Chapter 10 Chapter 5 Geology and Natural History from 1800 to 1859-2

Because the lower animals are not immature types of humans, it is impossible for human embryos to repeat the history of life on earth.Von Baer did realize that his system had shaken the hierarchical view of nature upon which all forms of progressive thought rested.Progressives have suggested that there is a clear hierarchy that runs through all types and species down to humans.Cuvier's taxonomy does contain this so-called view of continuity, which is confirmed by the law of parallelism, since no one can deny that the last stages of human embryonic development are "higher" than the first.This is when von Baer shows that such efforts to uphold an anthropocentric view of the hierarchy are misleading.By measuring the degree of similarity between humans and different organisms, it is impossible to determine the hierarchy of organization.Humans are just one of many embryonic specializations, different from the others, but not necessarily superior.Von Baer still believed in the existence of a purpose in the complex picture of natural types, and for this reason he could not accept Darwin's theory of natural selection.Still, one might argue that von Baer's system played an important role in providing a worldview for the possible emergence of modern evolution.By fundamentally destroying the linear notion of vast chains of existence, von Baer complemented Cuvier's work and laid the groundwork for later theories of divergent evolution.

Does von Baer's concept of clade development provide a better model for understanding the history of life in the fossil record? W. B. Carpenter (Carpenter, 1851) first proposed some ideas according to this idea, and Richard Owen made further explorations along this line of thought (Ospovat, 1976, 1981).Among British naturalists, Owen was the most influenced by idealism.But his attempt to unify the animal kingdom broke with the old linear model and he proposed a system of plasticity that did not contradict von Baer's concept of development.In Owen's view, it is possible to justify nature's plan not by comparing other animals with humans, but by exploring the unity behind the diversity of life types.He deals with the "archetypes" or basic plans upon which all life forms, at least all vertebrates, can be modeled.Archetype is the idealized view of the simplest type of life structure. The concept of archetype enables anatomists to strip away all the specialized organs that real organisms have to look at organisms.At the height of German Romanticism, Goethe explored plant archetypes and speculated on the possibility of natural development (Wells, 1967).In France, Geoffroy Saint-Tyraire opposed Cuvier's practical taxonomy, and Geoffroy proposed that the similarity between organisms has a priori meaning (Saint Hilaire, 1818-22; Isidore Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1847; Cahn, 1962; Bourdier, 1969; Appel, 1987).Now Owen defended the same line of research in the light of his own anatomical practice.

Figure 16. Parallel Law and Von Baer's Law According to the law of parallelism (left panel), the stages of embryonic growth correspond to the assumed linear sequence of structures from the animal class up to man.These lines represent the growth of different embryos along the parallel development of the same class, though the corresponding lower animal class ends at an early stage in the process.In von Baer's law of development (right panel), there is no linear sequence.All invertebrate embryos start from the same point, but diverge different growth paths precisely because of differentiation in different classes.Within orders, genera, and species, there is a corresponding further cladification.Man is not the pinnacle of animal development, and fish and reptiles are not just immature stages of human development.To define one class as "higher" than another simply means that its embryonic developmental stage is further beyond the simpler stages of development, as shown here by the longer mammalian line drawn. 

In "The Archetype and Homology of the Vertebrate Skeleton" (Owen, 1848), Owen describes his idealization of the simplest vertebrate type, in which he proposes an imaginary creature with an essential type essence, without any biological Variations in specificity.In this way he tried to emphasize the essence of the principle of transcendental unity between types, which exists in the deepest depths of objective reality, not in the appearance of the material world.Such a result, however, is not a frivolous extension of idealism, since this line of thought helped Owen to form the important notion of cognates.He recognizes the need to carefully distinguish between what he calls "same merit" and "same origin."Same function is when different structures happen to have similar functions in different animals.Such superficial similarities do not make sense for classification, since they are not due to structural identity.Conversely, homology means that different organisms have different uses for the same structure.Thus in the wing of a bat and the flipper of a whale there is an almost identical counterpart to the skeleton of a man's hand.Despite their different functions, human hands, bat wings, and whale flippers are genuinely related, suggesting that all three animals belong to the same class, the class Mammalia.

In Owen's view, many different types can be connected through homology, and the whole type is connected through archetypes, thus revealing the inner unity of the creative plan.In The Nature of Limbs (Owen, 1849), he combined idealism with the English natural theological tradition to present a new, more refined view of the design argument.Paley's followers studied each type separately in order to discover the adaptation of structure to function as evidence of God's benevolence.By this time, Owen pointed out that, although there are great differences in the structure of adaptation, in vertebrates, these structures are built on the same structural plan.He insists that this fundamental unity cannot have come into being by chance: it must show that the Creator is rational, and that he seeks to demonstrate to us that what he has created is a logical picture (Bowler, 1977a).

Owen's understanding of homology allowed him to accept the concept of branching development and oppose the idea of ​​linear development.Cognates are different manifestations of the same basic plan, and thus do not necessarily invoke a linear, down-to-human hierarchy.Why is there a distinction between high and low in whales and bats, if only because the one is adapted to life in the water and the other to life in the air?Owen could then recognize the implications of von Baer's view of embryonic development as a process of specialization along different directions.As a paleontologist, he naturally imagined that the same principles could be used to explore trends in the fossil record.Perhaps the most important process experienced by the history of life is not the linear ascent through the various classes of animals, but the branching process of the types within each class since its inception in search of different adaptation possibilities (Bowler, 1976a; Ospovat, 1976, 1981 ; Desmond, 1982).

Owen had by this time recognized the extent of specialization, which was overlooked by Paley's followers, who struggled to show that every species equally exemplifies God's perfect creation.Some members of a class of animals are highly specialized and adapted to a narrow way of life, while other members are less specialized in structure and adapted to a broader way of life.Owen's extensive fossil experience enabled him to find that early members of any animal class in the fossil record often had less specialized structures.There is no linear sequence towards "higher" membership in the history of the animal class, but rather a radiating landscape leading to different developmental paths, each leading to increasing specialization (Owen, 1851, 1860).The history of the class Zoona offers a similar picture to our description of the embryonic development of modern members of the class on the basis of the von Baer system.The development of the animal class does not require a single goal, but only requires progressive "specialization", which is different from the old anthropocentric transcendentalism.

In 1860, Owen had to admit that his work on specialization supported Darwin's recently published theory of natural selection, according to which the same picture could be expected in the fossil record, based on the drive for adaptation.Owen, however, did not accept the theory of natural selection, and he wrote so harshly critical reviews that historians regard him as a prominent opponent of evolution.The true status of Owen's views remains a matter of debate.Clearly, his early commitment was to attack transformational views because those views were clearly materialistic (Desmond, 1985).By the 1850s, he began to realize that the unfolding of God's plan may have gone through a natural process involving transformation (MacLeod, 1965; E. Richards, 1987; for a contrary view, see Brooke, 1977).As early as 1849, in his book "On the Nature of Limbs", he mentioned that the emergence of new life types is due to "immediate causes" or "laws".This means that he has abandoned the idea of ​​a miraculous creation, and sees God as the embodiment of some force and cause in nature.The trend of life history represents the display of God's natural plan, so the "laws of creation" may contain the wisdom and foresight of the Creator.The creative, directional forces that exist in nature cannot be explained by random variation and selection, so Darwin's theory does not make sense at all.Despite the superficial similarities between Owen and Darwin in their views of the fossil record, Owen's "reason" was that the idealistic conception of active forces in nature was fundamentally different from Darwin's naturalistic, empirically based selection mechanisms.

principle of uniformity All the theories we have discussed are based on the basic premise that organisms develop over time.Regardless of whether the development was caused by the innate progress of the Special Creation Project, or simply the result of changes in the physical environment in the corresponding earth's history, through the sequential introduction of vertebrate classes, the development process still clearly shows a certain direction.It was this challenge to the once-popular notion of directionality that sparked lively debate in geology in the 1830s.In order to adhere to the "uniformist" approach based on gradual change, Ryle found it necessary to restore the steady-state worldview proposed earlier by Hutton.Ryle's emphasis on gradual changes, which he believed to be based on observed reasons, and his attack on the idea of ​​drastic changes, is credited with establishing the cornerstone of modern geology.The most active modern advocates of this view (Wilson, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1980) point out that some recent historians have gone too far in their efforts to "rehabilitate" catastrophism.Ryle's use of causes that were as observable as possible was clearly a great step forward, since all too often catastrophists tend to cite past miracles as causes instead of trying to find natural explanations.However, modern geologists cannot believe and accept the steady state view.Ryle's methods also had a great influence on Darwin, but the modern theory of evolution still includes the concept of development proposed by Ryle's opponents.The principle of uniformity was undoubtedly a major development in nineteenth-century science, but some modern literature on Ryle suggests that we must be cautious in assessing his influence (Hooykaas, 1957, 1959, 1966; Cannon, 1960a, 1961b; Rudwick, 1970 , 1971; Fox, ed., 1976).

Ryle was born into a wealthy Scottish family and initially studied law.In the 1820s he became interested in geology and opposed Buckland's extreme flood theory.By the end of the 1920s, his experience had led him to form a complete theory of uniformity.George Paulette Scrope's writings on volcanoes (Scrope, 1827; Rudwick, 1974a) were of great influence at the time.Schropp is not a uniformist, since he accepts the cooling of the Earth, but he takes a "realist" standpoint in his refutation of the Floodists.Realism claims that we can explain Earth's past history in terms of causes we can observe from the Earth's present state.According to an extreme version of this view, the cause of the observed present intensity is sufficient, and this is the basic method of uniformism.Schropp found that some (now dead) volcanoes in central France had, over long periods of time, erupted sporadically, like some volcanoes do today.What's more, the flow of volcanic lava has left evidence that the valleys below the mountains were eroded gradually—rather than suddenly, as the Floodists claim, by gigantic waves.Of course this kind of volcanic erosion takes a lot of time, and that's what Ryle learned from Schropp: Everyday causes can have a huge impact if they work over time.

To test this hypothesis, Ryle traveled to Sicily to study Mount Etna.There he found evidence that large volcanic cones had gradually formed over a long period of small-scale erosion that had not been recorded in historical time.The structure of the whole cone must be very old; the sedimentary rocks on which Mount Etna rests are relatively recent by geological standards, since they contain fossilized molluscs nearly identical to those that now inhabit the Mediterranean.Elsewhere on the island, the same base has been raised into hills.Having determined the age of the volcano, Ryle concluded that the raised hills had disappeared due to ordinary earthquakes, rather than due to a single, violent orogeny.And if these were only recent sedimentary rocks, the entire geological record must have spanned a much longer time than one would imagine.If this step can be conceived, then a plausible explanation can be given for cataclysmic events which have been used as the cause of large-scale geological changes.Convinced that this point of view holds water, Lyell went to England and began writing his classic book "Principles of Geology" (Lyell, 1830-33). Ryle deliberately reformed the scientific methodology of geology (Laudan, 1982). Principles of Geology is full of detailed arguments showing that hypotheses based on observable causes explain phenomena better than those based on catastrophic changes.In the introduction to this book, Ryle stated his real purpose in exploring geological history.Here he asserts that his method of study is the necessary aim of scientific geology, and thus the only truly scientific way of studying the earth.Geology has been stagnant by not making conjectures based on causes that are observable today, and Ryle sees cataclysm as the culprit that still exists to invoke supernatural events in explaining Earth's past.This is very unfair because, in fact, cataclysmists propose a very natural mechanism according to the theory of earth cooling.From their point of view, cataclysmic changeists would appreciate Ryle's excellent showing how earthquakes and erosion can be used to explain the characteristics of the Earth's surface today, but they would not accept that natural variation is artificially limited to the magnitude observed in the relatively short history of humankind Inside.All admit that the principle of uniformity of natural law is a means of weeding out supernatural ideas, but Ryle mistakenly thinks that the same principle can be used to explain the complex action which determines the surface of the earth.Geological drivers are not the same as physical laws.Because the geological driver is also controlled by the specific structure of the earth in a certain period.The laws of nature do not change, but the forces governed by these laws may cause different changes in the Earth's structure and will cause changes in the level of Earth's activity, as suggested by the Earth Cooling Hypothesis. If we fully grasp the meaning of Ryle's methodology, we will know the crux of the controversy between uniformism and catastrophe.What was once thought to be the only truly scientific approach to geology required a steady-state worldview that was diametrically opposed to cataclysmic directionalism.If such a method of extreme realism were available, we would have to propose that no rock in any part of the Earth's crust would be located in the same substratum as the environmental conditions of today.The only way Ryle can defend this view is to come up with a steady-state picture that covers all the time geologists have access to.Even the oldest rocks that can be studied must have formed under the same conditions as today's environment.Purely for practical purposes, this view implies that no appreciable change in the Earth is possible.The earth must be regarded as a self-regulating system that can remain absolutely unchanged at all times, so that our research can be meaningful. Ryle revived Hutton's homeostatic system by proposing that the Earth maintains a dynamic equilibrium with a perfect balance of creative and destructive forces.The erosion of the land surface due to wind, rain and water flow has formed sediments. When these sediments solidify on the bottom of lakes or oceans, new strata are formed.Earthquakes were an additional force that raised mountains and new dry land to replace those that had been lowered by erosion, thus maintaining a perfect balance through the passage of time.In Ryle's view, a Unitarian rather than an orthodox Christian, this ahistorical view of the world was a better proof of the power and benevolence of the Creator than a directional view.By removing the idea of ​​beginnings identified in the biblical creation story, it is then possible to imagine the Creator as a perfect craftsman who would devise a self-sustaining system that would always serve as a habitat for living creatures. The theory of steady state does not mean that the earth is exactly the same in any period of the earth's history, but that any change has the characteristics of a cycle, that is, the change is only a fluctuation around the middle value.Ryle is ready to accept the paleobotanical evidence of Adolphe Blonniard that the whole earth was tropical during the Carboniferous period; The molten state cools down.The type of change that uniformists refer to is one that can easily produce climate fluctuations because geological forces can change the relative positions of land and sea but not their actual ratios (Ospovat, 1977; Lawrence, 1978).If at any one time the whole continents happened to be concentrated about the equator, the whole climate of the world would be much hotter than if the continents were distributed evenly between the poles and the equator.Constant changes in the position of the land will cause climate change, but this change will not accumulate in a certain direction. Historians have always debated what Ryle's basic view was: a realist methodology or a steady-state cosmology.Method, of course, played an important part in his writings, and there is no doubt that Ryle felt a real need to revolutionize geology by more firmly employing observable causes.If this is considered to be his overriding intention, then it would be argued that he did not adhere to a steady-state worldview, that he merely adopted it as the only way to ground his methodology.His steady-state worldview does not hold that the origin of life could have occurred on Earth under conditions different from today's, only that guessing at the Earth's early conditions would be fruitless and therefore should not be considered by serious scientists .It must be emphasized, however, that there are parts of Ryle's system that seem to insist more on a steady-state cosmology, which also contains a genuinely ahistorical view of nature. Ryle imagined that heat from the center of the Earth caused new mountains and dry land to rise.However, he seems to have completely forgotten the logic of the Earth cooling theory: a hot Earth must radiate heat energy into space, so the Earth cools down.If the Earth is hot now, it must have been hotter in the past, unless you can assume that there is an energy source that can replenish the heat in the Earth's interior, balancing the cooling trend.This energy source should work permanently, but of course Ryle couldn't think of a mechanism for the constant motion of the earth.Therefore, his system can be attacked according to the laws of cooling and the principles of thermodynamics.Criticism of his system from this point of view was belated, because in the 1830s the science of thermodynamics was still in its infancy.By the 1860s, physicists had made great progress in this area, and in 1868 Lord Kelvin launched an attack on steady-state systems that was somewhat belated but effective (Burchfield, 1975).Kelvin pointed out that there is no known mechanism that can ensure the continuous supply of new energy for the earth, and the planet must cool down.He tried to estimate how long it would have taken the Earth to reach its current state from its initial molten state.Ryle made little effort to use his system to provide a firm basis for geological time spans, but according to Kelvin's estimates, the Earth's history was not short enough to produce the results we see today through gradual changes that would shake uniformity. On the methodology itself. Some prominent catastrophists had been opposed to Ryle's uniformity, and their position was now supported.In the late 19th century, when most geologists recognized the logic of Kelvin's argument, they once again compressed Earth's history into a short time frame.Indeed, the logic of Kelvin's argument is tenable, thus proving the dogma of Ryle's steady-state hypothesis.Scientists today do not admit that the earth will remain in the same state as it is today indefinitely.Kelvin's conclusions were merely factually wrong: he vastly underestimated the age of the Earth because he failed to recognize a factor that would ensure a genuinely long-term supply of new energy sources.In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the radioactivity of some factors is able to keep the Earth's center warm and keep the Earth stable for billions of years.Since then, geologists have once again felt free to imagine slow processes at work over long periods of time. Ryle's theory of uniformity was finally resurrected and became the paradigm in modern geology. Compared with the views of geologists in the 19th century, the understanding of the earth in the 20th century has undergone revolutionary changes (Hallam, 1973.1983; Wood, 1985).Old theories recognized only the vertical movement of the Earth's crust, but modern geologists have confirmed that the Earth underwent enormous horizontal movements.The theory of plate tectonics confirmed Wegener's continental drift conjecture, which geologists considered ridiculous until at least the late 1930s.It is believed that such large-scale crustal movements are of course very slow.In this sense, the theory of uniformity is also maintained. Of course, this theory of uniformity is very different from the original theory of uniformity proposed by Ryle in terms of content.Modern theories limit the extent to which patterns of steady-state change can account for the past.We now believe that the continents and indeed the Earth had stages of origin, and that the environmental conditions at that time were very different from the recent geological environmental conditions.We can even estimate the origin of the Earth (4.5 billion years ago), a far past that Ryle would consider beyond the scope of scientific investigation. More importantly, it is necessary to study the application of Ryle's homeostasis view in the study of life history.For the Cataclysm, the progressive development of life into man is the clearest indication that the Earth has not always remained stable.They believed that this progress must represent an irreversible development of geophysical conditions.It was therefore necessary for Ryle to come up with an alternative interpretation of the fossil evidence that would be consistent with his claim that there is no such directional tendency.He attacked from two fronts.On the one hand, he pointed out that his theory of climate fluctuations can also explain the changes of animals and plants in different periods.The Carboniferous period may indeed have been a period of tropical climates, with the earth being covered with swamps, and under such environmental conditions, the creator may have decided that a fauna mainly composed of reptiles was more suitable than a fauna dominated by mammals.Thus the "Age of Reptiles" may have been the result of temporary fluctuations in environmental conditions rather than an integral part of the overall sequence of progress.Perhaps the age of reptiles will reappear in the future, when the earth's continents reproduce environmental conditions similar to those of the age of reptiles (Rudwick, 1975)! On the other hand, he questions the fossil evidence that supports the view of progress.Ryle points out that at least a handful of mammal fossils have been found in what was once the heartland of animal life, at least during the so-called Age of Reptilia.In the same oolitic bed where Megalosaurus was first discovered, primitive, opposumlike mammals were found.After a debate, the evidence was largely accepted, and it was clear that at least a few mammals existed during the reptilian age.Ryle could thus argue that, as his theory of climate change predicts, there is only a proportional change between the two animal classes, and there is no absolute progression from reptiles to mammals.If this is admitted, how can we be sure that there were not a few reptiles and mammals in the age of fish?The absence of the fossil record makes it impossible to confirm or refute this idea, as Ryle might suggest, where evidence is expected to be found in places that have not yet been explored.So he was the first to put forward the view that the fossil record cannot fully represent the history of life and that we cannot discover some important problems in history due to lack of evidence.Although Ryle exaggerates the extent of the fossil loss, the rationale he makes is crucial to explaining the lack of evidence for continuous change.Darwin developed Ryle's argument in a completely different way. According to Ryle's steady-state view of life history, all animal classes, whether higher or lower, at least a few, exist in every geological period.At first, some new evidence seemed to make this radical view.Mesozoic mammals have been unearthed continuously, and reptiles have also been found in early Paleozoic formations. In 1851, Ryle was able to defend his views in a lecture to the Geological Society of London, but other than the Mesozoic mammals, his other triumphant evidence has been shown to be due to misidentification. In 1863, Ryle had to admit that he was wrong, and he came to accept that progress was a factor that could make sense of the new theory of evolution that Darwin was propagating. One stage of progress that Ryle zealously acknowledged was the first appearance of man.His religious beliefs made it impossible for him to accept that our spiritual traits might just come from the cold, material world (Bartholomew, 1973).It is therefore necessary to regard the appearance of man as a uniquely characteristic event of modern times.Reluctant to reduce the emergence of humans to mere final stages of animal evolution, Ryle argued that we humans are not necessarily the highest form of life, physically, but that our superiority lies in our intellectual and moral faculties , not reflected in our body structure.By negating the idea of ​​progress in general, he can in turn reinforce the divide between humans and animals, because without real progress in earlier stages, it would be impossible to relate the eventual emergence of humans to earlier stages in the history of life. Ryle cares about this question because he denies the existence of catastrophe, and by extension the obvious defense of the direct creation of all new species.Cataclysms postulate that the proliferation of new species following mass extinctions can only be the result of supernatural action; but there is no cataclysm in Ryle's system, so extinction does not form part of the normal natural process.Species migrate as environmental conditions gradually change, or, if there are geographic barriers, slowly become extinct as species gradually become less and less able to adapt to the new environmental conditions.In a steady-state system, such extinctions can occur at any time. Where do new species come from to replace extinct ones?If extinction is a gradual process, then replacement species are required to be created from time to time.It has been argued that a homogeneity in geology desperately needs an evolutionary one in biology: if physical conditions change slowly, why can't at least some species be conceived of correspondingly changing?This is exactly the conclusion Darwin came to. Guided by this conclusion, Darwin searched for a mechanism based on natural causes to explain the process of biological change.But Ryle applied his realist approach along a different path.After careful examination, he rejected a theory of natural transitions known to him, Lamarck's.All the evidence from domesticated varieties of plants and animals shows that natural causes can produce only limited variations, even when artificially enhanced.Evolution cannot be observed in extant species, and large-scale evolution in the past should therefore not be assumed.As a result, Lyell explained the traditional notion that every species has a finely balanced structure that cannot be disturbed by major disturbances (Notes, Lyell, 1970; Coleman, 1962).To break through this barrier, Darwin had to suggest (and Ryle also held this view in geology) that natural processes are so slow that we cannot observe any appreciable changes in our lifetimes. Ryle himself borrows, in his ideas on the origin of new species, a very vague idea of ​​creation that was typical of the pre-Darwinian period.Of course, he introduced continuity into the creation process, suggesting that in the regular natural process, new species appeared gradually. In 1836, he declared in a letter to the astronomer Lord J. F. W. Herschel that he supported the existence of "intermediate causes" in the origin of new species (KM Lyell, 1981, I, p. 467).This means that there is a law-like process that is different from the direct interference of the First Cause, the Creator.Ryle, however, has held that natural causes cannot alter species, and, moreover, he is convinced that the adaptation of each species to its environment reflects the wisdom and benevolence of its Creator.In modern parlance, Ryle's views suggest that he is treading on two boats: the creation of new species is not a miraculous process, yet it occurs as a result of apparently specific design.Ryle has apparently implied that the Creator has injected his powers into nature, and though these will manifest themselves in a series of discrete events independent of the general laws of nature, nature will satisfy his desires even if he does not interfere directly. desire.A vague idea like the "law of creation" may seem meaningless today, but it was a must-have for many naturalists in the mid-nineteenth century who wished to explain the origin of species without miracles View. According to Ryle, the emergence of human beings was beyond the reach of special forces that created new species.But because the process of creating new species has been regarded as a regular and gradual natural process at this time, if it is combined with the idea of ​​​​progressive special creation projects, there will be potential dangers.Those who are unwilling to associate humans with animals may combine the idea of ​​continuity with progress, proposing a system in which humans are only the final stage of continuous progress rather than a completely separate creation.Ryle's position is safe in that he denies progress, and it is important that he do so in our present view, since it has become clear that the destination of the continuous creative process is not human beings.Cataclysms, by contrast, acknowledge progress but deny continuity in the series of creation.Because neither side can be accused of implying that humans are the highest animals, the issue can be discussed in a moderate manner without questioning Ryle's departure from orthodoxy.However, by the 1840s, Agassiz's idealistic view of progress began to spread the idea that human beings were the ultimate goal of progress.Agassiz himself insisted on the idea that the ascension of living beings is discontinuous, and he believed that independent creation occurred at any level.It takes only a short time before continuity combines with the progressive element, dispelling the idea that humans are unique, which is what Lyle fears. traces of creation This controversial synthesis of continuity and progress is by Robert Chambers, partner in a prominent Edinburgh publishing house.Chambers had a keen interest in science, and he felt that professional scientists were too absorbed in details to arrive at truly comprehensive theories.He attempted a vast synthesis which included the whole of geology, natural history, and the moral sciences.Ultimately, he found the key to this synthesis, which he believed to be the progression of everything in nature to a higher state, and in biology he considered this progression to be the transformation of beings. In 1844, Chambers published "Traces of the History of Natural Creation" anonymously, which contained his system.The book wasn't exactly a scientific treatise, but it sold well, and speculation abounded as to its authorship.In response to attacks from some, Chambers made major revisions to the book and wrote a sequel, Explained.The whole event brought to public attention the basic idea of ​​man as an evolutionary purpose, 15 years before Darwin's (Lovejoy, 1959c; Millhauser, 1959; Yeo, 1984). Although Chambers' book propagates basic evolutionary ideas, his conception of how the evolutionary process occurs is by no means a harbinger of Darwinism (Hodge, 1972).达尔文提供了一个基于自然原因的机制来解释物种如何适应变化的环境。钱伯斯试图根据包容一切的进步概念将整个自然哲学联系起来，而在生物学中他却退回到含糊的创造法则观点上。按照他的描绘，宇宙径直向着预定的目标发展，并且符合造物主确立的法则。他在书的开头，从星云假说的角度解释了地球的起源（Ogilvie，1975），籍此，他进入了主题：发展是自然法则的结果。事实上，在那些倡导发展的进化模型的19世纪思想家手里，星云假说是一个有力的工具（Numbers，1977）。然后，钱伯斯提出，地球的物理环境随着时间发生稳定的变化。他显然并不赞成赖尔的稳态宇宙论。然而，与剧变论者不同的是，他并没有将他的方向论转换成宣称地球经历过重大剧变的震荡。为了倡导逐渐进化的观点，他设想环境条件是逐渐变化的，并从赖尔那里采纳了连续变化（而不是不变）的思想。 ［钱伯斯认为］甚至最初生命的出现都是纯粹的自然过程。钱伯斯恢复了古老的自然发生思想，他还引用了一些早就没人相信的实验作证据，其中有一个实验，一些小昆虫看起来像是由于电的作用产生的。按照进步法则，必须存在一定的环境条件，在这种条件下，可以从非生物产生出生物。因为他的这种观点，同时代的多数人把他看作唯物论者，而且希望就势把他指控为宣称废黜造物主在自然中作用的无神论者。这种指控难以成立，虽然钱伯斯关于设计的论点的看法不太正统。钱伯斯认为，存在这从最简单的生物向着更高等的生物的进步，而通过对钱伯斯解释的研究发现，他把这个过程看成是神的计划逐渐展示的过程。 化石记录揭示出生命的逐渐进步。钱伯斯用他的书的第三章论述古生物学，他的描述带有一种倾向，使得生物的发展进可能地像是一个连续的过程。他提出，每一个纲中最先出现的是最低等的类型（即那些与更早出现的纲相关的类型），逐渐地产生出最高等的类型（即那些与即将出现的纲相关的类型）。最早的原始脊椎动物是鱼类，表皮含有甲壳，体内有一个由软骨而不是真骨构成的脊柱。这表明了鱼类与进化成鱼类的无脊椎动物之间的关联。爬行动物的的地质史不太清楚，因而不能很好地用这个图景来套，但是最早的哺乳动物则是中生代原始的有袋类（赖尔对此很感兴趣），而哺乳动物最终上升为最高等的类型：人类。通过设想在地质记录存在很多不完备之处，钱伯斯提出生命史表现出一种逐渐进步的趋势，其中每一种新类型经过小的变化由略低等的类型进化而来。 这种生命史的图景基于已知每一地质记录中的高等类型呈现出一个序列，而且是一个通向人类的线性图景。这很像阿加西的唯心主义系统，不同的是，钱伯斯认为，整个过程是一个明显的渐变过程。生命沿着一定的方向发展，直至预定的目标，当然，钱伯斯猜想，除了通向人类之外，还通向比人更高的类型。在论述W·S·麦克利分类的“循环”系统的整个章节中，也体现了钱伯斯思想中的唯心主义成份，麦克利的系统试图表明，自然界几乎是按照数学规则建立的。钱伯斯将适应问题搁置起来，详细解释了将所有生命类型连接成一个揭示出随着时间创世的理性计划的统一原理。 钱伯斯首先关注的是向着更高类型的上升，因而留下了大量未决的问题。为什么现在仍然生活着这么多形式各异的高等和低等的生物？达尔文解决这个问题的方法是将进化描绘成一个分支的过程，不存在一个中心的进步主干；但是钱伯斯却沉湎于线性进步，他在书的第一版中甚至没有涉及到多样性问题。在后来的几版中，他承认一定存在着一些不同的发展路线，但是他却没有将这种发展路线描绘成分支歧化的过程，他设想这些路线是以不同的速度，沿着同样的阶层等级平行发展的。于是他设想出一些奇怪的进化联系，尤其是他这时已经坚持认为动物纲中的每一条发展路线开始时一定是“低等”的水生类型。例如，据认为狗来源于海豹，这种看法对于现代进化论者来说是不可想象的。 钱伯斯像阿加西一样，将自己的生命史观点建立在与平行律描述的胚胎发育类比的基础上。他相信人的胚胎在达到哺乳动物阶段以及最终成为人之前，相继经历了鱼类和爬行动物的阶段。他认为可以在化石记录中看到定向进步过程的影像。然而与阿加西不同的是，钱伯斯认为，两个发展领域之间不止是符号的联系，而且具有实质性的关联。生命的历史像胚胎的生长一样，是一个连续的进步过程，实际上，生命的历史是经过胚胎生长过程的扩展，展示出进步的。具有特定层次组织的物种都有自然的妊娠期，在这期间，胚胎沿着发育的等级发展到某一合适点。如果有什么东西可以在延长胚胎的生长过程，胚胎就会略进一步的发展，那么出生时就会像另一个更高物种中的成员。因此进化的过程含有一系列妊娠期的略微延长，每一次延长都使生命沿着复杂性的等级更进了一步。这样就解释了为什么在胚胎生长过程和整个生命史中都存在阶层体现的图景。 在钱伯斯看来，转变是可以导致新物种突然出现的一些显著事件。物种的变化并不是由于微小变异的逐渐积累所致。事实上，尽管有这样的变异存在，物种的遗传不变，直至胚胎的生长延长到使得新一代的成员成为另一种高等类型。钱伯斯暗示，外界条件可能会催化这些突然的突变，然而，这些变化显然并非是对新的环境条件的适应性回应。关键的问题是：在不断延长的妊娠期中，是什么指导着胚胎的生长？没有人提出自然的指导力量是什么，从而使得我们设想变化也许是预定的。在这个宇宙中或许只有一种组织的阶层体现，因此进化的每一步一定揭示出计划中一个以上的时期。因为对于为什么存在这种线性图景，没有人拿的出自然的解释，因此我们可以将钱伯斯的理论视为是对设计论点的一种贡献。从一开始造物主就制定好了规则的自然发展计划。钱伯斯与阿加西的主要分歧在于坚持认为没有必要将计划的展示看成一系列奇迹的过程一个理性的上帝的确不会介入创世的所有琐细事物——这里应该有一只昆虫，那里应该有一个蠕虫，等等。假使我们承认他确立了影响自然的手段，而不是通过不断地监督管理，来满足他的意愿，那么我们对于他的图景不会更加赞赏吗？ 图17.钱伯斯的线性发展系统 按照达尔文的体系，所有的哺乳动物，无论是现存的还是灭绝的，都来自一种（或顶多少数几种）爬行动物祖先。相反，按照钱伯斯的体系，哺乳动物之间没有直接的关系，哺乳动物中包括了一系列分别的线系，而且这些线系在发展程度上处于几乎一样的构造水平上。这种思想与拉马克的进步概念比较相似，只不过钱伯斯并不清楚为什么有些线系的发展落后于其他线系。钱伯斯并不承认根据不同的适应趋向便可以解释生命习性的多样性。相反，他固守自己的基本等级观点，简单地认为水生哺乳动物类型更原始，是发展阶梯上先出现的类型。而没有解释水生哺乳动物怎么来自于爬行动物的。 如果进化真是设计好了的过程，那么上帝在宇宙中所确立的指导力量的性质是什么？钱伯斯有时暗示，可以认为这种力量控制着日常的自然过程，例如，他引用过一个流行的迷信，假如将燕麦种在地里并使其过冬，来年就可以生长出裸麦。但是他对这个问题的详细讨论意味着这种建设性力量是不可观察的。在转变过程中，有更高级的力量介入，并且产生出在一般观察基础上无法预见的变化。因为这种变化遵循了造物主的意愿，于是人们便会将“机制”仅仅当作一系列不明显的奇迹。然而，钱伯斯却提出，应当将这类时间的建立当作在自然界建立的“更高级”法则的显示，而且，这种法则能够随时干涉我们日常所观察到的法则。 在查尔斯·巴贝奇非正式的《布里吉沃特论集九》（Babbage，1838）中，有对这个问题的权威论述，钱伯斯详细引述了巴贝奇的看法。巴贝奇早就提出，表象上的奇迹事实上可能是一些更高法则的产物，而不是纯粹的超自然作用。巴贝奇发明过现代计算机的前身——“计算机器”，并且提到他可以设定这种机器，使它的运行根据预定计划变化。上帝可能确实在宇宙中建立了这种预定图景，从而使得日常的自然法则不断地以某种方式发生改变，这样在观察因果关系的人看来像是奇迹出现，钱伯斯提到的一系列转变很适合这样的解释；通过个体的作用使之彼此适应，从而产生出一个合理的图景。钱伯斯采纳了巴贝奇的观点，转而将上帝视为伟大的程序员，他在宇宙中建立了进步的法则，通过一系列诸如生殖等日常法则的变化，便能显示出进步。科学家无法分析这种变化的原因。他只能看到整个图景，并将其称之为“进步的法则”，但是科学家无法理解程序已定的机制本身。 既然《自然创造史的痕迹》只不过提出了一种猜想，认为造物主是通过一些神奇的发展法则而不是通过奇迹起作用，那么这种观点应该被当时的一些刻板的思想家所接受。但是钱伯斯拒绝隐瞒这种猜想的进一步含义，从而遭到多数同代人的憎恨。因为，既然创世的法则是进步的，那么人类就应该是进步过程中的最后一个阶段，是动物界中最高等的产物。钱伯斯明目张胆地提出，人类的特征并不是来源于他的精神特性，所以人与动物是有联系的，人类来源于进化过程中正在发展的特性的扩展。人类并不位于自然法则之上，因为他也是受法则控制的宇宙产物和成员。他之所以有出众的智力，是脑量增加的结果，是动物组织普通进步的必然结果。为了提出脑是思维的器官，钱伯斯利用了“骨相学”的思想，骨相学在19世纪早期很流行（Young，1970a，Cooter，1985）。像乔治·库姆这样的骨相学家就曾提出，脑决定了思维，而且有可能研究出脑的哪个部分决定了哪中心智特征。到了世纪年代，骨相学的系统已经退化成一种猜谜游戏，一个人的特征是根据他的颅骨的表面凸起来描述的，这种方法根据错误的假设，即认为凸起表示相应部分的脑发育良好。尽管如此，钱伯斯还是利用骨相学的基本概念证明他的人与动物相关的唯物主义含义。 《自然创造史的痕迹》一书销路很好，向很多人传播了作者的异端学说，但是科学界和宗教界却对这部书普遍持有异议。许多杂志上都发表了评论，贬斥这部书中粗糙的唯物主义，试图在这部书动摇宗教和社会规则的基础之前，就扼杀它。塞治威克在《爱丁堡评论》（Sedgwick，1845）上发表了一篇长达85页的批评文章，宣称需要保护“我们娴淑的少女和主妇”，使她们免受这种邪恶思想的毒害。已经在其《旧红砂岩》一书中向“发展假说”发出过挑战的修·米勒，在《创造的足迹》（Miller，新版，1861）中，否定了这一新近出现的异端观点。人类的地位显然是真正的障碍。甚至米勒也宣称，他可能会接受上帝通过法则而不是奇迹起作用的观点，前提是这种观点并非一定导致将人与动物联系起来。人类一定是独特的造物，任何旨在颠覆人类特殊地位的理论自然是真正宗教的敌人。 《自然创造史的痕迹》的第一版很容易受到攻讦，因为书中存在明显的科学错误，而且过于简单，但是对于进化论的历史来说，反对这部书的科学论点所依据的严肃观点却有着重要的意义。钱伯斯为了创立他的连续发展图景，极大地歪曲了19世纪40年代所知的化石记录。反对他人指出，表现出的生命进步是不连续的，给人的印象是新的动物纲是在某一特定时刻突然出现的。并不存在新纲中最初成员从略低等纲进化所经历的中间阶段的迹象。组织层次之所以发生这样的突然跳跃，至少有一些特殊的创造力在起作用。史学家有时将这种观点视为宗教狂妄的产物，好象一旦生命史的基本脉络清楚了，每个人都显然应该知道整个进步中间的空缺是由于地质记录不完备。但是，这样看待当时的情况是过于简单化了（Bowler ，1976a）。今天化石记录中也存在着很多空缺，现代的特创论者当然因此而欣喜，但是这种化石记录的不连续在19世纪40年代并不显得突出，而反对《自然创造史的痕迹》的人只需描述一下他们所知的化石记录不完备这个事实，以便谈论他们关心的问题。达尔文仔细注意了塞治威克的攻击，因为他的攻击指出了转变论据中的弱点（Egerton，1970b）。后来成为达尔文主要支持者的T·H·赫胥黎针对《自然创造史的痕迹》后来的一个版本写了一篇批评性的评论（Huxley，1854），他反对了模糊的“创造法则”的观点，但是也指出了化石记录中存在的困难。化石记录确实不连续，这并不是自然神学家想象的产物。 到了19世纪50年代，随着新的化石的发现，情况有了明显的改观。部分是由于化石证据的结果，虽然还没有人公开提出转变的观点，但是创世可能是连续过程的观点得到了普及。我们已经提到，到了1849年，理查德·欧文写下了发展法则连续起作用的观点。牛津大学的几何学教授、著名的科学与宗教评论家巴登·鲍威尔嘲笑了奇妙特创的思想，并且倡导按照法则的发展观点是对造物主力量的最好说明（Powell，1855）。连续发展有可能成立的观点，作为反对唯心主义哲学、要求更现实地理解自然，在德国也站住了脚（Lovejoy，1959d ；Temkin，1959）。然而人们仍然不接受人类也是进化的，但是这时公众已经广泛地知道了发展受类似法则的东西控制，而且科学界也越来越接受这种观点。 然而，这时在生命史中已经认出了这种发展的一个重要的变化。钱伯斯根据平行律，基于过时的线性发展模式，率先提出了转变的思想，但是古生物学家开始发现，新的发现并不符合线性模式。可能要去发现其他新的法则才能描述这时在化石记录中所观察到的复杂趋势。我们已经论述过，欧文采纳了冯·贝尔的特化概念作为生命史的模型。在德国，著名古生物学家H·G·布劳恩也提出过类似的解释（Bronn，1858；英文节译本，1859）。根据这种新的思路，生命的发展是一个分支化的过程，每条线系都经过了特化，以适应环境。因此没有哪个现代类型可以被当作整个过程的目的，看不出特创计划是一个和谐的图景。 人们也许会轻易地将这些发展看成是为达尔文主义铺垫了道路。从某一点上说，他们的所为确实起到了这个作用，但是我们务必不要认为达尔文主义“唾手可得”，会在19世纪50年代的普通科学活动中露出头脚。这时还没有哪个著名的人物愿意承认逐渐发展的可能性，更不用说是经过某种形式的转变，转变的思想超越了过去的系列特创的思想。许多学识渊博的博物学家已经认识到，发展的图景是复杂和分支状的，而且没有固定的目的。而多数人则持有着共同的信念，认为特创法则揭示出造物主的目的。特创法则的模糊观点非常适合人们持续接受的来自设计的论点，没有人担心特创法则的观点未能详细说明生命是如何进化的。这正是达尔文所攻击的态度。他开辟了一个全新的方向，试图利用日常自然法则的盲目作用来解释适应过程。自然选择机制抛弃了宇宙发展的最终产物是某种拟人化力量控制的结果的观点。这就是为什么他的著作的出版在科学界和一般公众当中引起轰动的原因。这部书提出了一种全新水平的唯物主义，动摇了自然神学的大厦，这座大厦曾经受过敲击，但是从未受过严重的轰击。 现在我们转而研究达尔文对这个问题的不同以往的新的研究途径。但是在这样做时，我们应该自问，是否我们这种安排人为地强调达尔文自然选择的发现所起的作用（Bowler，1988）。许多情况下，人们是从钱伯斯已经普及了的发展世界观的角度来解释的。无论这种发展模型是线性的还是分支状的，许多博物学家仍然认为，具有目的性的个体生物的发展，对于理解地球上生物的历史提供了一个很好的类比。正如我们在讨论后达尔文时期争论时将要看到的那样（第七—九章），即使在达尔文使科学界转而接受转变论后很长一段时期内，这种思想依然存在。因此有可能认为，达尔文理论的出版激发了而不是纠正了非达尔文主义的发展思想。他的激进的见解预先提出了现代进化论者所使用的一些概念，但是在他那个时代，他的这些见解被普遍偏爱目的论发展模型的人所淹没。 促使许多科学家相信进化论，因为该书打破了防碍发展观进一步细化的障碍所造成的僵局。在达尔文之前努力建立的逐渐发展理论或受法则控制的发展理论都逃避了一个物种怎么能够突然地转变成另一个物种这一关键的问题。保守的思想家支持“依照法则的特创”这种模糊不清的思想，而像赫胥黎这样的激进人士则认为根据能够接受的自然转变理论——拉马克的获得性遗传的理论，看不出未来的迹象。哲学家赫伯特·斯宾塞在19世纪50年代开始倡导拉马克主义，以支持他的社会进化论，但是重要的是，他并不能使生物学家对社会进化论感兴趣。如果要使科学家在自然发展的哲学上取得共识，就需要创造一些新的思想。达尔文的理论就是这种新创造的思想，从而使得赫胥黎等激进分子也承认自然进化完全是可能的——即使他们并不能完全真正接受达尔文整个的唯物主义观点。 因此有可能将“达尔文主义革命”重新解释成主要是在浓厚的非达尔文主义概念传统中使人们转而信奉进化论。在我们试图分析选择学说的起源时，我们很容易忽视达尔文之前与之后进步论的延续。按照19世纪后期许多否定自然选择的博物学家的看法，“现代”的达尔文思想只不过是令人不快的启迪，促使他们接受发展的进化模型，以便保持自然是经过设计要实现一个有意义的目的的传统观点。达尔文远未使人们相信唯物论的世界观，他只不过促使人们普遍接受了钱伯斯、斯宾塞及其他达尔文之前的思想家率先提出的发展的世界观。只是到了孟德尔的遗传学摧毁了这种发展模型之后，达尔文理论中基本成分才获得广泛接受，达尔文曾经试图击毁这种发展模型，但是没有成功。