Creative Evolution — Henri Bergson (trans. Arthur Mitchell, 1911)

Let us turn, then, to the hypothesis of sudden varia- tions, and see whether it will solve the problem. It cer- tainty lessens the difficulty on one point, but it makes it much worse on another. If the eye of the mollusc and that of the vertebrate have both been raised to their present form by a relatively small number of sudden leaps, I have less difficulty in understanding the resemblance of the two organs than if this resemblance were due to an incalculable number of infinitesimal resemblances acquired successively: in both cases it is chance that operates, but in the second case chance is not required to work the miracle it would have to perform in the first. Not only is the number of resemblances to be added some- what reduced, but I can ako understand better how each could be preserved and added to the others; for the ele- mentary variation is now considerable enough to be an advantage to the living being, and so to lend itself to the play of selection. But here there arises another problem, no leas formidable, viz., how do all the parts of the visual apparatus, suddenly changed, remain so well coordinated that the eye continues to exercise its function? For the change of one part alone will make vision impossible, unless this change is absolutely infinitesi- mal. The parts must then all change at once, each con- sulting the others. I agree that a great number of un- coordinated variations may indeed have arisen in less fortunate individuals, that natural selection may have eliminated these, and that only the combination fit to

endure, capable of preserving and improving vision, has eiirvived. Still, this combination had to be produced. And, supposing chance to have granted this favor once, can we admit that it repeats the self-same favor in the course of the history of a species, so as to give rise, every time, all at once, to new complications marvelously regu- lated with reference to each other, and so related to former complications as tu go further on in the same direction? How, especially, can we suppose that by a series of mere "accidents" these sudden variations occur, the same, in the same order, — involving in each case a perfect har- mony of elements more and more numerous and complex — iilong two independent lines of evolution?

The law of correlation will be invoked, of course; Dar- win himself appealed to it." It will be alleged that a change is not localized in a single point of the organism, but has its necessary recoil on other points. The ex- amples cited by Darwin remain classic: white cats with blue eyes are genei-ally deaf; hairless dogs have imperfect dt^ntition, etc. — Granted; but let us not play now on the word " correlation. " A collective whole of solidary changes is one thing, a system of complemeniary changes — clianges so coordinated as to keep up and even improve the function- ing of an organ under more complicated conditions — is another. That an anomaly of the pilous system should be accompanied by an anomaly of dentition is quite conceivable without our having to call for a special princi- ple of explanation; for hair and teeth are similar forma- tions,' and the same chemical change of the germ that hinders the formation of hair would probably obstruct

' Darwin, Origin of Sptcies, chap. i.

On thia homology of hair and teeth, sec Brandt, "tfber . . . eine mutnuMslicho Homologie der Honre und Zahne'' {Biol. CerUralbiatl, vol. xviii., ISOS, especiaUy pp. 262 S.).

Sudden Variation

that of teeth: it may be for the 6

3 sort of r

1 that

same s

white cats with blue eyes are deaf. In these different examples the "correlative" changes are only solidary changes (not to mention the fact that they are really lesions, namely, diminutions or suppressions, and not additions, which makes a great difference). But when we Bpeak of "correlative" changes occurring suddenly in the different parts of the eye, we use the word in an entirely new sense: this time there is a whole set of changes not only simultaneous, not only bound together by community of origin, but so coordinated that the organ kee]«i on per- forming the same simple function, and even performs it better. That a change in the germ, which influences the formation of the retina, may affect at the same time also the formation of the cornea, the iris, the lens, the visual centres, etc., I admit, if necessary, although they are forma- tions that differ much more from one another in their original nature than do probably hair and teeth. But that all these simultaneous changes should occur in such a way as to improve or even merely maintain vision, this is what, in the hypothesis of sudden variation, I cannot admit, unless a mysterious principle is to come in, whose duty it is to watch over the interest of the function. But this would be to give up the idea of "accidental" variation. In reality, these two senses of the word "correlation" are often interchanged in the mind of the biologist, just like the two senses of the word "adaptation." And the con- fusion is almost legitimate in botany, that science in which the theory of the formation of species by sudden vaiiation rests on the firmest experimental basis. In vegetables, function is far less narrowly bound to form than in animals. Even profound morphological differences, such as a change in the form of leaves, have no appreciable influence on the exercise of function, and so do not require a whole

system of complementary changes for the plant to remain fit to survive. But it is not so in the animal, especially in the case of an organ like the eye, a very complex struc- ture and very delicate function. Here it is impossible to identify changes that are simply solidary with changes which are also complementary. The two senses of the word "correlation" must be carefully distinguished; it would be a downright paralogism to adopt one of them in the premisses of the reasoning, and the other in the con- elusion. And this is just what is done when the principle of correlation is invoked in explanations of detail in order to account for complementary variations, and then cor- relation in general is spoken of as if it were any group of variations provoked by any variation of the germ. Thus, the notion of correlation is first used in current science as it might be used by an advocate of finality; it is under- stood that this is only a convenient way of expressing one- self, that one will correct it and fall back on pure mechan- ism when explaining the nature of the principles and turn- ing from science to philosophy. And one does then come back to pure mechanism, but only by giving a new meaning to the word "correlation" — a meaning which would now make correlation inapplicable to the detail it is called upon to explain.

To sum up, if the accidental variations that bring about evolution are insensible variations, some good genius must be appealed to — the genius of the future species — in order to preserve and accumulate these variations, for selection will not look after this. If, on the other hand, the acci- dental variations are sudden, then, for the previous function to go on or for a new function to take its place, all the changes that have happened together must be comple- mentary. So we have to fall back on the good genius again, this time to obtain the convergence of simultaneo^is

changes, as before to be assured of the continuity of di- rection of successive variations. But in neither case can parallel development of the same complex structures on independent lines of evolution be due to a mere accu- mulation of accidental variations. So we come to the second of the two great hypotheses we have to examine. Suppose the variations are due, not to accidental and inner causes, but to the direct influence of outer circumstances. Let us see what line we should have to take, on this hypothe- sis, to account for the resemblance of eye-structure in two series that are independent of each other from the phylogenetic point of view,

Though molluscs and vertebrates have evolved separately, both have remained exposed to the influence of light. And light is a physical cause bringing forth certain definite effects. Acting in a continuous way, it has been able to produce a continuous variation in a constant direction. Of course it is unlikely that the eye of the vertebrate and that of the mollusc have been built up by a aeries of variations due to simple chance. Admitting even that light enters into the case as an instrument of selection, in order to allow only useful variations to persist, there is no possibility that the play of chance, even thus supervised from with- out, should bring about in both cases the same juxta- position of elements coordinated in the same way. But it would be different supposing that light acted directly on the organized matter so as to change its structure and some- how adapt this structure to its own form. The resemblance of the two effects would then be explained by the identity of the cause. The more and more complex eye would be something hke the deeper and deeper imprint of light on a matter which, being organized, possesses a special aptitude for receiving it.

But can an organic structure be likened to ac imprint?

[OH&P.

We have already called attention to the ambiguity of the term "adaptation." The gradual complication of a form which ia being better and better adapted to the mold of outward circumstances is one thing, the increasingly complex structure of an instrument which derives more and more advantage from these circumstances is another. In the former case, the matter merely receives an imprint; in the second, it reacts positively, it solves a problem. Ob- viously it is this second sense of the word "adapt" that is used when one says that the eye has become better and better adapted to the influence of light. But one passes more or less unconsciously from this sense to the other, and a purely mechanistic biology will strive to make the passive adaptation of an inert matter, which submits to the in- fluence of its environment, mean the same as the active adaptation of an organism which derives from this in- fluence an advantage it can appropriate. It must be owned, indeed, that Nature herself appears to invite our mind to confuse these two kinds of adaptation, for she usually begins by a pas.'iive adaptation where, later on, she will build up a mechanism for active response. Thus, in the case before us, it is unquestionable that the first rudiment of the eye is found in the pigment-spot of the lower organisms; this spot may indeed have been pro- duced physically, by the mere action of light, and there are a great number of intermediaries between the simple spot of pigment and a com|}licatcd eye like that of the verte- brates. — But, from the fact that we pass from one thing to another by degrees, it does not foUow that the two things are of the same nature. From the fact that an orator falls in, at first, with the passions of his audience in order to make himself master of them, it will not be concluded that to follow ia the same as to lead. Now, liv- ing matter seems to have no other means of turning cir-

cumstaaces to good account than by adapting itself to
them passively at the outset. Where it has to direct a
movement, it begins by adopting it. Life proceeds by
insinuation. The intermediate degrees between a pig-
ment-spot and an eye are nothing to the point: however
numerous the degrees, there will still be the same interval
between the pigment-spot and the eye as between a photo-
graph and a photographic apparatus. Certainly the photo-
graph has been gradually turned into a photographic
apparatus; but could light alone, a physical force, ever
have provoked this change, and converted an impression
left by it into a machine capable of using it?