24 INITIATIVE IN EVOLUTION 



In a world teeming with the life of plants and animals, and 

 in the branch of science which seeks to interpret them, where we 

 enter upon the unknown much sooner than in any other sphere 

 of science, Weismann has set out to prove or maintain the most 

 stupendous negative ever framed by the human mind. It would 

 require generations of men to prove this negative, if it were probable, 

 and his case rests mainly on the assumed weakness of his opponents. 

 So what is needed and demanded from the neo-Lamarckians is the 

 production of a few well-attested and verified facts, and, as he 

 admits himself, then it must follow as the night the day that his 

 followers will surrender his characteristic dogma. The more 

 cautious leaders and teachers of the day say that this has not taken 

 place and ask for facts, more facts and still more facts, and this 

 attitude is both judicious and judicial, for example in a teacher so 

 eminent as Professor J. Arthur Thomson. Scientific men, in such 

 a position as he occupies with grace and distinction, owe a serious 

 debt of loyalty to ultimate truth and to the inquiring minds of the 

 young students of to-day and to-morrow. Those who are in a 

 position of inferior responsibility and honour, and more freedom, 

 just rank and file members of the Commons' House of Parliament, 

 may be pardoned if they do not exhibit an excess of deference to 

 authority and if they think for themselves. 



Two Questions. 



There are before the Scientific jury to-day two very vivid 

 questions. 



(1 ) Can modifications in the structure of an individual organism, 



occurring as a result of its experience, be transmitted ? 



(2) What is the cause of variation ? 



If, as Weismann taught, the answer to No. 1 is in the negative, 

 there is little use here in trying to answer No. 2, for from the present 

 point of view the two stand or fall together in the study of Initiative 

 in Evolution. Such distributional answers to No. 2 as Bateson and 

 de Vries may offer do not concern my purpose. 



If No. 1 be answered in the affirmative it is sufficient for the 

 purpose of treating initial variations from the Lamarckian stand- 

 point, for it is hardly conceivable that Nature would neglect so 

 simple and obvious a method of leading upwards and onwards the 

 organisms that inhabit a changing world. 



It is very clear from what is written on the subject of evolution 

 to-day that a 'point d'appui in the process is earnestly desired by 

 many workers and that Weismann's dogma stops the way. A very 

 significant and important remark is made by Professor W. McDougall 



