Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? Part 6

The more important and best-known phenomena of heredity do not require any such hypothesis, and leading facts (such as atavism, transmission of lost parts, and the general non-transmission of acquired characters) are so adverse to it that Darwin has to concede that many of the reproductive gemmules are atavistic, and that by continuous self-multiplication they may preserve a practical "continuity of germ-substance," as Weismann would term it. The idea that the relations.h.i.+p of offspring to parent is one of direct descent is, as Galton tells us, "wholly untenable"; and the only reason he admits some supplementary traces of pangenesis into his "Theory of Heredity,"[71] is that he may thus account for the more or less questionable cases of the transmission of acquired characters. But there appears to be no necessity even for this concession. We ought therefore to dispense with the useless and gratuitous hypothesis that cells multiply by throwing off minute self-multiplying gemmules, as well as by the well-known method of self-division. If pangenesis occurs, the transmission of acquired characters ought to be a prominent fact. The size, strength, health and other good or evil qualities of the cells could hardly fail to exercise a marked and corresponding effect upon the size and quality of the reproductive gemmules thrown off by those cells. The direct evidence tends to show that these free gemmules do not exist.

Transfusion of blood has failed to affect inheritance in the slightest degree. Pangenesis, with its attraction of gemmules from all parts of the body into the germ-cells, and the free circulation of gemmules in the offspring till they hit upon or are attracted by the particular cell or cells, with which alone they can readily unite, seems a less feasible theory and less in conformity with the whole of the facts than an hypothesis of germ-continuity which supposes that the development of the germ-plasm and of the successive self-dividing cells of the body proceeds from within. Darwin's keen a.n.a.logy of the fertilization of plants by pollen renders development from without conceivable, but as there are no insects to convey gemmules to their destination, each kind of gemmule would have to be exceedingly numerous and easily attracted from amongst an inconceivable number of other gemmules. Arguments against pangenesis can also be drawn from the case of neuter insects--a fact which seems to have escaped Darwin's notice, although he had seen how strongly that case was opposed to the doctrine which is the essential basis of the theory of pangenesis.

SPENCER'S EXPLANATION OF USE-INHERITANCE.

Mr. Spencer's explanation of the inheritance of the effects of use and disuse (p. 36) is that "while generating a modified _consensus_ of functions and of structures, the activities are at the same time impressing this modified _consensus_ on the sperm-cells and germ-cells whence future individuals are to be produced"--a proposition which reads more like metaphysics than science. Difficult to understand or believe in ordinary instances, such _consensus_-inheritance seems impossible in cases like that of the hive-bee. Can we suppose that the _consensus_ of the activities of the working bee impresses itself on the sperm-cells of the drones and on the germ-cells of the carefully secluded queen?

Buchner thinks so, for he says: "Although the queens and drones do not now work, yet the capacities inherited from earlier times still remain to them, especially to the former, and are kept alive and fresh by the impressions constantly made upon them during life, and they are thus in a position to transmit them to posterity." Surely it is better to abandon a cherished theory than to be compelled to defend it by explanations which are as inconsistent as they are inadequate. New capacities are developed as well as old ones kept fresh. The ma.s.sacre or expulsion of the drones would have to impress itself on the germ-cells of an onlooking queen, and the imprisonment of the queen on the sperm-cells of the drones--and in such a way, moreover, as to be afterwards developed into action in the neuters only. And use-inheritance all the while is being thoroughly overpowered by impression-inheritance--by the full transmission of that which is merely seen in others! If such a law prevails, one may feel cold because an ancestor thought of the frosty Caucasus. None of this absurdity would arise if it were clearly seen that a parent is only a trustee--that transmission and development are perfectly distinct--that parental modifications are irrelevant to those transmitted to offspring.

FOOTNOTES:

[67] _Essays on Heredity_, p. 104. Weismann's theory is clear, simple and convenient, but incomplete; for, unlike Darwin's theory of pangenesis, it scarcely attempts any real explanation of the extremely complex potentialities possessed by the reproductive elements. Perhaps we might retain Darwin's self-multiplying gemmules without supposing them to be thrown off by the cells, which will no longer be credited with _two_ modes of multiplication. These minute germs or gemmules may have been evolved by natural selection playing upon the sample germs that achieve development; and they may exist either separately, or (preferably but perhaps not invariably) in aggregates to form Weismann's germ-plasm.

[68] _Contemporary Review_, Dec., 1875, p. 88.

[69] _Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_, ii. 286.

[70] _Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_, ii. 388, 398, 367; _Life and Letters_, iii. 44.

[71] _Contemporary Review_, Dec., 1875, pp. 94, 95.

CONCLUSIONS.

USE-INHERITANCE DISCREDITED AS UNNECESSARY, UNPROVEN, AND IMPROBABLE.

General experience teaches that acquired characters are not usually inherited; and investigation shows that the apparent exceptions to this great rule are probably fallacious. Even the alleged instances of use-inheritance culled by such great and judicious selectors as Darwin and Spencer break down upon examination; for they can be better explained without use-inheritance than with it. On the other hand, the adverse facts and considerations are almost strong enough to prove the actual non-existence of such a law or tendency. There is no need to undertake the apparently impossible task of demonstrating an absolute negative. It will be enough to ask that the Lamarckian factor of use-inheritance shall be removed from the category of accredited factors of evolution to that of unnecessary and improbable hypotheses. The main explanation or source of the fallacy may be found in the fact that natural selection frequently imitates some of the more obvious effects of use and disuse.

MODERN RELIANCE ON USE-INHERITANCE MISPLACED.

Modern philanthropy--so far at least as it ever studies ultimate results--constantly relies on this ill-founded belief as its justification for ignoring the warnings of those who point out the ultimately disastrous results of a systematic defiance or reversal of the great law of natural selection. This reliance finds strong support in Mr. Spencer's latest teachings, for he holds that the inheritance of the effects of use and disuse takes place universally, and that it is now "the chief factor" in the evolution of civilized man (pp. 35, 74, iv)--natural selection being quite inadequate for the work of progressive modification. Practically he abandons the hope of evolution by natural selection, and subst.i.tutes the ideal of a nation being "modified _en ma.s.se_ by transmission of the effects" of its inst.i.tutions and habits. Use-inheritance will "mould its members far more rapidly and comprehensively" than can be effected by the survival of the fittest alone.

But could we rely upon the aid of use-inheritance if it really were a universal law and not a mere simulation of one? Let us consider some of the features of this alleged factor of evolution, seeing that it is henceforth to be our princ.i.p.al means of securing the improvement of our species and our continued adaptation to the changing conditions of a progressive civilization.

It is curiously uncertain and irregular in its action. It diminishes or abolishes some structures (such as jaws or eyes) without correspondingly diminis.h.i.+ng or abolis.h.i.+ng other equally disused and closely related parts (such as teeth, or eye-stalks). It thickens ducks' leg-bones while allowing them to shorten. It shortens the disused wing-bones of ducks and the leg-bones of rabbits while allowing them to thicken; and yet in other cases it greatly reduces the thickness of bones without shortening them. It transmits tameness most powerfully in an animal which usually cannot acquire it. It aids in webbing the feet of water-dogs, but fails to web the feet of the water-hen or to remove the web in the feet of upland geese.[72] It allows the disused fibula to retain a potentiality of development fully equal to that possessed by the long-used tibia. It lengthens legs because they are used in supporting the body, and shortens arms because they are used in pulling. Whether it enlarges brain if used in one way and diminishes it if used in another, we cannot tell; but it must obviously deaden nervous sensibilities in some cases and intensify them in others. It enlarges hands long before they are used, and thickens soles long before the time for walking on them. At the same time, as if by an oversight, it so delays its transmission of the habit of walking on these thickened soles, that the gradual and tedious acquisition of the non-transmitted habit costs the infant much time and trouble and often some pain and danger. Yet where aided by natural selection, as with chickens and foals, it transmits the habit in wonderful perfection and at a remarkably early date. It transmits new paces in horses in a single generation, but fails to perpetuate the songs of birds. It modifies offspring like parents, and yet allows the formation of two reproductive types in plants, and of two or more types widely different from the parents in some of the higher insects. It is said to be indispensable for the co-ordinated development of man and the giraffe and the elk, but appears to be unnecessary for the evolution and the maintenance of wonderful structures and habits and instincts in a thousand species of ants and bees and termites. It is the only possible means of complex evolution and adaptation of co-operative parts, and yet in Mr. Spencer's most representative case it renders such important parts as teeth and jaws unsuited for each other, and is said to ruin the teeth by the consequent overcrowding and decay. It survives amidst a general "lack of recognised evidence," and only seems to act usefully and healthily and regularly in quarters where it can least easily be distinguished from other more powerful and demonstrable factors of evolution. So little does it care to display its powers where they would be easily verifiable as well as useful that practical breeders ignore it. So slight is its independent power that it seems to allow natural selection or s.e.xual selection or artificial selection to modify organisms in sheer defiance of its utmost opposition, just as readily as they modify organisms in other directions with its utmost help. If it partially perpetuates and extends the pecked-out indentations in the motmot's tail feathers, it on the other hand fails to transmit the slightest trace of mutilation in an almost infinite number of ordinary cases, and even where the mutilation is repeated for a hundred generations; and it apparently repairs rather than transmits the ordinary and oft-repeated losses caused by plucking hair, down and feathers, and the wear and tear of claws, teeth, hoofs and skin.

It is often mischievous as well as anomalous in its action. Under civilization with its division of labour, the various functions of mind and body are very unequally exercised. There is overwork or misuse of one part and disuse and neglect of others, leading to the partial breakdown or degeneration of various organs and to general deterioration of health through disturbed balance of the const.i.tution. The brain, or rather particular parts of it, are often over-stimulated, while the body is neglected. In many ways education and civilization foster nervousness and weakness, and undermine the rude natural health and spirits of the human animal. Alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, extra brain work, late hours, dissipation, overwork, indoor life, division of labour, preservation of the weak, and many other causes, all help to injure the modern const.i.tution; so that the prospect of c.u.mulative intensification of these evils by the additional influence of use-inheritance is not an encouraging one. It is true that modern progress and prosperity are improving the people in various respects by their direct action; but if use-inheritance has any share in effecting this improvement it must also transmit increased wants and more luxurious habits, together with such evils as have already been referred to. As depicted by its defenders, use-inheritance transmits evils far more powerfully and promptly than benefits. It transmits insanity and shattered nerves rather than the healthy brain which preceded the breakdown. It perpetuates, and c.u.mulatively intensifies, a deterioration in the senses of civilized men, but it fails to perpetuate the rank vigour of various plants when too well nourished, or the flouris.h.i.+ng condition of various animals when too fat or when tamed. It already transmits the short-sight caused by so modern an art as watchmaking, but so fails to transmit the long-practised art of seeing (as it does of walking and talking) that vision is worse than useless to a man until he gradually acquires the necessary but non-transmitted a.s.sociations of sensation and idea by his own experience. In a well-known case, a blind man on gaining his sight by an operation said that "all objects seemed to touch his eyes, as what he felt did his skin"--so little had the universal experience of countless ages impressed itself on his faculties. Under normal healthy conditions use-inheritance is so slow in its action that "several generations" must elapse before it produces any appreciable effect, and then that effect is only precisely what selection might be expected to bring about without its aid. Strong for evil and slow for good, it can convey epilepsy promptly in guinea pigs, but transmits the acquirements of genius so poorly that our best student of the heredity of genius has to account for the frequent and remarkable deterioration of the offspring by a theory which is strongly hostile to use-inheritance. It would tend to make organisms unworkable by the excessive differences in its rate and manner of action on co-operative parts, and by adapting these parts to the total amount of nourishment received rather than to occasional necessity or actual usefulness. It would tend to stereotype habits and convert reason into instinct.

How then can we rely upon use-inheritance for the improvement of the race? Even if it is not a sheer delusion, it may be more detrimental as a positive evil than it is advantageous as an unnecessary benefit; and as a normal modifying agent it is miserably weak and untrustworthy in comparison with the powerful selective influences by which nature and society continually and inevitably affect the species for good or for evil. The effects of use and disuse--rightly directed by education in its widest sense--must of course be called in to secure the highly essential but nevertheless _superficial, limited, and partly deceptive_ improvement of individuals and of social manners and methods; but as this artificial development of already existing potentialities does not directly or readily tend to become congenital, it is evident that some considerable amount of natural or artificial selection of the more favourably varying individuals will still be the only means of securing the race against the constant tendency to degeneration which would ultimately swallow up all the advantages of civilization. The selective influences by which our present high level has been reached and maintained may well be modified, but they must not be abandoned or reversed in the rash expectation that State education, or State feeding of children, or State housing of the poor, or any amount of State socialism or public or private philanthropy, will prove permanently satisfactory subst.i.tutes. If ruinous deterioration and other more immediate evils, are to be avoided, the race must still be to the swift and the battle to the strong. The healthy Individualism so earnestly championed by Mr. Spencer must be allowed free play. Open compet.i.tion, as Darwin teaches, with its survival and multiplication of the fittest, must be allowed to decide the battle of life independently of a foolish benevolence that prefers the elaborate cultivation and multiplication of weeds to the growth of corn and roses. We are trustees for the countless generations of the future. If we are wise we shall trust to the great ruling truths that we a.s.suredly know, rather than to the seductive claims of an alleged factor of evolution for which no satisfactory evidence can be produced.

THE END.

RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY.

FOOTNOTES:

[72] Professor Romanes had casts made of the feet of upland geese, and could not detect any diminution as compared with the web of other geese in relation to the toes.

NATURE SERIES.

POPULAR LECTURES AND ADDRESSES ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

By Sir WILLIAM THOMSON, D.C.L. LL.D., F.R.S.E, Fellow of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, and Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Glasgow. With Ill.u.s.trations. 3 vols. Crown 8vo. Vol. 1.

CONSt.i.tUTION OF MATTER. 6_s._

ON THE ORIGIN AND METAMORPHOSES OF INSECTS. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., F.R.S., M.P., D.C.L., LL.D. With numerous Ill.u.s.trations. Third Edition.

Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._

ON BRITISH WILD FLOWERS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO INSECTS. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., F.R.S., M.P., D.C.L., LL.D. With Ill.u.s.trations. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 4_s._ 6_d._

FLOWERS, FRUITS AND LEAVES. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, F.R.S., &c. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 4_s._ 6_d._

THE TRANSIT OF VENUS. By G. FORBES, M.A., Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Andersonian University, Glasgow. Ill.u.s.trated. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._

THE COMMON FROG. By ST. GEORGE MIVART, F.R.S., Lecturer in Comparative Anatomy at St. Mary's Hospital. With numerous Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo.

3_s._ 6_d._

POLARISATION OF LIGHT. By W. SPOTTISWOODE, F.R.S. With Ill.u.s.trations.

Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._

THE SCIENCE OF WEIGHING AND MEASURING, AND THE STANDARDS OF MEASURE AND WEIGHT. By H. W. CHISHOLM, Warden of the Standards. With numerous Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo. 4_s._ 6_d._

HOW TO DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE: a Lecture on Linkages. By A. B. KEMPE. With Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo. 1_s._ 6_d._

LIGHT: A Series of Simple, Entertaining, and Inexpensive Experiments in the Phenomena of Light, for the Use of Students of every age. By A. M.

MAYER and C. BARNARD. With numerous Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._

SOUND: A Series of Simple, Entertaining, and Inexpensive Experiments in the Phenomena of Sound, for the Use of Students of every age. By A. M.

MAYER, Professor of Physics in the Stevens Inst.i.tute of Technology, &c.

With numerous Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._

SEEING AND THINKING. By Professor W. K. CLIFFORD, F.R.S. With Diagrams.

Crown 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._

DEGENERATION. By Professor E. RAY LANKESTER, F.R.S. With Ill.u.s.trations.

Crown 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._

FAs.h.i.+ON IN DEFORMITY, as Ill.u.s.trated in the Customs of Barbarous and Civilized Races. By Professor FLOWER. With Ill.u.s.trations. Crown 8vo.

2_s._ 6_d._