The Origin of Species (Barnes & Noble Classics) - Charles Darwin [252]
25 (p. 337) Rudimentary structures on this view are as good as, or even sometimes better than, other parts of the organisation: Darwin resists dominant conventions of taxonomy by turning to find significant indicators of speciation in “rudimentary structures,” those elements of the organism that are not apparently functional and not fully developed. These, he argues, are least subject to sustained variation because they are not exposed to the pressures of “the conditions of life,” and to the pressures of natural selection. Thus, if similar structures appear in other organisms, however diverse, they can be taken as indicative of genealogical connection, rather than of mere “analogical or adaptive resemblances” (p. 338).
26 (p. 347) Naturalists frequently speak of the skull as formed of metamorphosed vertebrœ.... Naturalists, however, use such language only in a metaphorical sense.... Yet so strong is the appearance of a modification of this nature having occurred, that naturalists can hardly avoid employing language having this plain signification: Darwin, who was to be accused of using metaphorical language in ways that blurred literal meaning (see the introduction, p. xvii), here makes a central move of his entire argument. As Gillian Beer points out, Darwin attempts to make metaphor literal. Ironically, given the direction of attacks on Darwin’s arguments, he shows that while those whose theories he opposes think they are using language metaphorically, in fact they are using it literally. This is because the analogies they make describe real connections—the skull is metamorphosed vertebrae. More broadly, the grouping of species in families must be understood as literal: They do constitute “families.”
27 (p. 357) In works on natural history rudimentary organs are generally said to have been created “for the sake of symmetry,” or in order “to complete the scheme of nature;” but this seems to me no explanation, merely a restatement of the fact: Natural theology, particularly as Paley formulated it, is the consistent background opponent of Darwin’s argument. Natural theology, assuming intelligence and design in the creation of all organic beings, emphasizes that “most parts and organs are exquisitely adapted for certain purposes.” The science that accepts special creation also makes that assumption. Darwin emphasizes, particularly in this discussion of rudimentary organs, the inutility and imperfection of many characteristics of organisms. In a world so full of maladaptation, imperfection, and irregularity, some other explanation is required: Darwin offers “descent with modification” (p. 358).
28 (p. 380) I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed: Note that Darwin does not discuss the “origin” of everything. This passage uses vaguely religious language, invoking (though passively) a figure who can “breathe” life into matter; the image is reinvoked in the book’s final paragraph.
29 (p. 384) as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection: Darwin concludes by insisting on the positive aspects of a theory that he knows will alarm and dismay believers. The language of this sentence does imply progression toward perfection, and it is certainly true that Darwin believes that in particular contexts natural selection always improves organisms. But, again, he says that “corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.” To be consistent, Darwin would have to emphasize tendency rather than teleology.
30 (p. 384) having been originally breathed: In the second edition, Darwin entered here the phrase: “by the Creator.”
Comments & Questions
In this section, we aim to provide the reader with an array of perspectives