、”他还非常透彻地补充谈到物种关系中的规矩太多以致不能认为新物种的起源完全是由于外部影响。“这清楚地表明植物的多样性的原因不可能是外界的，而只能是内部。
的…简单一句话，每一个新产生的植物物种……必然来自另一个物种。”一旦接受了这一点，整个植物界就成为一个单一的生物单位。“届时低等的和高级的阶元都不再被看作是偶然的集群、一种任意的思维结构，而是彼此由遗传方式联系起来的，从而形成了一个真正固有的实质性单位。”后来他还提出了一些别的进化问题，譬如一个物种作为整体经历了变态作用是不是能成为新的物种？只有一个个体或少数个体的变化能不能成为新种的祖种？他确实非常重视产生新种的变异根源。孟德尔是温格的学生，孟德尔曾经讲过，正是由于温格对引起新物种产生的变异的性质与根源的关注促使他从事于遗传学实验研究。
自从拉马克的《动物哲学》于1809年出版以后，没有谁在讨论物种、动物区系、分布、化石、灭绝以及多样性的其它方面时能够继续忽视进化的可能性。这并不是忽视，正如屡次提到拉马克或提到“发展”时所证明的。这是因为已经觉察到进化主义的“威胁”；为了对付这种威胁，莱伊尔在他的《地质学原理》一书中花了很多章来驳斥。事实上从1809年到1859年这一段时间对思想史家来说具有极大的想力。在这段时间里有一个合理的学说，一个动态的进化中的世界的学说；在这期间支持这个异端新学说的证据日益增多；也正是在这段时间里有越来越多的学者还吞吞吐吐地谈起进化演变的可能性。
鉴于这类情况，科学史家那夫乔（Arthur Lovejoy）提出了这样一个令人寻味的问题：
“在哪一天才能够说支持生物进化论的证据完全够了？”这问题的答案当然要根据抵抗力的大小而定。可以从早期居维叶发现（1812）巴黎盆地的哺乳类化石随着地质年代的增加其分类学上的差异也愈明显的事实开始作为对进化的不能反驳的证据，当然这要把神创论者除外。那夫乔和迈尔也都指出，19世纪30年代和40年代还有很多其它证据也能导致相同的结论。这些包括否定了物种不变的地理性变异（例如，Gloger，1833），这后来成为达尔文的主要证据。每一件新发现的生物地理事实也论证了这一点。某些类型动物的长期继续存在的事实，例如腕足类动物Lingula以及某些软体动物经历了许多地质时期（可以远溯到志留纪），就驳倒了普遍灾变的论点。后来发现并不是所有的种间杂种都是不育的这一事实也有助于否定物种完全隔离的观点。正如钱伯斯正确指出的，退化器官的存在是和神创论者的完善设计解释相抵触的。由比较解剖学者所发现的“模式一致”（“Unity of type”），哺乳动物中耳骨的同源现象（Reichert，1837）以及脊椎动物的其它同源现象，陆地脊椎动物的胚胎具有鳃弓以及其它比较胚胎学的发现，这些都是达尔文于1859年令人信服的加以运用然而是早先发现的许多其它证据都支持进化学说。中至少有二十个地方提到这些证据，达尔文所提出的论点也与之完全相符。达尔文曾经讲到，只有当我们采纳进化学说时这些证据才有意义，如果采用神创论者的解释，则这些证据就会表明有一个非常善变的造物主存在。
正如我们在前面见到的，有不少学者实际上是在达尔文之前就作出了这一结论。然而动物学、植物学和地质学中的一些权威学者却继续反对进化学说。由于英国的莱伊尔，Bentham，胡克尔，塞吉威克和Wollaston以及他们在法国及德国的同道都是具有高度智慧和学识渊博的科学家，因而不能将他们的对抗读之于愚笨和无知。生物地理学、系统学、地层学和比较解剖学方面日益增多的进化证据并没有像那夫乔所想的那样，“把他们自己的假说贬低为可笑的荒谬”，而只是由他们作出了某种妥协：或者是用一个稳定的、新近创造的世界；或者是用一个稳态的循环式世界，或者是用一系列灾变来谋求妥协。这一类的态度只能用下面的假定来解释（一切证据也都支持这种假定），即进化学说的反对者发现用他们的根深蒂固的概念框架来和新的事实取得妥协比采纳进化新概念要容易得多。新观念的胜利所需要的是一种赢得一切的激变。这就是查尔斯·达尔文于1859年11月24日出版的。