The first to enunciate a coherent theory of evolution—that of Transformism or Transmutation—was Lamarck.[[38]]
[38]. De Maillet and Robinet had already outlined part of the Lamarckian doctrine.
Lamarck.
Lamarck (1744-1829) believed that species were not fixed, but that the more complex were developed from pre-existent simpler forms. He attributed the change of species mainly to physical conditions of life, to crossing, and especially to use or disuse of organs, which not only resulted in the modification, growth, or atrophy of some, but, under the stress of necessity, led to the formation of new ones. “La fonction fait l’organe.” He also held that changes produced in the individual as the result of environment were transmitted to the offspring. Organic life was traced back and back to a small number of primordial germs or monads, the offspring of spontaneous generation. Man formed no exception. He was the result of the slow transformation of certain apes.
Lamarck’s views were first published in 1801, and were enlarged in his Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
Cuvier.
Lamarck’s chief opponent was Cuvier (1769-1832), Professor of Natural History and of Comparative Anatomy in Paris, who, besides being the recognised authority on zoology (his great book, Le Règne Animal, was long the standard work on the subject), was even more renowned as an anatomist. He upheld the theory of Catastrophe, of alternate destructions and regenerations, against the new theories of Transformism and Evolution.
According to this widely accepted belief, the universe was subject to violent terrestrial revolutions, involving the destruction of all existing things and the total annihilation of all living beings belonging to the past epoch.
The theory was by no means new; it was current in the East in the thirteenth century. In a book written by Mohamed Kaswini on the wonders of nature, he tells the following tale:—
In passing one day by a very ancient and extremely populous city, I asked of one of the inhabitants who founded their city. He replied to me: “I know not, and our ancestors knew no more than we do on this point.” Five hundred years afterwards, passing by the same place, I could not perceive a trace of the city. Inquiring of one of the peasants about the place when it was that the city was destroyed, he answered me: “What an odd question you put to me; this country has never been otherwise than as you see it now.” I returned there after another five hundred years, and I found in the place of the country I had seen—a sea. I now asked of the fishermen how long it was since their country became a sea; and he replied that a person like me ought to know that it had always been a sea. I returned again after five hundred years; the sea had disappeared, and it was now dry land. No one knew what had become of the sea, or if such a thing had ever existed. Finally, I returned once more after five hundred years, and I again found a flourishing city. The people told me that the origin of their city was lost in the night of time.[[39]]