Charles Darwin (1809-1882), an English biologist was one of
a number of scientists considering theories of evolution. He published On the Origin of Species, in 1859 and set forth his theory
that animals evolved through variation and natural selection of
those most fit to survive in particular environments. In The
Descent of Man (1871) he applied his theory directly to the
question of human beings. Far from standing aside from the social,
racial and religious consequences of his theories, Darwin, as
we see below, jumped right into the fray.
The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many naturalists
who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is
descended from some less highly organised form. The grounds upon
which this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close
similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development,
as well as in innumerable points of structure and constitution,
both of high and of the most trifling importance, - the rudiments
which he retains, and the abnormal revisions to which he is occasionally
liable, - are facts which cannot be disputed. They have long been
known, but until recently they told us nothing with respect to
the origin of man. Now when viewed by the light of our knowledge
of the whole organic world their meaning is unmistakable. The
great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm, when these
groups of facts are considered in connection with others, such
as the mutual affinities of the members of the same group, their
geographical distribution in past and present times, and their
geological succession. It is incredible that all these facts should
speak falsely. He who is not content to look, like a savage, at
the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe
that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be
forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man
to that, for instance, of a dog - the construction of his skull,
limbs and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals,
independently of the uses to which the parts may be put - the
occasional re-appearance of various structures, for instance of
several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which
are common to the Quadrumana - and a crowd of analogous facts
- all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man
is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor.
We have seen that man incessantly presents individual differences
in all parts of his body and in his mental faculties. These differences
or variations seem to be induced by the same general causes, and
to obey the same laws as with the lower animals. In both cases
similar laws of inheritance prevail. Man tends to increase at
a greater rate than his means of subsistence; consequently he
is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence,
and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within
its scope. A succession of strongly-marked variations of a similar
nature is by no means requisite; slight fluctuating differences
in the individual suffice for the work of natural selection; not
that we have any reason to suppose that in the same species, all
parts of the organisation tend to vary to the same degree.
By considering the embryological structure of man, - the homologies
which he presents with the lower animals, - the rudiments which
he retains, - and the reversions to which he is liable, we can
partly recall in imagination the former condition of our early
progenitors; and can approximately place them in their proper
place in the zoological series. We thus learn that man is descended
from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits,
and an inhabitant of the Old World. This creature, if its whole
structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have been classed
amongst the Quadrumana, as surely as the still more ancient progenitor
of the Old and New World monkeys. The Quadrumana and all the higher
mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal,
and this through a long line of diversified forms, from some amphibian-like
creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim
obscurity of the past we can see that the early progenitor of
all the Vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided
with branchiæ, with the two sexes united in the same individual,
and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain
and heart) imperfectly or not at all developed. This animal seems
to have been more like the larvæ of the existing marine
Ascidians than any other known form.
The high standard of our intellectual powers and moral disposition
is the greatest difficulty which presents itself, after we have
been driven to this conclusion on the origin of man. But every
one who admits the principle of evolution, must see that the mental
powers of the higher animals, which are the same in kind with
those of man, though so different in degree, are capable of advancement....
The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly
through the advancement of his reasoning powers and consequently
of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having
been rendered more tender and widely diffused through the effects
of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable
that after long practice virtuous tendencies may be inherited.
With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence
of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance
of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame
of his fellows as his sole guide though few escape this influence,
but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him
the safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge
and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the
moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy;
and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the
case of the lower animals, through natural selection.
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest
but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and
the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen,
to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man.
On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies
seems to be universal, and apparently follows from a considerable
advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his
faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that
the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons
as an argument for His existence. But this iS a rash argument,
as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of
many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful
than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a
beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator
does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated
by long-continued culture....
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces
them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the
origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower
form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than
to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary
reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual
are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our
minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding
revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe
that every slight variation of structure, - the union of each
pair in marriage, - the dissemination of each seed, - and other
such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.
Sexual selection has been treated at great length in this work,
for, as I have attempted to shew, it has played an important part
in the history of the organic world. I am aware that much remains
doubtful, but I have endeavoured to give a fair view of the whole
case. In the lower divisions of the animal kingdom, sexual selection
seems to have done nothing: such animals are often affixed for
life to the same spot, or have the sexes combined in the same
individual, or what is still more important, their perceptive
and intellectual faculties are not sufficiently advanced to allow
of the feelings of love and jealousy, or of the exertion of choice.
When, however, we come to the Arthropoda and Vertebrata, even
to the lowest classes in these two great Sub-Kingdoms, sexual
selection has effected much....
Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals
over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of
the species; whilst natural selection depends on the success of
both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions
of life. The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is
between the individuals of the same sex, generally the males,
in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining
passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between
the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those
of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain
passive, but select the more agreeable partners....
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is
descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think,
be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt
that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which
I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken
shore will never be forgotten by me,< for the reflection at
once rushed into my mind - such were our ancestors. These men
were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair
was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression
was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any
arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they
had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their
own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will
not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of
some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part
I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who
braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper,
or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried
away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs
- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers
up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats
his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the
grossest superstitions.
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though
not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic
scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having
been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still
higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned
with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason
permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the
best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems
to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which
feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not
only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his
god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and
constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers
- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his
lowly origin.
Source:
From Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation
to Sex (New York: Appleton and Co., 1883), pp. 7, 609, 612-614,
618-619.
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World
history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997