The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from Natural Selection

Mr. Burke: There is clearly at least one person who cannot understand, in any case. (Laughter.)

Mr. S. E. B. Bouverie-Pusey: We have listened to a very eloquent attack on the transmutation hypothesis the early theory that one species evolves into another; a precursor to the term "evolution" in general. However, I understood that Mr. Wallace did not intend to promote that doctrine itself so much as to show that, assuming it is true, it would easily explain the phenomena of human races, their gradual blending into each other, and their current stability.

What Mr. Burke has told us is mainly that you can produce variations within the limits of a species, but not outside of them. But that argument assumes we already know whether there is a fundamental difference between a "kind," a "species," or a "variety." Mr. Darwin achieves two things. First, he shows how varieties are produced through the action of natural selection. Second, he proves (at least in the opinion of many people, including myself) that there are indeed differences between species and varieties. Since we know that varieties may be produced by natural selection, we may presume that, over a sufficient length of time, entirely new species and genera the plural of genus; a biological classification ranking above species and below family may be produced.

Some say that this theory extends to the origin of the universe, but that does not necessarily follow. Many suppose the universe to be the creation of one Deity, while some believe in opposing principles of good and evil; however, Darwin does not teach anything of that kind. The entire question raised by Mr. Burke is not actually addressed by the Darwinian hypothesis at all. Mr. Burke argued quite fairly that we should attribute effects to causes that we can observe in operation. Darwin and Mr. Wallace believe they have proved that natural selection is exactly such a cause. I must confess, however, that the idea in this paper was totally new to me. I believe it must strike everyone here as marking a new era in anthropology.

Mr. T. Bendyshe: The eloquent speech we have heard from Mr. Burke has nearly driven the clever paper we previously heard from Mr. Wallace out of my memory. There are still some points I am able to recall, however, on which I cannot altogether agree with the author.

As far as I understood it, the main point of the paper was that as human intelligence developed, man became able to triumph over every climatic influence. Now, if one thing has been proved more than another about the human race, it is this: the inhabitants of temperate climates have been unable to live and flourish in either tropical or polar—the hyperborean referring to the extreme north or Arctic regions—climates, and original: "vice versâ" the reverse is also true. If, therefore, all the intelligence of the European is unable to give him even the slightest permanent foothold in the tropics, what becomes of Mr. Wallace’s argument?

This is not a question of natural selection or the struggle for existence between one animal and another of a closely related species. This is a struggle between an animal and the climate. I believe Mr. Darwin uses an expression of this kind in his book. He applies the doctrine of Malthus the theory that population growth will always outpace food production, leading to a struggle for survival with increased force to the animal kingdom. Malthus's doctrine begins with the statement that any animal or plant, if not checked by others, would cover the entire surface of the globe in a short space of time. He says that is undeniably true. Now, I would be inclined to say that it is unquestionably false; according to the Darwinian theory, any animal could only