The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1917-06-17
English BIOLOGIST Contests
German Belief That the
Strongest Survives.
DARWlNlSM AND WAR
Chalmers Mitchell, in New
Book Of That Title,
Talks Of Biology.
(From the Scientific American Sup
plcment)

From the Scientific American Sup
plcment.)
Chalmers Mitchclls new book, Oar
winisn, and War Uhe writer is dis
tingNished English zoologisD is a re-
ply to the argument in favor of war; SO
often put forth In the last three years
Ivy a certain German school, that Il state
Of constant struggle or warfare Is a
dominant factor in evolution. These
writers declare that war Is both neces-
sary and admirable, and is in fact Il
biological law which man cannot re-
sist. and that it Is, moreover, benefit
cial In the long run, favoring the sur
vival of the strongest and ablest races.
They remind US that all animals. and
even all plants, are engaged in a con-
slant battle for the necessities of life,
for earth. air. food, water, and a place
in the sun. ]. SO that it is natural and
inevitable that not only men but ma
tons must engage in the same rivalry
which is q means of selection of the
fittest Nc
Merely hypothesis.
Darwin. however, never stated this
principle as a biological law, but mere
~ asia working hypothesis capable OF
explaining many facts otherwise OBJ
scure. Mr.. Mitchell examines at length
various examples of the struggle for
existence among animals, such as the
supplanting Of the thylacinc, a marsu-
pial about. the size of a large fox, by
the dingo, or wild dog of Australia, the
nearly complete determination of the
blacksrat by the bold and fierce brown
rat. etc. His conclusion is that the
causes which determine the success of
one species in relation to another are
variable and often difficult to deter
mine. Such success may be due to Il
better developed brain, to q greater re-
sistance to microbes or to a superior
capabllity OF, adaptation to environ
nent. But he finds no evidence that
violence exerted by individuals of the
more favored species upon individuals
OF the less favored species is an inn
portant factor In his own words:
Natural selection results from the
conservation of favored races rather
than from the determination Of one
race by another
Man Not Animal.
He contends, moreover, that there is
an impossible gulf between men and
animals residing in the fact that man
possesses the consciousness and SEN
timent Of liberty, and that he regulates
his conduct by moral laws elaborate
through centuries. He finds nothing in
common between the grouping of indi
viduals which forms a modern nation
and that which constitutes a race or
species of animals. In short. he be-
believes it is entirely inadmissiblc to
attempt to justify human conduct by
laws supposed to be dominant in the
animal kingdom.
In his essay entitled Biology and
War" Prof. Etiennc Rahaud of the
staff OF the Sorbonnc points out the
alleged error of the Germans in con-
sidering brute strength the preponder-
ant factor Of evolution, since there are
various possibilities which may pre-
vent the victory of the strong over the
week. He writes:
Adversarics do not always encounter
each other under the same conditions,
and 1t often happens that the stronger
or more skillful is badly placed and
therefore perishes. 1t is true that in
open territory. with only his own re-
sources the chances are against the
weaker, though he may at times escape
by flight. Even SO. however, the weak
ness Of the victim may be Only rela-
tive. as when a young individual of IL
species better endowed with absolute
valor meets an adult of less endow-
ment.
Circumstances Count.
Then 1t often happens that circum-
stances prevent the individual appar-
entity most advantaged from making
use of his advantages, and facilitate
the attack of his less advantased enc
my. Cope has expressed the
highly probably hypothesis that the
disappearance; of the huge Jurassic
saurians was due to very small mann
mails. who. by destroying the eggs of
the former destroyed the species.
Whether this hypothesis be actually
true or not, it expresses the essential
fact that absolute force is not domi-
uant in biologic phenomena, force Is
always relative, not only to the individ-
ual opponents. but to multiple contin-
gencies, infinitely and constantly va
riable. This relatively is nowhere more
true than among civilized human @pe-
cics where the fate OF the strongest
always depends on occasion. on COM
pick factors on those ''imponderablcs'
Of which there has been SO much talk
apropos of the present war. The
environ ulent. the habits of life the con-
course of divers circumstances often
give to the weaker the completest mas
terry. The inevitable strength Is
not and could never be Il biolosic fact.