From the Unconscious to the Conscious 



by physiologists of the school of Cl. Bernard, develops 

 by functioning. That which is worn and expended is 

 merely reserve material, such as fat, the sugar of the 

 tissues, etc. ; but the living matter itself, such as muscle, 

 increases by use. 



He maintains that it is in virtue of this ' functional 

 assimilation ' that adaptation to environment and con- 

 secutive progress take place. 



However this may be, it is evident that the Lamarckian 

 doctrine is infinitely more satisfying than the Darwinian. 



But is it completely so ? By no means. 



It can account for the appearance of a number of 

 secondary organic details and more or less important 

 modifications, such as the atrophy of the eye of the 

 mole, the hypertrophy of the median digit in the 

 Equidae, or the special structure of the articulations of 

 the foot; but, as a general theory, it is assuredly false, 

 because it is powerless to explain the more important facts. 



It does not explain the major transformations which 

 have been considered in our criticism of the Darwinian 

 hypothesis. 



Confronted with these, Lamarckianism is as power- 

 less as Darwinism, because these transformations imply 

 radical, and so to speak immediate, changes, and not an 

 accumulation of small and slow modifications. 



The transition from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode 

 of life, and from a terrestrial to an aerial, can by no 

 means be regarded as results of adaptation. 



The ancestral species, adapted to very special 

 surroundings, had no need to change them, and had 

 they felt the need, would have been unable to meet it. 

 How could the reptilian ancestor of the bird adapt 

 itself to surroundings which were not its own and 

 could only become its own after it had passed from the 

 reptilian to the bird form ? Before possessing usable 

 (not embryonic) wings, it could not have an aerial life 

 to which to adapt itself. 



15 



