《A Short History of Nearly Everything》第127章

n　the　audience　had　any　idea　that　they　werewitnessing　the　scientific　highlight　of　the　century；　they　showed　no　sign　of　it。　no　discussionfollowed。　nor　did　the　event　attract　much　notice　elsewhere。　darwin　cheerfully　later　noted　thatonly　one　person；　a　professor　haughton　of　dublin；　mentioned　the　two　papers　in　print　and　hisconclusion　was　“that　all　that　was　new　in　them　was　false；　and　what　was　true　was　old。”
wallace；　still　in　the　distant　east；　learned　of　these　maneuverings　long　after　the　event；　butwas　remarkably　equable　and　seemed　pleased　to　have　been　included　at　all。　he　even　referred　tothe　theory　forever　after　as　“darwinism。”　much　less　amenable　to　darwin’s　claim　of　prioritywas　a　scottish　gardener　named　patrick　matthew　who　had；　rather　remarkably；　also　e　upwith　the　principles　of　natural　selection—in　fact；　in　the　very　year　that　darwin　had　set　sail　inthebeagle。　unfortunately；　matthew　had　published　these　views　in　a　book　called　naval　timberand　arboriculture；　which　had　been　missed　not　just　by　darwin；　but　by　the　entire　world。
matthew　kicked　up　in　a　lively　manner；　with　a　letter　to　gardener’s　chronicle；　when　he　sawdarwin　gaining　credit　everywhere　for　an　idea　that　really　was　his。　darwin　apologized　withouthesitation；　though　he　did　note　for　the　record：　“i　think　that　no　one　will　feel　surprised　thatneither　i；　nor　apparently　any　other　naturalist；　has　heard　of　mr。　matthew’s　views；　consideringhow　briefly　they　are　given；　and　they　appeared　in　the　appendix　to　a　work　on　naval　timberand　arboriculture。”
wallace　continued　for　another　fifty　years　as　a　naturalist　and　thinker；　occasionally　a　verygood　one；　but　increasingly　fell　from　scientific　favor　by　taking　up　dubious　interests　such　asspiritualism　and　the　possibility　of　life　existing　elsewhere　in　the　universe。　so　the　theorybecame；　essentially　by　default；　darwin’s　alone。
darwin　never　ceased　being　tormented　by　his　ideas。　he　referred　to　himself　as　“the　devil’schaplain”　and　said　that　revealing　the　theory　felt　“like　confessing　a　murder。”　apart　from　allelse；　he　knew　it　deeply　pained　his　beloved　and　pious　wife。　even　so；　he　set　to　work　at　onceexpanding　his　manuscript　into　a　book…length　work。　provisionally　he　called　it　an　abstract　ofan　essay　on　the　origin　of　species　and　varieties　through　natural　selection　—a　title　so　tepidand　tentative　that　his　publisher；　john　murray；　decided　to　issue　just　five　hundred　copies。　butonce　presented　with　the　manuscript；　and　a　slightly　more　arresting　title；　murray　reconsideredand　increased　the　initial　print　run　to　1；250。
on　the　origin　of　species　was　an　immediate　mercial　success；　but　rather　less　of　a　criticalone。　darwin’s　theory　presented　two　intractable　difficulties。　it　needed　far　more　time　than　lordkelvin　was　willing　to　concede；　and　it　was　scarcely　supported　by　fossil　evidence。　where；asked　darwin’s　more　thoughtful　critics；　were　the　transitional　forms　that　his　theory　so　clearlycalled　for？　if　new　species　were　continuously　evolving；　then　there　ought　to　be　lots　ofintermediate　forms　scattered　across　the　fossil　record；　but　there　were　not。
3in　fact；　the　record　asit　existed　then　（and　for　a　long　time　afterward）　showed　no　life　at　all　right　up　to　the　moment　ofthe　famous　cambrian　explosion。
3by　coincidence；　in　1861；　at　the　height　of　the　controversy；　just　such　evidence　turned　up　when　workers　inbavaria　found　the　bones　of　an　ancient　archaeopteryx；　a　creature　halfway　between　a　bird　and　a　dinosaur。　（it　hadfeathers；　but　it　also　had　teeth。）　it　was　an　impressive　and　helpful　find；　and　its　significance　much　debated；　but　asingle　discovery　could　hardly　be　considered　conclusive。
but　now　here　was　darwin；　without　any　evidence；　insisting　that　the　earlier　seas　must　havehad　abundant　life　and　that　we　just　hadn’t　found　it　yet　because；　for　whatever　reason；　it　hadn’tbeen　preserved。　it　simply　could　not　be　otherwise；　darwin　maintained。　“the　case　at　presentmust　remain　inexplicable；　and　may　be　truly　urged　as　a　valid　argument　against　the　views　hereentertained；”　he　allowed　most　candidly；　but　he　refused　to　entertain　an　alternative　possibility。
by　way　of　explanation　he　speculated—inventively　but　incorrectly—that　perhaps　theprecambrian　seas　had　been　too　clear　to　lay　down　sediments　and　thus　had　preserved　no　fossils。
even　darwin’s　closest　friends　were　troubled　by　the　blitheness　of　some　of　his　assertions。
adam　sedgwick；　who　had　taught　darwin　at　cambridge　and　taken　him　on　a　geological　tour　ofwales　in　1831；　said　the　book　gave　him　“more　pain　than　pleasure。”　louis　agassiz　dismissed　itas　poor　conjecture。　even　lyell　concluded　gloomily：　“darwin　goes　too　far。”
t。　h。　huxley　disliked　darwin’s　insistence　on　huge　amounts　of　geological　time　because　hewas　a　saltationist；　which　is　to　say　a　believer　in　the　idea　that　evolutionary　changes　happen　notgradually　but　suddenly。　saltationists　（the　word　es　from　the　latin　for　“leap”）　couldn’taccept　that　plicated　organs　could　ever　emerge　in　slow　stages。　what　good；　after　all；　is　one…tenth　of　a　wing　or　half　an　eye？　such　organs；　they　thought；　only　made　sense　if　they　appeared　ina　finished　state。
the　belief　was　surprising　in　as　radical　a　spirit　as　huxley　because　it　closely　recalled　a　veryconservative　religious　notion　first　put　forward　by　the　english　theologian　william　paley　in1802　and　known　as　argument　from　design。　paley　contended　that　if　you　found　a　pocket　watchon　the　ground；　even　if　you　had　never　seen　such　a　thing　before；　you　would　instantly　perceivethat　it　had　been　made　by　an　intelligent　entity。　so　it　was；　he　believed；　with　nature：　itsplexity　was　proof　of　its　design。　the　notion　was　a　powerful　one　in　the　nineteenth　century；and　it　gave　darwin　trouble　too。　“the　eye　to　this　day　gives　me　a　cold　shudder；”　heacknowledged　in　a　letter　to　a　friend。　in　the　origin　he　conceded　that　it　“seems；　i　freely　confess；absurd　in　the　highest　possible　degree”　that　natural　selection　could　produce　such　an　instrumentin　gradual　steps。
even　so；　and　to　the　unending　exasperation　of　his　supporters；　darwin　not　only　insisted　thatall　change　was　gradual；　but　in　nearly　every　edition　of　origin　he　stepped　up　the　amount　of　timehe　supposed　necessary　to　allow　evolution　to　progress；　which　pushed　his　ideas　increasingly　outof　favor。　“eventually；”　according　to　the　scientist　and　hist