What is the Origin of Man?
The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures
Dr Maurice Bucaille
|
Introduction
Man has
pondered his origins for thousands of years, but until recently, his only
source of ideas consisted of notions drawn from religious teachings and
various philosophical systems. Not until modern times, and the arrival of
data of a different kind, has he been able to approach the problem of his
origins from a new angle. We live
in a time where reason and the conquests of science claim to provide logical
answers to all the great questions asked by the human intellect. Likewise,
the problem of the origin of man has primarily been presented by some as a
matter that can be perfectly explained by secular knowledge. This
statement concerning the origins of man came as a profound shock to all those
who remained faithful to the teachings of the Bible, for they believed that
man was created by God. Moreover, the very idea of the evolution of species
contradicted the words of the Bible, which stated quite clearly that the
species were fixed and immutable. Secular theory and religious teaching were
at odds, and the consequences of this confrontation were far reaching indeed.
It was maintained that the Bible until that time considered to be the word of
God had been found wrong. Credence could no longer be given to it, and for
many, that meant rejection of the entire text of the Bible. As a result, the
theory gained ground that scientific data undermined the faith in God. At
first glance, this argument seems logical, but it does not hold water today
because when talking of the Biblical texts, we now possess certain facts that
were only beginning to be discovered at the end of the nineteenth century.
The idea of a text of revelation to be accepted without questioning a single
sentence gave way to the notion of a text inspired by God. The text of
inspiration was written by mortal men at different points in time, it took
its cue from ideas of the day, and included the traditions, myths and superstitions
prevalent at the time it was written. "The scientific errors in the
Bible are the errors of mankind, for long ago man was like a child, as yet
ignorant of science:" This quotation from the work of the eminent
Christian thinker Jean Guitton (1978) leads us to view the texts of the Bible
from an angle very different from what was once the rule. Indeed,
the texts referred to here were consistently, thought to have been written by
Moses himself. In actual fact however the longest part of Genesis: '(the Sacerdotal
narrative)' was written by priests in the sixth century B.C. There is,
however, a second narration, the Yahvist version, that probably dates back to
the ninth or tenth century B.C. In view of this, it is difficult to take
archaic ideas seriously. I have given a detailed account of this question in
`La Bible, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science] [Published by Seghers, Paris, 9th edition, 1983, Also
available in English from the same publisher.], and if we add
to it ideas put forward on the texts by Christian exegetes themselves, we may
conclude that there is no need' to prolong the antagonism between the
supremacy of scientific fact and the primacy of Biblical teachings. Later
on, we shall see that the situation is quite different for other Scriptures,
on account of their origin as well as their content. Here again, however, the
age-old antagonism between religion and science is no longer justified. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that many scientists continue to view with disdain or at
least with indifference any comment that touches on the supernatural, an
attitude which appears to have hardened over the last few decades: Science is
the key to everything, and sooner or later it must reveal facts that will
enable us to form an exact picture of the origins of life, the formation and
functioning of living matter; the appearance on earth of organisms ranging
from the most basic to the most complex, and last but not least, the origins
of man. In view of this, we may well ask whether religious teachings have not
been superseded by progress. How indeed can we fail to be impressed by the
stupendous discoveries of modern times particularly in molecular biology and
genetics when these discoveries have enabled us to acquire an astonishingly precise
insight into the field of cellular physiology? It is
easy to understand the excitement of researchers. Aware of their immense
scope for discovery and action, they have even developed projects concerning
the man of the future. In their view, certain of his qualities or
characteristics could be `oriented' a concept that is today seen as a
theoretical possibility. Many scientists researching the practical
applications of genetics are undoubtedly appalled at the consequences that
might arise if possibilities became realities. All the same, the very fact of
wielding such power - if only theoretical power is surely a source of great
excitement for researchers. In the minds of many scientists, the knowledge
that such a power exists may lead them to consider that the ability to change
living matter according to their fancy - for that is what it comes down to
renders obsolete any theory on the origins of life that incorporates the
supernatural. The same applies to those who confidently expect one day to see
primary living matter created in the laboratory. Greatly to their credit is
the fact that they have contributed data of immense value to our knowledge of
life. They are seriously in error, however, when they imagine that from their
laboratory and only from their laboratory (along with additional mathematical
studies) have come, or will come; definitive data concerning man and the
origins of life. In
actual fact, the subject of man's origins and evolution is extremely complex:
It embraces so many disciplines that it is questionable whether a single
person could make a detailed confrontation between the great mass of data,
hypotheses and judgements that has been formed. Under the circumstances, we
cannot fail to be sceptical when we are told that a certain idea drawn from a
study limited to a single field provides us with the definitive answer to the
question in hand. Clearly, this kind of zeal for an idea that often derives
from mere supposition or foregone conclusion is detrimental to our overall
knowledge of the subject. Some
researchers seem to be driven by the misguided wish to defend ideologies that
have nothing to do with science. This fact is stressed by P.P. Grass', who
for 30 years held the Chair of Evolutionary Studies at the Sorbonne, in his
recent work entitled `L'Homme en accusation' [Man
Stands Accused] [Published by Albin Michel, Paris, 1980], in which he is
extremely critical of today's neo Darwinism. In the present work, I shall be
citing many of the ideas put forward by this eminent zoologist, for I am
convinced that his theories are correct. Grasse' concludes that while the
fact of evolution is beyond question, there are great gaps in our knowledge
of the way it operates, and there is no valid explanation of the factors
determining it: The random mutations that take place in the genes which
control heredity are insufficient to play a determinant role in evolution
itself: 1n the case of man, a fact such as the development of the brain since
the Australopithecus, over, a period covering at the very most 80,000
generations, is inconceivable in neo Darwinian terms. One of the great
mysteries of human evolution is the (almost total) loss of man's innate
behaviour, a feature that has remained present and active in apes. Man's
evolution cannot be compared point for point with that of the rest of the
animal kingdom. In
spite of this, we are constantly supplied with inaccurate data to support the
opposite theory. Not long ago, for example, I listened to a radio interview
with a 'member of an important research institute. The interview was aired as
part of the main news programme of the day and reached hundreds of thousands
of listeners. During the interview, the scientist in question supported by
the prestige attached to his position stated firmly that the relationship
between man and the apes had been clearly established by experiments pleading
to the creation of hybrid genes: A new chemical complex had been constituted
at the level of the molecule, made from components taken from both man and
apes.. While this may be perfectly feasible in theory; it tells us absolutely
nothing. The fallacy lies in the fact that the gene was presented as a
`messenger' capable of carrying information, and hence of triggering the
creation of new living tissue, a statement for which there is not one jot of
evidence. What a pity it is that we live in an age where sensational but
erroneous information is more likely to capture the public imagination than
carefully weighed judgements expressing reservations and pointing toward the
existence of facts as yet unknown. Perhaps
it is enough to remain at this stage, simply devoting our discussion of the
origins of man to a review of the facts that modern scientific knowledge
allows us to present as certainties or hypotheses, and at the same time
refuting ideas that appear incorrect. What, indeed, is the point of bringing
into the discussion the Holy Scriptures of the monotheistic religions? First
let me reply to those who consider their scientific knowledge to be one thing
and their religious beliefs to be another a group that has continued to grow
over the past few decades. To the atheist, mention of the supernatural will
seem anachronistic, even in cases where science encounters enigmas the
genetic code, for example. The idea of approaching a question such as this in
metaphysical terms is unacceptable to the atheist, even though there is
little room for any alternative solution. The existence of this separation
between science and religious belief is in keeping with the reasoned ways of
modern thought. As far as I am concerned, however, the separation provides
grounds for a discussion of the reverse theory one, which seems to me to
correspond to the reality of the situation. The `separatists' could just as
easily be believers in God who harbour a certain fear that science will raise
questions about their religion through a comparison they have often been told
is dangerous. Many
other reasons abound, not least of which is incomprehension. This has often
been noted between those of different faiths, who know little of other
religions (and often little of their own Scriptures as well). We must bear in
mind the fact that the monotheistic religions [I
have not studied the ideas on the origins of man expressed in the religions
of In the
case of the Bible, the information provided on the Biblical authors has modified
archaic or obsolete opinions, and has helped us distinguish the human factor
in the texts. One of them is short, possibly having been truncated long ago,
and it sheds light on what people in the ninth and tenth centuries B.C.
thought about the origins of man : This is the Yahvist version of the
Creation. The best-known text, the Sacerdotal version, is the work of priests
in the sixth century B.C. It is the time-honoured description of the
Creation, which appears in the first part of Genesis, setting forth the
traditions of the day. Later on, the Christian religion adopted the Biblical
tradition and reproduced in the New Testament data concerning the length of
time man had been on earth. For centuries, the data were faithfully repeated
in Bibles, and Y can remember seeing in 1930 a manual of religious
instruction, which stated that according to the Bible, man's appearance on
earth should be placed at roughly 4,000 B.C. That is the sort of instruction
budding young Christians received in my day! Mistaken
ideas regarding the Qur'an have been common in Christian countries for a very
long time. They still persist, as far as the history and content of the
Qur'an are concerned. Because of this, the data in the Qur'an on the subject
of man's origins must be preceded by a description of the way in which the
Qur'an was communicated to man. The assertions on the origins of man to be
found in the Qur'an will undoubtedly astonish many people, just as they
astonished me when I first discovered them. The comparison of the Biblical
and Qur'anic texts is moreover highly revealing: Both of them speak of God
the Creator, but the scientifically unacceptable detail in the Biblical
description of the Creation is absent from the Qur'an. In fact, the Qur'an
contains statements concerning man that are astounding: It is impossible to
explain their presence in human terms; given the state of knowledge at the
time the Qur'an was communicated. In the West, such statements had never
before formed the subject of a scientific communication until When
taken together with Qur'anic statements on other natural phenomena, the
details in the Qur'an on the origins of man form an important factor in the
age-old debate between science and religion. They reopen the discussion by
focusing on new arguments. In view of such significant points of agreement
between firmly established scientific data and a Holy Scripture, we must
reconsider hasty judgements, which have devoted more attention to abstract
concepts than facts. From
the nineteenth century onward, religion and, science have been set in opposition
in the West. The argument in favour of this has been the discrepancy between
the Biblical text and scientific data. If we adhere strictly to 'the facts,
however, we shall see that the opposition between the two was totally
deprived of meaning from the moment the human origin of the texts in dispute
was established. It is important to remember that the authors of the Biblical
texts are considered by Christian exegetes themselves to have been inspired
by God. All the same, the Biblical authors may have introduced inaccuracies
to the text, without in the least betraying their divine inspiration. These
inaccuracies could have arisen from the language of the day, or through
references to traditions still honoured during the period. In the light of
this, the presence of scientific error is hardly surprising. What would be
surprising, from a logical point of view, would be the absence of any errors
at all., The opinions of modern Christian exegetes on the Biblical texts are
now clearly in agreement with the discoveries of science concerning the
discrepancy between scientific data and the contents of the texts. According
to the document adopted by the Second Vatican Council (1962 1965), the books
of the Old Testament contain material that is `imperfect and obsolete'.
Although the document does not actually state which material, in reading
this, I do not think we can find a better confirmation of the accuracy of the
theory put forward in the present work. I have
every reason to believe that similar opinions prevail in the most enlightened
circles of Judaism. I refer in particular to my conversation several years
ago with an extremely important figure in the Jewish world; the main subject
of which was the, Sacerdotal narrative of Genesis. In the course of our meeting,
we agreed that the scientific errors in the text could be explained by the
fact that the main preoccupation of the priests of the sixth century B.C. was
to instruct the faithful on the omnipotence of God. To do this, they related
a story traditional at the time describing the origins of the heavens, the
earth, living creatures and man. The story was cast in images and words that
could be readily understood by the priests' contemporaries. The length of
time that has elapsed since man first appeared on earth, as stated in the
Hebrew calendar, should also be viewed in this light. Indeed, the statement
of Biblical teaching that is most obviously at odds with science is that man
first appeared on earth 5,742 years ago (calculated from late 1981). The
moment we accept the existence of arguments that prevent us from taking this
affirmation at face value, we can no longer use it as a legitimate accusation
against the Bible in the confrontation between science and the Scriptures: It
must be placed in its human context. In the
case of man, by comparing the Scriptural texts and modern knowledge, it
became clear that the data in Genesis referred to here ought to be set apart
for the reasons already mentioned. If we accept this, there is no longer any
incompatibility between the teachings of the Scriptures and modern scientific
discoveries, concerning the general concept of the creation of man and other
views on the first stages of humanity. This is undoubtedly an unusual way of
introducing the supernatural, but that does not alter its validity or
usefulness. This approach avoids appealing to sentimental arguments that rely
on people's emotions or their spiritual state the accusation usually levelled
by materialist thinkers at those who tend to offer arguments based on faith. Why
should the idea of God not grow from extremely logical reflection concerning
the infinitely large or the infinitely small? The strict order to be seen in
both cases is patently obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to find out
about them objectively and impartially. Similarly, in the field dealt with in
this book, we shall arrive at the idea that there exists an amazing degree of
organization in the functioning and evolution of living matter. Needless to
say, God does not manifest Himself scientifically, yet it is perfectly
possible to conceive of Him in scientific terms. My personal outlook remains
profoundly rational, and although I have adopted the conclusions of modern
science (when these are firmly established facts and not mere conjectures), I
cannot find any incompatibility between scientific findings and Scriptural
teachings. At the same time, however, the origin and history of the
Scriptural texts must also be taken into, consideration. If we omit this
aspect, we shall make an uneven assessment of the Scriptures, for we shall
have failed to make allowance for the part played by error or human
interpretation. I am convinced that such errors of interpretation were the
result of lack of information. The present book grew from the conviction that
on the extremely sensitive subject of man's origins, a comparison between
scientific data and Scriptural teachings might help clarify points too often
left obscure. I hope that the discussion of the answers provided by both
sources will show that it is time for past antagonisms to disappear. |
|||||||||||
Chapter 1: Evolution in the Animal Kingdom established facts
and gaps in our Knowledge
The Origins of Life and the
Diversity of Living Beings
If we
are to believe certain researchers and their statements concerning the
phenomenon of life, there are no more secrets left to discover today "The
origins of life no longer form the subject of laboratory investigation",
stated an eminent specialist in molecular biology in 1972. Always assuming
these words still carry a meaning, we may conclude that life does not contain
any facts we do not know. In reality, however, the situation is quite
different, and there are plenty of mysteries that still surround the origins
of life. Ingenious
experiments have for many years been repeatedly performed by biochemists and
biophysicians in an attempt to prove the possibility of spontaneously
obtaining infinite quantities of certain chemical compounds found in cells
that are structurally highly complex. The scientists in question are of the
opinion that due to favourable physical influences, the compounds were able
spontaneously to combine together in an organized fashion, and by uniting,
were able to produce the fantastic complex we call the cell, or even more
rudimentary living organisms. A statement such as this is tantamount to
saying that the possibility of spontaneously forming steel particles from
iron ore and coal at high temperature could have led to the construction of
the Those
who ardently defend the role of chance base their opinions on experiments of
this kind, which claim to reproduce the possible origins of life. They repeat
the views of Miller, who in 1955 induced the formation of complex chemical
compounds; such as the amino acids present in cellular proteins, using
electric sparks in an atmosphere of gas composed of steam, methane, ammonia
and hydrogen. Needless to say, such experiments do not provide any
explanation for the organization of the components; nor do we have any idea
whether this favourably composed gas really existed in the earth's atmosphere
two or three billion years ago. A theory cannot be built on unknown facts
such as these. Even if a gas of this kind did exist in the earth's atmosphere;
even if certain physical conditions did trigger high-powered electrical
phenomena; even if complex organic chemical compounds had formed as a result
of this fortunate combination of circumstances, there is nothing to prove
that they could have induced the creation of living matter. The determining
factor for this phenomenon remains unknown. Some researchers admit that there
is an enigma in this. Others point to chance a convenient loophole that
excuses them from acknowledging their ignorance. We shall come back later to
the reasons why it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of life in terms
such as these. We must
indeed turn to disciplines other than biochemistry to find the first clues to
the problem, and in particular we must look toward palaeontology. Certain
prehistoric animals and vegetals were not totally destroyed after their
death. Their remains lay buried in sedimentary terranes, protected thereby
from disintegration, and thus providing us with vestiges of these prehistoric
life forms. The state in which the vestiges are found sometimes allows us
''to draw certain conclusions concerning the morphology and age of these once
living beings [The material studied by Paleontology is limited to
the bones and teeth]. It is in fact possible to gain an immediate idea of their age
by establishing the date of the terranes. This can be done by various
methods, in particular by radioactive measurements (radio chronology). For
terranes that are geologically less ancient, carbon 14 tests are used, while
strontium and rubidium tests are employed for older terranes. Having carried
out these tests, experts can then determine the age of the specimens under
investigation. Tests
such as these lead us to think that living beings existed in a unicellular
state roughly one billion years ago [The earth is 4.5 billion
years old]. Although it cannot be stated for sure, other forms may have
existed before them. P: P. Grasse', in his book entitled `Evolution
du Vivant' [The Evolution of Living Organisms] [Published
by Albin Michel, Paris, 1973], mentions the discovery of vestiges of
much older organisms: for example, the existence of organized life forms
roughly 3.2 billion years ago in the rock formations of the Transvaal. These
forms could possibly represent tiny bacteria, smaller than 1 / 10,000
millimetres, as well as particles of amino acids. These organisms may have
employed amino acids, or possibly proteins contained in the sea...Other
microorganisms may also have been present in the sediments, such as
cyanophilous algae containing chlorophyll. The latter is a basic agent in
photosynthesis, a process by which complex organic compounds are formed from
simple components through the effect of light. Fossilized vegetation
resembling algae and filamentous bacteria have been found in more recent rock
formations (2.3 billion years old) near the shores of The
pluricellular stage was to follow, but "in the animal kingdom, between
uni and pluricellular forms, there was still a hiatus". Two basic
notions must be mentioned immediately
This
growing complexity is ever present throughout evolution: We find similar
fossilized vegetation at a much more `recent' period, 500 million years ago.
We cannot be certain, of course, that today's bacteria are identical to those
said to have appeared on earth as the first living organisms. They may have
evolved since then, although bacteria such as Escherichia Coli have indeed
remained the same for 250 million years. Whatever
the answer, the origins of life definitely appear to be aquatic. According to
today's thinking, it is impossible to conceive of life without water. Any
search for traces of life on other. planets begins with the question: Has
water been present there? On the earth's surface, the combination of certain
conditions including the presence of water was required for life to exist at
all. The
complexity of living matter in those very first organisms is not likely to
have been as great as it is in today's cells. Nevertheless, as P: P. Grasse'
points out: "In order for life to exist, there must be a production and
exchange of energy. This is only physically possible within a system that is
heterogeneous and complex. The established facts at the command of the
biologist provide a reason for him to concede that the first living form was
of necessity an organized entity". This leads Like
the amoeba, unicellular life forms are composed of differentiated elements.
Their structure is amazingly complex, even though the cells are measured in
units of 1 / 1,000 of a millimetre. Within the fundamental substance of
unicellular forms, called cytoplasm, whose chemical structure is highly
complex, there are numerous differentiated elements, the most important of
which is the nucleus. This is composed of many parts, in particular the
chromosomes containing the genes. These control every single aspect of the
cell's functioning. They give orders through a system of information
transfer, using transmitters and a system to receive the orders as they come
in. The chemical vehicle supporting the genes has been clearly identified: It
is deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.), a molecule of complex structure. The
`messenger' is a related molecule known as ribonucleic acid, R.N.A for short.
Within the cell, it is this system that ensures the formation of new proteins
from simpler chemical elements (synthesis of proteins). It is
difficult not to feel tremendous admiration for the molecular biologists that
first discovered these extremely complex mechanisms systems so perfectly
regulated to maintain life that the slightest malfunction leads to
deformities or monstrous growths (cancer is a case in point) and ends in
death. As far as I am concerned, however, the brilliant analysis of the way
this system works (for each and every cell is a kind of computer comprised of
innumerable interrelations) is just as amazing as the general conclusions
cited above concerning the supposed resolution of unexplained facts on the
origins of life. One very important question immediately springs to mind,
based on the results of these investigations: How could 'a system as complex
as this have been formed? Was it the work of chance, following a host of
trials and errors? That seems most unlikely. What other logical theories are
there? It is common knowledge that a computer will only function if it has
been programmed, a fact that implies the existence of a programming intellect,
that provides the information required to operate the system. That is the
problem facing all thinking people who seek an explanation to such questions;
people who refuse to accept mere words of groundless theories; people who
will only acknowledge conclusions based on facts. Given the present state of
knowledge, however, science has not provided any answer to this precise
point. The Diversity of Living
Beings
There
is tremendous diversity among living beings. From the most ancient times,
human observers have noted this diversity and have taken great pains to
analyse it in minute detail. Naturalists record the striking precision of
certain primitive peoples in their ability to distinguish between the species
of animals surrounding them. Having received no instruction from outside,
these peoples have compiled inventories that are not far off the work of an
expert. The
first distinction to be made between living beings is the separation of the
animal and vegetable kingdoms. Although they share a common basic element the
cell as well as numerous constituent substances, they are different in
several ways. The vegetable kingdom is directly dependent on the earth for
its nourishment. It also requires a much greater capacity for producing
complex chemical compounds from simple bodies and light. The animal kingdom,
on the other hand; depends on the vegetable kingdom for its nourishment (at
least with regard to animals that have attained a certain degree of
complexity), and carnivores depend on other species of animal. Henceforth,
we shall concentrate uniquely on the animal kingdom, which is extraordinarily
varied and large. There may be as many as 1.5 million species living on our
planet. The list has continued to grow, especially in recent decades, with
the discoveries made in the marine world. Ever since the natural sciences
gained stature and importance in the seventeenth century, format
classifications have constantly appeared, each updated in turn as new data
are discovered. Aristotle
drew a distinction between animals with red blood and those without, but no
other studies of a serious nature were undertaken until the seventeenth
century, when more interesting characteristics began to attract attention.
For example: Some observers were struck by the question of respiration
through the lungs or the branchiae (fish gills), the existence or absence of
a vertebral skeleton (backbone), the anatomy of the heart (number of
ventricles), or the existence of hair as opposed to feathers. ' In the
classifications that were to follow, characteristics such as these remained
distinctive of certain animal groups. The
distribution of distinguishing attributes opened the way for classification
by group, with series of subdivisions. Thus the phyla [Plural
of Phylum] characterise the broad basic divisions of the living beings
presenting similar features, allowing us to put them in the same group. Each
phylum can be divided into clearly defined classes; these are also determined
by a certain number of specific characteristics. Similarly, each class
contains several clearly differentiated orders, which nevertheless maintain
the general features of their class and phylum. An order consists of various
families, the families are composed of genera [Plural
of genus], and the genera contain different species displaying both
collective and specific characteristics. Classification is further
complicated, however, by the existence of intermediary forms. The
first phylum of this classification is composed of unicellular forms, known
as protozoans. It includes the most primitive beings, which very probably
divided at some point in time, thus giving birth to pluricellular forms: This
is the first example of evolution in the course of time. The
structure of these pluricellular forms (spongiae, cnidariae and ctenophores)
became more complex as some acquired more specialized functions, without
however constituting organs with clearly defined attributes. For example,
some provided the covering of animals, others developed the ability to
contract, or became sensitive to outside stimuli, and others acquired
reproductory functions. The system grew more involved when a cavity appeared
that served as a digestive tract (cnidariae and ctenophores) and the sensory
organs made their appearance. This group did not as yet possess a head,
however. Embryological
data have been of great value in establishing the various classifications in
the animal kingdom. Thus an important stage in the growth of a structural
complexity was reached with the early appearance during embryonic development
of an extra germ layer. The number of layers thus grew from two to three,
each layer ensuring the formation of clearly defined organs. Animals with
three germ layers were in turn divided into 2 groups: those containing a
single cavity (the digestive tract) and those with cavities that developed
next to the digestive tract and which were responsible for the formation of
tissues and various other organs. The broad divisions of the animal kingdom,
here reduced to their most basic terms, already seem to suggest a methodical
organization. The
latter guided, the birth of the various phyla, of which 20 emerged (very
unevenly) into the following four groups
Nevertheless,
the gaps in our knowledge of the transitions from one of these groups to
another are very wide indeed. In the case of the insects, one of the most
important groups, we know nothing whatsoever of their origins (P. P. Grasse)
Likewise, there are no fossils left to indicate the beginnings of the various
phyla. "Every explanation of the mechanism that governs the creative
evolution of the basic organizational plans is weighed down with hypotheses.
This statement should figure at the beginning of any book dealing with
evolution. Since we have no firm documentary evidence; statements on the
origins of the phyla can only be suppositions, opinions whose degree of
feasibility we have no way of measuring." P. P. Grasse's observation on
the phyla should caution any statement on the origins of the major basic
divisions. From this point of view, the determining causes of the phenomena
in question are just as mysterious as the birth of the most rudimentary life
forms. The Concept of Evolution in
the Animal Kingdom: The Difficulty of Solving the Problem
It is
difficult to say at what period prior to the nineteenth century the question
of evolution in the animal kingdom was first raised. In the centuries before
Christ, several Greek philosophers had already perceived that the living
world was subject to transformations. Observers coming after them sometimes displayed
startling flashes of intuitive insight. Inevitably, however, their
conclusions arose from philosophical ideas or pure speculations. The fact
that they later proved to be correct, although the product of sheer
guesswork; does not lend any particular value to these early philosophical
concepts. Indeed, we should always bear in mind that during the same period,
the same philosophers maintained totally inaccurate theories with complete
equanimity: the theories concerning the existence of the universe in an
identical state throughout eternity, for example. In
1801, however, Lamarck became the very first naturalist to put forward the
idea of evolution.. It appeared in his `Discours d'ouverture' (Inaugural
Speech), eight years ahead .of his `Philosophie
zoologique' (Zoological Philosophy). For the rest of his
life, Lamarck collected arguments to support his theory. Cuvier, the other
famous French naturalist of the nineteenth century, published his `Histoire
des ossements fossiles' (History of Fossilized Bones)
in 1812. He compares present day animals with fossilized remains,
demonstrating the existence of extinct species. Cuvier's study does not,
however, support the idea of evolution. J. P. Lehmann suggests the following
reason for this: Cuvier thought that the fossils in question could not be
older than the maximum figure of several millennia allotted by the Bible to
the earth and the animal kingdom. Because, for example, the Egyptian mummy of
an ibis did not indicate that a change had taken place in today's animal,
evolution did not exist. In 1859, Darwin introduced the idea of the natural
selection of species, and it was not long before others attributed to
Darwin's theory the general concept of evolution. J. Roger has indeed pointed
out "the actual word `evolution' is not part of Darwin's original
terminology. It did not appear until the sixth edition of On
the Origin of Species, and even then it was used more as a general denial of the
fixity of the created species than an affirmation of Darwinian transformism
proper." Hence, if we are to follow the theories of P: P. Grasse in `L'homme
en accusation' [Man Stands Accused] and of J. Roger, we shall
see that the true father of evolution is Lamarck (even though his name is
always associated with transformism), while Darwin is little more than a
transformist (even though he has always been considered the first naturalist
firmly to introduce the idea of evolution.) Later on, we shall take a closer
look at the ideas of both Lamarck and Darwin. However
that may be, the data provided by zoology and palaeontology combined clearly
furnished firm arguments from which to approach the question at issue.
Zoology strove to classify the different groups of orders, families, genera
and species, basing its distinctions mainly on anatomy, physiology, and
embryology. Palaeontology, on the other hand, ascertained (or tried to
ascertain) at what periods in time life forms appeared similar to those of
today, and at what periods beings now extinct first appeared then
disappeared. This is an important concept to remember, otherwise we run the
risk of misinterpreting the information provided by palaeontology: For
example, the discovery of certain fossil specimens in terranes dating from a
precise geological age does not necessarily mean that these life forms were
inexistent before or after the age in question. Errors of this kind are less
likely to occur when fossilized forms are highly numerous within a certain
period, especially when there are no specimens to be found in fossils pre- or
postdating the specific period: In the case of man, however, whenever there
are very few genuine or supposedly genuine remains, and whenever such
vestiges are limited to bone fragments, the way is open for a host of errors,
as we shall see later on. In spite
of these reservations, we can derive many ideas from observing how a clearly
defined anatomical form present at a certain point in time has succeeded a
similar form with a less developed morphology existing in older terranes.
This change over a period of time may possibly reflect a better adaptation to
what may well have been new conditions of life. Observations such as these
must, however, be repeated with many different examples before one can
seriously talk of evolution. Only palaeontology can provide us with proof of
this kind. Having started promisingly in the early nineteenth century
Palaeontology really came, into its own after Darwin. The English naturalist
did not employ any decisive arguments from palaeontology: In most cases, his
opinions rested on the study of present day animals, suggesting an apparent
natural selection that did not, however, explain everything. Thus, Darwin's
arguments are by no means conclusive. What
can we say today about the definite or extremely probable data of palaeontology
when combined with facts drawn from our knowledge of zoology? As we
have, already seen, pluricellular life forms most, probably developed. from
unicellular forms. The most primitive pluricellular beings are likely to have
been the spongiae (sponges), which although not possessing clearly
differentiated organs already display a reproductive organization that is
sexual. From these primitive forms probably derive the cnidarian and
ctenophores mentioned earlier. The latter possess the rudiment's of organs
and cells that have acquired nervous and muscular functions: _ They are
likely to have been formed less than one billion years ago., The first
invertebrates probably appeared 500 or. 600 million years ago, along with
molluscs, annulated worms, and the first insects. The vertebrates came later,
roughly 450 million years ago, and likewise certain fishes, which continued
to develop, thereafter. The first. Terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians and
reptiles) appeared some 350 million years ago, and following them came the
mammals (180 million years ago) and the birds (I35 million years ago). Life
forms not only appeared however, they also disappeared, sometimes in. very,
large; quantities. The reptiles provide an example of this phenomenon::
Having predominated for 200~million years, they went into decline, so that
today we have few vestiges to account for reptile life over the past 60 or 70
million years. The mammals have taken their `place' if one may call it that. This
deliberately brief and generalized survey shows, the magnitude; of the
evolution toward ever more developed and. complex forms. Also evident is the
extent to which forms could disappear (and not just the reptiles), thus
bringing considerable changes to the general, aspect of: the living world. ,
Finally we must mention forms that have remained unchanged for hundreds of
millions of years cockroaches, to take an example from the insect world.
There are, however, many other groups, to which we shall later return, Each
and every one of these data raises considerable problems, thus indicating,
the complexity of evolution. We are forced to account not only for
progressions, and regressions, but also, for extinctions. In view
of this, the problem of the general evolution of life forms is fantastically,
vast and complex. It requires us to search into extremely diverse fields: the
natural sciences (botany and zoology), comparative anatomy, palaeontology,
embryology, and chemistry to mention only those that seem to have provided
the most evidence. There are, however, many evolutionary studies published by
researchers who, though undoubtedly extremely well informed in their fields,
have an unfortunate tendency to draw generalized conclusions without any
detailed knowledge of what experts from other fields have to say oh the same
subject. The
matter at hand is indeed so vast that very few specialists are able to master
each and every aspect of it: To do so would require tremendous experience, as
well as knowledge spanning a whole range of different disciplines. It is for
this reason that the observer who by definition is willing to accept any
proposition providing it is supported by solid arguments remains very
sceptical of conclusions too heavily based on data from a single field of
study. Thus it is difficult to accept certain theories, based on molecular
biology or mathematical research in genetics concerning the evolution of
living forms, when the authors of these theories quite obviously attach very
little importance to the work of their colleagues in other branches of
knowledge. For example, what about the work of researchers in the field of
palaeontology excavating ancient fossilized forms? What about the wealth of
relevant facts supplied by comparative anatomy and embryology? Sadly, we must
note that specialists in the basic sciences, preoccupied as they are with the
origins of life, the beginnings of man and the evolution of living forms,
have lost their appetite for arguments based on solid facts from the past. This
criticism is, in no way intended to undermine the tremendous value of
evolutionary data gleaned from the cell. It is simply aimed at the overly
exclusive use of these data, devoid of any interpretation. Unfortunately,
this shortcoming is very common nowadays. So many problems containing
countless facets are examined by specialists from a wide range of
disciplines, only to be viewed in the light that is most congenial to the
eyes of the specialists in question. A further difficulty is the frequent and
unfortunate intervention of ulterior motives of a religious or metaphysical
kind, that quite obviously underlie the opinions of many researchers. For
example, a theorist f may rely heavily on a material argument, glad to have
discovered it if he thinks the argument will support his cherished materialistic
theory. But those who are not informed may think it is dangerous to
acknowledge the idea of evolution, even in the animal kingdom, for fear that
by extending this view to man, they may go against the religious teachings
they wish to uphold. In so doing, they are unaware of the fact that certain
aspects of modern discoveries that are usually employed to support
materialistic views may indeed offer a solid argument to those of
diametrically opposed opinions. All of which is to say, that questions of
this kind ought to be approached without any preconceived ideas at all. Lamarck & Transformation
Nowadays,
there is a colossal quantity of data at the disposal of the specialists who
seek an answer to the questions raised here. In the past, however, the material
available for constructing a theory was very limited indeed. The opinions
expressed were strongly influenced by philosophical ideas and religious
beliefs. In spite of this however, certain ideas did escape these influences,
and in view of the concepts prevalent at the time, they were absolutely
revolutionary. In the
sixth century B.C., Anaximander of Miletus put forward the notion of
evolution in the animal kingdom. His theory appeared at the time the so
called Sacerdotal version of Genesis was being written on the other side of
the Mediterranean, in which there is mention of the creation of living beings
`each according to its kind'. In the century after, Empedocles appears to
have sided with the general concept of evolution. He does not, however, seem
able to have produced anything but a bizarre account of the origins of man
that is entirely the work of his vivid imagination. Lucretius, on the other,
hand, expresses ideas in his work `De Natura Rerum' [On
Nature] that favour the notion of a process of 'natural selection
that preserves the strongest species and eliminates the weakest. The
Bible was responsible for the widespread notion that the species were fixed
and unchanging, a concept that held sway until the nineteenth century. Even
so, Saint Augustine and several other Fathers of the Church mention certain
possibilities of transformation as a result of the potential attributes that
God bestowed on the world when He created it. Buffon
was the first thinker to uphold the idea of evolution, but he did so with a
certain amount of timidity. Initially, he had considered the species to be
fixed and unchanging, but as he grew older and his knowledge of nature
increased, he came to view them as in a state of evolution. To be precise,
however, he considered the families of animals to have come from a single
species, having acquired various characteristics in the course of time while
remaining within a certain biological framework. The fact is, he was not
prepared to admit that one species could transform itself into another; he
only accepted the existence of limited variations. For Buffon, conditions of
life climate, food, and domestication were the prime factors in the changes
that took place in animals. His doubts and hesitations are mentioned in P. P.
Grass6's book `Biologie Animale' [Animal
Biology] [Co-author M. Aron and P. P. Grasse, published by
Masson, Paris 1935]: "Buffon's work gives the impression that the naturalist did
not want to follow his thoughts through to the very end. Anxious to preserve
his peace and quiet, he was afraid of coming into violent conflict with the
preconceived ideas of his day. When the Sorbonne sharply called him back into
line, he agreed to everything they asked." Lamarck,
on the other hand, enjoyed a far greater freedom to say what he liked. Lamarck, the Father of
Evolution
Although
Lamarck had been the official Botanist to the French king, when the
Revolution broke out, he was lucky enough to secure himself a position where
he could study and teach without hindrance. Thus, in 1794, he occupied a
teaching post at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle [French National
Museum of Natural History]. Seven years later, in 1801, he outlined the
theory of evolution in his `Discours d'ouverture du 21
Floreal An 8' [Inaugural Speech of the 21st: Day of Floreal, Year 8]
[According to the Revolutionary calender] several years
before his masterwork `La Philosophie zoologique' [Zoological
Philosophy], which appeared in 1809. Until his dying day, Lamarck
worked tirelessly, amassing copious evidence to support his theories.
Although they are open to criticism on certain points his opinions are
unacceptable today they nevertheless represent a step forward so enormous,
that there is every reason to call Lamarck the `Father of Evolution'. But for
all this, he died in dreadful intellectual isolation; criticized and mocked
by his contemporaries, misjudged and underestimated, in spite of the
importance of his work as a naturalist. Lamarck
had shown the "relative unchangeability" of species, which are
"only temporarily invariable." If their conditions of life changed,
Lamarck considered that the species would change in "size, form,
proportion between their various parts, colour, firmness, agility and
industriousness... Changes in their environment modify their needs or create
new ones; new habits lead to greater use of certain organs and the neglect of
others. When an organ is left unused, it shrinks and may finally disappear
altogether". (I owe to P. P. Grasse this synopsis of Lamarck's ideas on
the influence of environment.) Indeed,
it has been observed that the teeth of animals that do not chew their food
(the anteater or the whale, for example) tend to atrophy or not to emerge at
all. Another example is the mole; whose eyes are so tiny they often see
absolutely nothing. Going in the opposite direction, intense use of an organ
leads to its development The
feet of birds that live in water become webbed as a result of swimming, the
tongue of the anteater grows longer as a result of the way it extends its
tongue to catch and coat its victims with a sticky substance. The study of
these variations led Lamarck to conclude that when a change occurred, it was
toward a more complex organ (in the case of organs that develop as a result
of intensive use), and that variations of this kind were transmitted by
heredity. Critical Assessment of
Lamarck's Theories
In
criticizing Lamarck's theories, one must bear in mind the nature of the data
on which, in his day, Lamarck was able to base his ideas. While there are undoubtedly
points that he treats somewhat superficially, his ideas nevertheless contain
an element of truth. In Lamarck's eyes, the evidence was so striking that in
an age where others denied such evidence, the truth had to be proclaimed. All
the same, Lamarck overestimated the influence of environment, and his idea
that characteristics are automatically transferred by heredity is no longer
acceptable. Zoologists
have indeed pointed to the existence of changes that were induced by
environment the influence of food on the digestive tract, for example. It is
a well-known fact, however, that overworked muscles become hypertrophied.
Similarly, when a duplicate organ is removed, the remaining organ is quite
likely to grow bigger, although it does not change at all from a structural
point of view. An issue is the usefulness to the individual of the change
thus created, a point that has not been proven in the least. Nor is the
change definitive within the history of the species, for the hereditary
nature of acquired characteristics is a purely intellectual notion. Tests
carried out after a change of environment have shown that new characteristics
are not passed on to descendants. This is the sharpest criticism to be made
of Lamarck's theory. Nevertheless, Lamarck did indeed show the existence of a
kind of evolution in the animal kingdom: Where he went wrong was in his
assessment of the amplitude of evolution, as gauged through his observations.
The explanation he provided was unconvincing, and thus Lamarck was unable to
gain acceptance for his ideas. Cuvier, who favoured the concept of the fixity
of species, vigorously challenged him and it was Cuvier and those of his
opinion who won the day. Lamarck's
ideas did not come into favour until several decades after his death, when
palaeontologists produced evidence lacking while Lamarck was alive of
morphological changes due to variations in environment. Moreover, the phrase
`influence of the environment' needs to be better understood, for we seem
here to be faced with a question of terminology requiring explanation. If by
`environment' we mean all the influences that are likely to produce an effect
on living organisms, then quite obviously changes may occur under such
conditions. Not all of Lamarck's theories are to be dissuaded. Darwin and Natural
Selection, or a Hypothesis survives through Ideology
In
order to establish his doctrine, some fifty years after Lamarck; Darwin
advanced many more seemingly significant facts than his predecessor.
Unfortunately, however; Darwin thought everything could be explained through
the postulate of the all-pervading power of natural selection. There is no
doubt, moreover, that Darwin was strongly motivated by sociological
considerations, factors which should have no place in a scientific doctrine,
and yet his work is still very well known today. The following reasons may
account for his continuing fame: Darwin's arguments are extremely cleverly
presented, and often subtlety is more effective than the rigorousness of the
arguments themselves. Nor should we overlook the satisfaction of certain
scientists who were quick to use Darwin's theory to discredit Biblical
teachings on the subject of the origins of man and the fixity of species.
Indeed, with regard to the evolution of species, Darwin's theory was used to
prove that man was descended from the great apes. In fact, however, the
animalistic origin of man is an idea that was first put forward by Haeckel in
1868. It is
quite common today for people to confuse Darwinism with evolution a misconception
that is extremely annoying because it is totally wrong. Darwin himself
presented his theory in quite a different way, as the following extract from
On the Origin of Species [The full title reads On
the Origin of Species by Means Of Natural Selection or The Preservation of
Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life, London 1859. The texts
quoted here are taken from the Pelican Classics Edition, published by Penguin
Books, 1982.] shows: "Hence,
as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in
every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of
the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the
physical conditions of life... Can it, then, be thought improbable, Being
that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other
variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle
of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If
such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born
than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of
procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any
variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This
preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious
variations, I call Natural Selection." In
actual fact, Darwin indicated that he intended to put forward a theory on the
origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life. This became the banner of the
evolutionists, which they brandished in the fight between materialistic
philosophy and religious faith. The same banner is still being waved today in
the same spirit. Darwin has remained one of the idols of the atheistic
arsenal, always ready to support whatever ideas bring grist to their mill. As
the reader of the present book will see in chapter after chapter, the
existence of evolution, even when applied to the human species, no longer
constitutes an argument that undermines religious faith. Indeed, the latest
studies of biological processes within the cell reveal facts that are
significant in a different way from the flimsily based questions, which once
formed the subject of discussion. They raised points concerning the
organization of life and in fact lead us in a direction totally opposite to
the main subject of past controversies. All in
all, Darwin's doctrine is very straight forward. He notes the obvious fact
that there is a wide variety in the number of characteristics present in
individuals belonging to a particular species, and he provides reasons for
this that are fairly similar to those of Lamarck. Darwin states that the
reproductive cells are modified as well, and that newly acquired attributes
are hereditary. He goes further than Lamarck, however, when tie talks of the
advantages derived from certain modifications that nature, by means of
selection, perpetuates through the elimination of the weakest in favour of
those most able to survive this pitiless process. According to Darwin, there
is also a process of sexual selection in which the females choose the
strongest males... The
concept of natural selection exercised a tremendous fascination, and even
today, the followers of Darwin consider the advocate of natural selection to
be the greatest genius who ever worked in the field of natural sciences. He
still remains one of the most venerated zoologists. The highest honours were
accorded to him at his death. Although his work had provided arguments to
support atheism in the confrontation between religion and science that raged
in the second half of the nineteenth century, his mortal remains were
interred by the British nation in Westminster Abbey, London. In
actual fact, Darwin's work contains two aspects: The first is scientific, but
in spite of the impressive quantity of data observed by Darwin, when all is
said and done, the scientific aspect is far from solid; while his observations
are extremely interesting from the point of view of the various species, they
do not tell us very much about evolution itself and that is quite a different
matter. The second aspect, which is philosophical, is very strongly stressed
by Darwin and very clearly expressed. The Ideas of Malthus as
Applied to the Animal Kingdom
Darwin
does not hide the influence of Malthus' ideas on his own concept of natural
selection. The following quotation from Darwin is taken from P. P. Grasses
work `L'homme en accusation' [Man
Stands Accused]: "In the next chapter the. Struggle for
Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably
follows from their high geometrical powers of increase, will be treated of.
This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable
kingdoms." This statement appears 'in the introduction to the second
edition of On the Origin of Species, 1860. Before
applying a socio economic theory to data observed in the animal kingdom a
field that by definition has nothing to do with socio economic theory, Darwin
had indeed pursued very logically his thoughts concerning the natural
phenomena he had so carefully observed. From 1831 to 1836, he accompanied the
mission of the ship the Beagle in the South Atlantic and the
Pacific, serving as a naturalist. The voyage provided Darwin with ample
opportunity to observe on land. Thus he was struck by the modifications
displayed in the species studied, corresponding to the places in which they
lived. From this he derived the notion of an absence of fixity, and he
compared this to the selective breeding of domestic animals by humans in an
effort to improve the various species. The question that sprang to his mind
was: How could selection be applied to organisms living in their natural
state? By this I think what he probably meant was: Do the factors that man
uses when making his selections for the purpose of cross breeding animals
possess an equivalent in nature? There does indeed seem to be spontaneous
selection between animals in their natural state. Thus a question was raised
and a hypothesis suggested, but in the answer that followed there was no
certainty whatsoever. It is
very difficult to understand how Darwin could have found justification for
this theory in the ideas put forward by Malthus. The later was an Anglican
clergyman whose initial interest was in demographic factors and their
economic consequences. In 1798, he anonymously published an Essay
on the Principle of Population in which he proposed various solutions.
Some of them are totally inhuman, such as the famous Poor Law, which
abolished assistance to those who produced nothing and lived off the rich. As
far as Malthus was concerned, selection operated among human beings: Only
those most able to produce deserved to survive, those less
favoured by nature were destined to disappear. In view of the dreadful misery
present among the working classes at this early stage in the industrial
revolution, such total lack of basic human charity is staggering. Darwin saw
interesting ideas in the propositions of Malthus, and he applied to human
beings the hypothesis of a selective process that ensured the survival of the
fittest and most able at the expense of the weak a selection that nature
itself would operate. Those
are the facts, and if Darwin's statement were not there, written in black and
white, who would ever think of associating his early ideas with the
pitilessly rigid prescriptions of Malthus? In `L'homme
en accusation' (Man Stands Accused) P. P. Grasse is extremely
critical of Darwin for having drawn his inspiration from Malthus and for the
unfortunate influence he created: "Due
to its basic precepts and final conclusions, Darwinism is the most
antireligious and most materialistic doctrine in existence." P. P.
Grasse is amazed that Christian men of science do not seem to be aware of
this. He goes on to note that "Karl Marx was much more perceptive. When
he read On the Origin of Species, he recognized
the materialistic, atheistic inspiration of the work. That is why he admired
it so much and why he used it in the way he did. In its pages, Marx found the
material needed to dissolve all religious belief, an opinion shared by the
founders of the Soviet Union, especially Lenin... They created a Museum of
Darwinism in Moscow in order to combat `Christian obscurantism' with the help
of scientific data!" Criticism of Darwin's
Theory
It is
patently clear that if left to them, animals or plants that contain a defect
or infirmity will be the first to disappear. There is little need to cite
examples supporting this statement of the obvious. But to go from this to
saying that selection in nature ensures only the survival of the strongest
and fittest is quite a different matter. Our response must be much more
subtle. When we
observe animal populations living within a certain territory, we are well
aware that a system of balances is in operation; even though the balances may
not be the same everywhere in one section of the territory a species
predominates, in, another it is supplanted by a different species. In cases
such as this, there is no doubt that selection is operating within a single
population; but it does not influence biological evolution as a whole. Observations
are further distorted by the arrival of cataclysms or extreme changes in
climate over the ages. Such events may affect vast areas, striking blindly,
and without any of the selective influences one might expect to find in the
disappearance of a population: Flooding from rivers or the sea, or fires for
example, can cause great devastation, but that does not mean that their
victims were specially selected. Likewise during the various geological eras,
glaciations struck indiscriminately. An
objection to Darwin's theory that P. P. Grasse raises is the fact that death
does not always make a distinction. It does not always kill the weakest and
preserve the strongest, as Darwin would like us to think. P. P. Grasse gives
precise examples of cases where it is not possible to know, at 'a certain
stage in the metamorphosis of living beings, why it is that one batch evolves
normally and another does not. When animals fight, it is not always the
strongest and best equipped who win the battle: The percentage of animals who
are victorious depends on factors such as chance and circumstance. The idea
of sexual selection is also open to considerable criticism: It is very
unrealistic to imagine that the female always chooses the strongest male,
.for the element of chance in such encounters outweighs individual
preferences. What
evidence is there of the power of selection to provoke the emergence of new
forms? Darwin likened natural selection to the artificial selection practised
by .man. In actual fact, however, artificial selection does not create new
species; all it does is influence certain characteristics. The individuals
themselves do not `take leave' of their species, as it were. Artificial
selection does not trigger the formation of new organs, it does not lead to
the creation of a new genus, nor does it engender a new type of organization.
These facts are very clearly stated by P. P. Grasse who cites the example of
colon bacillus and drosophila, organisms, which can undergo mutations while
preserving the characteristics of their species that have been passed down
for millions of years. Thus the minor individual variations mentioned by
Darwin are by no means hereditary a point on which Darwin's theory is just as
open to criticism as Lamarck's. Data on Evolution in the
Animal Kingdom that Contradict Darwinian Concepts
In this
section, we shall quote the objections raised by P: P. Grasse, the first of
which is Darwin's own admission that his doctrine was incomplete:
"Judging from letters (and I have just seen one from Thwaites to
Hooker), and from remarks, the most serious omission in my book was not
explaining how it is, as I believe, that all forms do not necessarily
advance, how there can be simple organisms still existing..." (Letter to
Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, from The Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin, by Francis Darwin, 3 vols, published by John Murray, 1887.) Darwin
speaks of the `progress' that natural selection ought to ensure in living
beings, by which he confuses `progress' with growing organizational
complexity, an essential aspect of evolution to which we shall return.
Elsewhere, he expresses his amazement at the existence of living forms which
have not changed at all over the course of time but have remained at the
stage of very simple organisms: This is a phenomenon that is easily explained
today in terms of modern ideas on mutagenesis. Every living being is affected
by mutagenesis, minor variations which do not, however, cause the organisms
concerned to leave the framework of their species. For
example, zoologists are very familiar with the so-called `pan chronic' species,
which have remained the same throughout the course of time. Blue algae are a
case in point: There is every reason to think that these organisms have been
in existence for at least one billion years, and yet they are still the same
today. Other examples are the ferro-bacteria, sponges, molluscs, and animals
such as the opossum or the famous coelacanth which, though hundreds of
millions of years old, have not changed at all. The coelacanth caused great
excitement when it was discovered off the coast of South Africa in 1938. It
is a fish, over 4 1/2 feet long, that is thought to have appeared roughly 300
millions years ago. Several other examples of this fish have been caught in
more recent times almost to order, for the local fishermen are familiar with the
coelacanth. Examination of these fish provided important information on the
anatomy and physiology of a species, which, like so many others, refused to
conform to the natural selection put forward by Darwin. At the same time
however, none of these organisms has ceased to undergo mutations a process
that is inevitable. As far as the fish are concerned, however, their
evolution has come to an end. If we seek the reason why, we find that
Darwin's theory is unable to provide an answer that both agrees with his
doctrine and explains the preservation of these hereditary characteristics. According
to the law of natural selection, such imperfections as the excessive
development of a single characteristic should not be allowed to develop and
perpetuate themselves, to the extent that they harm the animal or vegetal
concerned. Nevertheless, it is a well-known fact that certain conifer plants
produce chemical compounds that irresistibly attract coleoptera which then
devour them. The production of these chemical, compounds is therefore
responsible for the death of the plant. This process has been going on for
millions of, years: Natural selection does not intervene to save pine and fir
trees from destruction by insects. Similarly,
the antelope is able to escape its enemies by its extreme speed, and yet
there are species of this animal whose hooves contain glands that secrete a
particular odour, which, as the antelope runs, is left on the ground. All the
attacking carnivore has to do is follow the scent in order to track down its
prey. Thus the graceful antelope is left unprotected by the theories of
Darwin! Another example; of a harmful individual attribute is the excessive
growth of horns, which can constitute a handicap. Finally, we are all
familiar with the case of the deer, whose antlers impede its movement through
the forest. Studies
of the coelacanth have shown the extent to which this fish contains
characteristics that are paradoxical to the zoologist. If natural selection
were genuinely present, these characteristics ought by rights to have
disappeared, thus providing the coelacanth with a more functional morphology.
The fact is; however, nothing has changed for several hundred million years. If we
examine the argument put forward by zoological specialists who are opposed to
Darwinism, we shall undoubtedly see that it is sometimes quite difficult to
distinguish between a harmful and a beneficial morphological change in an
animal. For example, snakes have lost all their limbs, but that does not mean
they have been placed in an inferior state. Given a case such as this, what
right have we to speak of an animal that has `regressed'? The example of the
snake is indeed extremely revealing, for the loss of its limbs was
accompanied by other major modifications of its skeleton and numerous
viscera, affecting its general anatomy. Zoologists are at a loss to explain
in Darwinian terms such sweeping changes; they are modifications, which were
perfectly coordinated over the course of time, and the succession of
phenomena here appears infinitely complex, from an anatomical point of view.
Thus we must seek an explanation different from the intellectual view that
casts everything in terms of finality in spite of what the Darwinians may
say. In his
book `L'Evolution du monde vivant' [The
Evolution of the Living World] [Published by Plon,
Paris, 1950. The fac-simile of Darwin's letter is contained in this book. M.
Vernet notes that the letter is preserved at the British Museum (Ref A DD MS.
37725f.6)], M. Vernet cites a letter that Darwin wrote to Thomas Thorton
Esq. in 1861. Darwin states quite clearly that he is aware of having failed'
to explain evolution: "But
1 believe in natural selection, not because, I can prove, in any single case;
that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups and
explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification,
embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession and
distribution..." Darwin
was perfectly well aware; therefore, that the theories he advanced concerned
the possible influence of natural selection on a
species that did not, however, transform itself into another species. Furthermore,
when Darwin put forward the idea of natural selection as a tentative
explanation of his objective observations, he was simply proposing a theory.
By definition, a theory is no more than a hypothesis that for a while serves
to link facts of various kinds by way of an explanation. While it may prove
useful at a certain stage in human knowledge; however, it is the future that
determines whether a certain hypothesis is valid or not. The validity of
Darwin's theory has not yet been proven. Unfortunately
for Darwinism; the theory was used for ideological purposes. We are now much
more familiar with the process of evolution, owing to more consistent data
such as the information provided by paleontology and the natural sciences, as
well as new knowledge, acquired since Darwin, concerning heredity (genetics)
and biology (especially molecular biology.) In spite of this, we are still,
saddled with the theory formulated by Darwin over a century ago; there are
those who do not wish to see its ideological success diminished. That is why
we today have the `neo Darwinians' who hope to use modern discoveries to
combine the basic idea of selection with new data. We shall see later on that
a combination of this kind is also open to severe criticism. I
should like to conclude this discussion of Darwinism proper by turning once
again to the opinions of P: P. Grasse. The reason I have quoted this eminent
specialist in evolution so often is that I consider his opinions to be
extremely well argued and logical. This is what P. P. Grasse has to say about
the influence of Darwin's work as a whole: "It is
significant but often forgotten that Darwin named the book that brought him
fame, On the Origin of Species. He sought the
mechanism through which one species transformed itself into another; he did
not envisage the origin of the basic types of organization. He not only
refused to give attention to the general problems concerning the unity of the
organizational plan, but he actively distrusted them. He expresses this as
follows: "It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as
the `plan of creation', `unity of design', & c., and to think that we
give an explanation when we only restate a fact." The expression `plan
of creation' does indeed suggest a tendentious interpretation, which we
reject. That does not mean, however, that Darwin's reasoning was correct when
he refused to consider the predominant problems of evolution. In his eyes,
natural selection explained everything; he therefore considered an animal in
terms of a species. His whole system of explanation was conceived in such a
way that he referred only to variations that did not go beyond the species.
It is a strange fact; however, that Darwin never took the trouble to define
what he meant by `species', not even in the glossary that appears at the end
of On the Origin of Species." [P. P. Grasse, "Biologie
moleculaire, mutagenese et evolution' (Molecular
Biology.Mutagenesis and Evolution), Masson, Paris, 1978 ] Neo Darwinism
In
order to realize the extent to which Darwin is still revered today, one has
to have come into contact with the academic world in America, especially in
the fields of biology, genetics or evolution. Darwin is venerated, however,
in spite of the fact that his theory is outdated and his concepts extremely
fragile. The criticism that may legitimately be levelled at Darwinism, as a
result of the proven data on evolution collected by palaeontologists,
zoologists and botanists, exercises a certain influence on the opinions of
specialists in Europe. It has virtually no impact on researchers in the
United States, who uphold theories that are for the most part conceived in
the laboratory. One is tempted to ask whether it is possible to be anything
but a Darwinian in America. In some people's opinion, the idea of criticizing
Darwin is the same as saying that the theories of Einstein are totally
worthless. The difference between them lies in the fact that Einstein's
theories were solidly based and their validity was subsequently demonstrated.
There are indeed people in Europe who persist in their infatuation with the
role of natural selection in evolution, but perhaps fewer than in the United
States. The
predominant idea at the moment seems to be the integration into the system of
newly acquired genetic discoveries: Natural selection no longer intervenes to
favour the survival of the fittest, but rather in terms of probabilities. It
operates through a statistical process that raises the likelihood that the
fittest will be the individuals who transmit their characteristics. Thus the
process of natural selection acts as the agent ensuring the preferential
transmission of attributes registered in the genes. The idea of sexual
selection lives again in the minds of the neo-Darwinians... Genetics
deals with the subject of heredity, and as we shall see very clearly later
on, today's discoveries in this field allow us to arrive at certain very
important theories and practical conclusions for genetics deals with present
day phenomena. With regard to evolution, genetics is currently, attempting to
study mutations that modify certain minor characteristics, concentrating its
research on living beings that reproduce very rapidly. As it happens,
however, evolution that takes place in the animal kingdom over the course of
time has a much greater effect than the minimal variations observed in
present day organisms. That is why zoologists specialising in evolution
question the extrapolations of the geneticists; the latter choose the wrong
method of applied study when investigating present day organisms, and this
leads them to mistaken interpretations of past events. In short, they are not
studying the real questions of evolution. If
evolution had indeed occurred in the manner suggested by the Darwinians and
neo-Darwinians in other words as a result of minimal variations (which as far
as we know leave living beings within the framework of their species) how
much time would have been required for the formation of the organized types
that exist today? Tens of billions of years! Hundreds of billions! In actual
fact, the amount of time needed for the transition from unicellular life
forms to the most recent higher mammals was just over one billion years.
Furthermore, examination of the transitions undergone by man from the
Australopithecus to present day Homo Sapiens indicate that modifications took
place at amazing speed within a very small population (we know this from the
rarity of fossils.) This is to be compared with the fact that for hundreds of
millions of years bacteria and insects such as cockroaches have remained more
or less identical in spite of the tremendous variety of individuals and genetic
mutations. Neo Darwinism takes no account of these fundamental points; thus
invalidating the very basis of its theory. We need
an explanation of the variable speed of evolution that is different from the
spontaneous, unpredictable mutations presented by the neo Darwinians as the
motivating force behind an evolution that is controlled by a so called
process of natural selection. This leads us to think that modern followers of
Darwinian theory have no coherent explanation of evolution to offer us. Their
explanatory suggestions however brilliant do not seem applicable to a real
situation that requires real answers. Socio-biology
With
E.O. Wilson [E.O. Wilson, Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass) and London, 1975] and American
socio biology, which gave allegiance to neo Darwinism, the explanatory
theories of all human action, based on the strict correlation between human
and animal motivations, have reached the height of their art. Indeed, E.O.
Wilson has given a more detailed view of his opinions in a work published
quite recently [E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Harvard
University Press. Cambridge (Mass). 1978]. Wilson and his followers have
studied the behaviour of animal communities, some of which such as the
termites are remarkably well organized, and the conduct of man, whose actions
Wilson considers to be entirely the result of impulses emanating from the
genes. This leads to an `animalisation' of man that is scientifically
unacceptable. If the damage caused by Wilson's ideas only affected the strict
framework of theoretical interpretation, it would not be that serious. What
is highly disturbing is that in the suggestions put forward for the practical
application of this theory, man is relegated to the level of an insect,
faithfully executing orders within an extremely well organized animalistic
society. Wilson
and the advocates of socio-biology further suggest that the scientist ought
to exercise the right to modify man at will by genetic procedures. As we
shall see later on, this would transform human society supposedly for the
better, in the eyes of those who uphold these theories according so called
scientific bases. What this in fact amounts to is nothing other than the
social ideal that was once constructed on principles of race. We all know
that it led to the most widespread slaughter in the history of modern times
and to the final collapse of the `master race'. E.O. Wilson and socio-biology
open prospects that are utterly degrading for mankind. I shall return to them
in my discussion of what I call `genetic manipulation' and others
euphemistically call `genetic engineering. Essential features of
Evolution that should not be Overlooked
The
preceding chapter drew attention to the gap separating two groups: On one
hand the zoologists, whose study of evolution takes serious account of the
discoveries of palaeontology, thus enabling zoologists to establish the
chronological succession of developments (with a few gaps, needless to say.)
On the other hand, there are those who think they can reconstruct the course
of evolution by using data observed in today's living beings, as well as
laboratory researchers working on organisms. that reproduce themselves
rapidly, and studying the descendants of these organisms. Thus this group
arrives at suggestions as to what may have taken place long ago. No
serious study of evolution can be undertaken without recourse to both groups.
The first establishes the facts, and the second (especially the laboratory
researchers) provides extremely helpful data to explain how events take place
or may have taken place, and on a more general level, suggesting answers if
there are any to be found. What
does each of these groups have to offer? The first lays before us concrete
data on events that happened long ago, sometimes with a slight tendency. to
underplay the gaps in our knowledge of the order in which these events took
place. By and large, however, the information provided deals with concrete
facts. The second group seems either to have forgotten or not to have taken
account of these events. Instead, it supplies us with explanatory theories,
which can hardly be said to apply to real facts or events. If we lose sight
of reality, however; the most sophisticated reasoning can only lead to
inaccurate statements: That is exactly what is currently happening in the
case of certain theories, such as neo Darwinism and others, as we shall see
later on. Let us
therefore turn to the data supplied by those accustomed to objectively
setting forth the facts of a history for it is indeed a history without
deciding in advance the factors that may have influenced the course of
evolution. From
the most elementary books on the natural sciences onward, we have been taught
that the animal and vegetal species in existence today could be grouped
according to certain characteristics. We also learned that there were many
sorts of groups in the broadest sense of the word composed of families that
all share a certain number of features. The number of groups has continued to
increase with the passage of time, owing to knowledge newly acquired by
zoology and also as a result of the discovery of fossilized animals that no
longer exist today, having left us nothing but vestiges. All these data seem
to increase the diversity of living beings. The
groupings established by naturalists and palaeontologists have enabled us to
distinguish compartments into which we can divide living beings who share a
number of common characteristics. From this arise extremely important concepts;
For example, the existence of an order in which the various categories
appeared throughout the different eras, and the fact that each category
tended tar transform itself in a very specific way as time passed. From
the most ancient times onward, organisms began to appear (as stated earlier)
that acquired a more and more complex structure without, however, creating
any kind of disorder or anarchy. After a period of one pr two billion years,
distinguished by the existence of living beings containing simple structures
(although already extremely complex from a biological point of view),
organizational types developed that included today's members of the animal
kingdom; as well as extinct species. The phyla in question did not, however,
continue developing indefinitely to the detriment of more simple forms. A
halt was reached roughly 350 million years ago, the period in which the first
vertebrates appeared. Since then, particular classes of living beings have
formed within a phylum which preserve the main features of the phylum while
acquiring new characteristics. For example, in the case of the vertebrates,
the birth of cyclostomes (fish without jaws, such as lampreys) was
accompanied by the appearance of fish that, in certain instances, led to the
formation of the amphibians (batrachians, such as the frog); among the
latter, some amphibians gave birth to the reptiles, from which one group
detached itself to form the mammals, while another later became the birds. Of
all the living beings thus formed, the birds came last, appearing some 135
million years ago. Since the birds, no new class has appeared in the animal
kingdom. A
remarkable phenomenon is the fact that the characteristics of a class
gradually increase over successive generations, while now and again,
secondary branches appear which acquire, new specific features that
constitute the origin of new forms. Some of the branches proliferate and
survive while others disappear more or less quickly, but these secondary
branches never represent the beginnings of new phyla. There was a period in
which the general organizational plans appeared, and once that period was
over and the plans fulfilled, there were no subsequent plans. Henceforth, all
that could appear would be subdivisions. The
events of evolution took place at highly variable speeds right up until the
time the final form was attained that marked a halt in the process. As a
result, there are species among today's living organisms that quickly
acquired their definitive form and have retained it until the present day:
for example certain molluscs, insects, and fishes that have remained the
same, while closely related forms have undergone a long and far reaching
process of evolution. Thus the coelacanth has not evolved for 200 or 300
million years. Vestiges of primitive phyla are very common in nature,
indicating forms that have remained at an initial stage without evolving at
all for example bacteria, unicellular organisms, sponges, jellyfishes,
various coral, and particularly prolific insects, of which there exist
roughly 100,000 species for a single order (the collembolae, for instance.)
As opposed to this, there are examples of revivals after, a long halt:
Zoologists point to families that experienced an intense period of evolution,
only to peter out later on. While there is quite clearly a lack of continuity
in evolution as a whole, this does not exclude the ever-present order
in the general march of events. Within
the complexity of organization, there nevertheless appears a progressive
tendency toward a type that is finally to be constituted, containing of
course variations both small and great. The horse is always cited as an
example of a type whose evolution took place on several continents, gradually
arriving at its definitive form in spite of the diversity of environments. The
irreversible evolution that occurs within an order creates new forms by
increasing the complexity of structures with the passage of time: When all is
said and done, there is a direct link between the passing of time and the complexity
of organization. One of
the best and most readily understood examples of this growing complexity is
the evolution of the nervous system in the animal kingdom. Originally non
existent, a `rough outline' appeared in the form of cells that contained the
ability to feel; this was followed by the beginnings of a system of sensory
and motor relations leading to the tremendous complexity now present in the
higher vertebrates. With the development of the brain; an extraordinary
ability to retain information was acquired, allowing innate features to
manifest themselves, and, in the case of man, permitting the psyche to
develop at the same time as acquired behaviour, while man's innate behaviour
correspondingly decreased. We shall return to these fundamental concepts in
Part Two of the present work, which deals with man. This
notion of the production of new and ever more complex structures completely
rules out the effects of chance. Unpredictable, fortuitous variations even
when corrected by natural selection could never have ensured such progression
in perfect order. The progression implies that the variations were simultaneous
and coordinated so as to obtain a growing organizational complexity.
Science is able to analyse the phenomenon; it knows that the existence of
genes implies that a particular phylum cannot produce a certain class derived
from another phylum, and that a particular family from a specific class
cannot one day appear in another class. Evolution is quite obviously
oriented, even though the term may shock those who will only acknowledge
phenomena whose existence can be explained as if man could explain
everything. Since science is unable to solve the enigma, however, some people
cast it aside and refuse to incorporate it into their way of thinking. Thus
the essential features of evolution in the animal kingdom are not taken into
consideration by those who are unwilling to finish a study by admitting that
they are at a loss to account for the reasons behind the phenomenon. A theory
such as `chance and necessity' will provide a clear illustration of this
attitude, as we shall see. The role of Chance and
Necessity
Since
the structure of living beings seems to have progressed in a perfectly
coordinated way over the course of time, how is it that in this context
people have paradoxically come to speak of chance? Is there really any need
to stop and examine the theory that chance plays an active part? Certainly
not: If we take account of the known facts of evolution. We must indeed
examine the role of chance, however, in view of the fact that it has been
fiercely defended by some and has attracted so much attention that the
inaccuracy of the theory needs to be pointed out. As for
necessity, whim should here be understood to mean `the impossibility of the
contrary, it is difficult to find any foundation for such an idea. In the
explanation of the phenomena discussed here, the place occupied by necessity
is, to say the least, extremely dubious. We have
already discussed the role of chance in the origins and evolution of life.
The philosophers of Antiquity, ignorant as they were of the realities of the
universe, may be excused for conceiving (like Democritus) that eternal matter
acted to produce all the cosmic systems and everything, in the universe, animate
and inanimate forms alike. While Democritus could not have had the faintest
idea of cell structure, however, the same cannot be said of today's
scientists, especially when they are experts in molecular biology. What is
one to think, therefore, when the role of chance is upheld by people who are
aware of the immense complexity of living matter as a result of their own
brilliant discoveries and analyses of it? Basic common sense tells us that
the very last factor capable of explaining the existence of a highly complex
organization is chance. Even if
we move our attention from the cell itself to its tiniest molecular elements,
we shall see that physicists and chemists have long ago abandoned the theory
that the cell was formed by chance: Indeed,
in order for the smallest macromolecules of a cell to form as a result of
repeated attempts, such enormous quantities of matter would have to have been
processed that they would have filled literally colossal masses on a scale
comparable to the volume of the earth itself. This is totally inconceivable. Oparine,
a modern Russian biologist who is a well known materialist, rejects outright
the theory of chance in the formation of life: "The entire network of
metabolic reactions is not only strictly coordinated, but also oriented
toward the perpetual preservation and reproduction of the totality of
conditions set by the external environment. This highly organized orientation
characteristic of life cannot be the result of chance." (From an article
entitled `Etat actuel du probleme de l origine de la vie et
ses perspectives' [The Current State of the Problem of the Origin of Life
and Its Future Perspectives], which appeared in the French journal `Biogenese' (Biogenesis),
Paris, 1967, p. 19.) In his
work, The Origin of Life, Oparine draws
particularly relevant comparisons to help the layman see the logicality of
theories pointing toward chance. As he wrote in 1954: "It
is as if one jumbled together the printing blocks representing the twenty
eight letters of the alphabet, in the hope that by chance they will fall into
the pattern of a poem that we know. Only through knowledge and careful
arrangement of the letter s and. words in a poem, however, can we produce the
poem from the letters." There
are of course certain theories that can be put forward, but some of them are
quite obviously absurd. Oparine cites the following example in his book:
"Physicists state that it is theoretically possible for the table at
which I am writing to rise by chance, due to the orientation in the same
direction of the thermic movement of all its molecules. Nobody is likely,
however, to take account of this in his experimental work or in his practical
activity as a. whole." I owe
these important quotations from Oparine to the highly documented book by Claude
Tresmontant entitled 'Comment se pose aujourd'hui le probleme de
l'existence de Dieu' [How Does the Problem of the Existence of God Appear
Today?] [Published by Seuil, Paris 1971] they appear in
Claude Tresmontant's commentary on the theories of J. Monod published in 'Le
Hasard et la Necessite' [Chance and Necessity] [Published
by Seuil, Paris 1970]. As
early as 1967, J. Monod had stated in his inaugural speech at the College de
France that `any and every fortuitous accident...' in the reproduction of the
genetic programme throughout evolution explained the creation of new
structures: "Evolution, the emergence of complex structures from simple
forms, is therefore the result of the very imperfections in the system
preserving the structures represented by the cell... It may be said that the
same fortuitous events which, in an inanimate system, would accumulate to the
point where all structures disappeared, lead, in the biosphere; to the
creation of new and increasingly complex structures." Claude Tresmontant
quotes another passage from J. Monod which appeared in a French journal
entitled `Raison presente' [Present
Reason], no 5, 1968: "The only possible source of evolution has
been in the fortuitous accidents that have occurred in the structure of
D.N.A. They are what are known as `mutations'." It is
difficult to understand why J. Monod therefore decided that chance alone was
the intervening factor in this case. After all, he himself stressed his
ignorance an ignorance we all share concerning the origins of genetic
information: "The major problem is the origin of the genetic code and
the mechanism by which it is expressed. Indeed, one cannot talk so much of a
`problem' as of a genuine enigma." In fact, however, the enigma is
twofold: It not only affects the origin of the genetic code, but also the
increase in the data contained in the genes leading to the birth of more and
more complex structures; an increase which, as we shall see later on, is
expressed through chemical compounds. The
theory of chance as the force creating highly organized structures is at odds
with the facts. We have already seen that evolution, in all its shapes and
forms, takes place in an ordered fashion, complete with genuine lineages
observing an orientation that is perfectly clear: We cannot logically argue
therefore, that `fortuitous accidents' to use J. Monod's phrase could have
produced anything but chaos. We know in fact that within the same overall
plan; concordant variations must combine over periods of time, which are
often very long, in order for entirely new forms to appear. It is hardly
surprising, therefore, that eminent zoologists such as P. P. Grasse, who are
thoroughly familiar with the question, are incensed by explanations, which
take no account of the real situation. Among P. P. Grasses many critical
comments, I shall quote the following observation concerning an aspect of the
evolution of the mammals from the reptiles, an event that lasted some 50
million years: "In the mammal, all the sensory organs evolved at more or
less the same time. When we try to imagine just what their formation required
in terms of simultaneous, or almost simultaneous mutations, all of them
taking place at the right moment and capable of fulfilling the needs expected
of them, we remain speechless at the sight of so much harmony, so many
fortunate coincidences, all of them due to the unique and triumphant role of
chance." (`L'Evolution du vivant' (The
Evolution of Living Organisms].) In view
of the fact that J. Monod received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, it behoves
us to ask the following question: How is it possible for such an eminent
scientist to put forward a theory such as this? The answer is quickly found:
It lies in a doctrinal system that rests .on a postulate that its author
calls "the postulate of the objectivity of nature... the systematic
refusal to admit that any interpretation of phenomena cast in terms of a
`final cause' meaning plan can lead to a `true' knowledge... While the
organism observes the physical laws, it also surpasses them, thus devoting
itself entirely to the pursuit and realization of its own plan..." This
means that henceforth only those factors that add new possibilities to the
organism will be acceptable... We must also show our admiration for the
"miraculous efficiency in the performances of living beings, ranging
from bacteria to man..." The ideological ulterior motive is patently
obvious: It consists in the refusal to accept the existence of any
organisation in nature, and it leaves room only for individual `performances.' In
referring to the accidental alterations in the genes of living organisms and
their influence on the evolution of .living beings, J. Monod employs terms
that do not even allow us to think that his personal view might one day be
subject to revision: "We say that these alterations are accidental, that
they take place by chance. Since they constitute the only source of possible
modifications in the genetic code, which is itself the only repository of the
organism's hereditary structures, it must necessarily follow that chance, and
only chance is the source of any new development or creation in the
biosphere. Pure chance, and only chance freedom, blind but absolute the very
root of the edifice we call evolution: This central concept of modern biology
is no longer a mere hypothesis among other possible or conceivable
hypotheses. It is the only conceivable hypothesis, the only one compatible
with facts acquired through observation and experimentation. There is no
reason to suppose (or to hope) that our concepts on this point should or even
can be revised." In
fact, however, the concept of `pure chance', `chance and only chance',
`freedom, blind but absolute the very root of... evolution' has received some
hard knocks from P. P. Grasse.1n `L'Evolution du vivant' [The
Evolution of Living Organisms], the eminent naturalist indicates that
the problem of the transfer of information within the cell could be much more
complex that J. Monod had foreseen when he stated that it was inconceivable
henceforth to approach the problem from any angle other his (i.e. Monod's)
own point of view. Let us
first stress the fact that in the genes, as we shall see further on, D.N.A.
(deoxyribonucleic acid) is the basic chemical material or vehicle for
biological information. The information is transferred to the cellular
cytoplasm by a different substance, R.N.A. (ribonucleic acid). In Monod's
theory, the transfer of information is always referred to in terms of a flow
from the D.N.A. toward the R.N.A., and never in the reverse direction. In
actual fact, however, the unexpected and the unforeseen can indeed occur. The
following is the objection presented in `L'Evolution du vivant' (The
Evolution of Living Organisms): "The
dogma of the immutability of D.N.A., which is always presented as the unique
keeper and distributor of biological information destined to flow in one
direction only, has been put forward by eminent biochemists (Watson, Crick,
etc.) and geneticists (Jacob, Monod, etc.) Three years ago, in 1970, J. Monod
made the following statement on the subject in 'Le
Hasard et la Necessite' [Chance and Necessity],
pp. 124 125: "It has never been observed, nor is it even conceivable,
that information is ever transferred in the reverse direction..." P: P.
Grasses objection continues in the following terms: "The
ink of these lines was hardly dry when the denial came, sharp and
incontrovertible. The logic of living things, which, by the way, was the
logic of the said biologist and not of nature, was totally overturned and the
fine edifice deeply flawed. "The
discovery of enzymes able to use viral R.N.A. as a matrix for the synthesis
of D.N.A. is regarded as a revolution in molecular biology. "It
is also considered", writes P: P. Grasse in a footnote, "to be the
most important discovery concerning the role of viruses in the formation of
cancers. Several R.N.A. viruses create D.N.A. replicas that are
carcinogenic." Further
on, P: P. Grasse outlines the new contributions made by studies conducted
before (1964), during (1970) and after (1971 and 1972) the publication of J.
Monod's work. P. P. Grasse then draws the following conclusion: "The
studies outlined above show that a mechanism exists which, in certain
circumstances, supplies information that comes from outside the organism and
integrates it into the D.N.A. of the genetic code. For an evolutionist, this
fact is of immense importance." The
dogma of necessity put forward by J. Monod is a long way from explaining why
the organisms the zoologists call .`stock forms', which are the great ancestors
of today's types, have survived down to the present day and even live side by
side with the modern forms descended from them. The same may be said of the
unicellular organisms that still survive today, or even of older members of
the living world; such as bacteria: How can their survival be explained? In
order to support his theory of the `miraculous efficiency in the
performances of living beings', J. Monod records in his book the
following story (which is not based on any palaeontologic data whatsoever) "The
reason the tetrapod vertebrates appeared and were able to develop into the
extraordinary range of animals that we know as the amphibians, the reptiles,
the birds and the mammals, is that a primitive fish originally `chose' to
explore the dry land. There, however, it was only able to move about by
leaping awkwardly. ('Le Hasard et la Necessite' [Chance
and Necessity], pp. 142 143." P. P.
Grasse concludes with the following remarks on the above statement "What
makes us particularly unwilling to accept the story of the little fish the
`Magellan of evolution' is the fact that the boleophthalmidae and
periophthalmidae (mud skippers) perform this very `experiment'. They scuttle
across the mud, climb the roots of mangrove trees, and raise themselves on their
pectoral fins, just as if the fins were short limbs. They have lived in this
way for millions of years, and although they never stop leaping about
awkwardly or not their fins insist ow remaining as they are, rather than
transforming themselves into limbs. These animals really are not very
understanding." The Complexity of Cellular
Organization and the Genes
Now
that we have reviewed the explanatory theories of Antiquity and have shown
that more recent theories such as Darwinism, or the concept of chance and.
necessity are unacceptable, it is time to try and find our way through highly
complex scientific discoveries toward a clearer view of the problem. In
several instances, we have indeed already touched on some of these
discoveries in order to ensure a better understanding of the subject at hand,
but if we are to arrive at a more accurate idea of the causes that engendered
the sequence of events whose broad outlines we know already, we must enter
into detail. This means knowing more about the organization of the cell, and
in particular the role of the genes contained in the chromosomes. It was
indeed the events that took place within the cell that determined the
progression of changes that as a whole constituted evolution. The
following account of facts concerning the cell may perhaps seem a little
complex to some, while to others, who already know something of the subject,
it may seem over simplified and in need of more detailed information. I would
ask the former to try and grasp the data described, for they will be of help
in understanding what is to follow, and I entreat the latter to refer to the
publications I shall cite, in which they will find facts that complement my
own. Specialists
in molecular biology, genetics and the study of chromosomes have provided
information on cellular functions and heredity that is extremely useful in
interpreting phenomena connected with evolution. The present work is. not
intended to provide an exhaustive study of the question; those wishing to
consult a bibliography on these subjects are advised to turn to the three
excellent articles in the Encyclopaedia Universalis contributed
respectively by P. Kourilsky, P. L'Heritier, and, for the study of
chromosomes, M. Picard and J. de Grouchy. I shall moreover be using many of
their data and ideas in the following section. Essential Data Concerning
the Biochemical Organization of the Cell
Chemical
changes are constantly taking place within each and every cell. The living
matter contained in the cell is constantly renewed, and the cells renew
themselves by division within the organs, some of which such as the blood
possess a very marked capacity for self-renewal. In this context, the
reproductive cells should also be mentioned, which ensure the perpetuation of
the species. In
order for all these functions to continue, constant exchanges of matter and
energy with the surrounding environment must take place, resulting in the
production of macromolecules in the cell from simpler chemical elements. For
this to happen, the two components that are to combine must be present, there
must also be what are called catalysts, agents that have the property of
acting in infinitely small quantities to trigger the chemical reaction but
which remain unchanged once the reaction has taken place. Each catalyst is
specific to the reaction required. The production of protein in living
matter, which results from the' synthesis of simpler components, calls for
the intervention of catalysts which in this case are enzymes, each enzyme
containing the unique property of provoking the synthesis of a particular
protein. In
their turn, the enzymes must be produced, and every cell possesses a system
for this purpose. The basic element of this system is a proteinic
macromolecule of tremendous complexity, called desoxyribonucleic acid
(D.N.A.) The other chemical components `hook onto' this basic substance, and
with varying degrees of complexity ensure the production of the enzymes that
are to provoke the proteinic syntheses required for life to exist.. In the
simplest living organisms, D.N.A. is in direct contact with the substance of
the cell, the cytoplasm: An example of this is the bacteria, which do not
contain a nucleus. In other, more organized animal and vegetal cells,
however, the D.N.A. is located inside the nucleus of the cell within the
chromosomes. This means that it only intervenes indirectly in the process of
synthesizing living matter: It simply acts as the keeper of all the data
(which taken together constitute a parcel of information) required by the
reactions, using the intermediary of `messengers' that take copies from it
(the D.N.A.) and carry them to other parts of the cytoplasm, such as the
ribosomes. The `messages' are transmitted via ribonucleic acid, or R.N.A. The
message transferred from the nucleus to the cellular cytoplasm via R.N.A.
does not arrive directly however. The messenger R.N.A. in fact operates with
the help of a second R.N.A., a transfer R.N.A., which is effective in
transmitting the message, after which the messenger R.N.A. is destroyed. This
detail indicates the complexity of the communications system, which is in
fact far more complicated than it appears in this simplified outline, for the
message is actually transmitted in code... Thus we
begin to gain an idea of the countless interrelations that exist within the
cell, complete with its central command `headquarters', its messengers, arid
its intermediary organs, which play a part in the renewal of living matter.
Another important point is that the central command addresses its orders to
specific messengers in order to trigger the vast number of chemical syntheses
that condition an infinite variety of tasks to be performed. We are therefore
in the presence of an organized system that is of considerable functional
size, even though its volume is very tiny indeed. It is a system that
conditions all the activities of the cell; including its reproduction, which
is how it comes to play its part in heredity and thereby in evolution. Every
cell contains D.N.A. chains: In the case of bacteria, whose dimensions are
measured in l/ 1,000 of a millimetre, D.N.A. forms a tape whose length is
measured in millimetres. The tape is therefore quite short in this instance,
although in the case of Escherichia Coli, it has been calculated to be roughly
5,000 times longer than the maximum dimension of the bacteria in question. A
length of one millimetre is quite considerable in molecular terms, and on one
millimetre of D.N.A. tape are placed an infinite number of complex chemical
components, each of which conditions every single function of the bacteria:
In the case of man, for one single cell, the D.N.A. tape is long enough to be
counted in metres. As for the total length of D.N.A. tape contained in a
human being, it is greater than the distance separating the earth from the
sun (P: Kourilsky.) The
D.N.A. tapes, which measure over one metre in length for each cell, are the
keepers of the hereditary characteristics transmitted to us by our parents.
They convey alt the information that each and every cell in our body can use.
As the life of the embryo progresses, the cells become differentiated,
acquiring special functions and constituting all our organs in accordance
with commands issued by the genes. This entire system is miniaturized to an
extreme degree; a D.N.A. tape that is over one metre long is infinitely thin,
its thickness being measured in angstroms (one ten millionth of a
millimetre.) D.N.A.
has a spiral structure in the shape of a double helix, one tape being twisted
around the other. Specialists in molecular biology have compared it to a
photograph accompanied by its negative. When a replica of the tape is
produced during cellular division, the two chains separate and each chain
serves as a mould for the production of a complementary, chain; exactly as
the negative of a photograph provides us with a positive print and vice
versa. Thus we arrive at two copies that are identical to the original,
providing nothing has gone wrong during processing. The
system's capacity for production and the diversity of the end result are
quite considerable. Bacteria such as Escherichia Coli can synthesize as many
as 3,000 different, kinds of proteins. Over half of these have been
identified. Human cells contain a thousand times more D.N.A. than Escherichia
Coli. Thus we see the immense capacity of cells in higher organisms to
produce extremely diversified living substances: The list of proteins that
can be synthesized in this way is far from complete. It is
important to note the fantastic manner in which the D.N.A. tape grows longer
and longer as it passes from the cells of primitive organisms to the higher
organisms: At the bottom of the scale it is one millimetre long, but when it
reaches man, it is over one metre long (P. Kourilsky.) Later on, we shall see
that we may speak of an increase in the genes that corresponds, to the
growing complexity in the functions and structure of all living beings. The
list of the genes is no more complete, however, than that of the cellular
proteins. The implication inherent in these observations is that evolution
must have been intimately linked with the acquisition of new genes, which was
henceforth to be its sine qua non. The quantity of information recorded
continued gradually to increase over the course of time. . The
above information concerning the length of the tape on which the genes have
been placed seems to be more meaningful than the weight of the D.N.A.
contained in each cell. In P. P. Grasses book, `L'Evolution
du vivant' [The Evolution of Living Organisms], figures are
provided relative to the weight of D.N.A. in the cells of living beings
located at a more or less high level in the scale of structures. The weight
of D.N.A. varies considerably from one species to another, but without any
apparent connection with the degree of evolution. This does not seem to
contradict what has been said above, however, for there is not just one
D.N.A. but several D.N.A.'s whose molecular weight fluctuates according to
the source from which it was extracted (thymus, wheat germ, bacteria, etc.),
the proportion ranging from one to several hundred (M. Privat de Garilhe.)
The chemical complexity depends on the number of elements held by the tape.
For example, the D.N.A. of Bacillus subtilis has a molecular mass of at least
230 million, while the D.N.A. of herpetic virus has a mass on the order of
100 million, and the mass of the single stranded D.N.A.. of bacteriophage is
some 1,600,000 (M. Privat de Garilhe.) For a simple body, such as water,
which is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, the molecular
weight is 18, the figures representing the degree of chemical complexity: A
fact that needs to be kept in mind. The
above comments concerning, D.N.A. contain reservations, for it is obviously
not possible to use a regular balance to weigh D.N.A. (the scale of
measurement is in this case counted in billionths of a milligram.) These
estimations are based on our knowledge of the simplest D.N.A. (simplest from
a chemical point of view), corrected by extrapolations derived from measuring
the length of molecules with the aid of an electron microscope. The figures
are subject to revision, and so are the conclusions we may draw from them.
These observations are presented simply to give an idea of the complexity of
the organization in question. They illustrate the notion that in order to
grasp what evolution means, one must take account of ultra microscopic
studies of the cell and of data provided by molecular biology, both of which
have considerably increased our knowledge. Sometimes, however, we encounter
contradictions on points that some people consider .to be of little
importance, while others regard them as highly significant. There are certain
currently accepted ideas that will be subject to revision in the future. The
fact remains however, that science has accumulated a sufficient number of
established facts for certain general concepts to emerge both clearly and
logically from the data acquired by cellular biology. The Chromosomes
In
describing the extraordinary biochemical complex we call the cell, we have so
far only briefly mentioned the role D.N.A. plays in retaining hereditary
characteristics, among its many other functions. As we have seen, in the case
of the most primitive unicellular beings, such as the bacteria, only one D.N.A.
tape is present: There is no nucleus. In the case of cellular organisms
containing a more elaborate structure however, the nucleus appears, in which
the chromosomes are concentrated: It is in the chromosomes that we find the
genes. Before proceeding, however, to an analysis of the role played by the
genes (especially in evolution), we must refresh our memory of certain ideas
concerning the chromosomes. Their
very name is a direct reference to one of their characteristics: The reason
Waldeyer gave them this name in 1888 was that he had noticed how these
differentiated elements within the nucleus could be stained with colourings
the moment the cell began to divide. In organisms that possess a sexual
reproductive system, the chromosomes are arranged in identical pairs: This
distribution is extremely important because it maintains the number of
chromosomes always the same in the same species during the reproductive
process. When it arrives at maturity, each cell whether spermatozoon or ovule
possesses only half of the chromosomes of the species. As soon as the two
reproductive cells unite, the even number of chromosomes is re established
(46 in the case of man.) One of
the chromosomes has a role to play in determining sex; it belongs to the
male. The following is an outline of how the process works: The female
possesses a pair of chromosomes that are arbitrarily designated as XX; the
male possesses another pair designated XY. Since the number of chromosomes is
reduced (meiosis) during the formation of reproductive cells, the spermatozoa
are divided into two groups. One group contains X and the other Y. If the X
ovule is fertilized by a spermatozoon carrying an X a female (XX) will be
formed. If it is fertilized by a Y spermatozoon, the result will be a male
(XY.) The
distribution of X and Y factors in the spermatozoa is almost exactly equal,
which is why the number of girls and boys born is practically the same.
Nevertheless, if the spermatozoa of the future father were successfully
separated into two groups and the woman artificially inseminated with one of
the groups, a couple would be able to decide whether they wanted a boy or a
girl. This is not at all a utopian vision, for the `manipulation' of human
spermatozoa is now sufficiently advanced for a project such as this to become
a reality: with the consequences that such a practice would entail, as may
well be imagined. Fortunately however, human reproduction has so far
continued without factors such as the above intervening in the distribution
of sex the balance has been maintained by nature. Chromosomes
are composed of D.N.A., R.N.A. and various proteins. The D.N.A. carries the
genes; these are not subject to renewal, contrary to the other components of
the cell. D.N.A. can only be renewed when the cells divide. The quantity of
R.N.A. varies from one cell to another and from one moment to another. In
performing its role as messenger carrying the information contained in the
genes, R.N.A. is constantly being renewed in the chromosomes; it constitutes
a, witness to the activities of the genes and ceases to be produced when the
genes have no message to transmit. Irregularities
in the chromosomes can produce extremely serious consequences; spontaneous
abortion (30% of such cases are due to failures in the regular division of
the chromosomes), and various illnesses that occur with differing degrees of
frequency, the most well known of which is Mongolism (trisomy 21, an illness
that affects roughly one child in 700.) Modifications such as these either
result in the death of the embryo or the birth of severely deformed
individuals. Over and above this however, living organisms are able to change
during the course of reproduction, even within the framework of a
reproductive pattern that tends to conform to the model provided by the
individual's forebears. The classic experiments carried out on vegetals by
the Czech monk Gregor Mendel in the mid nineteenth century (which did not
become famous until after his death) provide theoretical support to the
research undertaken at the beginning of the twentieth century: They led to
the discovery of the genes and their localization in the chromosomes. The Genes
Today,
it is an established fact that the genes are segments of D.N.A. molecules.
Through the action of the D.N.A., the process of which has already been
outlined above, they command the renewal of the proteinic molecules that
constitute the living matter of the cell. This biochemical activity modifies
the properties of the molecules in the cell, thus influencing the way the cell
functions as well as the production of specific structures which allow the
cells to play clearly defined roles. From this point of view, one might say
that the gene is the smallest part of the D.N.A. molecule capable of inducing
a permanent characteristic. While
the basic idea is admitted that the more complex the structure of an animal,
the more likely it is to possess a larger quantity of genes, specialists in
genetics are not in agreement on the number of genes involved. When they lead
to mutations; the genes are the objects of close study. In the case of the
drosophila, a fly which, from this point of view, particularly lends itself
to laboratory study, the number of genes counted is quite large: anything
from 5,000 to 15,000! How many genes does man contain? No one really knows [Estimates
range from 100,000 to 1,000,000; lower figures have also been suggested
(30,000?)] . Besides, the relationship between the number of features and
the quantity of genes is not at all clear. Some observers claim that a
specific enzyme corresponds to each gene, but a single enzyme may in fact
give birth to several features. The
genes are responsible for may different functions. From this we may deduce
that the primordial functions that characterize a phylum depend on certain
genes, which have been operating, as it were, since the very beginnings of
the phylum in question. As evolution progressed, however, and one after
another the class, order, family, genus and species appeared, the genes
intervened successively and specifically for each major characteristic. The
interventions occurred at more and more recent periods in time, and they were
perfectly coordinated chronologically; it is to them that living beings owe
their form. Zoologists
have many questions to ask on this subject. In `L'Evolution
du vivant' [The Evolution of Living Organisms], P: P.
Grasse raises some extremely important points, as follows:
All of
the observations quoted above lead us to suppose that environment has an
influence ou the genes, which in their turn modify structures. P: P. Grasse
gives examples taken from the vegetable kingdom and concludes that: "The
rule stating that a gene will always determine the same characteristic unless
it is the subject of a mutation is too rigid." In all likelihood,
"the gene emits the same information, but the substances replying to its
messages react in different ways according to circumstances." All these
comments indicate the fantastic complexity of the system and the suggested
importance of multiple interactions. We have come a long way from the
`freedom, blind but absolute' put forward in the theory that attempts to
explain everything in terms of `chance'. The Genes: Their role in
Evolution and other Processes
The Role of the Genes in
Evolution. Mutations
In the
light of the data described above, how can we approach the role of the genes
in evolution? Simply expressed, there are two radically different ways of
tackling the problem: the geneticists employ the first. It is based on the
observation of present day facts; for example, calculations of genetic
variations in populations that exist today, from which are drawn explanatory
theories. Zoologists and palaeontologists use the second method. It involves
the examination of material from the past, data to which the first group do
not attach the same importance. In the survey that is to follow, we shall see
that the opposition of the two methods has repercussions on the concepts of
evolution entertained by the two groups. In view
of what we have already said about the infinite complexity of the chemical
structure of the genes, and in view of the manner in which copies are
produced during cellular division, it is perfectly possible to suppose that
the slightest modification in the structure of the D.N.A. molecule may affect
the cell concerned and all those engendered by it. This is indeed the case
when the modification affects the male and female cells responsible for
reproduction (germinal cells): It causes an alteration in the genetic code.
In such conditions, a new characteristic appears in the individual, which is
passed on to its descendants: This constitutes a mutation, and the phenomenon
is known as mutagenesis. It affects animals and vegetals alike, the most
primitive life forms as well as those with a more complex organization (i.e.
those containing a nucleus.) In the case of primitive forms, the mutation
affects the D.N.A. present in the cytoplasm (bacteria are an example of
this), in the case of more complex forms, it influences the chromosomes held
by the D.N.A. in the nucleus. The reason the mutation is considered to be
fortuitous is that it is totally unpredictable, both in terms of the moment
it will strike and also the place in which it will affect the D.N.A.
molecule. The
impact the mutation has on the individual may be so great that the form
concerned cannot survive the mutagenesis (in which case the mutation is said
to affect lethal genes); on the other hand, the phenomenon may induce minor
modifications which may prove to be recessive over the following generations: In this
way, on the D.'N.A. tape of human cells, which is over one metre long, tiny
genetic alterations are present which provide the individual with the
characteristics that make him different from other people. It is these
alterations that cause him more or less to resemble his parents or
grandparents, and which even pass down the generations distinctive family
features, such as the nose typical of the Bourbon kings of France. Sometimes,
very serious phenomena can occur, such as illnesses connected with sex which
affect the female X chromosome: A case in point is haemophilia, which mainly
affects males, even though it is transmitted by females who remain immune to
the disease. The male descendants of Queen Victoria of England suffered from
this illness. Apart from these basically pathological mutations, most minor
mutations tend to be recessive. In view
of the above, the question of evolution might at first glance seem fairly
simple: The phenomenon of mutagenesis could tie seen to account for all the
hereditary variations which have accumulated over successive generations,
thereby causing the evolution of living beings. There are a number of
geneticists who subscribe to this theory. What is difficult to accept,
however, is that in order for this theory to be valid, the mutations would
have had to occur in a chronologically perfect order at exactly the right
moment in time to arrive at the addition or subtraction of organs, or to
effect a change of some kind in certain functions. It is perfectly clear,
however, that these mutations essentially occur in a disorderly fashion. At
this point, the geneticists who put forward hypotheses founded on
calculations concerning present day populations and who claim to have found
an answer in this, part company from those who study the events of the past.
The latter have perfect confidence in the findings of the former, as regards
the properties of the genes, but they claim to see many shortcomings in
theories that account for the inscription on the D.N.A. tape of new data that
will become hereditary in the course of time. The second group does indeed
seem to be infinitely more exacting than. the first about the demonstrative
value of certain perfectly proven facts concerning the genes. First
of all, however, the geneticists would have to arrive at a figure for the
possible number of spontaneous mutations: So far, this figure has not been
found. For one gene over an interval separating two generations, the
estimated number is 1 % 10,000 (P. L'Heritier.) There are also a number of
mutations that are neutral from the point of view of evolution. They form the
source of individual characteristics, but they do not go beyond the framework
of the species, and the individual thus retains all the attributes of that
species. "We are a long way from the billions of billions of `usable'
variations mentioned by certain geneticists. The so called usable variations
are far fewer in number, a fact which renders even more problematic the idea
of a `good' mutation occurring at the right moment" (P. P. Grasse.) We
should not confuse the process of fortuitous mutation, which is responsible
for the personal characteristics of the individual, with the active part
played by mutations as the prime force behind the process of evolution. The
idea of evolution signifies progressive transformations on a very large
scale. For example, the evolution of insects affected their entire organism
in very strict order. The transformation of organs took place slowly but
steadily over successive stages for example, it took the mammals 80 million
years to lose their reptilian features and in an order that is incompatible
with the arrival of random mutations. In
addition to the facts noted above, which result from pale-ontological
investigation, genetic research provides us with data based on the most
primitive organisms living today. These. are the bacteria, an easy subject of
study because they reproduce within the space of twenty minutes. It is thus
possible to follow the progress of thousands of generations, among which
mutations are, found in the D.N.A. molecule. But what is the practical result
of these mutations? Small scale variations: The species remains the same, as
it has done for hundreds of millions of years! As for the transition from the
bacteria or the blue algae to organisms containing a cellular structure with
a nucleus, an event that may well have occurred one billion years ago, it is
reasonable to suppose that environmental conditions were very different from
those of today. Because of this, it is difficult to imagine that the
mutations observed in today's bacteria are exactly the same as those produced
in past ages. The
same mystery surrounds plants and animals that have not evolved at all in
millions of years, even though they may have undergone fortuitous mutations.
In this context, zoologists, cite the case of the common cockroach, which; as
far as they can tell, has hardly evolved at all since the primary era. The
same applies to the `pan chronic' species, thus named because they have
survived through the ages without any change, such as the opossum, certain
limuli (marine insects with gills, commonly called king crabs) and various
vegetals, none of which have been affected by mutations. Objections
have been raised on the above point, for certain observers maintain that
panchronic species survive unchanged because they live in confined
environments where conditions are not subject to much variation (for example,
animals living in caves or in the depths of the sea.). While this may hold
true for certain species living in such environments, it is not easily
accepted by anyone who has travelled and has seen cockroaches present in many
different parts of .the world. Other Points Which Need
to Be Explained
It is
very difficult to say whether the location of the genes on the helix shaped
D.N.A. tapes at the level of the chromosomes has any effect on the properties
of the genes. Experiments have enabled scientists to separate and reunite
fragments, even from one chromosome to another, but they have given positive
and negative results that do not lead 'to any conclusions. As far as our own
origins are concerned, the normal position of certain genes on human
chromosomes is no more conclusive than the above. It is
possible for the number of chromosomes within a single species to vary: We
find this in certain small nocturnal rodents (jerboas), which, in Senegal,
have varying numbers of chromosomes One
group counts thirty seven for the males and thirty six for the females;
another group possesses twenty Three for the males and twenty two . for the
females. Nevertheless, the two groups are identical, displaying the same
genes, but without reproducing between each other. We have
good reason to suppose that among the genes of today's living beings; the
genes that once played an active role in the evolution of their species are
still present. The existence, for example, of rudimentary organs that
constitute relics of what were once fully developed organs indicates that the
corresponding gene has survived down to the present day. This does not mean;
however, that it is able to induce the formation of the entire organ (such is
the case of the equidae, and of the four winged drosophilae whose special
feature, represents something of a monstrosity.) We may well ask whether
there is a repressive genetic system, which phases out the ancestral genes
that generate certain characteristics in special cases, for paleontological
studies have not indicated a possible re-emergence of vanished organs. Even
before our knowledge of the genes enabled us to envisage the creation of
hybrid forms by crossing two different species or to attempt other kinds of
chromosomic manipulations, observations indicated that in the case of vertain
vegetals, it was possible to arrive at. a new species through interbreeding.
In 1928, Karpechenko created the cabbage radish, a form that possesses the
chromosomes of both vegetals. Most of these newly formed vegetals are
infertile, but there have been a few examples whose seeds contained a double
number of chromosomes and which were indeed fertile, although only within the
limits of this new species. While it is possible to induce the doubling of
the chromosomes in certain vegetals, the same does not apply in the animal
kingdom. There can be no hybridisation between two lineages; zoology and
palaeontology do not provide a single example of this. Genes and Regeneration
Examples
of regeneration indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt the extraordinary
capacity the genes possess for triggering the growth of new tissue after
major amputations and even following the division of a body into several
segments, such. as we find in certain species. In our
discussion of regeneration, however, we shall not enter into detail on the
subject of the tremendous capacity that certain organs in the mammals (man
included) contain for development after an amputation: The liver is just one
example among many of an organ which is perfectly able to regenerate, and the
intestine is another. In the case of the latter, the mucosa is produced
without difficulty to ensure the healing of a wound after the two segments
have been surgically stitched together. What
concerns us here is regeneration that goes beyond the scope of the organs. In
the case of certain animals, it affects localized segments of the body,
which, when amputated, provoke the renewed development of the section
removed. The triton is an example of this: Like other batrachians, when its
muzzle; crest, tail, limbs or even its eyes are removed, the part that has
disappeared is entirely reconstituted. The earthworm is another well known
example of regeneration: The anterior part of the worm containing the head
will be replaced providing it is not cut at a point too far behind a clearly
defined section of the body, and similarly the posterior part will reform
providing the worm is not sliced at a point too far forward. Examples
of total regeneration are present among the invertebrates. In certain cases,
the animal is entirely reformed from a single segment of the body any
segment. In animals that figure lower down on the scale of organization,
there are many common examples, such as the water hydra : The process of
regeneration reconstitutes a number of new hydra that is equal to the number
of segments into which the hydra has been cut. This animal also renews its
tissues spontaneously in the course of its life. The most spectacular
reconstitutions, however, take place in the bodies of the planarians and the
nemertians. These are flat worms, which possess a digestive tract. The
planarian, which is anywhere between one and two centimetres long, can be
carved into three parts by two transversal cuts, for example: Ten days later,
three new worms will have formed. A regenerative 'bud' grows in the section
left exposed by cutting, and in that bud, muscles, digestive and glandular
tissues nerves, etc. begin to appear which will gradually replace all the
missing organs in each of the three sections, brains and eyes included. Even
more extraordinary is the case of the nemertians; these are another variety
of worm measuring some 20 centimetres to one metre in length. Like the
planarians, the nemertians also regenerate, but they possess the added
ability to cut themselves into segments (autotomy), an ability which is. more
highly developed than in other species. Autotomy is a defence mechanism used
by an animal that is under attack. In such cases, the animal separates itself
from the part of its body that has been caught by its attacker (the lizard
leaves behind its tail, the crab jettisons its pincer) and that part
subsequently reforms. The nemertian goes further than this, however. As P. P.
Grasse writes in his `Precis de. biologie animale' (Handbook
of Animal Biology), when the nemertian undergoes a "brutal
shock, whether chemical or mechanical, it spontaneously cuts itself
transversally into sections which subsequently constitute new, individuals.
Furthermore, when completely deprived of food, it is able to survive through
an extraordinary process of involution. Its cells devour each other, and the organism
gradually shrinks. Dawydoff has been able to obtain examples of Lineus
Lacteus measuring 100 µ [i.e. one tenth of a millimetre] and composed
of one dozen cells! P. P. Grasse does not state whether the tiny number of
cells that still remain are able to reconstitute an entire worm, but the
performance. of these animals remains all the same quite staggering. However
that may be, while the anatomy of the worm indicates regeneration processes
triggered by the remains of the differentiated cells contained in the
anterior part of a carved segment, it is not possible to talk of regeneration
from these same vestiges when they are located in the posterior extremity
(i.e. the tail end.) We are obliged to admit that throughout the body of the
animal, from one end to the other, various cells are distributed that have .a
specialized regenerative function. Such cells are called `neoblastic cells',
and they constitute a kind of `reserve pool' of embryonic cells, which by a
process of differentiation reconstitute all the tissues and organs. What a
remarkable wonder of organization this is! It is difficult to imagine the
wealth of information that must be recorded on the D.N.A. molecules in the
genes in order to arrive at such results at exactly the right moment,
in other words at the moment circumstances bring all the appropriate
mechanisms into play (such as the cutting of the worm into several distinct
parts.) All these events take place in perfect order, and, to and behold, ten
days later the planarians have reconstituted themselves into normal
individuals again! The autotomy of the nemertians is another marvel of
organization, for these animals can divide themselves into sections under the
effect of a specific stimulus. The genes, which govern all these perfectly
coordinated actions (this cannot be repeated often enough) within the
cell and which set in motion the process of reconstruction, are genes that
under normal conditions lie dormant. Phenomena such as these raise extremely
complex genetic problems; they open the door to the question of the normal
existence of `inoperative' genes, or `adaptative' genes, in other words genes
that make adaptation possible. Genes and Animal
Behaviour
The
behaviour of familiar animals and the often quite spectacular exhibition of
certain abilities shown by others has led many people to attribute to these
animals powers of reasoning that far exceed their real capabilities. Many
animals do indeed give the impression that they are able to think through a
certain situation and come to a decision, which causes them to act with
apparent logic. In fact however, a large number of animal activities are
hereditary; the extent of automatic behaviour varies according to the degree
of structural complexity of the species. A
particular outside situation can cause' a stimulus in the more highly
developed species, which the animal in question integrates into its' memory
bank', and which subsequently conditions its response. Some people think that
this capacity is very closely akin to human faculties, but we shall see later
on the very considerable difference between human behaviour and that of even
the most highly developed animals. The difficulty arises from the fact that
we are inclined to judge animals in terms of our own mental faculties, whereas
we ought to judge them in terms of the faculties of the animals themselves. The
beings that are lowest on the scale of the invertebrates are capable only of
automatism. A certain amount of information needed to induce and condition
animal reactions is kept in the D.N.A. molecules, part of the genetic code.
Chemical reactions continually occur as the environment changes: It is to
these that the animal owes its behaviour. A
further degree of complexity appears when 'the activity concerned is cyclical
or regular; interspersed with periods of rest. The building of nests by
insects is an example of this: We see the same complexity present in the
automatic act of stinging: The female mosquito invariably obeys an inner
impulse when the stimuli are present that provoke heat and humidity on the
human skin, especially when the mosquito smells the odour of butyric acid
present in infinitely small quantities on the skin's surface. Here again, it
is a case of innate behaviour; the appropriate information is registered in
the genetic code of the species the animal is simply obeying orders like a
robot. Nevertheless,
some invertebrates are capable of conditioned reflexes. We should bear in
mind that as opposed to the unconditioned reflex where the involuntary action
results from a single stimulus, we are dealing here with a conditioned
reflex, which requires some `preparation', as it were, before it can take
place. At an initial stage, the real stimulus is associated with an
accompanying neutral stimulus. In .the second phase, the animal responds in
the same way to the neutral stimulus alone. Reflexes such as this are present
in 'bees and butterflies for example, where the animal is guided by the shape
and colour of the flowers from which it gathers nectar; in the case of the
bees, scent also plays a part. This is as far as the `learning process' of
these insects actually goes, however, for it is not possible to tame or train
insects. The
vertebrates are the only animals capable of acquiring reflexes such as these
and of recording and making use of information from the outside. Mammals can
be trained; dogs are a particularly characteristic example, on account of
their ability to integrate into human society. Here again, however, innate
behaviour still persists, such as courting patterns, the preparation of
various habitations which often requires very complex techniques, the raising
of young, the marking out of territory for defence purposes, the search for
food, sexual relations, etc. As the
level of organization rises, innate behaviour persists, even though the
animal is able to alter its response according to the given situation. Even
in the case of the higher mammals, such as the primates, the automatic,
invariable response dictated by the genetic code merely diminishes; it does
not disappear completely. P. P. Grasse' provides two very important examples
of this: Chimpanzees that have not lived in a forest since the day they were
born, when set free, know exactly how to build a night shelter in the trees.
They put together a kind of habitation that is identical to the dwellings
constructed by chimpanzees that have lived all their lives in the natural
environment of their species. Similarly, gorillas are always terrified by the
sight of snakes in their native forests: The same reaction occurs in young
gorillas faced by the sight of a dead snake, even though they are seeing a
snake for the very first time. These are undoubtedly examples of innate
behaviour: The animal is obliged to react in a certain way because it
possesses in its D.N.A. molecules the gene or genes that induce the coded
responses to the specific stimulus. Perhaps
one of the most spectacular examples of an animal capable of `memorizing' or
`stockpiling' the information contained in the genetic code is the case of a
bird native to Australia. The extraordinary migratory pattern of this
particular bird is described in a work by J. Hamburger entitled `La
Puissance et la Fragilite' (Power and Fragility) "On
May 27, 1955, a Japanese fisherman caught a bird which was marked with a ring
on March 14 of that same year on the Australian island of Babel. In that part
of the world, the bird is known as the `mutton bird' or `short tailed
shearwater.' The catch was the first of a series of discoveries leading to
the reconstitution of the immense tour that this migratory bird undertakes
every year. Its point of departure is the coast of Australia; from there, it
flies east into the Pacific, turns north along the coast of Japan until it
reaches the Bering Sea, where it rests for a while. After this halt, it sets
off again, this time toward the south, hugging the west coast of America
until it reaches California. From there it flies back across the Pacific to
its starting point. This annual voyage of some 15,000 miles in the shape of the
figure 8 never varies, either in terms of the route covered or the dates
involved: The journey lasts six months and always comes to an end during the
3rd. week in September on the same island and in the same nest that the bird
left six months previously. What follows is even more curious: On their
return, the birds clean their nests, mate, and lay their single egg during
the ten last days in October. Two months later, the young chicks hatch out,
grow rapidly, and at the age of three months watch as their parents fly away
on their enormous journey. Two weeks later, around mid April, the young birds
take wing in their turn. Without any guidance on the way, they follow
the exact same route described above. The implications of this are clear:
Within the material transmitting their hereditary characteristics contained
in the egg, these birds must possess all the directions required for such a
journey. While some people may argue that these birds are guided by the sun
and the stars, or by the winds prevailing along the route covered by their
round trip, such factors clearly do not account' for the geographical and
chronological precision of the voyage. There can be no doubt that whether
directly or indirectly, the instructions for this 15,000 toile journey are recorded
in the command giving chemical molecules located within the nuclei of the
cells of these birds. How is
it possible to imagine the colossal mass of coded information that must of
necessity be adapted to a host of different conditions, all of which take
account of the various environments through which the birds must pass alone
and unguided - from Australia to the Bering Sea and back again - while at
the same time respecting a staggeringly precise timetable? How can we even
begin to conceive of the fantastic number of orders that must be issued in
the space of six months, orders that inevitably change according to
circumstances, especially as the climate alters? Every possible
contingency must be anticipated within the total fund of information held by the
D.N.A. One wonders how the programme originally came to be written, and
whether there is a being who knows the answer. In
today's computer age, such questions of programming cannot fail to make us
think of some of man's own material achievements in recent years. We are
filled with admiration for the magnificent technological results obtained by
the American space shuttle which having completed its test flight, returned
to earth at the moment calculated in advance. As scientific observers have
repeatedly stressed, the launching of the shuttle, its orbiting around the
earth, its descent back to earth, and many other manoeuvres, were aided by
powerful computers working in coordination. The computers issued orders to
the shuttle's engines, and in certain instances rectified the original orders
in accordance with positions, which were themselves plotted by computer. In
order for the venture to succeed, split second timing was required for the
recording of data, the processing of information, and the issuing of
commands; an ensemble of operations that was far beyond any human capacity.
Although piloted by two spacemen, .the shuttle relied on pre-recorded
information to complete each and every manoeuvre. Our Australian `mutton
bird' would have had as much difficulty completing its lone voyage for the
first time across unknown continents and seas as the astronauts would have
had in completing their mission, had it not been for the back up supplied by
information recorded in advance. In its genetic inheritance, the `mutton
bird' simply has to possess all the instructions required for its six-month
journey. Surely there is no one naive enough to imagine that the space
shuttle and all its computers could have been built and fed with highly
complex programmes by the effect of mere chance? Anyone who thinks that has
obviously lost touch with reality., In actual fact, the shuttle is programmed
by highly trained experts who supply all the information required for its
missions. Why should we not therefore accept the idea that the `mutton bird'
just as much as the space shuttle must of necessity be put in possession of
the information it requires in order to return to its point of departure?
This is the logical conclusion we must draw from our comparison with the
programmer. Genetic Manipulations
Although
this is a subject that affects man's future rather than his past, and
although genetic mutations are `experimental' and offer nothing in terms of
the origins of man, they must be mentioned here on account of the legitimate
anxiety they provoke. The
genes are responsible for each and every function of the cells. Some
scientists have had the idea of supplying the cells with new properties by
modifying the genes. In actual fact, they began by experimenting on organisms
with a structure that is even simpler than the cell, namely the bacteria. By
`grafting' various genes onto Colon Bacilli, they triggered the production of
certain therapeutic and nutritional substances; owing to the rapid
reproduction of bacteria, they were able to obtain very large quantities of
these substances. The experiment was particularly successful in the case of
several hormones. From
this, it was suggested that experiments might be performed on more highly
developed animals with the unspoken idea of creating new characteristics by
`grafting' new genes or modifying existing genes. Some scientists have even
thought that, should these experiments prove successful, they might be
applied to human genetics, in order to `improve' man... The
above would imply a perfect familiarity with the genetic map of the D.N.A.
tape, which is not the case at all. We may therefore assume that experimental
successes of arty importance within the animal kingdom are not likely to
occur just yet. The extremely complex problems that remain to be solved would
probably protect humanity from experiments such as these, but we must fear
the worst as far as innovations deriving from human ingenuity are concerned:
Man is capable of the worst as well as the best. In an
instance of this kind, man's dominance overman could reach to absolutely
abominable extremes. The consequences of such practices, if they eves became
feasible, are chilling indeed, for it is not difficult to imagine the abuses
that would follow. Nevertheless,
these are precisely the practices currently being put forward by certain
scientists. E. O. Wilson and the socio-biologists, whose theories have
already been mentioned in connection with neo Darwinism, have used their
position as scientists to assume the right to organize human society in terms
of their own theories, relying on genetic manipulations which they
euphemistically label `genetic engineering.' In their published works, they
outline the process by which, in their view new human beings could be
produced. For example, in order to increase man's sense of family, what
simpler solution would there be than to contribute the corresponding gene
found in certain gibbons? Among these apes, there are certain individuals who
are endowed with a distinctive anatomical characteristic, which, more than in
other apes of the same species, displays this highly developed sense. All
that would have to be done would be to `graft' the characteristic onto man by
means of the appropriate genetic supply. Suppose we wanted to increase
people's enthusiasm for work: The simple transfer to us of the gene that
conditions this function in worker bees would automatically turn us into
total `workaholics.' The
above examples of genetic manipulations, which were put forward by Wilson and
his followers, were reported at a round table conference on May 26, 1981 at
the, Palais de la Decouverte in Paris. On the same occasion, brilliant papers
were delivered on the subject by eminent scholars, among them P. Thuillier
and P: P. Grasse', while several of their colleagues commented on the extreme
seriousness of the proposed projects. It would indeed be most unwise to treat
lightly the proposals suggested above, for they are put forward by genuine
experts who declare that by virtue of their superior position as scientists,
they have the right to change their fellow men as and how they please,
using procedures over which they alone have jurisdiction. This new 'master
race' of scientists is also able to take advantage of the tremendous media
coverage open to their theories in the United States. During the round table
conference at the Palais de la Decouverte, P. Thuillier noted that
socio-biology was gradually becoming institutionalised in France. It is
indeed difficult at present to see how the socio-biologists can arrive at a
technique for `grafting' genes that are not yet isolated. But if they were
one day able to isolate these genes and thereby realize projects, which put
man in the same category as laboratory animals, the abominable extremes at
present feared would become a reality. Let us
not forget the extent of the scientific aberrations and contempt for men that
in the long run were caused by Darwinism. Creative Evolution
The
term `creative evolution' is not intended to carry any philosophical
connotation in the sense in which it is used here. It is not often employed
by modern scientists, as a way of describing evolution, perhaps because the
reference to `creation' might come as a shock to the true researcher for whom
the term suggests the idea of transcendence. In view of the facts described
in the preceding pages however, it seems to me that we are simply stating a
primordial truth when we use the term to qualify evolution in the animal
kingdom: Indeed, we must accept the facts as they are, for when taken
as a whole, evolution in the animal kingdom does not provide any possibility
for a return to more ancient forms; complex structures do not revert to a
simpler state. Quite the opposite happens in fact. Thus we are forced to take
account of new forms that develop in the course of time, forms which are non
transitional, and which contain new organs that condition new functions. We
may therefore talk of the creation of organisms that did not previously
exist, either in terms of forms or functions. In the
latter case, the example of the Australian `mutton bird' is extremely
revealing: Its migratory performances alone tell us that at a certain moment,
the information required for the bird to undertake its fantastic journey must
have been introduced into it's genetic code. The informational data specific
to the bird's organs must necessarily have been recorded in a genetic code
that contained the specifications for all birds, at a time therefore when the
birds were already in existence, i.e. after their emergence from a certain
category of reptiles, some 135 million years ago. Evolution
as we know it is quite obviously dependent on a process of successive
additions of information over the course of time. Scientists can argue ad
infinitum about the causes determining the fact, but they cannot get away
from the fact itself because it is patently obvious. Theories such as `random
genetic mutations' and the `necessity of natural selection' may represent a
satisfactory explanation of the past for some, but for others they are nothing
more than unacceptable or half-baked hypotheses. It is blindingly clear,
however, that the phenomena of evolution each had their beginnings marked by
particular events. When
certain of today's theorists (who claim to have an explanation for everything)
are asked just where the point of departure or origin of genetic information
lies, they are at a loss for words. How could they fail to be? J. Monod has
already acknowledged this inability to explain in the passage quoted earlier
from his book 'Le Hasard et la Necessite' (Chance
and Necessity): "The major problem is the origin of the genetic
code and the mechanism by which it is expressed. Indeed, one cannot talk so
much of a `problem' as of a genuine enigma." We have started with an
`enigma', passed on to `fortuitous mutations' which modify structures, and
ended up with the `necessity of natural selection', and not one of these
theories has told us anything. They have not explained how highly organized
matter came to be formed, complete with informational data to control its
functioning and reproduction; nor have they enlightened us as to the
complexity of the system which controls each and every aspect of the
behaviour of entire organisms, as in the cases mentioned above. Once we
begin with complete objectivity to sort through the various ideas expressed
on animal evolution by specialists from disciplines as disparate as the
natural sciences, palaeontology, molecular biology and genetics, the
discrepancies become very striking. If we continue to remain impartial, we
shall be forced to admit two facts: while there are palaeontologists who take
account of the data provided by the natural sciences, there are few
specialists in molecular biology or genetics who turn to zoology, botany or
palaeontology to support their theories. In contrast to this, there are
highly experienced specialists in the natural sciences, such as P. P. Grass6,
who constantly refer to the data supplied by chemistry and ultra-microscopic
studies of the cell in their interpretation of the salient features of
evolution. I turn once again to the data used by P. P. Grasse to uphold and
spread his concept of evolution, in which he tries to separate established
fact from unproven speculation. We have
already examined the reasons why the theories of Lamarck and Darwin do not
provide an explanation for the genesis of the basic phyla, each of which
arrived at an organizational plan for an entire lineage. Fortuitous mutations
do not adequately account for the emergence of major variations: They cannot
create new forms with modifications that affect several organs in a coherent
manner. All of these events took place in very long stages; at the beginning,
there appeared the first signs of particular features, followed by a period
of accentuation of these phenomena, which was rounded off by a phase during
which events slowed down and the creation of new type's finally ground to a
halt. At the present time (`present' meaning at this point on a scale of
millions of years), we would appear to be in this final stage. As we shall
see later on however, in the case of man, evolution came to a halt much more
recently. All the
major organizational types were laid down at a very early stage. From the
moment a type engendered certain forms that oriented themselves in a
particular direction, no new organizational types emerged from specialized
forms. "Creative evolution has its roots in prototype forms; without
them, no new types of organization can ever appear" (P. P: Grasse'). The
last great wave of evolution in fact took place during the early stages of
the tertiary era with the emergence of the birds 135 million years ago. From
that time onward, the amplitude of the variations diminished, until there
were virtually none at all at the time man appeared. As for the causes of the
variations in the speed of the process and the halt in the creation of new
types, no one knows the answer. At the
cellular level, evolution raises questions, which can now be answered by
molecular biology and genetics. No new phenomenon can occur in the cell
without the intermediary of the D.N.A. molecule, which, by means of the
R.N.A. molecule, is responsible for the formation of a protein that
constitutes the origin of a chemical synthesis. For every important
morphological variation, the D.N.A. molecule must acquire a new gene, thus
adding to its fund of chemically held information, or modifications must
occur in. a gene that already exists. P. P. Grasse was the first to put
forward the idea that evolution could be explained by the creation of new
genes. In his book, 'L'Evolution du vivant' [The
Evolution of Living Organisms], he quotes the statements of the
American geneticist Ohno, who in 1970 said much the same thing. It has not of
course been possible to demonstrate the formation of new genes over the
course of time. Nevertheless, we shall see in a moment why it is unthinkable
that this formation did not take place. The
acquisition of new information by living organisms, is broadly outlined by P.
P. Grasse in the following passage: "The
responses to the stimuli conditioning evolution are recorded in the
individual's genetic inheritance; this is what makes adaptation possible.
Certain conditions must be present for these responses to be recorded. Now we
know for certain and this is a fact to bear in mind that evolution
diminished, as the living world grew older. It is vain to ask, however, why
these responses became more and more infrequent, for the present state of
knowledge can provide no answer. Perhaps one day, when molecular biology is more
refined and precise, we may find a reply to these questions. "We
do however possess certain facts which, while they may not solve the problem
of evolution, at least enable us to gain a better understanding of the
phenomena it entails, and thus help us direct our research into hitherto
unexplored regions. "An
animal would not be in a position to survive if it had no information about
its environment, taking the word in its widest sense. The sensory organs
receive messages and transmit them in modified form to the nervous centres
where they are interpreted and thereby trigger responses appropriate to
outside stimuli. Acting as the `computers' of the organism and capable of
receiving various programmes, the nervous centres function in accordance with
the specific and innate information that permanently controls their actions. "The
specific information lies within each cell, recorded on its D.N.A. tapes and
contained in the genetic code. It is the intelligence of the entire species;
which finds its material expression in an extremely miniaturized form. It is
also the intelligence of the lineage at a particular time `T' in evolution.
The information settles on the D.N.A. tape into which it is integrated and
recorded during the stages through which the successive species pass. It is
the result of a slow process of development, during which a balance was
struck between the living organism and its environment. "Specific
information is transmitted in the form of chemical signals emitted by the
segments or genes in the D.N.A. "Nevertheless",
as P: P. Grasse stresses, "the formation of new genes has not been
observed by a single biologist; and yet without that formation, evolution
becomes an inexplicable phenomenon." P. P.
Grasse completes his theory in the following manner: "In
our opinion, new information, which materializes and integrates itself
permanently into the genetic code in the form of sequences of nucleotids, can
only arise from preliminary intracel-sequences of reactions. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with mistakes in the copying process or anomalies in the
D.N.A.: It is in fact the result of an orderly development that takes place
over successive generations. The evolutionary process operates when very
precise conditions are present; for the moment, those conditions do not
appear to arise very often. The moving forces behind this remarkable process
are most probably stimuli received from outside, internal impulses, and the
general responses of the organism which affect it right down to the level of
the molecule." The
main theories we have passed in review may be narrowed down to two
hypotheses: The theory of mutations resulting from `errors in the copying
process' of the genetic code, the product of chance, with the possible
control of corrective procedures such as natural selection or other factors;
and the theory of creative evolution, which cannot unfortunately be based on
a demonstration of the existence of new genes. Even though the material
recording of new information in the genes remains to be shown, there can be
no doubt that the concept of new data as the determining factor of evolution
provides a perfect explanation for the phenomena observed. So
which of the two theories do we choose?
"If
we deny the formation of new genes, what we are in fact saying is that the
Amoeba or the Monera [Author's Note: A primitive unicellular organism,
which, according to Haeckel, did not possess a nucleus.], as Haeckel
would have expressed it, possessed all the genes which, in the course of
evolution, were distributed among the various species in the animal kingdom. "This
mystical conception of the living world, in which everything is considered to
be preformed, comes as a shock to any biologist who sets great store by
reason and scientific precision. How can one seriously acknowledge that the
most primitive living being could genuinely and substantially have contained
within itself all the genes of the animal kingdom, or even the vegetable
kingdom, without thereby lapsing into tacit animism? "The
acquisition of genes is the absolute prerequisite for evolution. We cannot
avoid this possibility, for our whole comprehension of evolution and its
inmost mechanisms depends on it, and it alone." Jean
Rostand does not appear to have been perturbed by the term `creative
evolution'. This celebrated biologist has never made any secret of his
materialistic ideas: Let us therefore conclude the first part of the present
book with a quotation from him on the opposed theories of creative evolution,
and chance and necessity. "I
have only to watch a cricket leap or a dragonfly dart through the air, in
order to feel more akin to Pierre P. Grasse than to Jacques Monod." |
|||||||||||
Chapter 2: The Evolution of Man compared with that of other
living beings similarities and differences
The successive waves of
Human types from Primitive Man to Homo Sapiens
If we
apply the same criteria to man as to the rest of the animal kingdom; his
anatomical characteristics would seem at first glance to place him in the
order of primates that gave birth to the lineages containing present day
apes. As P. P: Grasse has stressed, however, the ancient forms of these
lineages have still not been discovered. We are faced with an enormous gap in
our knowledge. "In
the history of the primates, we must be careful not to take at face value the
reconstitutions of our ancestors based on on a few scanty vestiges (some
teeth, a fragment of jawbone, the top of a skull) which were put forward in
all seriousness by highly imaginative palaeontologists. This explains why
genealogical trees of Man are quickly devised, and just as quickly discarded.
The most recent works on the subject appear to be fairly mediocre, even
though they concern new and interesting discoveries; the researchers engaged
in these studies have neither the knowledge nor the good sense to interpret
the discoveries correctly." What is
striking in many publications is the existence of a very strong wish to
announce the reconstitution of a man dating from an age that is even older
than that of the oldest man so far discovered. To achieve this, insignificant
debris is used which by no means lead to certainties. Exaggerated claims
resulting from imaginative interpretations in this field are legion. One of
the latest discoveries concerning the oldest man yet known is the Ramapithecus.
It was found in India and Kenya in sediments dating from the tertiary era,
around fifteen million years ago. The fossil in question (which is in fact
limited to a few vestiges of bones) cannot seriously be integrated into the
ancestry of man. According to P. P. Grasse': "Even if one had the genius
of Cuvier, one could not reconstruct an animal from a few bits of
debris." Whatever certain observers may say, therefore, these modest
remains do not represent an ancestor of man. The
same applies to another so called ancestor, the Oreopithecus,
which is in fact a fossilized ape: The animal clearly lived in the forest,
for its arms are very long much longer than its lower limbs as is the case
for apes which swing from tree to tree. It is roughly twelve million years
old, very small in size in comparison with today's man (1.10 metres to 1.20
metres), and its cranial capacity is quite 'small (400 cc.) As in the case of
the Ramapithecus the fossilized remains, are not accompanied, by any sign of
activity that might be considered human. E. Genet Varcin puts the
Oreopithecus in an independent family, for she does not consider that it can
be the ancestor of the hominids that were to follow. Given
the present state of knowledge, there seems to be general agreement that the Australopithecus
is a specimen that belongs to the most ancient wave of authentic hominids who
lived, not in the forest like the great apes, but in the savannah. The first
example of this type was discovered in South Africa in 1924, and other
remains were subsequently unearthed in the same region. More recently,
vestiges come from near the great African Lakes (Leakey, 1959.) Remains may
also have been found in Java in sediments that are possibly one to four
million years old. Some observers think that a form of Australopithecus,
called Meganthropus, because it is larger than the others, was
found in Java in terranes dating only from 600,000 years ago. They probably
belong to the type in question, even at this era, but doubts remain and we
cannot state for sure that this first great ancestor of man lived until this
time. We must
also mention the fact that French palaeontologists, among them Y. Coppens,
have discovered remains of the Australopithecus in terranes between one and
four million years old. The discoveries were first made in 1967 in the Omo
Valley in Ethiopia. The fossilized remains of a woman in her twenties,
subsequently named 'Lucy' were discovered in 1974 in the Afar, in sediments
that date from 3.5 million years ago. The
specimens are generally small in size: One type might measure roughly 1.5
metres, another, more slender specimen, could measure some 1.25 metres. The
skeleton of the face presents ape like features: The skull sometimes displays
a sagittal crest. In these specimens, however, characteristics are present
that are undeniably human: The biped posture, the curvatures of the spine,
which resemble those of man on account of the protuberance of the fifth
lumbar vertebra, the broad pelvis, the femur, which is adapted to the biped
posture, the anterior position of the foramen magnum or occipital foramen
(large opening in the basal part of, the skull through the occipital bone.)
The dentition also displays human characteristics: The teeth are small at the
front, but the premolars and molars are very large. While
its cranial capacity remained small (roughly 500 to 550 cc.), the
Australopithecus was capable of thought, and of using tools, which he
fashioned himself. Among the sites containing human fossils, pebbles have
been found that were fashioned so as 2o form a cutting edge; they were
probably used for hunting. These sharpened flints indicate a capacity for
invention and creation that is not possessed by the apes. Such qualities
enabled the, Australopithecus to produce even more sophisticated implements,
which he held in his fist or used as a small hatchet. He also fashioned tools
made of split bone, employing a technique that allowed him to use the
implements as daggers and clubs (R. A. Dart.) The discovery of animal bones,
in particular the bones of antelopes, suggest that the Australopithecus also
hunted these animals. There is no trace of a fireplace in any of the
excavated sites. These are the most relevant aspects of the details provided
by E. Genet Varcin on these ancestors of men, and the men who were to follow. The
second wave of hominids was the Pithecanthropi or Archanthropians. A Dutch
military doctor, named Eugene Dubois, is said to have requested a post in Indonesia
in the hope of finding there what he thought was the `missing link' between
the apes and man. In 1890, he discovered in Java the top of a cranium, and a
femur, which seemed to display human characteristics. Not until 1936,
however, were further fossils of the same type discovered in Java, identical
to the specimen named by Dubois Pithecanthropus Erectus. A
large quantity of remains of a type later called Sinanthropus
was uncovered between 1928 and 1937 in the Chou Kou Tien Caves near Peking.
Over the last twenty years remains have been excavated by L.S.B. Leakey in
Tanzania and by Y. Coppens in Chad, and vestiges have been found in Asia and
Indonesia. E. Genet Varcin is doubtful about discoveries of this type of man
in Europe, but P. P. Grasse classes among the Pithecanthropi the Tautavel
Man; which was discovered near Perigean in France. The human remains found in
the Lazaret Caves in Nice, and those uncovered at Ternifine in the Oran
region of Algeria also seem to P: P. Grasse to belong to the same type. He
thinks that the Pithecanthropi may have lived some 500,000 years ago,
surviving for roughly 350,000 years. At this
point, man seems to have grown in size: Interpretations of the skeletal
fragments uncovered indicate heights between 1.58 metres and 1.78 metres,
depending on the site in which the remains were found. The human
characteristics of these remains are quite marked, and the upright posture
can be discerned. The
average cranial capacity is roughly 900 cc. (in a range of 775 to 1,200 cc.)
A bony protuberance is always present above the eye sockets (orbits), and on
the back of the head. The orbits are extremely large. The general look of the
face resembles the human types that were later to follow. From
the time of the Australopithecus, intellectual powers began to develop. The
Pithecanthropus used fire, as indicated by the discovery in the Chou Kou Tien
Caves of burnt animal bones, and stones blackened by fire arranged in a
circle. The Pithecanthropus shows a more sophisticated ingenuity than the
Australopithecus, as evidenced by discoveries both in China and in Tanzania.
We find this again in Europe at Tautavel near Perpignan, where H. de Lumley
uncovered scrapers and pointed implements. In the Lazaret Caves in Nice,
there are traces of picks driven into the ground and stones arranged in rows,
which may have marked the limits of various habitations. All these
discoveries indicate a certain capacity for reasoning and reflection. In
comparison with modern man however, the Australopithecus and the Pithecanthropus
possessed a very small brain. This is an important point, for in all
likelihood; there is a direct link between the volume of the brain and the
development of its functional capacity, which is conditioned by the number of
neurones present. Today, a person whose brain ceases to develop once it
attains a volume of less than 1,000 cc. will most probably show signs; of
mental ret9rdation that prevent him from leading a normal life: The first two
waves of hominids possessed a brain volume of less than 1,000 cc., and yet
they displayed powers of invention and creation. P. P. Grasse considers that:
"This proves the rule whereby the various states through which a lineage
passes during its development must be functional, balanced and irreversible.
The Australopithecus and the Pithecanthropus, each with their respective
brain capacities of 500 cc. and 800 cc., lived and prospered in harmony with
their environment, thus indicating the truth of the statement that evolution
never takes place in abnormal or disorderly conditions." The
third wave of hominids were the Neanderthals (or Paleanthropians.)
According to some sources, they appeared roughly 100,000 years ago and lived
approximately 60,000 years. Other observers, such as E.Genet-Varcin, think
that, they appeared much earlier, perhaps as much as 500,000 years ago. The
Neanderthals lived in Europe, Asia and Africa. The
first remains of Neanderthal Man were discovered in 1856 in the Neander
Valley near Diisseldorf in West Germany. Not until 1908, however, was the
first more or less complete skeleton uncovered at La Chapelle aux Saints in
the Correze region of France: Later, identical types turned up in Spain,
Italy, Greece, Morocco, Palestine, Iraq and Java. Although
Neanderthal Man was of medium size, perfectly biped, and endowed with well
developed muscles, his facial morphology was different from that of man
today: His forehead was low, being reduced almost to a large bony
protuberance above the orbits, and the absence of a chin gave his face a
muzzle like appearance. Compared with the hominids of the second wave,
however, Neanderthal Man's skull is more developed: Its capacity increased at
this point from 1,300 cc. to 1,600 cc. The development of his intellectual
level is born out by 'the quality of weapons and implements discovered near,
the remains of Neanderthal Man. He most probably found shelter in caves, in
which he made fire and arranged his surroundings to suit his convenience. It has
been suggested by some palaeontologists that the existence in burial sites of
objects thought to be required in the afterlife (large pieces of animals,
antlers and horns, stone implements) indicates certain spirituality (?). The
halo like arrangement of antlers around the head of the deceased, and various
deposits of ochre may likewise bear witness to a certain aesthetic
sensibility (E.Genet-Varcin.) One
wonders whether Neanderthal Man gave birth to Homo Sapiens the
latter simply following on from the former or whether they both coexisted
side by side. Fossilized remains, such as the Qafzeh Man discovered in
Palestine, possess a skull that is almost the same as that of Homo Sapiens,
displaying only a very minor frontal protuberance (a feature that resembles
Neanderthal Man); the coexistence of the two types may well have led to
interbreeding. According to P: P. Grasse, there are solid paleolontological
arguments to support the idea of the coexistence some 100,000 years ago of
Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man (the absence of the bony protuberance above
the orbits, and the fact that the occipital foramen magnum is located very
far forward are particularly important in this respect.) Does this therefore
mean that we may talk of a Praesapiens type? While
the above is simply a hypothesis, there is reason to think that man as we
know him today displayed these principal anatomical characteristics some
35,000 to 40,000 years ago, thus constituting the species known as Homo
Sapiens: The
following is a brief summary of the data on Homo Sapiens supplied by E. Genet
Varcin: Compared
with the third wave of hominids, the fourth displays a higher, more spherical
skull, with a well-developed occipital region; the bony protuberance above
the orbits has disappeared, and, owing to the appearance of a chin, so has
the muzzle like aspect of the face. The cranial capacity has been reduced to
an average of 1,350 cc., and the limbs have acquired the proportions we know
today. The
first representatives of this latest wave were discovered in many parts of
Europe, Asia and Africa. The best-preserved and most accurately dated
skeletons were found in France; for example, the Combe-Capelle Man, and in
particular the Cro-Magnon Man, which was discovered in 1868 at Les Eyzies in
the Dordogne region. The height of Cro-Magnon Man is greater than that of
Combe-Capelle Man (1.80 metres), and he still possesses certain archaic
features: The occipital region of the skull is not yet entirely developed,
the face is very wide but the orbits are situated at a lower position and the
nose is protuberant. These few remaining features were quickly, to disappear,
however, and thereafter, there were no noticeable changes in human
morphology. "From
the moment he first appeared, Homo Sapiens displayed a degree
of psychic activity superior to that of any hominid preceding him: He was
able to sharpen stones, with considerable skill, versatility, subtlety and
aesthetic sensibility. He made great use of bone and ivory, no longer in
their quasi raw state, but fashioned into various tools: picks, awls, batons;
implements for smoothing objects or casting projectiles, needles, tridents,
harpoons, hooks, etc. "... "His habitations... were quite varied.
As in the past, when faced with a harsh climate, he found shelter in caves
and rocks. In regions without natural shelters, he knew how to dig and
prepare the ground, and to construct huts made of branches; traces of a
fireplace indicate what was once the focal point of the habitation. "Man
lived as a predator cum gatherer; he hunted game and picked fruit, thus
supplying himself with food and clothing. His skill as a hunter is evident
from the remains of animals found at sites such as Solutre' in the
Saone-et-Loire region of France; he sometimes used these animal remains to
furnish his home. In order to light his habitation, he knew how to choose
wood that would burn without leaving much soot, and he also made use of stone
lamps." He
"was able to create works of art, no genuine traces of which have ever
been found from periods prior to him"... "Representations of
animals form his main pictorial theme." Among other works of art,
E.Genet Varcin cites the cave paintings at Altamira and Lascaux. It is
useful to remember, that in the Altamira Caves near Santander in Spain, there
are wall paintings and engravings of bovines and cervidae, which cannot easily
be dated precisely. Various contents of the caves have been analysed by
carbon 14 radio chronology, and an estimated figure of 13,500 years has been
suggested. It is not possible, however, to be absolutely certain that the
figure represents the age of the paintings themselves: Some estimates would
seem to indicate that the works of art are much older. The Lascaux Caves in
France are remarkable for the wide range of animals depicted and the variety
of artistic skills employed. The paintings are thought to date from roughly
the same period as those found at Santander, but here again, some observers
think they may be even older. In
E.Genet Varcin's opinion, the man of this period "displayed
preoccupations of a metaphysical kind. The numerous burial grounds contain
human remains that are often arranged in the foetal position, daubed with red
ochre, decorated with ornaments fashioned into headdresses, necklaces,
bracelets, and pendants, and composed of shells, teeth, and round pieces of
bone. In the vicinity of the human body were placed stone weapons, the
remains of animals, and the antlers of reindeer and stags. The body was
surrounded by large slabs of stone, and sometimes even covered by them.
"... "When it came to expressing his sentiments ", the man of
this period "attained a psychic level equal to that of modern man
". Although
he subsequently underwent a few morphological variations, these changes only
superficially affected man's organs and functions. Since heredity has
continued these modifications right down to the days of recorded history, the
concept of different races has been put forward. In fact, these were
primarily entities that were initially grouped geographically, and within
which dominant mutations occurred and were subsequently perpetuated. Various
groups appeared prematurely which displayed distinctive characteristics, but
they all retained the basic features of modern man. For example, P. P. Grasse
cites the 'Negroids' of Grimaldi (Monaco), the oldest `race', the Cro-Magnon
Man, European in type, and, the Chancelade Man, whose kinship with the
Mongoloid race is currently in dispute. Very
quickly, however, mixed characteristics began to appear in the various
fossils uncovered, causing P. P. Grasse to add the following note:
"Racial purity is an entirely imaginary concept. It does not exist at
present, if indeed it ever did exist. All men are hybrids derived from
various races, but in differing degrees." Studies
of mutations which may perhaps grant certain very minor advantages to
particular human groups indicate that man does not at present display any
tendancy toward a new type of organization: For man, evolution has come to a
halt. Evolution in the Various
Human Groups
The Gaps In Our Knowledge
In the
previous chapter, we provided a 'very broad and simplified summary of the
data on the predecessors of man that arise from an objective, unbiased
examination of scientific discoveries. From this summary, certain facts
emerged that were patently clear: Next to the indisputable material for thought
imposed by palaeontology concerning periods which are in fact only roughly
defined, there are equally indisputable gaps in our knowledge, in
other words places where links are missing. In particular, these gaps
concern the birth of the order of primates and the link with the three animal
branches that descend from it. Almost the only material for study that we
possess for these branches are the present day forms of these animals. In
actual fact, our knowledge of the most primitive hominid forms begins with
the very recent Australopithecus; 'recent' because it is only one to five
million years old (six million years old according to some), which in terms
of evolution is not very old at all. If we
leave aside forms such as Homo Erectus, and Homo Habilis, which
may be linked to the main waves of human types or may simply be forms very
similar to those already mentioned, there would seem to be four main waves
in the succession of hominids that appeared on earth [This
is the figure provided by the current state of knowledge. It by no means
rules out the possibility of further waves that still remain to be
discovered, nor does it exclude the addition of forms already known today but
which may become more significant later on.]. Each wave
displays a more developed structural organization compared with that of its
predecessor, leading toward the appearance of the perfectly adapted final
type. For example, primordial human features began to appear, such as the
biped posture, the functions of the hand and articulate speech. These
characteristics developed simultaneously with the growth of the intelligence
and psychical powers (the expanded cranial capacity indicates the
increasingly sophisticated organization of the brain.) This suggests a
constant march toward greater organizational complexity: Each wave displays a
progression in comparison with the one preceding it, as part of a decidedly
discontinuous march which came to a halt roughly 35,000 to 40,000 years ago,
according to today's calculations. The latter are subject to future revision,
but it is highly unlikely that the experts responsible for determining the
age of the terranes in which the fossils were found are far wrong in their
estimates. Geochronology is based particularly on the measurement of the radioactivity
of rock samples that contain radioelements: for example lead or strontium, or
potassium argon for the datation of specimens that are millions of years old,
and radioactive carbon for samples no more than 50,000 years old. It is
important to bear in mind, however, that palaeontology can only provide a
fairly definitive estimate of the period in which a particular type lived
when there are many samples present: Their existence in large numbers enables
us to state that a certain form lived from point A in time to point B, but
that does not rule out the possibility that remains exist which are as yet
undiscovered, lying hidden in terranes that are perhaps older or younger than
those under study. Unfortunately, as far as the most ancient ancestors of man
are concerned, very few fossilized remains have so far been uncovered. Given
the present state of knowledge, therefore, we must limit ourselves to stating
that a certain form lived at a certain time, and we should be very wary when
giving approximate dates for its possible appearance or disappearance. Were the Waves
Independent or Interdependent?
The
major question facing us today is the nature of the links that may or may not
have existed between the waves at present identifiable. We know for sure that
man's functional and psychical powers and in particular his creative
intelligence all developed at the same rate as certain of his anatomical
features (cranial capacity, for example.) This development occurred with
perfect regularity within the progress of time, and there is no evidence of
any regression toward a less evolved form. In the light of these facts, there
seems at first no, reason why we should not apply the same rules to man as to
the rest of the animal kingdom, thus allowing the four waves of hominids to
derive one from another in succession: From the Australopithecus came the
Pithecanthropus, which gave birth to Neanderthal Man, the direct ancestor of
Homo Sapiens not to mention various secondary branches. Diagram
to be inserted: Simplified Diagram Showing the Phylogeny of the Hominids
According to E. Genet Varcln (Encyclopaedia Universalis,
volume 8, page 499) As may be seen, E. Genet Varcin considers that at the beginning
of the tertiary era, some sixty million years ago, the lineage that was to
produce the great apes (shown on the left) and the lineage that was lead to
present day man (indicated on the right) are quite separate from each other.
Even for periods prior to the tertiary era, there is no evidence to suggest
the existence of a common origin. As a
palaeontologist, however E. Genet Varcin finds that this theory `presents
many difficulties.' It implies that the four main groups have probably
existed independently of each other from a very early stage. The
phylogeny (see diagram) of the hominids, which appears in the Encyclopaedia
Universalis (volume 8, page 499), indicates that the first three waves, which
may share a common origin with the fourth, ceased to flourish one after the
other, the third wave dying .out some 40,000 years ago. The succession was
continued by the fourth wave, which gave birth to Cro-Magnon Man and present
day Homo sapiens. All of the above statements are no more than a hypothesis:
New discoveries of fossilized men may one day confirm or invalidate the
diagram. Given the present state of our knowledge, however; we should accept
it: We shall see the reasons why later on. The
independence of the four waves of hominids from a very early stage seems
doubly certain due to the fact that no fossils have ever been found that
indicate the existence of a common archaic breed. As in the diagram, this
absence is marked on the genealogical tables of the hominids by a series of
dots which form lines that do not meet they mark the development of
independent branches, some of which indicate a more extensive growth. It is
not possible therefore to accept as the one and only feasible hypothesis the
theory that there is a common lineage between the present day great apes and
man. There is nothing to suggest that evolution occurred in exactly the same
way for man as for the rest of the animal kingdom. Nevertheless, although the
famous `missing link' has yet to be found, transformations have undeniably
taken place in the hominids through additions to the genetic code. These
transformations are in harmony with the theory of creative evolution outlined
at the end of Part One. Thus humanity may have begun at a very distant period
not yet located by science, a period that is at least as old as the most
ancient authentic human vestiges so far brought to light. Gradually Acquired
Stability
For the
reasons discussed in the preceding chapter, evolution of some kind undeniably
occurred in the various human groups. It definitely seems to have come to a
halt, however, shortly before the beginning of recorded history. Since
that time, in other words since the stage at which the form Homo
Sapiens was reached, evolution does riot seem to have continued to
create. This stability was attained when man acquired a completely biped
posture, with all the structural and other anatomical features that such a
posture implies, and simultaneously, with the development of the brain as the
cranial capacity expanded. Man's growing psychic powers and the development
of his ability to perceive, reason and decide all of which led to the loss of
his automatic behavioural patterns helped him in the course of tens of
thousands of years to adapt to external circumstances. As P.
P. Grasse has stated: "Man is one of the most cosmopolitan terrestrial
animals; he can live in any part of the world. He has undergone several
thousand different types of mutations, if we judge by the number of alleles [Author's
Note: Alleles are mutations that take place at the genetic level.] whose existence
is proven by the variety to be found among human beings. There are currently [This
quotation is taken from 'Evolution du vivant' (The Evolution
of Living Organisms). published in 1973] three billion
two hundred million people in the word, all of whose genotypes are different
(except for those of identical twins.) Consequently, there is an ample supply
of people who can undergo mutations to fulfil the needs of natural selection.
But what in actual fact is happening? The answer is that nothing of any
importance is currently taking place, or at least nothing that is worth
noting. The last anatomical feature acquired by man was the chin (which
developed some 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, and probably earlier than that if
we take into account Homo Praesapiens.) "Mutations
are what make one person different from another, and they perform this task
extremely well. But as for the human species as a whole, the favourable
conditions for evolution provided by the various human populations and the
diversity of their habitats do not change the fact that man's present
anatomical and physiological structure is stable. "In
every population, human individuals differ from each other according to their
genotype. In spite of this, the species Homo Sapiens is undergoing no change
whatsoever, either in its organizational plan, its structure, or its
functions... Against a background of common features, an infinite number of
differentiating and personalizing `embellishments' appear, none of which has
any value in terms of evolution. " The
gradual progression towards stability is obvious. The
evolution of the human species was very rapid (a point to which we shall
return), but that does not mean to say that it was sudden or abrupt. Each
change resulted in modifications which mutually complemented one another in
the course of time, both with regard to form as well as function. This fact
is born out by the progress made in terms of intelligence, reasoning and
creation, as may be seen in the case of the increased skill with which stone
was fashioned, as mentioned above. Fortuitous Variations Do
Not Provide An Answer
Too
often, we tend to overlook the tiny number of human generations that separate
the Australopithecus from Homo Sapiens. At a very generous estimate, roughly
two million years passed between the end of the first wave of hominids and
the fourth wave; if we view these notions in the light of theories currently
upheld by some observers, we arrive at the following conclusions: Fortuitous
mutations affected only one lineage, and natural selection or some other
factor determined the role of chance, channelling its actions in the desired
ultimate direction. In fact, however, we can quickly see how impossible this
is; two million years represent some 80,000 generations of humans, and at the
time, the human population of the world was very small, as evidenced by the
rarity of fossils discovered. How can we imagine, therefore, that in such a
short period of time and in such a tiny population, the mutations could have
taken place that were necessary for the coordinated organization of cerebral
development (complete with billions of neurones) in the final stage of the
evolution of the brain? The above theory cannot possibly provide an
explanation: P. P. Grasse thinks it is `absurd..' The evolution of the human
species cannot be the result of chance, any more than that of the rest of the
living world. In
contrast to this, however, man acquired many new attributes: We shall quickly
see that simple references to the rest of the animal kingdom do not allow us
to speak of fortuitous mutations or to suppose that these attributes were
passed down from one generation to another. The Most Debated Origin: The
Apes or their Ancestors
The Importance of Dealing
With This Subject
In
spite of certain gaps in our knowledge, the firmly established facts
described in the preceding chapters allow us to think that we possess some
extremely relevant data concerning the origins of man and the transformations
that he underwent during the course of time. In addition to this, our
knowledge of evolution in the animal kingdom may also supply insights on
certain points concerning man, providing we make careful and objective use of
the general ideas to be drawn from such data. It is of course a pity that the
study of specimens that are visible to the naked eye (palaeontology, zoology)
contains gaps that we would naturally like to see filled. Without wishing to
diminish in any way the importance of the contribution made by these
disciplines, however, we must draw attention to the tremendous progress made
in the comprehension of evolution due to the studies of the cell performed by
molecular biology and genetics. Nevertheless, according to some of the most
brilliant specialists in these disciplines, all the questions have been
solved through the discoveries made by the most recent research (let us not
forget J. Monod and the manner in which he set forth his infallible dogma!)
In actual fact, by bringing to light certain aspects of cellular life through
study at the molecular level, investigation has revealed the existence of the
most formidable enigma as far as the organization of the living world is
concerned: It consists in the origin of the genetic code which, as it
subsequently developed, conditioned the course of all living beings, as noted
in our discussion of creative evolution. Unfortunately,
there are far too few specialists in the basic sciences that have arrived at
this conclusion. Most of them are more inclined to come to a hasty decision
that squares with their own ideologies than to direct their attention to the
precise point they are trying to solve; they strive to set forth ideas that
tend constantly to 'animalise' man. As far as the spirit governing the
approach to the problem is concerned, one is forced to wonder whether it has
changed all that much since the time of Darwin. In practical terms, the
discussion inevitably comes back to the same question: "Is man descended from
the apes or at least from one of his close ancestors?" Many modern
researchers convey the feeling that they are motivated by a need to reinforce
an old theory with scientific arguments, providing us with a kind of 'update'
that appeals to modern day tastes. While the arguments themselves may not
date from the time of Darwin, in the case of many researchers, the basic
spirit shared by the first partisans of Darwin's theory (who were probably
far more fanatical than the master himself) shows through with perfect
clarity. As for
the controversies of the past, we must not forget the heated exchanges that
took place, at the meeting of the British Association in 1860, between Bishop
Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley. In reply to Wilberforce, who rejected the
theory that man was descended from the apes, Huxley, as a defender of
Darwinism; stated that he would rather be the descendant of an ape than the
offspring of a human being who demolishes the work of a scientist championing
the defence of truth. These
controversies, which were once limited to a small circle of experts, are now
open to a very large public due to radio and television programmes; we are
well aware of the tremendous impact these media possess compared with other
forms of mass communication. Sad to say, the language used in these media
tends more often than not to 'animalise' man: That is .why two particular
programmes that appeared on French television came as such a surprise to me
when I watched them: In speaking of subjects connected with biology arid man,
the head of an important research institute actually referred one day to
`divine genius' in connection with the genes. On another occasion, I listened
to a former professor at the Sorbonne raise strong objections to theories,
which tend to turn us all into descendants of the apes. How unusual it is to
hear ideas publicly expressed that contradict today's predominantly
materialistic theories! Those Presented As Our
Grandparents
Later
on, we shall examine the obvious differences between the apes and man; we
shall refer to certain features present in each respective group, thus
indicating that the existence of certain human attributes prevents us from
sharing a common ancestry. First however, we must outline the origins of the
apes and describe certain important features that concern them. It is
possible to suppose that some seventy million years ago there lived various
species that were half insectivorous and half primatial, and which formed the
origin of the lineage; there are very few fossilized remains, however.
Specimens have been brought to light in terranes that are roughly thirty
million years old, and these are said to represent the first forms of ape
like types. Many more examples from later periods have been discovered. We
should note, however, that in referring to these various fossils, certain
palaeontologists mention forms that `might have similarities to are likely to
be linked to or 'stem to have given birth to...' a particular form that
exists today. This is
indeed an indication of the uncertainty that pervades ideas concerning the
origins of the apes. If we turn back to the preceding chapter, we shall see
from E. Genet Varcin's diagram of the lineages of the pongids and hominids
that a few dots indicate the discovery of ancients forms, such as the
Ramapithecus of the tertiary era, which was thought by some to be an ancestor
of man. While we find that between four (or six) and one million years, the
development of the first hominid considered at present 2o be such (the
Australopithecus) is marked in right hand column of the diagram (at amore
recent period, Neanderthal Man), we find on the side devoted to the pongids a
series of interrupted dots indicating uncertainties due to lack of fossilized
forms discovered. Not until we reach the top of the `Pongid' column do we
find any development of forms similar to those known today. The latter may
indeed have possessed distant precursors with forms indicated by the
fossilized remains we have discovered from the tertiary era, it is however
very difficult to reach any positive conclusions based on such meagre
vestiges. Nevertheless, there are those who maintain that the great apes reached
anatomical stability nine million years ago. If that were the case, however,
the great apes would have been too `mature' to give birth to the first human
form known today as the Australopithecus, which did not in fact appear until
much later. At this
point, some people will immediately say that the pongids and hominids
possessed a common ancestor. There is, however, not one single discovery to
prove this. Nobody has succeeded in finding the form that provides the link
between the two lineages indicated on the diagram. That is why they remain
quite separate. "It has
been claimed that the human branch is an offshoot of an archaic form bearing
ape like features. This is by no means sure, however, for the oldest known
primates already possess features indicating an adaptation specific to life
in the trees. These features are not present either in the anatomy of man or
than of the Australopithecus" (P. P. Grasse). If this common branch had
existed, a divergence would have occurred at a much earlier period than that
of the appearance of the first apes: Thus we are left with nothing but
conjectures. One thing is certain, however: Man could not have been formed at
the cost of the evolved forms such as the pongids (chimpanzees, gorillas,
orang outangs, for example). There
are two extremely important characteristics common to all monkeys and apes
(with a few very rare exceptions): The fact that they live in the trees, and
therefore possess extremely long and well developed upper limbs, and the fact
that they do not display a biped posture. The few species of monkeys and apes
that do not climb trees but live in mountain regions still remain quadrupeds.
As far as I know, the gibbons are the only species, which occasionally
displays a biped posture, but they nevertheless possess upper limbs that are
long and well developed. These two distinguishing features of the lineage
composed of monkeys and apes are not present in man. Similarities and
Differences Between the Anatomical Features of the Two Lineages
The
general anatomical features of man and the great apes appear on first sight
to possess striking similarities. There is no point in denying this fact. The
structures present in the two lineages must be compared in much greater
detail, however, than is afforded by a cursory examination of the obvious. In this
context, it is worth noting that some of Darwin's most ardent supporters such
as Thomas Huxley were perfectly well aware of the evident differences that
'exist between man and the apes. As Huxley himself wrote: "I shall therefore
take, this opportunity plainly to state that, on the contrary, they are both
considerable and significant; that every bone in the body of a gorilla bears
a feature that distinguishes it from the corresponding bone in a human, and
that, at least in creation today, no intermediary form bridges the gap
separating man from the troglodyte." The opinions of modern researchers seem
to indicate the exact opposite; however, for they claim that 98 % of the
genes present in the chimpanzee are shared by man (J. de Grouchy, `De
la naissance des especes aux aberrations de la vie' [From
the Birth of the Species to the Abnormalities of Living Forms].) [Published
by Robert Laffont, Paris, 1978] General
inventories have been compiled listing the purely anatomical characteristics
of the great apes as compared with those of man. One such inventory was drawn
up by A. Keith, who in 1915 set out to study all the possible anatomical
features that might be shared by man and various species of apes: The
chimpanzees and gorillas were found to be more or less related, according to
the study, while the orang outangs were only distantly linked.
Classifications of this kind are however, quite arbitrary. It is possible to
arrive at similar inventories by using as terms of comparison the pig, the
dog or the mouse: We are bound to find many points in common between them.
Similarities between the species are inevitable from an anatomical as well as
biological point of view. The reason for this is that the living beings in
question all share the same general structure. In the case of animals that
breathe, for example, pulmonary alveoli must be present. Nutrition requires a
digestive tract and appended glands, and these must of necessity possess a
similar structure. The elimination of waste products requires kidneys...
There is nothing new or special about any of this. Where we should stop and
look more carefully are cases in which there are features present in man that
are specific to him alone and that are not to be found in the lineage of the
apes. There
is much to be learned from a comparison of the skulls found in the great apes
with those of the various human groups mentioned earlier; especially with
regard to cranial capacity. In the case of the chimpanzee and the orang
outang, in round figures, the cranial' capacity is 400 cc., and 500 cc. or
even more in the case of the gorilla. When we come to man, however, the
figure gradually rises higher and higher until man reaches his final stage of
development. The average figure for man is 1,350 cc., although there are of
course variations. The cranial capacity of Neanderthal Man was even slightly
greater than this. While the development of the brain kept pace with that of
the cranium, it is important noting that the Australopithecus, who made
skilful use of the implements he fashioned, possessed a brain that was
slightly smaller than that of modern day gorillas. Man's brain therefore
developed first of all in terms of quality: The number of neurones increased,
and the system of relays and centres grew more and more complex. In this
respect, evolution in the apes came to a halt, while man continued to develop
until he reached Homo Sapiens: The slow evolution of. the brain, which
was coordinated with the expanding volume of the cranium, was the result of a
strict organizational order. The
second extremely important feature concerning the cranium is the occipital
foramen magnum. In the apes, the foramen magnum of the occipital bone,
through which the brain is connected to the spinal chord, is located in the
posterior part of the occipital bone; in man, it is situated .in a more
anterior position. Thus in the case of man, the centre of gravity of the head
coincides more or less with the vertical axis of the cervical column which
supports the skull of the individual when in the biped posture, as if the
head were balanced on the neck. The foramen itself is almost vertical in the
apes, whereas in man it is horizontal. Other
anatomical differences are present, but these are generally less important. Many
specialists have; however, drawn attention to the U shaped form of the
mandible (lower jaw), which developed at the same rate, as the palate
gradually grew longer. There can be no doubt that the first hominids
possessed cranial crests, such as the very pronounced crests we see in
today's apes the male gorilla, for example. The dentition is quite different,
however: The canines present in the hominids are not at all the extremely
powerful fangs that we find in the male apes. Man's posterior teeth also display
a very distinct development. Let us
return to the important question of the long and well-developed upper limbs
of the apes arid monkeys, for it constitutes a feature of this lineage that
is characteristic, even when, as the case of certain species, it serves no
functional purpose. The upper limbs, which are in fact the anterior limbs in
the case of quadruped apes, help to support the animal as it rests on the
ground, the weight being distributed on the second phalanges of the second,
third, fourth and fifth fingers. With regard to the feet, the weight rests
mainly on their outer sides. Almost all apes live in the trees there are very
few exceptions indeed and the powerful muscles of their upper limbs enable
the apes to hang from branches or to swing from one tree to another; these
features arb in harmony with the functions of the lower limbs which end in
prehensible feet (i.e. the big toe is separated from the main body of the
foot, like the thumb on the human hand), thus allowing the ape to hold branches
in a powerful grasp. These fundamental features of the apes are not present
in man. In
contrast, the arched sole of the human foot is perfectly adapted to walking
on the three points in contact with the ground: the heel, the joint between
the big toe and the first metatarsal (commonly called the ball of the foot),
and the joint at the base of the fourth and fifth toes with their
corresponding metatarsals. The apes walk and stand on the external side of
the feet, and they do not possess the concave form which in man constitutes
the arch of the foot. The
vertebral column and pelvis in apes and man present differences due to the
biped posture of man. Man possesses a broader pelvis, and his vertebral
column displays curves not present in the apes: The dorsal column displays
backward convexity, while the entire lumbar and sacral column is marked by
forward convexity. In the case of the apes, the entire vertebral column
displays a backward convexity. All of these features result from the fact
that the upright posture and biped-walking pattern are recorded in man's
genetic inheritance. As we shall see in the next chapter, however, the biped
walking pattern is not an innate feature of human behaviour: A child has to
learn how to walk, even though his anatomical structure is already adapted to
this specific function. Biochemical and Genetic
Features
As far
as its essential characteristics are concerned, each evolved living being is
composed of the same kind of tissues. Every handbook of biology describes the
general features that are valid for a large number of tissues: Covering
tissue, nervous tissue, osseous tissue, muscular tissue, glandular tissue,
etc. Each of these possesses a cellular organization with chemical components
that are identical from one species to another. The proteins specific to a
particular tissue in one animal are very likely to be the same as those in
the corresponding tissue of another, even though there is no relation between
the two. In the very distant past, a particular gene was responsible for the
orientation of a certain cellular function, and this directive remained in
the inheritance of the lineage, passing from one descendant to another
without any change. Every living being that breathes requires pulmonary
alveoli in order to allow the passage of oxygen into the blood and to
eliminate carbon dioxide; man requires them just the same as any other animal
that breathes. An examination of each and every organic function would reveal
that, in order for any animal to survive, its strictures must be adapted to
its functions. For example, the substances required to sustain life, such as
the haemoglobin contained in the red blood cells, result from the specialized
functions of certain cells that are controlled by specific genes. Precise
chemical characteristics are of necessity shared by all the haemoglobins.
They are present in the haemoglobin of man and many other animals, for there
is no alternative. In his book 'L. Homme en accusation' [Man.
Stands Accused], P. P. Grasse quotes an extremely judicious comment
made by J. de Grouchy on the cellular proteins to be found in both man and
chimpanzees: "The manner of utilizing proteinic molecules is probably
what accounts for the fact that, in spite of everything, there is a big
difference between chimpanzees and man." Attempts
have been made: to connect man with the apes by examining their respective
genetic inheritance, in particular the number of chromosomes they each
possess. The number is not the same: 46 in man, and 48 in the great apes.
Since the figures are fairly close to one another, it has been suggested
without a scrap of evidence that in the case of the ape's two chromosomes
fused together in order to pass in the case of man from 48 to 46. What
counts, however, are the genes. Here we find that one body of opinion holds
that the inventory of genes has not been compiled for the apes and is
probably very incomplete for man, while another body maintains "probably
less than 2 % of all the genes vary from one species to another" (J. de
Grouchy.) Researchers are extremely intrigued by the study of the
chromosomes; even today, in spite of the solid discoveries made by
palaeontology, they are still trying to amalgamate apes and man. Last
but not least, we come to the question of the significance to be attached to
the difference in the sexual activity of apes and man, which is linked to the
various commands issued by the hormones of each respective species. Leaving
aside certain anatomical differences which give rise to minor variations, the
main point to be noted is that in man sexual activity is continuous and does
not strictly depend on the menstrual cycle of the female. In the apes, the
situation is quite different; the menstrual cycle is longer and is marked by
a rutting period which is particularly apparent due to the considerable
intumescence of the ano vulvar region, accompanied by a pinkish colouring of
the covering skin. These physiological features naturally have a direct
influence on the behaviour of apes. Their conduct should been seen in the
light of the much more general phenomena that direct animal behaviour. How Relevant Is the
Debate Today?
Since
it is hardly possible any longer to defend Darwin's original theory; one
might suppose that our better knowledge of man's origins would tend to render
somewhat obsolete the controversy surrounding the part played by the simian
lineage in our ancestry. Let us make no mistake, however: There are still
those who uphold Darwin's theory, and who hunt high and low for arguments to
confirm their ideas. These people seem to fall into two categories, The first
is composed of a number of palaeontologists who make what appear to be
extremely flimsy pronouncements; the second is made up of psychologists who
are new to the debate. Among
the first, we find palaeontologists who begin by noting the discovery of a
few teeth, a fragment of mandible or some other meagre fossilized remains,
and, once they have given a scientific sounding name to the individual they
have reconstructed largely from their own imagination, they immediately jump
to `solid' conclusions. This is exactly what happened in the case of the
Ramapithecus, am ancestor if that is really what it is of the pongids,
presented by some as a precursor of man. Over the last ten years, importance
has also been attributed to the remains of another possible ancestor of the
apes, the Dryopithecus. Although there is not the slightest evidence, the
Dryopithecus is said to be the form in which the divergence between hominids
and apes actually took place. Specialists
in evolution, who are used to constructing their theories according to
objective observations, are particularly incensed by a certain tendency to
see in psychology an effective way of solving the problem. P. P Grasse, in 'L
Homme en accusation' [Man Stands Accused], has the following remark
to make on this subject "There
are many psychologists who today see in man nothing more than a chimpanzee,
marginally more artful than the other primates. They 'humanize' the apes and
'animalise' man: Anthropomorphism in one case, zoomorphism in the other.
According to these psychologists, all human conduct exists in a state that is
either dissimulated by appearances, or broadly outlined in the behaviour of
the anthropoids. The chimpanzee makes use of implements; he reasons and is
capable of conceiving abstract concepts; he possesses a gestural language
(pongo linguistics) that can be perfected through a learning process and
which he can use to communicate with man; the chimpanzee also possesses the
same sensibility as man, and he is able to express this through painting
(Desmond Morris, 1962). This theory has gained widespread popularity among
psychologists in Europe and America. A major symposium is planned for Paris
at which subjects will 'be discussed such as the "Self Awareness and
Person Perception of Experimenters by Chimpanzee Psychologists" (sic),
a paper to be presented by G. Woodruff of the University of Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.; "Use of 'Pongo linguistics' to determine Mental Representations in
the Great Apes: Room for Improvement" (re sic), a paper by R. Fouts of
the University of Oklahoma, U.S.A.; and a score of other papers of the same
ilk." In the
following chapter, we shall examine the many points on which the behaviour of
the two species is in fact quite different. Innate and aquired
Behaviour: A comparison between Man and the Animals
The Role of Innate
Behaviour in the Animals
As far
as behaviour is concerned, there is a broad gap separating man from the
animals. The apes happen to be closer to us than to other species in terms of
their anatomy and numerous aspects of their physiology (including the brain
functions); it is natural therefore that their behaviour should be the one
most frequently compared with our own. Comparative investigation is hampered;
however, by the fact that the apes do not possess the power of speech.
Furthermore, the experimenter may himself exercise a marked influence on the
animals under study, for certain of them display a capacity for observing,
memorizing and imitating. Thus it is easy to make animals appear extremely
`intelligent', when in fact all they are doing is expressing themselves
through conditioned reflexes, as we shall see in a moment. The apes and not
just the apes learn much from their contact with man, even if the contact is
not particularly recent; this implies that in order to arrive at useful
results, the entire past of these animals must be reconstructed. The
environment in which the 'zoo psychologist's' 'examination takes place may
also affect the outcome of the tests; the animal should be observed in its
natural habitat. The enormous difficulties raised by this kind of study are
easy to imagine. In
spite of these drawbacks, however, modern research has been able to
distinguish the parts played by the innate and the acquired. We mentioned
earlier the innate character of certain animal behaviour; it is worth
returning to this subject to highlight even more clearly the contrast with
the conduct of man. There
are abundant examples of innate animal behaviour to be found in any handbook
of zoology : There is no point in dwelling on the fact. What is of interest,
however, is, that behavioural patterns may not necessarily be absolutely
automatic, owing to a possible adaptation to circumstances. In the case of
our friend the 'mutton bird', the complicated six month journey could not be
performed with such stunning regularity and precision unless the flight
programme were adapted to the atmospheric conditions the bird encountered on
its way. The duration of the programme and the extremely wide range of
external circumstances through which the bird passes make this a truly
remarkable example. A much more classic illustration is the case of the
nectar gathering bee which has to identify familiar landmarks in order to
find its way back to the nest. It must also indicate to other bees the exact
location of pollen and nectar to be gathered. Another example is provided by
a certain type of bird which fish for its food. The bird has to learn how to
use its beak, for its first endeavours to peck at the fish miss their target.
The reason for this is that in seeing from air to water, the bird has not yet
learned to make allowance for the refraction of light rays that occurs
between the two. Only after a number of unsuccessful attempts does the bird
finally catch the fish. In order to ensure this ultimate success, complex
cerebral and medullar pathways must first be established. All of
the above phenomena should be examined in the light of our knowledge of the
nervous organization that conditions them. At some early stage, nervous
`frameworks' had to be fabricated, as it were, which allowed these complex
reactions to take place in response to the stimuli triggering them. The
structuring of such a `framework' is governed by the genetic code; it is the
existence, in the D.N.A. tapes of the reproductive cells, of genes, which,
during embryogeny, dictate that certain cells will differentiate themselves
and acquire the functional properties of nervous cells. The genes are
transmitted by these same reproductive cells, which likewise contain the
pre-established programme. The receiving organs must also be sensitive,
however, to the stimuli reaching the animal; the latter must be recognized as
factors educing specific responses. These functions all take place within the
cells that receive the stimuli They
result from the action of the same complex: D.N.A. R.N.A. 'messenger'
decoding of the messages response of the ribosomes and participation of the
cytoplasm. In view
of the above, how can we account for the modulations in the animal's
responses, or for the adjustment of its innate behaviour according to
circumstances? As we know, animals do not have the powers of reasoning or,
reflection that we find in man. An aeroplane pilot or ship's captain who embarked
on the `mutton bird's' journey across the Pacific would require navigational
instruments; he would have to add the data provided by them to his reading of
charts and maps; he would have to plot his course with a ruler, set square;
and a pair of compasses. The `mutton bird' simply uses its eyes and possibly
various other sensory organs and a very small brain in which everything is
programmed with a startling degree of miniaturization. If man were to
construct a computer to replace the bird's natural attributes, it would have
to contain an incredibly complex structure in order to process the same
pre-established programme. In this respect, we may perhaps argue that the
bird is much more capable than man, owing to its structures. The latter are
formed by the proteinic molecules held on the D.N.A. tape that is roughly 1
/5,000 millimetre wide and which contains the genetic programme inherited
from the bird's progenitors. When the innate behaviour is programmed with
such a `luxurious' complexity, the animal is undoubtedly capable of
performances that, without exaggeration, can be described as quite
sensational, for man is incapable of similar achievements. As we shall see
later on, however, man is endowed with considerable powers of a different
kind. Precisely because he has lost his innate behaviour, one of his powers
consists in a freedom of action that no animal possesses. This sets him apart
from even the most highly organized living beings. The Capacity for
Imitation in Animals and Its Possibly Delayed Effects
We must
draw a distinction between true imitation; which consists in the spontaneous
reproduction of an action performed by others, and training, which involves a
forced apprenticeship in a behaviour that the animal is subsequently to
repeat. Spontaneous
imitation is a feature characteristic of the apes, and man makes use of it
for training purposes. Left to themselves, apes appear to enjoy mimicking
what they see: Chimpanzees are past masters in the art of imitation. They
seem to derive pleasure from it; especially if the action they are imitating
provides them with a certain degree of satisfaction. It has been said that
chimpanzees do not behave consistently, but they, are perhaps able to attach
a certain significance to the action imitated if, at the end of the
imitation, they receive some kind of reward. Over and over again, we read
reports of how chimpanzees have watched humans open a cupboard containing
titbits and have repeated the exact same movements in order to obtain the
desired food. Imitations can be performed after only a short period of time,
as well as after a more or less long period; they may also be repeated,
especially if the chimpanzee experiences a certain satisfaction in his
mimicry. Chimpanzees
are also able to imitate human movements that have remained in their memory,
even after a certain time has elapsed, and even though these movements may
not have the slightest significance for them. In one of his works, P. P.
Grasse relates the following anecdote: In Africa, one of his chimpanzees on
several occasions watched a worker use a machete to cut grass and dig holes
in the ground. When transported to an island to undergo observation in its
natural habitat, and thus left to itself, the chimpanzee seized an implement
of this kind left lying there and began to cut the grass and attempt to dig a
hole in the ground, just as it had seen the worker use the same tool for the
same purpose at least ten days earlier! As for
training, we are all familiar with its many spectacular forms; from the acts
performed at the circus; it is not limited, however, to the most highly
evolved animals on the scale of mammals. The apes are joined by such animals
as bears, elephants, dolphins, dogs, etc., all of which might at first sight
suggest the existence of types of intelligence which tend too quickly to be
assimilated with human intelligence. It is difficult not to be astounded by
the various actions that dolphins are able to perform; they have even been
trained to act as auxiliaries in the execution of naval operations. There is
every indication that the performance of the dolphins can be very
sophisticated indeed. Only
when we read about them in such eminently serious studies as P: P. Grasses `L
Homme en accusation' [Man Stands Accused], can we credit the amazing
performances of dogs, for they have been scientifically investigated. At the Laboratoire
d'Evolution des Etres Organises [Laboratory for the Study of
Evolution in Organized Living Beings], an Italian dog trainer presented
the performances of a female poodle, named Dana, who not only knew the
figures 0 to 9, the signs + and =, but also the twenty five letters of the
Italian alphabet. Dana was perfectly able to recognize the twenty-five
letters and arrange them in such an order that a very brief and simple
Italian phrase appeared. Obviously, Dana's cerebral structures and functions
did not permit her to understand what she was actually doing, but she
nevertheless possessed an extraordinary ability to memorize, which enabled
her to distinguish between so many figurative signs; she obeyed a series of
conditioned reflexes ordering her to arrange the letters in the desired
order. Thus,
the dog trainer commanded Dana to fetch and arrange on the ground the figure
3, the sign +, the figure 4, and the sign =. Having carried out these four
orders, Dana of her own accord fetched and added to the sum the figure 7.
This final action was executed without any command being issued, as far as
the laboratory observers could detect. Nobody
is suggesting that the poodle was able to read and count: Her brain would not
enable her to do either. Dana was simply following orders received from her
trainer. Had anyone else given the commands, Dana would not have reacted. In
P: P. Grasse's opinion: "It is certain that Dana recognized a fairly
large number of words when spoken, and replied by a posture, or a series of
barks that were always the same... The wish to receive a lump of sugar or a
biscuit generally motivated the animal's actions... With its relatively small
brain, the dog was able to perform astoundingly complex tricks, which for the
public would mean that Dana was highly intelligent. As far as I am concerned,
however, all I could find was the result of conditioned reflexes to the
exclusion of the awareness of the situation." If the
tight bond that exists between the animal and its trainer is broken, the
experiment is doomed to failure. In contrast to this, my grandson's knowledge
of figures is roughly equal to Dana's, and he is able to count up to ten:
Providing he is well disposed toward the person who asks him, he will give an
exact reply to anyone who gives him figures to add. At a stage where the
child must count with his fingers, he will make more or less overt use of
this trick, which has been taught, to him. His reply will therefore be the
result of intelligence and will be based on reflection; it will be given in
the absence of the parents who taught him the fundamental principles of
simple reasoning, and as a consequence, the problem may be solved in any
circumstances whatsoever (except for the occasional childish fit of
obstinacy.) The
considerable development of certain capacities for imitation and memorization
may, however, lead to behaviour among apes that could appear to be acquired.
Young chimpanzees are able to identify poisonous fruits in the forest, once
they have been taught by their mother to recognize them. This useful aspect
of the chimpanzee's behaviour in its natural environment is quite different
from another this time innate feature of its conduct which is often stressed
: This is the chimpanzee's innate ability to build a night shelter in the
trees, even in cases where the chimpanzee in question has never experienced
life in the forest before. In contrast to this, certain apes in Gabon seem to
obey an imitative tradition in washing manioc tubers. Perhaps their ancestors
watched humans washing the tubers at some point after manioc was first
introduced into Africa in the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, the role of
the parents in the education of the young ape remains not only effective, but
beyond dispute: The young apes imitate their parents, but that is as far as
their intellectual capacity goes. It is a
shame that totally false notions are. so often spread concerning the
intelligence and reasoning faculties that certain animals supposedly possess.
The public impact of these mistaken ideas is very great indeed when they are
put forward by important authorities and supported by the sort of pictures
one is likely to see in the course of a major television programme. Such was
the case during a recent broadcast, in which an underwater explorer provided
a commentary on a sequence of film intended to illustrate these very
qualities in animals. According to the commentator, the sequence demonstrated
that the octopus was endowed with a capacity for reasoning. In fact, however,
the mollusc in question displays a. nervous system composed of a few meagre
ganglions and two nerves that is about as rudimentary as that of the
annulated worm. In common with all the molluscs, the octopus does not possess
a brain; its behaviour is automatic, for it is guided by various tropisms. If
we ascribe to the octopus powers that it cannot have, we are in fact
overlooking its anatomy and physiology: It does not contain any more powers than
the mussel. It is as if we decided to study the properties of the bile in an
animal that has no liver to produce it. In this particular case, the
experimenter took for a deliberate action what was in fact nothing but the
purely accidental result of an automatic impulse in one of the tentacles of
the octopus. In spite of this, millions of television viewers, unaware of the
real situation, must have been convinced that the experiment indeed
demonstrated a certain level of intelligence in the animal. The fact is,
however, that the octopus does not possess the nervous organisation, which is
required for the expression of any form of reflection. Animals Rarely Use
Implements
Apes
are not the only animals to use tools. Less evolved species sometimes use
implements for precise purposes gathering food in particular. In this
context, ornithologists have discovered the existence of astonishing
behavioural patterns. which are specific to certain species, as follows:
The
origins of this use of implements by birds are unknown. It would seem,
moreover, to be an extremely rare phenomenon. While
the great apes that live in the forest are able to use branches to strike an
attacker, they also have many other capacities for using implements. I
can well remember the stories told to me long ago at Yale University in the
United States by specialists in ape behaviour and their collaborators at J.
F. Fulton's laboratory devoted to this purpose. The sometimes-successful
attempts of the apes to escape their cage by using whatever tools lay to
hand, and their endeavours to rid themselves of the electrodes implanted in
their brain, indicated definite skills on the part of the chimpanzees or
macaques in question. There are plenty of examples to support the idea behind
the expression `as artful as a cartload of monkeys', although we should
beware of taking the phrase too literally, for it has its limits. Goodall
has noted that chimpanzees sometimes use a twig to capture termites. They
push the twig into the termitarium and wait for the termites automatically to
accumulate on the twig. This action would appear to be full of cunning
ingenuity. P: P. Grass6 nevertheless expresses doubts as to this `invention'
of the apes: In many regions of Africa, he has noted that the natives, who
regard soldier termites as something of a. delicacy, use the same procedure
to attract the insects. P: P. Grasse wonders whether the chimpanzees
happened, at some point, to see humans in the process of capturing termites
with a twig and simply imitated them. He himself observed a chimpanzee
capturing termites in this way in the Ivory Coast. Others may perhaps go so
far as .to speculate that it was in fact man who imitated the chimpanzees. Whatever
the case, one fact is sure concerning the animal's use of implements, and it
is of fundamental importance: No example exists of the spontaneous and
deliberate fabrication of an implement by an animal. The great apes,
which in terms of nervous organization are the most evolved of the animals,
are intellectually incapable of realizing that it is possible to use one
implement to 'fashion another destined to serve a specific purpose. The
logical connection between the two actions is totally beyond them. Let us
remember that millions of years ago, the most primitive hominid, the
Australopithecus; was capable of performing the two operations, one after the
other: The point is proved by the existence of tools whose cutting edge was
produced with the help of another implement. This constitutes a
characteristic feature dividing the great apes from the representatives. of
the first wave of hominids at present known. The Loss of Man's Innate Behaviour
Man has
almost completely lost his innate behaviour, but that does not mean that he
is born without it: In his heredity, which is recorded in the genetic code,
there is a wide variety of potentialities connected to his structures,
all of which are ready to ensure many different functions and to play their
part once man decides that the time has come. Through the loss of numerous
instinctive complexes, man has gained his freedom. At
birth, man still possesses the innate behavioural pattern, which consists in
sucking; a pattern that is vital for the nourishment of the newborn infant.
Although by nature a biped, man still has to learn how to walk in the posture
to which his structures are adapted. In contrast to this, however, his
conduct is in no way determined by any of his genes, a point on which he
differs. from the animals, whose behaviour is innate and whose conduct is
only influenced by factors connected with circumstances. In this context, the
phenomena of imitation (mentioned above) and their accompanying consequences
might perhaps be confused, in the case of the animals, with what seem
essentially to be acquired behavioural patterns, but in fact are not. On the
other hand, it is not possible to generalize or to take the exception as the
rule. Indeed, the origins of exceptions such as the extremely rare examples
of the use of implements have not at all been explained and therefore remain
shrouded in mystery. The point here is to establish a general principle on a
wide variety of facts; for if we insist on the exceptions and ignore the
majority of cases, we are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. We can
state for certain that innate behaviour in man has almost disappeared. At
birth, our genetic code provides us, not with automatic behavioural patterns,
but rather with general capabilities: It is up to man to ensure that these
capabilities ace `brought to fruition', as it were. Everyone
is born with nervous centres in which stimuli are received, analysed,
interpreted and transformed into a wide range of responses. Apart from cases
of identical twins, which are formed from a single fertilized ovum, everyone
is different from a structural point of view. This implies ipso facto
that nobody has exactly the same capabilities. This inequality is linked to
our constitution. Within a single family, where the inherited chromosomes are
the same, there will always be differences between the offspring. Side by
side with obvious physical resemblances, vast differences in Intellectual
ability may exist although there may be major physical differences as well.
The latter is always a possibility, even though in certain families dominant
features may be noted in several generations. Man's Mental Faculties
Highlighted By Social Intercourse
In this
respect no two people's capabilities are the same. Their faculties depend
first and foremost on their structures. The genes govern the development of
the brain and exercise a constant influence on the biology of the cells and
the functions of the associative neurones. Their number is so great that we
do not know to which power we should multiply the billions of neurones in
order to arrive at an exact figure [A recent estimates suggested
a figure roughly equal to 1 followed by fifty-nine zeros! (J. Hamburger)]. Each brain
cell differentiates itself from cellular substances that have not yet
acquired specialized functions at the embryonic stage, but each cell contains
the entire code that is to govern the subsequent course of evolution. It
possesses its D.N.A., on which the genes are held, and all .the other
substances required for the transmission of messages, on which depends the
quality of the particular function provided; this may vary from one
individual to another with regard to certain relays and nervous centres. Certain
families exist that are particularly well endowed with individuals who, for
one reason or another, display talents that single them out from among their
contemporaries; often themselves extremely competent in their field. There
are also people who may be classed as `exceptionally gifted; either they are
child prodigies or they are people whose abilities are way above average.
This type of superiority is not necessarily present, however, in all the
members of a same family. Their
family and those surrounding them exert a considerable influence on the
young. One may indeed ask, in general terms, just what would become of us if
we did not live in society. For it is indeed social intercourse, in its
widest possible sense, which, through education, upbringing and the transfer
of knowledge, enables us to make use of our abilities. In the case of the
animals, most of the information they use comes from their individual
inheritance. They do not possess the wide powers of adaptation that man
enjoys owing to the loss of the innate behaviour controlled by the genes. By
and large, the animals follow patterns of conduct that are rigidly set. P. P.
Grasse has defined the role played by social intercourse in the following
terms: "An evolution that was purely biological would not in itself have
been sufficient to shape man; the assistance of life in society was needed,
with its accumulation of knowledge beyond the genetic code, in order for the
human spirit to be freed of all instinctive automatism." For
life in society to play a part, however, communication was necessary. The
most ancient and most direct form of this is articulate speech, which is a
phenomenon that exists only in man. It first requires a thought, and then, it
needs words to express that thought. In the case of deaf mutes, the two are
separated; for while such people are able to think, they are not able to
express themselves in speech. As for
the animals, the sounds emitted by parrots and other birds are mere acts of
imitation, and therefore do not pose any problems. Other animals do indeed
communicate, however, exchanging information by acoustic processes: They
employ sounds that are audible to the human ear or inaudible (ultrasonic
sounds), as the case may be. They also communicate by visual and even
olfactory (chemical) signals, all of which are governed by the animal's
automatic behavioural patterns. Higher mammals are able to convey messages to
each other, thus transmitting their understanding of a particular situation:
They undoubtedly emit inarticulate sounds. These have been recorded in the
animals' natural surroundings, and it has thus been possible to distinguish
vocalizations whose variety and abundance are not at all in keeping with the
animals' psychic powers. Thus the gibbons and cercopithecoid monkeys, although
psychically less evolved than the gorillas and chimpanzees, nevertheless
display a much wider vocal repertory. All the same, there does not seem to be
much real dialogue between individual apes or monkeys. In the
United States, psychologists have tried in their own way to coax the great
apes to speak, and they claim to have succeeded. As in the case of Dana the
performing poodle mentioned above, however, this is primarily a matter of
training. R.A. and B.T. Gardner were able to teach a chimpanzee eighty-five
signs in the deaf mute code The
test chimpanzee was able to use three or four signs at a time to express its
wishes. Another trainer used different symbols with another animal. The
outcome of all these tests was in fact very much the same as the results
obtained with Dana: The animal learned the letters and figures taught to it
in advance by the trainer in countless question and answer sessions. When the
time came to perform, the animal merely appears to have repeated what it had
learned. In contrast,
true language results from a highly sophisticated intellectual process. It
not only transmits an image, but also acts as a vehicle for abstract ideas.
Through language, we are able to convey these ideas, and express our
sentiments. For man, language is an infinitely precious acquisition, which is
unique to his species. The Influence of Creative
Evolution in Man's Development
Since
the beginning of the twentieth century, great progress has been made in
research into the origins and evolution of man, due to contributions supplied
by many different disciplines. Ultra microscopic and biochemical studies of
the cell would seem recently to have brought the most light to bear on the
factors governing the course of events. Far be it from me, however, to minimalise
the contributions of the natural sciences, zoology in particular, or
palaeontology, which are the fundamental underpinnings of any investigation
in this field, for it is these, and related disciplines, that are responsible
for our knowledge of the ordered course of evolution. Today,
we know that the first wave of humans appeared on earth some five million
years ago (six million years ago for certain researchers, and less for
others). The waves that were to follow have also been more or less precisely
located in time. What gaps still remain, however, in our knowledge due to the
rarity of fossils! What large quantities of statements have appeared
concerning the supposed relationship between human groups and the lineage
that produced the apes (which is placed next to the human lineage on the
genealogical table), none of which is supported by any valid argument! What
else are they but simple hypotheses designed to square with certain
researchers' preconceived ideas? The
very small quantity of paleolontological specimens documenting the origins of
mankind should make us proceed with extreme caution. There can be no doubts
that many fossils exist which have not yet been discovered; some of them
never will be. Chronological data bearing on apes and humans alike may, one
day be modified by future discoveries. Whatever happens, however, there are
solid arguments to reject the theory that man is descended from the apes. Even if
it becomes possible to trace the human lineage much further back in time than
the oldest human forms at present thought to be known, we shall never arrive
at the idea that man was born of simian forms; whose descendants` are today's
great apes. While
discoveries made over the last few decades have gradually pushed back the
appearance of the first human forms to more and more distant periods (from
hundreds of thousands to` millions of years), the basic problem remains the
same. Whatever the answer, the discoveries do not indicate that man is
descended from a fully developed lineage of apes. What is
new is our knowledge of the activity that takes place within the cell and the
information every human cell contains which is recorded in the genes. These
are held on the helix shaped D.N.A. tape, which is over one metre long. When
compared with the dimensions of the cell itself, which are measured in units
of 1 / 1,000 millimetre, the length of the tape is colossal. In the case of
primitive life forms, such as bacteria, the essential characteristics of the
species, which govern its functions and reproduction, are recorded on the
same D.N.A. tape, except that for the bacteria, the tape is roughly a million
times shorter. The general concept of evolution can only be explained in
terms of this difference. Whatever ideas we may entertain on the factors that
have determined the course of evolution, the basic fact remains the same. The
anatomical features and the functions of the living beings to come later on,
which will differ from species to species, will all be dependent on the
genetic code governing their appearance, maintenance and possible
modifications. We have
already noted how some scientists, although constantly preoccupied with the
need to push back the frontiers of knowledge, stop short at the very question
they themselves have raised : What is the origin of the genetic code? J.
Monod seems to have been content to dispense with the `problem' by simply
stating that `it is an enigma'. In fact however, this is only the first of
our problems, one which science seems incapable of answering. A second enigma
exists and that is the factor determining the increase of information over
the course of time in the genetic code, a phenomenon that is strikingly
evident. Scientists are currently trying to discover why an original plan was
devised which was subsequently enriched to a considerable degree over
the course of hundreds, if not thousands of millions of years. It is
easier to understand the capacity of the genetic code for giving orders when
we take into consideration the part the code plays in the formation of the
individual, a process that is more readily accessible to us. As we all know,
our genes are inherited from our father and mother. After the spermatozoon
has united with the ovule, our genetic inheritance is initially contained in
a single cell. A series of cellular divisions then takes place, which
transmits this same inheritance to all the cells thus formed. The genes held
on the D.N.A. tape govern the differentiation of the cells within the embryo,
which, after a series of extremely complex transformations, result in tissues
and organs that each has very specific functions. In normal individuals, all
these different features function together in perfect harmony. Let us
take, for example, two human characteristics that have not always been the
same in the various human types: These are (as we have seen) the size and
development of the brain. The size of the brain depends on the capacity for
growth, of the body as a whole, according to various influences. The genetic
inheritance of the Australopithecus cannot in this respect have been the same
as that of man, because certain fossils of the Australopithecus indicate a
body height of 1.25 to 1.50 metres, while modern man is some 40 centimetres
taller. The factors influencing size are very diverse: A large number of
genes cannot fail to play a role (in spite of the possible existence of genes
that fulfil multiple functions). New information must of necessity have been
added to modern man in comparison with the Australopithecus. It may be,
conditioned by new genes that are active, or indeed by the appearance of new
genes which perhaps inhibit the activities of pre existing genes. The same
applies to the many factors governing the development of the brain: This
latter process must have been coordinated with a large number of
modifications, including that of the cranial capacity, for we know that the
cranial capacity of the Australopithecus was roughly one third of that of
present day man. The
action of the genes does not, however, explain everything concerning man and
his evolution. As me have mentioned above, the genetic inheritance governs
the attribution of various capacities which man uses with greater or lesser
effectiveness. While the latter certainly depends on the quality of these
capacities, man's personal wish to use his natural gifts also plays a part,
for man has the freedom to choose. The animals bear the burden of innate
conduct and are unable to escape from a host of behavioural patterns dictated
by their genetic inheritance. In this respect, comparative studies of human
and animal behaviour have provided us with extremely important data.
Furthermore, man possesses characteristics and qualities, which he owes to
the society, in which he lives and from which he draws a fund of knowledge
accumulated over generations. It is
up to each individual to make the personal effort required to increase this
intellectual capital, so that, in their turn, those who come after him may
reap the benefits of this new knowledge. The
appearance of new attributes in man does not simply owe its origin to the
genes and the increase of information, which has progressively been added to
our inheritance. These facts allow us to join P: P. Grasse in stating that:
"To a certain extent, man influenced his own development by contributing
to the enrichment of his inherited assets; without this active participation
in his own evolution, man would not be what he is today. This form of
evolution, which is unique within the animal kingdom, radically separates man
from the animals." |
|||||||||||
Chapter 3: The first answer of the Holy Scriptures: The Bible
The need to know the Origin
and History of the Texts
Owing
to the narratives of the Creation to be found in the Old Testament, the Bible
represents the first Scripture of a monotheistic religion ever to provide
data concerning the origins of man. Not until the advent of the age of
science, in which the question is viewed in the light of material facts, has
the subject been approached in the West from any angle other than that of
various philosophies or considerations based on the teachings of the Bible.
For many centuries, the latter were held to come from God Himself, for the
Bible was regarded as the Word of God. There could be absolutely no question,
therefore, of disputing a single statement it contained. If
today we still preserved the same general approach toward the Bible, the
contrast between scientific data and the ideas on the subject set forth in
the Book of Genesis would not only be glaringly obvious, but also
insurmountable. Those who still uphold this classic approach to the
narratives of the Creation contained in the Old Testament would not be able
to accept the idea of evolution: They would be extremely incensed as far as
man was concerned, and they would not tolerate for the rest of the animal
kingdom any concept other than the traditional notion of the fixity of
species as laid down in the Bible. It is
not so long ago that any comparison between an opinion expressed in the Bible
and secular data of any kind was violently rejected as a potential danger to
religious belief. Criticism of a statement contained in the Bible invariably
led to scandal, for it implied that certain assertions were wrong. Even
today, I have often noticed the considerable embarrassment of educated
Christians when confronted with certain questions on this subject. Let us
immediately mention one problem, which perfectly illustrates the uneasiness
certain assertions can cause: Earlier
in the present work, we stated that the average lifespan of a human
generation was twenty-five years, constituting four generations per century.
This is the average figure, which can be deduced from genealogical tables
when established over several centuries. Assuming the Australopithecus was
the first representative of the hominids, that he appeared roughly five
million years ago and that he disappeared at the earliest two million years
ago, we must conclude that 80,000 to 200,000 generations separate us from our
first ancestor (although the figure may indeed be higher.) What can we say,
therefore, of the genealogy that appears in the Gospel According, to Luke (3,
23 38), which traces the ancestors of Jesus back to Adam, and from which it
would appear that seventy-six generations of humans preceded Jesus? A
number of answers have been put forward to explain this, and they vary
considerably. Many people simply ignore Luke's text, while others reply that
the text has been mistranslated, claiming that the phrase `son of...',
repeated in Luke's text, perhaps means for certain of the lineage, that two
names which thus follow one another may not, however, refer to two succeeding
generations... There are very few commentators who think that in view of the
circumstances in which this Gospel was written, and in particular the sources
at Luke's disposal, the text ought not to be taken literally, any more than
other passages in the Gospels. In the light of our present knowledge of the
history of the texts, however, this explanation seems to be the most in
keeping with reality: Any reply that evades this obvious difficulty is
illogical and might raise doubts as to the authenticity of the entire text,
in the case of those who are unable to accept totally irrational
explanations. We are
not mistreating the Gospels when we point out the existence of passages that
can no longer be accepted in the twentieth century because they contain
statements that have been proven wrong. On the contrary, we are in fact doing
them a service by highlighting the factors that led the Biblical authors to
write inaccurate information. In so doing, we are rendering more plausible
the existence and mission of Jesus Christ. A genealogy of Jesus that reaches
back to Adam by way of Joseph is, moreover, totally illogical, for Joseph had
absolutely nothing to do with the arrival of Jesus in the world. What Luke's
Gospel in fact gives us is the supposed genealogy of Joseph, whereas the only
logical genealogy for Jesus would obviously be that of Mary. This
extended example clearly illustrates the logicalities to which a stricto
sensu interpretation of certain Biblical texts can lead. It indicates the
need to possess detailed knowledge of the origin and history of the texts, in
order to understand the reasons why we must today read the Bible differently
from the way we have read it until fairly recently. Unless we are aware of
certain facts concerning the texts, we shall not be able to proceed to a
commentary of particular passages, nor shall we learn the lessons that must
be drawn from them. Modern Approaches to the
Books of the Bible
The Old Testament
The Old
Testament has many authors, and the history of the texts is as confused as it
is unknown. In my previous work, The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science, I provided extracts on this aspect of the Bible taken from
works written by members of the clergy. In particular, I turned to the modern
edition of the Bible, translated into French under the supervision of the
Biblical School of Jerusalem [Published by Editions du
Cerf, Paris, 1972] and published in separate volumes. Originally,
there were several texts and not just one. In the first century B.C., there
was a tendency toward the establishment of a single text, bit it was not
until a century after Christ that the Biblical text was definitively
established. The most ancient Hebrew version of the Biblical text probably
dates from the ninth century A.D. The Septuagint was most likely, the first
translation in Greek. It dates from the third century B.C. and was written by
Jews in Alexandria. It was on this text that the New Testament was based. It
remained authoritative until the seventh century A.D. The basic Greek texts
in general use in the Christian world are from the manuscripts catalogued
under the title Codex Yaticanus in the Vatican
City and Codex Sinaiticus at the British
Museum in London. They both date from the fourth century A.D. All of
these versions have enabled specialists to piece together so-called middle of
the road' texts, a sort of compromise between the different versions. The
same process is still carried on today: The `Traduckion
Ecumenique de I'Ancien Testament' [The Ecumenical Translation of
the Old Testament] [Published by Editions du Cerf
et les Bergers et les Mages, Paris, 1975] is a work of synthesis compiled
by over one hundred Catholic and Protestant specialists. The aim of this
edition is to establish a text that is acceptable to Churches which do not
always share identical ideas on certain meanings and commentaries. The Old
Testament is a collection of works. of greatly differing length and many
different genres. The works were written in several languages over a period
of more than nine hundred years, and they were based on oral traditions. Many
of them were corrected and completed in accordance with events or special
requirements, often at periods that were very distant from one another. The
first texts probably appeared at the beginning of the Israelite monarchy,
around the eleventh century B.C. It was at this period that a body of scribes
was formed among the members of the royal household. These early texts constitute
fragments scattered here and there throughout the various collections of the
Old Testament. It was
not until slightly later in the tenth century B.C. according to some, in the
ninth century B.C. according to others that the so-called `Yahvist' text appeared,
in which we find the first five books of the Bible, known as the
`Pentateuch'. The text derives its name from the fact that in it God is
called `Yahveh.' [We must note, however, that, in the Yahvist narrative
of Creation given by the English Revised Standard Version of the Bible, God
is not named 'Yahveh' but 'The Lord God', as we shall see in the next
chapter.] Later, the so called `Elohist' text was added, for in this text
God is known as `Elohim', and in the sixth century B.C. the `Sacerdotal' version
appeared; named after the priests of the Temple at Jerusalem who composed it;
this version was also added to the previous two texts. The
Pentateuch is of particular interest to our present study because it contains
the Book of Genesis. Here we find not just one, but two narratives of the
creation of the world and of man: The most recent narrative is taken from the
Sacerdotal version, and it is this narrative which figures at the beginning
of today's Bibles: The earlier text, the Yahvist version, comes after the.
Sacerdotal version and is extremely short. Most people think wrongly that
there is only one narrative of the Creation on the Old Testament. The two
different origins of the narratives are fully acknowledged by Christian
exegetes, most notably Father de Vaux, who was at one time the Head of the
Biblical School of Jerusalem. In his commentaries on the Book of Genesis,
Father de Vaux clearly indicates the sections of text, which belong to each
respective version. The ancient idea that Moses himself was the author of the
Book of Genesis is, of course, unacceptable. Nobody knows who actually wrote
the Yahvist and Elohist versions. The
numerous books of prophecy cover the period reaching from the eighth to the
second centuries B.C. The first of these were the Book of Elias and the Book
of Elisha. The
historical books provide an account of the entire history of the Jewish
people from their entry into the Promised Land, which probably took place
toward the end of the thirteenth century B.C. to the second century B.C.
While the events of the second century B.C. may seem to be correctly related,
in many books dealing with other periods historical accuracy has by no means
been respected: Religious and moral considerations outweigh any fidelity to
history such as we understand it today. The
final category is reserved for the books of poetry and wisdom, such as the
Psalms, which were composed by several different authors: David, as wells as
various priests and levities. The authors of many books remain unknown. We may
therefore state that the Bible is composed of books whose contents are
extremely disparate: The texts have undergone considerable rewriting in the
course of time, especially with regard to the subject at hand. Christianity
received the heritage of the Old Testament, to which the authors of the
Gospels adhered very strictly. We should note, however, that during the first
centuries of Christianity, a very stringent selection was made of texts
relating to Jesus. This was not the case for the Old Testament, which was
more or less accepted in its entirety. The
first five books, among which we find Genesis, constitute what is called by
the Jews: the Torah or Law; they relate the events that took place from the
origin of the world to the death of Moses. It is perhaps the questions raised
by these books that have caused the most embarrassment; for centuries, there
was absolutely no discussion either of the text or of the idea that it should
be attributed to Moses. How
could the situation have been otherwise? There are passages in the books
themselves, which indicate that Moses wrote particular narratives or laws.
Moreover, God Himself commanded Moses to describe a certain event in the book
of Exodus. Philo of Alexandria, a secular author writing at the time of Jesus,
supported this theory. In the first century B.C., Flavius Josephus seconded
it. Above all, the Gospels themselves (John 5, 46 47) tell us that Jesus
himself bore witness to the origin of these narratives. In his
`Introduction Generale au Tentateuque' [General
Introduction to the Pentateuch], Father de Vaux has provided an
extremely detailed historical study of the criticism the text has raised from
this point of view. I have outlined it in `La
Bible, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qur'an and Science].
Apart from the objections raised in the twelfth century by Abenezra,
traditional ideas concerning the origins of the Pentateuch were never
questioned. In the sixteenth century, a protestant named Carlstadt noted
that. Moses could not have written the account of his own death, which
appears in Deuteronomy (34,5 12), even though, as Carlstadt adds, it is
written in the same style as the rest of the book. Father de Vaux goes on to
cite other critical works which refuse to attribute to Moses at least part of
the Pentateuch. Prominent among these is the `Histoire
critique du Vieux Testament' [Critical History of the Old
Testament] (1678), by Richard Simon, a father at the Oratory. In it,
Simon emphasized the chronological difficulties, the repetitions, the
confusion of stories and stylistic differences in the Pentateuch. The book
caused a scandal, and Simon was dismissed from his order. His theory was not
followed, and Moses continued to be considered the author of the Pentateuch.
In history books published at the beginning of the eighteenth century, we
thus find references to antiquity which very often proceed from what `Moses
had written.' It was obviously very difficult to contradict a theory
strengthened by Jesus Himself in the Gospels (John, Matthew, Luke) and the
New Testament (Acts of the Apostles, Letters of Paul), as cited by Father de
Vaux. Jean
Astruc, the physician of King Louis XV, reopened the debate in 1753 by
publishing his `Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux dont il
parait que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese' [Conjecture's
on the original writings which it appears Moses used to compose the Book of
Genesis]. He pointed out that two texts, each distinguished by the
way in which God was either called Yahveh or Elohim, were present side by
side in Genesis: The latter quite obviously contained two juxtaposed texts. Father
de Vaux cites other, more recent commentators who are inclined to divide the
Pentateuch into four main texts:
Commentators
have, however, distinguished various sources in each of the texts. Nine of
them exist in the Sacerdotal text, which contains one of the two accounts of
the Creation, not including the additions spread out among eight different
authors" (Father de Vaux.) Thus the Pentateuch is showing to be formed
from numerous traditions brought together by `editors' who either juxtaposed
their compilations or adapted the stories for the sake of harmonization. Modern
Christian exegetes of the Old Testament note that this multiplicity of
sources remains perfectly compatible with the general concept of the inspired
nature of the books of the Bible. In the chapter entitled `La
Revelation de la Verite, La Bible et les Evangiles' [The
Revelation of the Truth, The Bible and the Gospels] which appears in
Jean Guitton's work 'Mon petit catechisme' [My
Little Catechism] [Published by Desclee de
Brouwer, Paris, 1978] we read that "God did not write these books Himself,
instead He had them written by breathing into the apostles and prophets the
things He wanted us to know. This breath is called `inspiration'. The
books written by the prophets are called `divinely inspired books'." These
authors all wrote their works at different periods and according to the
manners and customs of their day. We therefore find various `literary genres'
scattered throughout the Bible. This notion has gained general acceptance so
that we are not surprised, on reading either the Old Testament or the
Gospels, to find divinely inspired subjects side by side with affirmations
derived from certain secular beliefs carried over from traditions whose
origins are often obscure. This
approach to the books of the Bible, which takes account of modern data on the
texts, is very different from the position held by commentators until fairly
recent times: In days gone by, it was not possible to acknowledge the
possibility of such a preponderantly human role in the written compilation of
what were originally oral traditions. Today,
it is easy to explain the existence of historical inaccuracies, implausible
statements or blatant contradictions: They should no longer cause any
embarrassment, even though we are fully aware of the incompatibility that is
to be found between secular knowledge and certain statements in the Old
Testament, bearing on the subject of the present work as well as other
topics. The
Second Vatican Council (1962 1965) clearly acknowledged the imperfections and
obsolescence of certain texts in the Bible, as reflected in the Conciliar
Document No 4 on the Revelation [Published by Le Centurion,
Paris, 1966]. The following two sentences define the position of the
Catholic Church on the overall worth of the text, as well as the
impossibility of taking literally certain passages "In view of the human
situation prevailing before Christ's foundation of salvation, the Books of
the Old Testament enable everybody to know who is God and who is man, and
also the way in which God, in his justice and mercy, behaves toward men.
These books, even though, they contain material, which is imperfect and
obsolete, nevertheless bear wittiness to truly divine teachings." The New Testament
The
only passages from the Gospels to which we shall later refer are mainly
extracts taken from the Gospel According to Luke. They are essentially a
rewriting of Old Testament material with 'a few adjustments. Christian
researchers have themselves discovered in the composition of the Gospels such
a complex variety of sources that as for the Old Testament we must once again
be aware of the circumstances present at the time the texts were written, in
order to gain a more accurate idea of the reality of the situation. It is a
great shame that until very recently, the Gospel writers have always been
presented as eye witnesses to the facts they relate. Commentators have
provided such a wealth of detail on these authors their professions, for
example that we, should apparently be in no doubt as to their status as
direct witnesses. In fact they were nothing of the sort. As Cardinal Danielou
has shown in his studies of the early days of Christianity, doctrinal rivalries
found their expression in the different ways events were related. Each
writer seems to have approached the facts in the light of his own opinions
and adapted the texts accordingly. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who composed
their texts between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D., provide narratives that are often
quite different. Paul wrote his Letters many years before them. According to
modern exegetes; not a single one of the authors of the New Testament
actually witnessed the events he describes. The Gospel writings did not
become known until relatively late. In the introduction to the `Traduction
Ecumenique de la Bible, Nouveau Testament' [Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible, New Testament] which appeared in 1972, we
read the following: "Before 140 A.D., there was, in any case, no account
by which one might have recognized a collection of evangelical writings.
" O.
Culmann, in his book 'Le Nouveau Testament' [The New
Testament] [Published by Presses Universitaires de France, Paris,
1967],
notes that the evangelists were only the "spokesmen of the early
Christian community who wrote down the oral tradition. For thirty or forty
years, the Gospels had existed as an almost exclusively oral tradition the
latter only transmitted sayings and isolated narratives. The evangelists
brought them together, each in his own way, according to his own character
and theological preoccupations. They linked the narrations and sayings handed
down by the prevailing tradition... It must be noted that the needs of
preaching, worship and teaching, more than biographical considerations, were
what guided the early community in writing down the tradition of the life of
Jesus. By describing the events of Christ's life, the apostles illustrated
the truth of the faith they were preaching. Their sermons are what caused the
descriptions to be recorded in writing ". This is
exactly how the commentators of the `Traduction Ecumenique
de la Bible' [Ecumenical Translation of the Bible] describe
the writing of the Gospels: "The evangelists... have collected and
recorded in writing the material givers to them by the oral tradition. "
The Gospel According to John does not contain nearly so many episodes in
common with the other three. The Gospels According to Matthew, Mark and Luke
are highly euphemistically called `synoptic' Gospels, because Luke, and to a
lesser degree Matthew, contain a number of very important verses which do not
appear in any of the other three texts. [According to the Ecumenical
Translation, Luke contains 500 out of a total of 1,160 verses] In
their book `Synopse des quatre Evangiles' [Synopsis
of the Four Gospels] [Published by Les Editions du
Cerf, Paris, 1972-1973], Fathers Benoit and Boismard, both professors at the Biblical
School of Jerusalem, stress the evolution of the text in stages parallel to
the evolution of the tradition. In an extremely helpful diagram, reproduced
in `La Bible, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qu'ran and Science],
they explain how the final versions of the texts were preceded by
intermediate versions, which were themselves drawn from basic documents,
certain of which originated in various Pagan or Jewish communities that were
at first quite distinct. This would explain the variation in tone that we
find in the original preaching. Thus we see how an intermediate document
influenced the final version of several Gospels, and it becomes clear that
John undoubtedly remained the most individualistic author: His text deals
with subjects that are quite different from those contained in the three
other Gospels. Father Benoit is clearly aware of the doubts that these new
approaches to the texts may engender in certain people's minds: "Some
readers of this work will perhaps be surprised or embarrassed to learn that
certain of Jesus' sayings, parables, or predictions of His destiny were not
expressed in the way we read them today, but were altered and adapted by
those who transmitted them to us. This may come as a source of amazement and
even scandal to those not used to this kind of historical
investigation." To
return to the question previously raised concerning the genealogy of Jesus in
the Gospels according to Luke, it is imperative to take into account the
following fact when examining the discrepancy between Luke's Gospel and
established reality: The evangelist presents his work as the result of a
genuine inquiry, composed of the information he has gathered and which he
intends to set forth. The following is Luke's own statement which appears in
the prologue to his Gospel: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile
a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they
were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed, good to me also, having informed myself
about all things from their beginnings, to write an orderly account for you,
most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning things of
which you have been informed." When
Luke wishes to show that he and his community consider that Jesus was
descended from Abraham and David, he turns for information to the Old
Testament. There he finds a genealogy indicating the lineage 9f the first men
from Adam to Abraham. Drawing his inspiration from tradition, Luke then
proceeds to provide us with data on the time of man's first appearance on
earth those are hopelessly wrong. As we
shall see in a moment, Matthew also makes a major error in his Gospel, for
exactly the same reasons. While there is a strong possibility that Abraham
lived between 1850 1800 B.C., or at least at roughly this period, Matthew
records forty one generations between Abraham and Jesus, a figure that for
eighteen or nineteen centuries is a gross underestimation. Here again, we
have an example of an evangelist adapting data from the Old Testament, and
taking liberties in the process. For our
present purposes therefore, we may state that the inaccuracies discovered in
the Gospels basically arise from errors in the Old Testament more precisely
in the Sacerdotal version that forms part of the Book of Genesis which the
evangelists merely repeated in their own works. The Creation of Man
according to the Bible: The narratives and their Context
In
contrast to the Qur'an, the Bible does not contain statements on various
natural phenomena which, at any time in man's history, could form the subject
of observation and which might give rise to commentaries on God's
omnipotence, accompanied by certain specific details. As we shall see later
on, such texts are unique to the Qur'an; they are expressed in a form, which
permits us to compare many data with secular knowledge. The Bible confines
itself to relating certain events from the past; the narrations it contains
are peppered with details which, for one reason or another, interest the
scientist on account of the fact that they either agree with or contradict
data which are today firmly established or at least highly probable. While
their number is small, I have mentioned several of them in `La
Bible, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science] for they nevertheless constitute points of considerable
interest. In the Biblical narrative of the Flood, for example, we find in
this description of a universal inundation, which in the Book of Genesis is
precisely located in time, certain data which prevent us from considering
that a cataclysm could have taken place on this scale at the period
indicated. On the other hand, when we come to the narrative describing the
Exodus,, we find extremely valuable data, confirmed by Egyptian archaeology,
which enable us to locate Moses in the history of the Pharaohs. The
Biblical accounts of the creation of man and the religious history of the
first descendants of Adam and of the Jewish people, provided the Biblical
authors with an opportunity to expand on two subjects which are of interest
to us in the present work. The first is the origin of man, which is
explicitly described in the Old Testament, and the second is the date of
man's first appearance on earth. The latter is deduced from the numerical
data contained in the Old Testament, which were provided for reasons other
than to supply information directly related to the subject: In addition to
this, although in a different guise; we find a reference to the subject in a
work of the evangelists the Gospel According to Luke. The
origins of man are explained in the Book of Genesis in the verses dealing
with the Creation as a whole. In order to understand the subject properly,
therefore, it must be placed in its proper context. The Creation of Man
According to Genesis
As
acknowledged by Father de Vaux, Genesis "begins with two juxtaposed
descriptions of the Creation." The existence of two texts must be
stressed, for it is not generally known: The
first is integrated into a text composed by the priests of the Temple at
Jerusalem. It dates from the sixth century B.C., and is called the
`Sacerdotal' version. The longer of the two texts, it figures at the
beginning of Genesis and forms part of the long narrative of the Creation of
the heavens, the earth and living beings; the creation of man is emphasized
as its crowning achievement, even though it is only briefly described: - The
second text is taken from the Yahvist version. It dates from the ninth or
tenth century B.C. and is very short. It follows directly after the
Sacerdotal version, and devotes more space to the creation of man. The text
reproduced below is taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible [Published
by W.M. Collins and Sons for the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1952] : The first
narrative (Genesis, the entire first chapter and chapter 2, verses 1 to
4a.) - Chapter
One, verses 1 and 2: "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without
form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of
God was moving over the face of the waters. " - Verses
3 to 5: "And
God said, `Let there be light', and there was light. And God saw that the
light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there
was morning, one day:" - Verses
6 to 8: "And
God said, `Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
separate the waters from the waters'. And God made the firmament and
separated the waters, which were under the firmament from the waters, which
were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day." - Verses
9 to, 13: "And
God said, `Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one
place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. God called the dry land
Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw
that it was good. "And
God said, `Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit
trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind upon
the earth.' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants
yielding saved according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which
is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And
there was evening and there was morning, a third day." - Verses
14 to 19: "And
God said, `Let there be lights in the firmaments of the heavens to separate
the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for
days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to
give light upon the earth.' And it was so. And God made the two great lights,
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he
made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give
light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to
separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there
was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." - Verses
20 to 23: "And
God said, `Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.' So God
created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with
which the waters swam, according to their kinds, and every winged bird
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them
saying, `Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let
birds multiply on the earth'. And there was evening and there was morning, a
fifth day." - Verses
24 to 31: "And
God said, `Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their
kinds : cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their
kinds.' And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to
their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that
creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. "Then
God said, `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them
have dominion [sic] over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing
that creeps upon the earth.' "So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them. "And
God blessed them, and God said to them, `Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over
the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'
And God said, `Behold, I have given you every plant yielding, seed which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you
shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird
of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has
the breath of life; I have given every green plant for food.' And it was so.
And God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good. And
there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. " - This
narrative of the Creation comes to an end with verses
1 to 4a of Chapter Two: "Thus
the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host [sic] of them. And
on the seventh day God finished his work, which he had done, and he rested on
the seventh day from all his work, which he had done. So God blessed the
seventh day and hallowed it, because on if God rested from all his work,
which he had done in creation. "These
are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were
created." The
second narrative follows directly after the first - Chapter
Two, verses 4b to 7: "In
the day that Yahveh God [In this passage of the Revised Standard Version of
the Bible, God is called 'the Lord God', whereas in older texts that served
as works of reference, God is known as 'Yahveh God'. The name of the 'Yahvist
Version' is derived from this fact. In the present work, the original name
has been reinserted.] made the earth and heavens, when no plant of the field was yet
in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for Yahveh God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the
ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the
ground then Yahveh God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." There
then follows a description of Earthly Paradise (verses
8 to 17)
after which the narration continues with the creation of the animal kingdom
and woman: - Chapter
Two, verses 18 to 25: "Then
Yahveh God said, `It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make
him a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground Yahveh God formed every beast
of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see
what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature,
that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the
air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a
helper fit for him. So Yahveh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man,
and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
and the rib, which Yahveh God had taken from the man he made into a woman and
brought her to the man. Then the man said "`This
at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.' "Therefore
a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they
become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not
ashamed." An Examination of the Two
Narratives : Of the Creation in the Light of Modern Knowledge
The two
narratives vary on more than one point: In particular, the origins of man and
woman, whether mentioned or not, and, the order in which man appeared
compared with the various species of animal. Furthermore, the sense
attributed by the Bible to the creation of man cannot be understood in all
its shades of meaning, within the same version, unless it, is replaced in its
general context; that is why the full text of the two narratives has been
quoted above. In order for us to proceed to a comparison with established, or
highly probable, data, we must first examine each text separately. The narrative found in
the Sacerdotal version
The image
of the empty earth used in the first two verses to describe the state of the
universe before the creation would simply seem to signify that creation
started from the void. The Biblical author nevertheless devotes a place to
the waters over which the spirit of God moved: We may perhaps be allowed to
see in this a reference to the tradition of the `primordial' waters, the
source of all life. The
account of the first day (verses 3 to 5), and the description of the creation
of light, along with the existence of an evening and a morning, suggest the
following comments The
light circulating in the universe is the result of complex reactions in the
stars. At this stage in the Creation however, according to the Bible, the
stars were not yet formed. The `lights' of the firmament are not mentioned in
Genesis until verse 14, when they were created on the fourth
day, `to separate the day from the night', `to give light upon the earth';
all of which is quite accurate. It is illogical, however, to mention the
result (light) on the first day, when the cause of this light (`two great
lights') was created three days later. The fact that the existence of evening
and morning is placed on the first day is, moreover, purely allegorical; the
existence of evening and morning as elements of a single day is only
conceivable after the creation of the earth and its rotation under the light
of the sun. The
reference to a `firmament' separating the waters (verses
6 to 8),
on the second day, is a reflection of the ancient belief that a dome existed
which contained the waters above the firmament : These were the waters which;
in the narrative of the Flood, were to pass through the dome and fall in
torrents on the earth. The
third day (verse 9 to 13) is devoted to the appearance of the
dry land, once the waters had gathered together into one place an idea that
is perfectly acceptable. The third day also saw the earth put forth
vegetation, in the form of trees bearing fruit which is no longer acceptable
at all, for vegetation requires sunlight, and the sun had not yet been
formed. What is more, these verses contain a reference to the fixity of the
vegetal species ("plants yielding seed according to their own
kinds"). Verses 14 to 19 describe the creation of the sun and
moon on the fourth day, after the creation of the earth on the third day. Our
modern knowledge of the formation of the solar system does not allow us to
state that the sun became a luminous star after the earth came into being, as
it is claimed in the Bible. The origins of the sun and moon cannot be
separated from those of the earth. The
first representatives of the animal kingdom, which according to verses 20 to
23 populated the seas and sky on the fifth day, are described in terms that
suggest that they came before the existence of terrestrial animals, which did
not appear until the sixth day. There is good reason to think that the
origins of life are indeed aquatic and that 'the dry land was `colonized'
later on. Nevertheless, the Bible states that the birds existed before the terrestrial
animals, whereas in fact the birds appeared after a certain group of
reptiles: The birds came after the mammals, and were the very last group to
appear. This therefore constitutes a case of a statement contradicting the
established data of palaeontology. According
to the narrative (verses 24 to 31), the earth brought forth
terrestrial animals on the sixth day, and although his origin is not
specified God created man in His own image on that day. Woman was also
created, though no details are given concerning her origins. This contrasts
with the Yahvist version, which predates the Sacerdotal text, in which man's
origins are described he was formed from the ground and those of woman
created from man. He is placed at the pinnacle of creation with dominion over
the rest of the animal kingdom. The fixity of species is emphasized in the
case of the terrestrial animals, just as it had been stressed with regard to
the marine animals created on the fifth day. The
Sacerdotal version judiciously places man's appearance on earth after that of
the other categories of living beings, but, as we have noted for the rest of
the animal kingdom, the order of appearance described in the narrative does
not conform to the clearly proven facts of palaeontology. The
account of the seventh day refers to God's day of rest, for that is the
meaning of the Hebrew word `Sabbath; this is the origin of the Jewish day of
rest, known as the `Sabbath. The
division of God's labour of creation into six days followed by a day of rest
is not without explanation. We should bear in mind that the description of
the Creation examined here is taken from the so called `Sacerdotal' version,
written by priests and scribes who were the spiritual successors of Ezekiel,
the prophet of the exile in Babylon, writing in the sixth century B.C. The
priests took the Yahvist and Elohist versions of Genesis and remodelled them
after their own fashion, in accordance with their theological and liturgical
preoccupations. Father de Vaux has noted that the `legalist' character of
these writings was absolutely essential. The
Yahvist version of the Creation, which appeared at least three centuries
before the Sacerdotal text, indeed makes no reference whatsoever to God's
Sabbath, to any question of days, or to the phases of the Creation, judging
from what remains of the text today. On the other hand, the Sacerdotal
version divides the Creation into days. There can be absolutely no doubt as
to the meaning of these days, because for each day, we are reminded that
there was an evening and a morning. We are also told that the Creation took
place over a period of six days, with a seventh day of rest, known as the
`Sabbath'. There is good reason to think that this is an example of a
narrative written with the aim of inciting people to respect the religious
observance of the Sabbath, a fundamental aspect of Judaism. We should
therefore view the Sacerdotal version first and foremost as a text designed
to influence religious rites, without any claim to set down events with the
rigorous accuracy of a historian. The narrative found in
the Yahvist version
The
creation of the earth and the heavens is only mentioned once in this version,
for the text primarily deals with man. It
begins with a statement that does not square with modern knowledge of the
history of the earth: The absence of any vegetation at the moment God created
man. "Yahveh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was
no roan to till the ground." The
narrative stresses the fact that God formed man of dust from the ground.
Hence in this instance, man's origin from the earth is emphasized, with all
the symbolical significance this origin suggests. None of this is mentioned
in the more recent Sacerdotal text, examined above. As for
the origins of the animals, the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1952)
simply states that "Yahveh God formed every beast of the field and every
bird of the air" (verse 19) without saying where they came from.
In contrast, the 'Traduction Ecume'nique de la Bible' [Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible], states quite clearly in the French text
that: "God again moulded from the ground all the wild beasts and the
birds of the air". Thus, according to the French version, all living
beings, man and animals were formed from the ground. Neither the English nor
the French translation seems to provide an exact period for the appearance of
the animals as compared with the creation of man [The
two Biblical texts mention the fact that God "brought them to the man to
see what he would call them", but that does not mean to say that the
animals were created either before or after man.]. The
final verses refer to the creation of woman from a part of man's body, a
detail, which the Sacerdotal version does not record. The
Yahvist version is distinguished by its symbolism, for its author
emphasizes the formation of man from the ground. This symbolism is present
even in the choice of vocabulary: The name of the very first man, `Adam', is
in fact a collective noun in Hebrew meaning `man'. The word comes, from
'adamah' which means `ground', for man is indeed dependent on the ground for
his existence. There is however another symbolical meaning present, which is
repeated in other parts of the Bible as well. In Ecclesiastes
(3, 19 and 20), the Biblical author stresses the common destiny of the sons of
Adam and of all living beings: "... All go to one place; all are from
the dust, and all turn to dust again." Man's return to the ground is
repeated in Psalm 104 (verse 29), and we find
the same idea present in the Book of Job (34, 15). A
profound religious meaning is therefore inherent in these Biblical
reflections on man's fate after death. In the Yahvist version of Genesis, it
is introduced by the notion of a place of origin, which is also the place of
return after death. This specifically religious concept must not be confused
with the narration of material events from which no precise religious meaning
is to be inferred. We must
bear in mind that in their day, the Biblical authors could only express
themselves in images that would be readily understood. They were obliged to
use the language of their period and to refer to the traditions current at
the time they wrote. If we compare the two versions the Yahvist version pre
dating the Sacerdotal text by three hundred, if not four hundred years, we
shall see the difference between them quite clearly: The view point expressed
. by the authors of the more recent (Sacerdotal) text has changed. This fact
emerges in spite of any legitimate doubts we may entertain as to whether the
texts we possess today are the same as the ones written at the time.
Additions may have been made, and there may also have been sections cut from
the texts: It is astonishing to note that in the Yahvist version, the earth
and the heavens are referred to in simple terms, without any mention of the
actual way in which they were created. Right
up until the age of science, the text of the Creation contained in the Book
of Genesis was the only acknowledged historical source of information on the
events leading to the appearance on earth of man and living beings. In days
gone by, the Biblical text was therefore considered to be a basic point of
reference. When naturalists wished to harmonize the ideas that arose from an
examination of the first discovered fossils with the teachings of the Bible
on the fixity of the species, they imagined that the existence of the flora
and fauna found in extremely ancient terranes could only be explained by the
intervention of successive cataclysms, such as the Flood, which must have
destroyed everything and been followed by new creations. This is what Cuvier
thought at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The influence of these
theories persisted long after Cuvier, for in 1862; Alcide d'Orbigny mentions
twenty-seven successive creations following repeated cataclysms! It is
in fact an error to suppose that the Flood, as described in the Bible,
destroyed absolutely everything on earth at a certain period. According to
the Biblical narratives, there most definitely was a universal cataclysm, but
it nevertheless spared a few human beings. The latter found refuge with Noah
in the Ark, and with them the animals belonging to the species that had
entered it. The earth is said to have been, repopulated by the animals and
humans who were thus able to escape the Flood. The Bible does not, however,
speak of the newly created species, which were later to appear. The Date of Man's First
Appearance on Earth
The
Bible deals with this subject in two different ways: First, it provides us
with the genealogical tables of the earliest men, in which we find figures
indicating the duration of their lives, and second, it supplies us with the
number of the generations that intervened between Adam and the birth of
Jesus. Data from the Biblical Genealogies
The
Jewish calendar is the most authoritative source in this instance, for it is
based on Biblical as well as non-Biblical sources. The calendar starts with
the Creation, which it states took place 5,742 years ago (counting from the
last third of A.D. 1981). Calculated according to the traditional Jewish
calendar, man therefore appeared on earth 5,742 years ago a statement that
quite obviously contradicts reality. Leaving
aside the data contained in the calendar, it is possible to arrive at an extremely
accurate estimate of the time separating Adam from Abraham, using as sole
source the Biblical text and taking into account the period at which Abraham
most probably lived [According to certain details contained in the Bible
(Father de Vaux, 'Histoire Ancienne d'Israel' The History of
Ancient Israel, Published by J. Gabalda et Cie, Paris 1971]. In this manner,
it is possible to arrive at the approximate date of man's first appearance on
earth according to the two sources. The Bible does not in fact provide
numerical genealogies that continue uninterrupted beyond the period of the
Patriarchs. Genesis
supplies extremely precise genealogical data in chapters 4, 5, 11, 21 and 25.
They concern every one of Abraham's ancestors in direct line back to Adam. They
give the length .of time each person lived and the father's age at the birth
of the son. Thus it is easy to ascertain the dates of birth and death of each
ancestor in relation to the creation of Adam. As we already know, the
genealogies ascribe to Abraham and his nineteen ancestors back to Adam
lifespan that are incredibly long: In the case of Methuselah, the figure is
969 years, compared to which the lifespan of Abraham was a mere 175 years!
Once all these data have been assembled and the lifespan have been added
together as each successive generation appeared, the conclusion to be drawn
from the Bible is that Abraham, who was born 1,948 years after Adam could
theoretically have known Noah (born 1,056 years after Adam and who died 2,006
years after him), and that in similar fashion, Lemek, who was Noah's father;
could have known Adam! The Biblical genealogies referred to here were
compiled by priests of the sixth century B.C. By citing abnormally long
lifespan, the priests may have hoped thereby to express the idea of divine
omnipotence. Theoretically,
one might suggest a correction, for time was originally calculated in lunar
years, whereas today's calendar is based on solar years. Since the difference
between them is only 3 % or thirty years per millennium, however, it is so
minimal that it is not worth considering. At what
period should we situate Abraham? Present day estimates indicate that he
probably lived in either the eighteenth or the nineteenth century B.C. If we
accept the second estimate, and combine it with detailed Biblical data on the
interval separating Adam from Abraham, according to the Bible, we should
situate Adam at a period near the thirty eighth century B.C. This estimate is
in perfect harmony with the data contained in the Biblical calendar. We may
therefore conclude that man's appearance on the sixth day of Creation as
related in the Sacerdotal version must have occurred during the thirty
seventh or thirty eighth century B.C: expressed in round figures, fifty seven
of fifty eight centuries before our own period. It is to be noted that the
Yahvist version of Genesis does not contain any numerical data on which to
base this estimate. Older
editions of the Bible often contained their own chronological tables, which
tended to vary from one edition to another: the famous Walton Bible, for
example, which was published in London in 1657. This edition, which was
distinguished by the fact that it contained Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac,
Aramean and even Arabic versions, presented numerical estimates that were
more or less in agreement with the data cited above. The
Vulgate Clementine, a Vulgate edition of the Bible, published in 1621, situates
Abraham at a slightly earlier period, placing the Creation at roughly the
fortieth century B.C. This estimate was for many years used as the basic
point of reference in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Genesis
states that the universe and man were both created within the same week. If
we wish to compare this statement with modern knowledge, however, it is
difficult to refer to precise data concerning the period in which the
universe was created, for present knowledge ` on this subject is somewhat
approximate. This is not the case, however, for the solar system. Here, the
age of the earth has been estimated at some 4.5 billion years, with a margin
of error of some one hundred million years. As for man's first appearance on
earth, we shall simply recall the fact that some 40,000 years ago, a man
exactly similar to present day man was already in existence, while less
evolved forms of hominids have been found which in the present state of
research most probably go back some five million years. It is not possible to
provide definitive figures, for the discoveries made by palaeontology are
subject to change, but we know for certain that men with fully developed
brains were already in existence at a period far in advance of the era
considered by the Sacerdotal version of Genesis to be that of man's first
appearance on earth. Data contained in the New
Testament
Matthew's
and Luke's Gospels both contain a genealogy of Jesus; the first traces His
ancestors back to Abraham, and the second provides a line that goes back to
Adam. Both of them are in fact genealogies of Joseph who had absolutely
nothing to do with the birth of Jesus which renders the genealogies
illogical, to say the least. The two evangelists in fact based their texts on
data in the Old' Testament, which they arranged to suit their own purposes,
thus taking liberties with the Biblical Scripture Matthew in particular which
explains the notable differences that exist between the two genealogies. The
genealogy, which interests us, the most is the one according to Luke (3, 23
38), which contains seventy-six names of ancestors of Jesus, going back to
Adam. Earlier, we said that the average lifespan of a human generation was
roughly estimated at twenty-five years; this would mean that Adam was
situated at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., which is simply not
possible. Even if we take into consideration the period of some two thousand
years that the Bible attributes to twenty generations descending from Adam to
Abraham, we are still a very long way from the data supplied by palaeontology
(described earlier) concerning the date of man's appearance on earth. A
comparison of the names which appear in Luke's text and the data contained in
the Bible indicates that, in many instances, the list supplied by Luke does
not agree with the informati6n set forth in the oldest copies of the Bible.
Names have been added by Luke to fill the gaps between the groups of genuine
descendants of David mentioned in the Old Testament and Joseph. Scattered
through Luke's text, we find names corresponding to those of the descendants
of David, which figure in Matthew's text. For this same period of time,
however, Matthew mentions twenty-six names, while Luke refers to forty-one. It is
possible that Matthew and Luke did not possess the same source material from
the Old Testament. Whatever the case, both of them used their sources with
the evident intention of showing that Jesus was descended from Abraham and
David. It is a pity that Luke went even further than this, for his total of
seventy-six generations between Jesus and the first man is totally
implausible. The Inevitability of Scientific
Error in the Bible
Luke,
and indeed the authors of the Old Testament, composed their texts using the
sources at their disposal, drawing on the traditions they had inherited, and
expressing themselves in the language of their time. All of them were
motivated by an essentially religious aim; they naturally had no other
intention than to transmit ideas, which, in their eyes, carried a basically
religious meaning. In view of this, it would be a misreading of the purpose
of the Bible to search through its books in the hope of finding any
scientific data whatsoever that might be usable in practical terms. This
applies, moreover, to all the Holy Scriptures. In this
context, the fact that there are errors in the Bible was inevitable. How
could the men of the period have failed to make such blunders? They most
definitely had no access to the information required for them to refer to
events such as those discussed in the present work without committing
mistakes. An extremely relevant comment on this subject is made by Jean
Guitton in 'Mon petit catechisme' [My Little Catechism], published in 1978,
It reads as follows: "The scientific errors in the Bible are the errors
of mankind, for long ago man was like a child, as yet ignorant of
science." Neither Jews nor Christians should be surprised, embarrassed
or shocked to find scientific errors in the Bible. It would indeed have been
most astounding had there been no inaccurate statements, considering the
circumstances present when the Biblical books were written. Until very
recently, those circumstances were unknown, for any commentary on the text of
the Bible which might cast doubt on the fact that God was its indirect author
was judged intolerable by the various Churches. Nowadays, however, the
discovery of scientific errors is in perfect keeping with the ideas of
exegetes Christian exegetes, at least. They regard the Biblical authors as
writers who, while undoubtedly inspired by God, nevertheless expressed
themselves in the language of their day, in the absence of any serious
scientific knowledge. Thus we come back to the point originally made at the
beginning of this section: One has to know the history of the texts in order
to arrive at a valid assessment of their contents. |
|||||||||||
Chapter 4: The Origin, Transformations and Reproduction of Man
according to the Qur'an
Preliminary Notions of the
Qur'anic Text, Its History and Contents
Those
unaware of the position occupied by the Qur'an as compared with the Bible, or
who remain ignorant of the circumstances in which the Qur'an was communicated
to man will no doubt be astonished to find so much space devoted in this
study to the Qur'anic text. Their amazement may be explained by the fact that
most people in the West have been brought up on misconceptions concerning Islam
and the Qur'an; for a large part of my life, I myself was one such person.
Let me cite one or two specific examples to indicate the kind of inaccurate
ideas generally current. As I
grew up, .I was always taught that `Mahomet' was the author of the Qur'an; I
remember seeing French translations bearing this information. I was
invariably told that the `author of the Qur'an' simply compiled, in a
slightly different form, stories of sacred history taken from the Bible; the
`author' was said to have added or removed certain passages, while setting
forth the principles and rules of the religion he himself had founded. There
are moreover Islamic scholars today in France whose duties include teaching
and who express exactly these views, although perhaps in a more subtle form. This
description of the origins of the Qur'anic text, which is so out of touch
with reality, might lead one immediately to assume that if there are
scientific errors in the Bible, and then there must also be errors of this
kind in the Qur'an! This is the natural conclusion to be drawn in such
circumstances, but it is based on a misconception. We are well aware that at
the time of Muhammad the Qur'anic Revelation took place between 610 and 632
A.D. scientific obscurantism prevailed, both in the Orient as well as in the
West. In France, for example, this period corresponded roughly to the reign
of King Dagobert, the last of the Merovingians. This approach to what was
supposedly the Qur'anic text may on first sight seem logical, but when one
examines the text with an informed and impartial eye, it becomes clear that
this approach is not at all in keeping with reality. We shall see in a moment
the truth of this statement, which is obvious from the texts. Whenever
there is textual proof of the existence in the Qur'an of statements that are
in agreement with modern knowledge, but which in the Bible are related in a
manner that is scientifically unacceptable, the stock response is that,
during the period separating the two Scriptures, Arab scientists made discoveries
in various disciplines which enabled them to arrive at these supposed
adaptations. This approach takes no account whatsoever of the history of the
sciences. The latter indicates that the great period of Islamic civilization,
during which, as we know, science made considerable progress, came several
centuries after the communication of the Qur'an to man. Furthermore,
scientific history informs us that, as far as the subjects dealt with in this
present book are concerned, no discoveries were made during the period
separating the Bible from the Qur'an. When
this aspect of the Qur'an is mentioned in the West, however, we are likely to
hear it said that while this may indeed be so, nowhere is this fact referred
to in 'the translations of the Qur'an which we possess today, or in the
prefaces and commentaries that accompany them. This is
a very judicious remark. Muslim and indeed non-Muslim translators who have
produced a French version of the Qur'an are basically men of letters. More
often than not, they mistranslate a passage because they do not possess the
scientific knowledge required to understand its true meaning. The fact is,
however, that in order to translate correctly, one must first understand what
one is reading. A further point is that translators especially those
mentioned above may have been influenced by notes provided by ancient
commentators to explain the text. By force of tradition, such commentators
often came to be regarded as highly authoritative, even though they had no
scientific knowledge nor indeed had anybody else at the time. They were
incapable of imagining that the texts might contain allusions to secular
knowledge, and thus they could not devote attention to a specific passage by
comparing it to other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same subject a
process that often provides the key to the meaning of a word or expression.
From this results the fact that any passage in the Qur'an that gives rise to
a comparison with modern secular knowledge is likely to be unreliably translated.
Very often, the translations are peppered with inaccurate if not totally
nonsensical statements. The only way to avoid committing such errors is to
possess a scientific background and to study the Qur'anic text in the
original language. It was
not until I had learnt Arabic and read the Qur'an in the original that I
realized the precise meaning of certain verses. Only then did I make certain
discoveries that were astounding. With my basic ideas on the Qur'an, which to
begin with were inaccurate, just as those of most people in the West, I
certainly did not expect to find in the text the statements that I in fact
uncovered. With each new discovery, .l was beset with doubt lest I might be
mistaken in my translation or perhaps have provided an interpretation rather
than a true rendering of the Arabic text. Only after consultations with
several specialists in linguistics and exegesis, both Muslim and non Muslim,
was I convinced that a new concept might be formed from such a study: the
compatibility between the statements in the Qur'an and the firmly established
data of modern science with regard to subjects on which nobody at the time of
Muhammad not even the Prophet himself could have had access to the knowledge
we possess today. Since then, I have not found in the Qur'an any support
given to the myths or superstitions present at the time the text was
communicated to man. This is not the case for the Bible, whose authors
expressed themselves in the language of their period. In `La
Bible,, le Coran et la Science' [The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science], which first appeared in the original French in 1976 and
which subsequently appeared in English in 1978, I set forth the main points
of these findings. On November 9, 1976, I gave a lecture to the Academic
de Medecine [French Academy of Medicine] in, which I explored
the statements on the origins of man contained in the Qur'an; the title of
the lecture was `Donnees physiologiques et embryologiques du Coran' [Physiological
and Embryological Data in the Qur'an] [Published
in <Bulletin de l'Academie Nationale de Medecine>, 160, 734-737, 1976]. I emphasized
the fact that these data, which I shall summarize below, formed part of a
much wider study. The following are some of the points, which arise from a
reading of the Qur'an:
All of
these data are bound to amaze anyone who approaches them in an objective
spirit. They add a much wider dimension to the problem studied in the present
work. The basic point remains the same, however: we must surely be in the
presence of facts which place a heavy strain on our natural propensity for
explaining everything in materialistic terms, for the existence in the Qur'an
of these scientific statements appears as a challenge to human explanation. On the
subject of man, as well as the other topics mentioned earlier, it is not
possible to find any corresponding data in the Bible. Furthermore, the
scientific errors contained in the Bible such as those describing man's first
appearance on earth, which, as we have seen may be deduced from the
genealogies that figure in Genesisare not to be found in the Qur'an. It is
crucial to understand that such errors could not have been `edited out' of
the Qur'an since the time they first became apparent: Well over a thousand
years have elapsed since the most ancient manuscripts and today's texts of
the Qur'an, but the texts are still absolutely identical. Thus, if Muhammad
were the author of the Qur'an (a theory upheld by some people), it is
difficult to see how he could have spotted the scientific errors in the Bible
dealing with such a wide variety of subjects and have proceeded to eliminate
every single one of them when he came to compose his own text on the same
themes. Let us state once again; that no new scientific facts had been discovered
since the time the Bible was written that might have helped eliminate such
errors. In view
of the above, it is imperative to know the history of the texts, just as it
is essential to our understanding of certain aspects of the Bible for us to
be aware of the conditions in which it was written. As we
have noted earlier, experts in Biblical exegesis consider the books of the
Old and New Testaments to be divinely inspired works. Let us now examine,
however, the teachings of Muslim exegetes, who present the Qur'an in quite a
different fashion. When
Muhammad was roughly forty years old, it was his custom to retire to a
retreat just outside Mecca in order to meditate. It was here that he received
a first, message from God via the Angel Gabriel, at a date that corresponds
to 610 A.D. After a long period of silence, this first message was followed
by successive revelations spread over some twenty years. During the Prophet's
lifetime, they were both written down and recited by heart among his first
followers. Similarly, the revelations were divided into suras (chapters) and
collected together after the Prophet's death (in 632 A.D.) in a book: the
Qur'an. The Book contains the Word of God, to the exclusion of any human
additions. Manuscripts dating from the first century of Islam authenticate
today's text, the other form of authentification being the recitation by
heart of the Qur'an, a practice that has continued unbroken from the time of
the Prophet down to the present day. In
contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are here presented with a text that is
none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can
be received and interpreted is literally. The purity of the revealed text has
been greatly emphasized, and the uncorrupted nature of the Qur'an stems from
the following factors First,
as stated above, fragments of the text were written down during the Prophet's
lifetime; inscribed on tablets, parchments and other materials current at the
time. The Qur'an itself refers to the fact that the text was set down in
writing. W e find this in several suras dating from before and after the
Hegira (Muhammad's departure from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D.) In addition to
the transcription of the text, however, there was also the fact that it was
learned by heart. The text of the Qur'an is much shorter than the Old
Testament and slightly longer than the New Testament. Since it took twenty
years for the Qur'an to be revealed, however, it was easy for the Prophet's
followers to recite it by heart, sura by sura. This process of recitation
afforded a considerable advantage as far as an uncorrupted text was
concerned, for it provided. .a system of double checking at the time the
definitive text was written down. This took place several years after the
Prophet's death; first under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, his first successor,
and later under the caliphate of Omar and in particular that of Uthman (644
to 655 A.D.) The latter ordered an extremely strict recension of the text,
which involved checking it against the recited version. After
Muhammad's death, Islam rapidly expanded far beyond the limits of the area in
which it was born. Soon, it included many peoples whose native language was
not Arabic. Very strict steps were taken to ensure that the text of the
Qur'an did not suffer from this expansion of Islam: Uthman sent copies of his
entire recension to the principal centres of the vast Islamic empire. Some
copies still exist today, in more or less complete form, in such places as
Tashkent (U.S.S.R.) and Istanbul. Copies have also been discovered that date
from the very first centuries after the Hegira; they are all identical, and
all of them correspond to the earliest manuscripts. Today's editions of the
Qur'an are all faithful reproductions of the original copies. In the case of
the Qur'an, there are no instances of rewriting or corruptions of the text
over the course of time. If the
origins of the Qur'an had been similar to those of the Bible; it would not be
unreasonable to suppose that, the subjects it raised would be presented in
the light of ideas influenced by certain opinions of the time, often derived
from myth and superstition. If this were, the case, one might also assume
that the text was full of statements reflecting varied traditions whose
origins are often obscure. Furthermore, one might argue that there were
untold opportunities for inaccurate assertions, based on such: sources, to
find their way into the many and varied subjects briefly summarized above. In
actual fact, however, we find nothing of the kind in the Qur'an. But
having said this, we should note that the Qur'an is a religious book par
excellence. We should not use statements that have a bearing on secular
knowledge as a pretext to go hunting after any expression of scientific laws.
As stated earlier, all we should seek are reflections on natural phenomena;
phrases occasioned by references to divine omnipotence and designed to
emphasize that omnipotence in the eyes of mankind throughout the ages. The
presence of such reflections in the Qur'an has become particularly
significant in modern times, for their meaning is, clearly explained by the
data of contemporary knowledge. This characteristic is specific to the
Qur'an. That
does not mean to say, however, that the statements in the Qur'an especially,
those concerning man may all of them be examined in the light of the findings
of modern science. The creation of man as described in both the Bible and the
Qur'an totally eludes scientific investigation of the event per se.
Similarly, when the New Testament or the Qur'an informs us, that 'Jesus was
not born of a father, in the biological sense of the term, we, cannot counter
this Scriptural statement by saying that there is no example in the human
species of an individual having been 'formed without receiving the paternal
chromosomes that make up one half of its genetic inheritance: Science does
not explain miracles; for by definition, miracles are inexplicable. Thus,
when we read in both the Qur'an and the Bible that man was moulded from the
ground, we are in fact learning a fundamental religious principle: Man
returns from whence he came, for from the place where he is buried, he will
rise again on the Day of Judgement. Side by
side with the main religious aspect of such reflections on mart, we find in
the Qur'an statements on man tat refer to strictly material facts. They are
quite amazing when one approaches them for the first time. For example, the
Qur'an describes the origins of life in general and devotes a great deal of
space to the morphological transformations undergone by man, repeatedly
emphasizing the fact that God fashioned him as he willed. We likewise
discover statements on human reproduction that are expressed in precise terms
that lend themselves to comparison with the secular knowledge we today
possess on the subject. The
many statements in the Qur'an that may thus be compared with modern knowledge
are by no means easy to find. In preparing the study published in 1976, I was
unable to draw on any previous works known in the West, for there were none.
All I could refer to were a few works in Arabic dealing with themes treated
in the Qur'an that were of interest to men of science there was, however, no
overall study. Over and above this, research of this kind requires scientific
knowledge covering many different disciplines. It is not easy, however, for
Islamologists to acquire such knowledge, for they possess a mainly literary
background. Indeed, such questions hardly seem to occupy a place in the field
of classic Islamology, at least as far as the West is concerned. Only a
scientist, thoroughly acquainted with Arabic literature, can draw comparisons
between the Qur'anic text for which he must be able to read Arabic and the
data supplied by modern knowledge. There
is another reason why such statements are not immediately apparent: Verses
bearing on a single theme are scattered throughout the Qur'an. The Book is
indeed a juxtaposition of reflections on a wide variety of subjects referred
to one after the other and taken up again later on, often several times over.
The data on a precise theme must therefore be collected from all over. the
Book and brought together under a single heading. This requires many hours'
work tracking down verses, in spite of the existence of thematic indexes
provided by various translators, for such lists may perhaps be incomplete and
indeed, in many cases, they often are. In the
present study, I have based my observations on facts and have presented the
logical deductions necessarily to be drawn from them. This means that if I
had not carried out this research, sooner or later, others would have
performed it in my place. The study represents an innovation in the
examination of a Holy Scripture, especially as far as readers in the West are
concerned. Indeed, the latter are accustomed to separating texts which, when
they approach them for the first time, seem to deal more with faith any faith
than with reason; in their eyes, a study of the texts does not immediately
suggest the need to refer to scientific data. As we have already seen in the
case of the Bible, however, scientific data can indeed be included in an
analysis of the text; the reader will quickly realize that. a textual
examination of the Qur'an requires even greater recourse to scientific
evidence. The reason for this is the large number of comparisons which must
be made; for in this context, the Qur'an contains a wealth of statements,
even on the subject of man, a topic that is fairly limited compared to the
wide range of other themes dealt with in the Qur'an. The Origin and Perpetuation
of Life
One of
the original features of the Qur'an that distinguishes it from the Bible is
that, as mentioned above, in order to illustrate the repeated affirmations of
divine omnipotence, the Book refers to a multitude of natural phenomena. In
the case of a large number of these phenomena, it also provides a detailed
description of the way they evolved, their causes and their effects; all of
these details are worthy of attention. The statements on man contained in the
Qur'an were among those, which struck me the most when I read the Book of the
first time in the original Arabic. Only the original can cast light on the
real meaning of statements, which are so often mistranslated, owing to the
reasons cited above. What
makes these findings so important is that they refer to many notions which
were not current at the ° time the Qur'an was communicated 'to man and which
fourteen centuries later are evidently in perfect harmony with modern
knowledge. In this context, there is absolutely no deed to look for the kind
of bogus explanations that tend to crop up in certain publications, and even
in histories of medicine, in which Muhammad is claimed to possess medical
skills (just as the Qur'an is also said to contain medical `recipes, an idea
that is totally inaccurate). [All the Qur'an contains are
certain dictates concerning hygiene and dietary habits: personal cleanliness,
dietary interdicts such as the prohibition of alcohol; a dictate such as the
fast of Ramadhan also forms an obvious part of these rules. The mention of
honey in the Qur'an does not include any indication of specific cases in
which honey might prove beneficial to human health.] The Origins of Life
The
Qur'an provides a clear cut answer to the question: At what point did life
begin? In this section, I shall set forth the verses of the Qur'an in which
it is stated that the origins of life are aquatic. The first verse also
refers to the formation of the universe: -Sura
21, verse 30: - Transliteration
30 'a-
wa- lam yara 'alladhena kafaro 'anna as- samaawaat wa- al- 'ard. kaanataa
ratq(an) fa- fataqnaa -humaa wa- jacalnaa min al- maa' kull shay' h.ayy 'a-
fa- laa yu'minon "Do
not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together,
then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of water. Will
they then not believe?" The
notion of `getting something out of something else' does not give rise to any
doubts. The phrase can equally mean that every living thing was made of water
(as its essential component) or that every living thing originated in water.
The two possible meanings are strictly in accordance with scientific data.
Life is in fact of aquatic origin, and water is the major component of all
living cells. Without water, life is not possible. When the possibility of
life on another planet is discussed, the first question is always: Is there a
sufficient quantity of water to support life? Modern
data lead us to think that the oldest living beings probably belonged to the
vegetable kingdom: Algae have been found that date from the pre Cambrian
period, the time of the oldest known lands. Organisms belonging to the animal
kingdom probably appeared slightly later: They too came from the sea. The
word translated here as `water' is in fact ma' [Readers
requiring further information on the transliteration of the Arabic into Latin
characters are advised to consult the chart that appears in The Bible,
the Qur'an and Science (French Edition)], which means
both water in the sky and water in the sea, or any kind of liquid. In the
first meaning, water is the element necessary to all vegetal life: - Sura
20, verse 53: - Transliteration
Wa-anzala mina-samaa-ee maa-an fa-akhrajna bihi azwajaa
min-nabaatin shatta "[God
is the One who] sent water down from the sky and thereby We [This
change in the grammatical structure of the phrase is a common feature in the
Qur'an. God is first referred to indirectly, then the text relates His direct
Words, for 'We' obviously means God.] brought forth pairs
of plants each separate from the other." This is
the first reference to a 'Pair' of vegetals; we shall have cause to return to
this notion later. In the
second meaning, which refers to any kind of liquid, the word is used in its
indeterminate form to designate the substance at the basis of the formation
of all animal life: - Sura
24, verse 45: Transliteration
Wa-Allahu khalaka kul-la daa-b-bati-m-ma-a-ee "God
created every animal from water." As we
shall see later on, the word may also be applied to seminal liquid [Secreted
by the reproductive glands, seminal liquid contains the spermatozoa]. Thus
the statements in the Qur'an on the origins of life, whether referring to
life.in general, the element that gives birth to the plants in the soil, or
the seed of animals, are all strictly in accordance with modern scientific
data. None of the myths on the origins of life that abounded at the time the
Qur'an was communicated to man are mentioned in the text. The Perpetuation of Life
The
Qur'an refers to many aspects of life in the animal and vegetable kingdoms. I
have already described them in my previous work, published in 1976 (English
edition 1978). In the present study, I should like to focus on the space
given in the Qur'an to the theme of the perpetuation of life. Generally
speaking, the commentaries devoted to reproduction in the vegetable kingdom
are, longer than those referring to animal reproduction; when it comes to
human reproduction, however, there are many statements dealing with this
theme, as we shall see. It has
been established that there are two methods of reproduction in the vegetable
kingdom: sexual and asexual (for example, the multiplication of spores, or
the process of taking cuttings, which is a special case of growth). It is
noteworthy that the Qur'an refers to male and female parts of the vegecals - Sura
20, verse 53: - Transliteration
Wa-anzala mina-samaa-ee maa-an fa-akhrajna bihi azwajaa
min-nabaatin shatta "[God
is the One who] sent water down from the sky and thereby We brought forth
pairs of plants each separate from the other." `One of
a pair' is the translation of zawj (plural azwa'j) whose original meaning is
that which, in the company of another, forms a pair.' The word may just as
readily be applied to a married couple as to a pair of shoes. -Sura
13, verse 3: - Transliteration
Wamin kul-li as-samarati ja-ala fiha zaw jayni asnayni "Of
all fruits [God] placed [on earth] two of a pair." This
statement implies the existence of male and female organs in all the various
species of fruit. It is in perfect agreement with the data discovered at a
much later period concerning the formation of fruit, for every type comes
from vegetals possessing sexual organs (even if certain varieties, such as
the banana, originate from non fertilized flowers). By and
large, sexual reproduction in the animal kingdom is given only brief
treatment in the Qur'an. The exception to this is man, for as we shall see in
the following chapter, the statements on this subject are numerous and
detailed. The Origin of Man and
Transformations of the Human form over the Ages
Some of
the verses of the Qur'an, which are to follow, do not contain anything but a
deeply spiritual meaning. Others, it would seem to me, refer to
transformations that appear to indicate changes in human morphology. The
latter describe phenomena of a totally material kind, which occurred in
different phases but always in the proper order. The supreme intervention of
divine will is mentioned several times in these verses. It is seen to direct
the transformations, which occur during a process that can only be described
as an `evolution'. Here, the word is used to mean a series of modifications
whose purpose is to arrive at a definitive form. Furthermore,. the accent is
laid on the idea that God's omnipotence is manifest in the fact that He
annihilated human populations to make way for new ones: These seem to me to
constitute the main themes that arise from the collection of Qur'anic verses
brought together in this chapter. There
can be no doubt that ancient commentators could not possibly have conceived
of the idea that the human form might be transformed. They were willing,
however, to admit that changes could indeed take place, and they acknowledged
the existence of stages in the course of embryonic development a phenomenon
commonly observed in all periods of history. It is only in our, own day,
however, that modern knowledge allows us fully to understand the meaning of
the verses in the Qur'an which refer to the successive phases of embryonic
development within the uterus. Indeed,
we may today wonder whether the references in the Qur'an to the successive
stages of human development may not, in some verses at least, go beyond mere
embryonic growth to include the transformations of human morphology which
took place over the ages: The existence of such changes has been formally proven
by palaeontology, and the evidence is so overwhelming that it is pointless to
question it. The
earliest commentators of the Qur'an could have no inkling of the discoveries
that would be made centuries later. They could only view these particular
verses in the context of the development of the embryo. There was no
alternative at the time. Then
came the Darwinian `bombshell' which through the overt twisting of Darwin's
theory by his early followers extrapolated the notion of an evolution that
might be applied to man; even though the amplitude of the evolution had not
yet been demonstrated in the animal's. In; Darwin's day, the theory was
pushed to extremes, with researchers claiming to have proof that man was
descended from the apes an idea that, even today, no respectable
palaeontologist is able to demonstrate. There is obviously a very wide gap,
however, between the concept of man's descent from the apes (a theory that is
totally untenable), and the idea of transformations of the human form in the
course of time (which has been fully proven). The confusion between the two
reaches its height when they are merged together with very flimsy arguments
under the banner of the word EVOLUTION. This unfortunate confusion has
caused certain people wrongly to imagine that since the word is used in
reference to man, it must mean that, ipso facto, man's origin may be
traced to the apes. It is
crucial to be quite clear about the distinction between the two, otherwise
there is a risk of misunderstanding the meaning to be ascribed to certain
verses of the Qur'an that I am about to quote. There is not the slightest
hint, in these verses, of evidence to support a materialistic theory of the
origin of man that justifiably shocks Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. The Profound Spiritual
Meaning of the Creation of Man from the Earth
As the
following two verses indicate, man is presented in the Qur'an as a being that
is intimately linked with the earth: -Sura
71, verses 17 and 18 Transliteration: -
17 wa-
'allaah anbata -kum min al- 'ard. nabaat(an)
18 thumma
yuced -kum fe -haa wa- yukhrij -kum ikhraaj(an) "God
has caused you to grow as a growth from the earth, and afterwards, He will
make you return there, He will bring you forth again, a [new] forth bringing." -Sura
20, verse 55: - Transliteration: - The
preceding verse mentioned the earth:
55 min
-haa khalaqnaa -kum wa- fe -haa nuced -kum wa- min -haa nukhrij -kum taarah
'ukhraa "From
[the earth] We ['We' refers to God]
fashioned you and into it We shall make you return and from it We shall bring
you forth another time." The
spiritual aspect of man's provenance from the earth is emphasized by the fact
that we shall return to the earth after death and also by the idea that God
will bring us forth again on the Day of Judgement. As we have already seen,
the Bible stresses this same spiritual meaning. With
regard to the above translation of Reference no 2, I should like to point out
to my Arabic speaking and Arabist readers that in the West, the Arabic word khalaqa
is usually translated by the verb `to create'. It is important to realize,
however, that, as indicated in the excellent dictionary compiled by
Kasimirski, the original meaning of the word was `to give a proportion to a
thing, or to make it of a certain proportion or quantity'. For God (alone),
the translation has been simplified by the use of the word `to create', i.e.
to bring, into existence a thing, which did not formerly exist. In so doing,
those who exclusively use the term `to create' refer only to the action; they
fail to translate the idea of `proportion', which accompanies it. A more
accurate rendering would perhaps be the verb `to fashion' or `to form in due
proportion'. This would bring us nearer to the original meaning of the Arabic
word. That is why I have opted to use the verb `to fashion' in most of my
translations; with the implied sense of the primitive Arabic meaning. The Components of the
Ground and the formation of Man
The
primary spiritual meaning of man's origin from the ground does not rule out
the notion, which is present in the Qur'an, of what we would today call the
chemical `components' of the human body, which are to be found in the ground [By
'components' or 'elements' (terms which are used to make the text easier to
read), I am referring to matter which can be extracted from the ground and
which does not decompose, i.e. the various atomic components which constitute
molecules; all the elements which form part of the human body are present in
lesser or greater quantities in the ground.]. In order to
convey this notion nowadays acknowledged as scientifically accurate to the
men alive when the Qur'an was revealed, terminology had to be used that was
in keeping with the state of knowledge at the time. Man was formed from
components contained in the ground. This idea emerges very clearly from
numerous verses in which the formative elements are indicated by a variety of
names -Sura
11, verse 61: - Transliteration:
61 huwa
ansha'a -kum min al- 'ard "He
[God] caused you to grow from the earth." The
idea of the earth (ard in Arabic) is reiterated in Sura
53, verse 32. - Sura
22, verse 5 (In which God is speaking to man) Transliteration:
5 Faeen-naa
khalaknaakum-min turaabin "We
fashioned you from soil." Man's
provenance from soil (turdb in Arabic) is repeated in sura 18, verse 37; sura
30, verse 20; sura 35, verse 11 and sura 40, verse 67. -Sura
6, verse 2 Transliteration:
2 Huwal-lazi
khalakakum min tyni "[God]
is the One who fashioned you from clay." Clay
(Tiyn in Arabic) is used in several verses to define the components from
which man was constituted. - Sura
32, verse 7 Transliteration:
7 Wabada-a
khalaka-al-laee-n-nasani min tyni "[God]
began the creation of man from clay." It is
important to note at this point that the: Qur'an refers to the `beginning' of
a creation from clay: This obviously implies that another stage is to follow. - Sura
37, verse 11: Although it does not seem to provide any new data for the
present study, the following quotation is given for the sake of completeness.
The reference in the verse is to men. Transliteration:
In-na khalaknaa-hum min tyni-l-azibi "We
fashioned them from a sticky clay." - Sura
55, verse 14 Transliteration:
Khalaka-linsana min sal-lasal-lin ka-l-fakh-khari "[God]
fashioned man from a clay, like pottery." The
image suggests that man was `modelled', as indicated in the verse that is to
follow. We shall also find the idea of the `moulding' of man, the subject of
the next sub section. - Sura
15, verse 26 Transliteration:
Walakadan khalaknaa-laee nasaana min sulaalati-min tynin "We
have fashioned man from clay, from moulded mud." The
same idea is repeated in sura 15, verses 28-33. - Sura
23, verse 12 Transliteration:
Walakadan khalaknaa-l insane min sulaalatin min tynin "We
fashioned man from the quintessence of a clay." I have
used the word `quintessence' to translate the Arabic term sulatat, which
means `one thing extracted from another thing'. As we shall see later, the
word appears in another passage of the Qur'an in which it is stated that
man's descent derives from.that which is extracted from spermatic liquid; (it
is known today that the active component of spermatic liquid is a unicellular
organism called a `spermatozoon'). I
imagine that the `quintessence of a clay' must refer to the various chemical
components which constitute clay, extracted from water, which in terms of
weight is its main element. Water,
which in the Qur'an is considered to be at the origin of all life, is
mentioned as the essential element in the following verse. - Sura
25, verse 54 Transliteration:
Wahuwal-lazi khalaka minalmaaee basharan fajaalahu nasaban
wasihra "[God]
is the One . who fashioned a man from water and established relationship of
lineage [by men] and kinship by women." As
elsewhere in the Qur'an, the `man' referred to is Adam. Several
verses allude to the creation of woman: -Sura
4, verse 1 Transliteration:
Khalakaum-min nafsin wahidatin wakhalaka minha zavjahaa "[God]
is the One who fashioned you from a single person and from that [person]
created his wife" This
verse is repeated in sura 7, verse 189 and sura 39, verse 6. The same subject
is referred to in more or less the same terms in sura 30, verse 21 and sura
42, verse 11. There
can be no doubt that in these twelve references, much space is devoted to
symbolical reflections on man's origins, including a clear indication of what
will happen to him after his death, and containing allusions to the fact that
man will return to earth in order to be brought forth again on the Day of
Judgement. There would also seem, however, to be a reference to the chemical
composition of the human body. The Transformations of
Man Over the Ages
In
contrast to the above, the commentary suggested by the verses of the Qu'ran,
which I shall quote below bears mainly on material notions. We are indeed in
the presence here of genuine morphological transformations which take place
in a harmonious and balanced fashion due to an organization, that is strictly
planned, for the phenomena occur in successive phases. Thus the will of God,
who rules eternally over the fate of human communities, is made manifest in
all its power and splendour through these events. The
Qu'ran first speaks of a `creation'; but it goes on to describe a second
stage in which God gave form to man. There can be no doubt that the creation
and morphological organizations of man are seen as successive events. -Sura
7, verse 11 in which God is speaking to man Transliteration:
Walakadan khalaknaakum sum-ma sawarnakum sum-ma kulnaa
lilmala-ikati "We
created you and thereupon We gave you form; thereupon, We told the angels:
Bow down to Adam." Hence
it is possible to discern three successive events, the first two of which are
important to our study: God created man and thereupon gave him a form
(Sawwara, in Arabic). Elsewhere,
it is stated that man's form will be harmonious: - Sura
15, verses 28-29 Transliteration:
28 wa-
'idh qaala rabb -ka li- al- malaa'ikah 'inni -y khaaliq bashar(an) min
s.als.aal min h.ama' masnon
29 fa-
'idhaa sawwaytu -hu wa- nafakhtu fe -hi min roh. -e fa- qaco la- -hu saajiden "When
thy Lord said to the angels: I am going to fashion a man from clay, from
moulded mud; when I have harmoniously fashioned him and breathed into him of
My spirit, fall down, prostrating yourself unto him." The
phrase `to fashion harmoniously' (sawway, in Arabic) is repeated in sura
38, verse 72. Another
verse describes how man's harmonious form is obtained through the presence of
equilibrium and complexity of structure (the verb rakkaba in Arabic means `to
make a thing from components): -Sura
82, verses 7-8: - Transliteration:
7 'alladhe
khalaqa -ka fa- sawwaa -ka fa- cadala -ka
8 fe 'ayy s.orah maa shaa'a rakkaba -ka | |||||||||||
