The Evolution of Man

by Ernst Haeckel

The same must be said of all the remarkable phenomena which we perceive in the economy of the living organism. The many and various relations of plants and animals to each other and to their environment, which are treated in bionomy (from nomos, law or norm, and bios, life), the interesting facts of parasitism, domesticity, care of the young, social habits, etc., can only be explained by the action of heredity and adaptation. Formerly people saw only the guidance of a beneficent Providence in these phenomena; to-day we discover in them admirable proofs of the theory of evolution. It is impossible to understand them except in the light of this theory and the struggle for life.

Finally, we must, in my opinion, count among the chief inductive bases of the theory of evolution the fœtal development of the individual organism, the whole science of embryology or ontogeny. But as the later chapters will deal with this in detail, I need say nothing further here. I shall endeavour in the following pages to show, step by step, how the whole of the embryonic phenomena form a massive chain of proof for the theory of evolution; for they can be explained in no other way. In thus appealing to the close causal connection between ontogenesis and phylogenesis, and taking our stand throughout on the biogenetic law, we shall be able to prove, stage by stage, from the facts of embryology, the evolution of man from the lower animals.

The general adoption of the theory of evolution has definitely closed the controversy as to the nature or definition of the species. The word has no absolute meaning whatever, but is only a group-name, or category of classification, with a purely relative value. In 1857, it is true, a famous and gifted, but inaccurate and dogmatic, scientist, Louis Agassiz, attempted to give an absolute value to these “categories of classification.” He did this in his Essay on Classification, in which he turns upside down the phenomena of organic nature, and, instead of tracing them to their natural causes, examines them through a theological prism. The true species (bona species) was, he said, an “incarnate idea of the Creator.” Unfortunately, this pretty phrase has no more scientific value than all the other attempts to save the absolute or intrinsic value of the species.

The dogma of the fixity and creation of species lost its last great champion when Agassiz died in 1873. The opposite theory, that all the different species descend from common stem-forms, encounters no serious difficulty to-day. All the endless research into the nature of the species, and the possibility of several species descending from a common ancestor, has been closed to-day by the removal of the sharp limits that had been set up between species and varieties on the one hand, and species and genera on the other. I gave an analytic proof of this in my monograph on the sponges (1872), having made a very close study of variability in this small but highly instructive group, and shown the impossibility of making any dogmatic distinction of species. According as the classifier takes his ideas of genus, species, and variety in a broader or in a narrower sense, he will find in the small group of the sponges either one genus with three species, or three genera with 238 species, or 113 genera with 591 species. Moreover, all these forms are so connected by intermediate forms that we can convincingly prove the descent of all the sponges from a common stem-form, the olynthus.

Here, I think, I have given an analytic solution of the problem of the origin of species, and so met the demand of certain opponents of evolution for an actual instance of descent from a stem-form. Those who are not satisfied with the synthetic proofs of the theory of evolution which are provided by comparative anatomy, embryology, paleontology, dysteleology, chorology, and classification, may try to refute the analytic proof given in my treatise on the sponge, the outcome of five years of assiduous study. I repeat: It is now impossible to oppose evolution on the ground that we have no convincing example of the descent of all the species of a group from a common ancestor. The monograph on the sponges furnishes such a proof, and, in my opinion, an indisputable proof. Any man of science who will follow the protracted steps of my inquiry and test my assertions will find that in the case of the sponges we can follow the actual evolution of species in a concrete case. And if this is so, if we can show the origin of all the species from a common form in one single class, we have the solution of the problem of man’s origin, because we are in a position to prove clearly his descent from the lower animals.

At the same time, we can now reply to the often-repeated assertion, even heard from scientists of our own day, that the descent of man from the lower animals, and proximately from the apes, still needs to be “proved with certainty.” These “certain proofs” have been available for a long time; one has only to open one’s eyes to see them. It is a mistake to seek them in the discovery of intermediate forms between man and the ape, or the conversion of an ape into a human being by skilful education. The proofs lie in the great mass of empirical material we have already collected. They are furnished in the strongest form by the data of comparative anatomy and embryology, completed by paleontology. It is not a question now of detecting new proofs of the evolution of man, but of examining and understanding the proofs we already have.

I was almost alone thirty-six years ago when I made the first attempt, in my General Morphology, to put organic science on a mechanical foundation through Darwin’s theory of descent. The association of ontogeny and phylogeny and the proof of the intimate causal connection between these two sections of the science of evolution, which I expounded in my work, met with the most spirited opposition on nearly all sides. The next ten years were a terrible “struggle for life” for the new theory. But for the last twenty-five years the tables have been turned. The phylogenetic method has met with so general a reception, and found so prolific a use in every branch of biology, that it seems superfluous to treat any further here of its validity and results. The proof of it lies in the whole morphological literature of the last three decades. But no other science has been so profoundly modified in its leading thoughts by this adoption, and been forced to yield such far-reaching consequences, as that science which I am now seeking to establish—monistic anthropogeny.

This statement may seem to be rather audacious, since the very next branch of biology, anthropology in the stricter sense, makes very little use of these results of anthropogeny, and sometimes expressly opposes them.[^[13]] This applies especially to the attitude which has characterised the German Anthropological Society (the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie) for some thirty years. Its powerful president, the famous pathologist, Rudolph Virchow, is chiefly responsible for this. Until his death (September 5th, 1902) he never ceased to reject the theory of descent as unproven, and to ridicule its chief consequence—the descent of man from a series of mammal ancestors—as a fantastic dream. I need only recall his well-known expression at the Anthropological Congress at Vienna in 1894, that “it would be just as well to say man came from the sheep or the elephant as from the ape.”

[13] This does not apply to English anthropologists, who are almost all evolutionists.

Virchow’s assistant, the secretary of the German Anthropological Society, Professor Johannes Ranke of Munich, has also indefatigably opposed transformism: he has succeeded in writing a work in two volumes (Der Mensch), in which all the facts relating to his organisation are explained in a sense hostile to evolution. This work has had a wide circulation, owing to its admirable illustrations and its able treatment of the most interesting facts of anatomy and physiology—exclusive of the sexual organs! But, as it has done a great deal to spread erroneous views among the general public, I have included a criticism of it in my History of Creation, as well as met Virchow’s attacks on anthropogeny.