65

"How could the same small variations, incalculable in number, have ever occurred in the same order on two independent lines of evolution, if they were purely accidental? And how could they have been preserved by selection and accumulated in both cases, the same in the same order, when each of them, taken separately, was of no use?

"Let us turn, then, to the hypothesis of sudden variations, and see whether it will solve the problem. h certainly lessens the difficulty on one point, but it makes it much worse on another. If the eye of the mollusc and that of the vertebrate have both been raised to their present form by a relatively small number of sudden leaps, I have less difficulty in understanding the resemblance of the two organs than if this resemblance were due to an incalculable number of infinitesimal resemblances acquired successively: in both cases it is chance that operates, but in the second case chance is not required to work the miracle it would have to perform in the first. Not only is the number of resemblances to be added somewhat reduced, but I can also understand better how each could be preserved and added to the others; for the elementary variation is now considerable enough to be an advantage to the living being, and so to lend itself to the play of selection. But here there arises another problem, no less formidable, viz., how do all the parts of the visual apparatus, suddenly changed, remain so well coördinated that the eye continues to exercise its function? For the change of one part alone will make vision impossible, unless this change is absolutely infinitesimal. The parts must then all change at once, each consulting the others. I agree that a great number of uncoördinated variations may indeed have arisen in less fortunate individuals, that natural selection may have eliminated these, and that only the combination fit to endure, capable of preserving and improving vision, has survived."

(Our bold and color.)

Bergson restarts his footnote counts on each page. So to refer a footnote, one must state page number and footnote number.

Our bold and color highlights follow a code:

• black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning our review
• green-bold - we see Bergson suggesting axiomatic memes
• violet-bold - an apparent classical problematic
• blue-bold - we disagree with this text segment while disregarding context of Bergson's overall text
• gray-bold - quotable text
• red-bold - our direct commentary

Quantum cohesion is not "accidental." Neither is quantum cohesion cause and effect. Rather quantum cohesion is both quantally and qualitatively affective.

Again, as Mae-wan has told us, quantum cohesion makes this coördination possible. Classical mechanics are incapable of describing how biology does this. We urge you, reader, especially biologists, to commence a program of change from CTMs to QTMs.

"Still, this combination had to be produced. And, supposing chance to have granted this favor once, can we admit that it repeats the self-same favor in the course of the history of a species, so as to give rise, every time, all at once, to new complications marvelously regulated with reference to each other, and so related to former complications as to go further on in the same direction? How, especially, can we suppose that by a series of mere "accidents" these sudden variations occur, the same, in the same order,—involving in each case a perfect harmony of elements more and more numerous and complex along two independent lines of evolution?

"The law of correlation will be invoked, of course; Darwin himself appealed to it.⁽¹⁾ It will be alleged that a change is not localized in a single point of the organism, but has its necessary recoil on other points. The examples cited by Darwin remain classic: white cats with blue eyes are generally deaf; hairless dogs have imperfect dentition, etc.—Granted; but let us not play now on the word "correlation." A collective whole of solidary changes is one thing, a system of complementary changes—changes so coördinated as to keep up and even improve the functioning of an organ under more complicated conditions—is another. That an anomaly of the pilous system should be accompanied by an anomaly of dentition is quite conceivable without our having to call for a special principle of explanation; for hair and teeth are similar formations,⁽²⁾ and the same chemical change of the germ that hinders the formation of hair would probably obstruct that of teeth: it may be for the same sort of reason that white cats with blue eyes are deaf."

Note (1) - Darwin, Origin of Species, chap. i.

Note (2) - On this homology of hair and teeth, see Brandt, "' Über ... eine mutmassliche Homologie der Haare und Zahne" (Biol. Centralblatt, vol. xviii., 1898, especially pp. 262 ff.).

(Our bold and color.)

O'gadons among you will realize and recognize how Bergson's "... a change is not localized ..." describes a hologram, at least describes quantum~n¤nl¤cality as a hologramic feature.

Fathom how quantum~n¤nl¤cality cannot be accomplished via classical objects whose primary properties are stability and independence. No, dear reader, we are describing quantum~fluxes' dynamic~coherence and quantum entanglement and quantum superpositionings here as holographicityings.

See our QELRs of selection and quanta.

Doug - 15Aug2007.