Darwin and the Descent of Man

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) went to the University of Edinburgh and Cambridge like his grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802). Erasmus became a good enough physician to tend to George III, and his most important scientific work was Zoonomia which explains pathology and hinted at the idea of evolution. While Charles Darwin was at Cambridge, he became friends with a man named Henslow, where professor and pupil went on walks and shared conversations about the nature of plants and geology. This might be where young Charles Darwin found a life-long passion for unlocking nature’s mysteries. However, the idea of evolution didn’t’ arise out of a vacuum. Tennyson in 1849 felt the shift early in his work In Memoriam. Evolution was already in the atmosphere within the Enlightenment, within Hegelianism, and within the idea of progress. Before Darwin went to Cambridge his teachers didn’t think much of him, but under Henslow, he found focus, a brilliance, and in a turn of events, Henslow arranged for Darwin to be naturalist on a ship voyage on the H.M.S Beagle, a 5 year voyage from 1831-1836. Darwin began the journey when he was just twenty-two years of age with captain Fitzroy who was about the same age as Darwin, with whom Darwin spent much time with during the voyage.

On the voyage, Darwin observed many kinds of plants, birds, turtles, and indigenous people. His pile of notes was growing exponentially, as he teased out even the slightest differences in beaks and plumage. This gathering of information might have been the biggest gathering of facts ever for a naturalist. When he arrived home, in 1836, he began to try and sift through all of his notes to try and pull together a theory that made sense of it all. Darwin, in his biography, writes:

In October 1838, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I had happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence, which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work… [1]

              This incite impacted all of his work henceforth, and he began to finally see into the nature of nature, finally, unlocking the mysteries that it held for so long. In his seminal work On the Origin of Species, Darwin took his time when organizing the data, until Alfred Henry Wallace asked Darwin to look at his paper that also showed evolution working its way through nature. Darwin then told Wallace that he came to the same conclusion, and they both, in 1858, gave papers to show their joint conclusions that evolution does occur. However, Darwin’s evidence was greater, and he soon published his book On the Origin of Species. In this work he writes:

[I]t maybe be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct genera, and which differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus, arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow inevitably from the struggle for life.[2]

              Here we come to learn that the struggle of life is where evolution starts. Nature, pulling no punches, continues to omnipresently and omnisciently prune and perfect it’s works of art at all times and all places; it always is adapting and always striving. Why would nature do this, one might ask. And the answer is always for the continuation of life! So, henceforth, natural selection is seen as a universal law. Here, Darwin talks of natural selection with greater clarity:

[N]atural selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is an immeasurably superior to man’s feebly efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art.

Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtly 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 that can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kinds? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favorable variations and the rejections of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.”

              In On the Origin of Species, we begin to see a wrinkle in his theory. The law of natural selection is everywhere, but another law also begins to arise called sexual selection, but Darwin doesn’t go into detail with it. Here are his words on the matter of sexual selection:

[A] few words on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny.[3]

So sexual selection supervenes atop of natural selection. Here, males with the best weapons or the best shields, or the best fighter, as the mane of the lion or the great shoulder pad of the boar win out, “[F]or the shield may be as important for victory, as the sword or spear.” Darwin continues further on sexual selection here:

[I]f man can in a short time give elegant carriage and beauty to his bantams, according to his standard of beauty, I can see no good reason to doubt that female birds, by selection during thousands of generations, the most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standards of beauty, might produce a marked effect. I strongly suspect that some well-known laws with respect to the plumage of male and female birds, in comparison with the plumage of the young, can be explained on the view of plumage having been chiefly modified by sexual selection, acting when the birds have come to the breeding age or during the breeding season…

Thus it is , as I believe, that when the males and the females of any animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection that is, individual makes have had, in successive generations, some slight advantage over other males, in their weapons, means of defense, or charms; and have transmitted these advantages to their male offspring.

Here we see another one of Darwin’s idea that begin to stew within his mind, a law in nature that takes into account of the male’s weapons, defense, and charms, a charm like a birds song, or like the peacock’s magnificent tail feathers.”

Daniel gave a furrow brow and then asked, “Why would a bird be sexually attracted to something over natural selection? I mean, do feathers of a peacock help a peacock to survive?”

Spencer then cut in and said, “This is where the psychology of sex come into effect, and here evolution gets dicey. The brain is the biggest sex organ, and beauty attracts all of nature’s animal kingdom, some of which may be symmetry, which subconsciously shows healthy genes. But as for the vast resources we spend to give quality to life, evolution doesn’t really tell. Sorry Albert, you may continue.”

Albert then tapped his pen on the table and said, “On the Origin of Species shined a bright light on much of nature, but the title was curious to many critics. People have been breeding dogs and horses for a very long time, but creating a new species, well, that was something entirely different. The critics pointed to the fact that they’ve never seen a new species created. And when donkeys are made, they are sterile. This, the critics thought, seemed to show nature’s reluctance for any new species.

Still, The Origin of Species, sold many copies, and had many great and some bad reviews. Then Darwin wrote The Descent of Man (1871), and that’s when the religious critics pushed back hard, because, they believed, man was unique in God’s eyes—unique in the whole animal kingdom—a  difference in kind rather than degree, but Darwin’s picture had proved them wrong with his long review of the genealogy of man. In his introduction to The Descent of Man, Darwin writes:

During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual selection has played an important part in differentiating the races of man; but in my ‘Origin of Species’ I contended myself by merely alluding to this belief. When I came to apply this view to man, I found it indispensable to treat the whole subject in full detail.[4]

              Sure, Darwin used natural selection as the means to sculpt the animal kingdom, but now sexual selection became a pillar of how mankind conducted his of her life, it became a game changer on the field of nature’s laws, even though natural selection was still there in the background, at the base evolution.

              Man still seems different, and all question how he became so. Man, for the masses, questioned how he accomplished all these achievements in knowledge, in conduct, and in governance, even in transcendence towards something higher as he reached up. How could all of this be explained in something so simple and repulsive as evolution, his critics asked. Darwin in this work attempts to show the first stage in which all of this is possible in chapter two:

              Man alone has become a biped; and we can, I think, partly see how he has come to assume his erect attitude, which forms one of his most conspicuous characters. Man could not have attained his present dominant position in the world without the use of his hands, which are so admirably adapted to act in obedience to his will. Sir C. Bell insists that ‘the hand supplies all instruments, and by its correspondence with the intellect gives him universal dominion.[5]

              Could this be the origin of man’s might of mind many asked. Surely, the use of his hands gives new possibilities for expression, of gestures, of maybe even for a greater clarity of expression for the natural language most of the animal kingdom use. This was the first shot fired from the bow. Many looked at this as an explanation, others flatly disagreed, but, regardless, it was an explanation that was well reasoned. But Darwin went on to reason further on the genealogy of man, digging deeper and deeper:

The small strength and speed of man, his want of natural weapons, &c., are more than counterbalanced, firstly, by his intellectual powers, through which he has formed for himself weapons, tools, &c., though still remaining in a barbarous state, and secondly, by his social qualities which lead him to give and receive aid from his fellow-men.[6]

              Darwin continues to shock and awe us further in Chapter III:

In all of the faculties of the human mind, it will, I presume, be admitted that Reason stands at the summit. Only a few persons now dispute that animals possess some power of reasoning. Animals may constantly be seen to pause, deliberate, and resolve. “Comparisons of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower animals” Chapter III

Here, we must admit that man’s reason is what drives him to supersede amongst the rest of the animal economy.

Spencer then replied, “Yes and no, Albert. There are other animals that can reason as well. There was a bright chimpanzee named Sultan who a German psychologist named Wolfgang Kohler (1887-1967) tested. Kohler was a man that helped create a division of psychology called Gestalt, a German word for pattern. I lament the fact that Sultan was kept in a cage, but let me continue. In a cage, Sultan was given a short pole with a banana that was just out of reach outside of his cage. He used the pole to finally attain the banana. Then he was given two poles and a banana was placed even further from his cage. He used the one pole to try and get the banana, but it was just too far away. Sultan then looked flustered and sat in his cage frustrated. Then, all of a sudden, it dawned on him to put the poles together and use the two poles to draw the banana towards his cage, and it worked! This showed that animals can problem solve using the instruments of reason, too. They, like us, are prewired with the instruments of reason that can be gathered together to work out problems. Gestalt psychology takes a top down approach and leaned on a lot of Kant’s philosophy.”

“Insightful example, Spencer. It always surprises me what other animals, and children are capable of.” Albert replied. “However, Darwin wouldn’t disagree with you. Darwin states that ‘[L]ower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree.’[7] My point was that it is man’s ability to reason is far greater than the rest of the animal kingdom. Still, Darwin actually agrees with this sentiment that you and Kohler share. In the next quote, Darwin talks about the difference between man and woman given natural selection:

We may conclude that the greater size, strength, courage, pugnacity, and energy of man, in comparison with woman, were acquired during the primeval times, and have subsequently been augmented, chiefly through the contests of rival males for the possession of the females. The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.[8]

Here natural selection is all pervasive, and sexual selection is secondary to it. But soon after this primeval stage, sexual selection will begin to blur the lines between natural selection and sexual selection.”

Frank started to comb his beard and said, “Here we should also note that Darwin is a man of his time in Victorian England, where women were placed as ornaments in society, and not as intellectuals. Today we know women’s intellectual and invention prowess is quite evenly matched as man’s. Regardless, Darwin’s ideas stand on their own two feet, like many great ideas, and should not be unsung just because of the vanity.”

              “Quite right, Frank,” Albert replied. “For the theory of evolution has become all pervasive, and to deny it would be anti-intellectualism. To support this, Darwin writes:

He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog—the construction of his skull, limbs and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the parts may be put—the occasional re-appearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which are common to the quadrumana—and a crowd of analogous facts—all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor.[9]

To not believe this, Darwin continues to writes that “[W]e’d have to believe that our own structure and animal kingdom around us is a snare to entrap our judgement.” That’s how conclusive the evidence is towards the parallels and other closely related other mammals are to man.

Spencer then cut in to say, “Darwin continues to write about the close structure we humans have to other ‘lower’ animals. However, they aren’t lower animals, they’ve just grown from a different line of struggle for existence and continuation of life. The progress is for ever greater survival, not ever greater intelligence and gentlemanly manners.”

“Yes, Spencer,” Albert replied. “You are right, but the struggle to survive is always pervasive, no matter the goal. The interesting bit is that now reason becomes a survival trait that man must quickly adapt with. But I want to make the point of the animal kingdom’s similarity between man and other animals. Here, Darwin, continues to talk in his conclusion of The Descent of Man the parallel between us and other mammals:

By considering the embryological structure of man,–the homologies which he presents with the lower animals,–the rudiments which he retains,–and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall in imagination the former condition of our early progenitors; and can approximately place them in their proper place in the zoological series. We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World.

Spencer then replied, “Yes, there is the difference in degree rather and kind, but what changes the game is in man’s evolution in language. First, there was natural language that almost the entire animal kingdom shares of body posture, smiles, and grimaces, but then, what supervenes atop natural language is an artificial language of words. This changed the game in evolution that made all the difference.”

Then Percy butt in and said, “Exactly, words make all the difference when creating a culture of knowledge, conduct, and governance, of laws that can govern mankind, and make him reflect on questions concerning what makes a human being a human being.”

“Yes,” Spencer replies, “But another great thinker, Stephen jay Gould, disagrees with your stance on how ‘culture’ influences mankind. In his critique between culture and Darwin, he writes:

The development of “culture”—defined as distinct and complex behavior originating in local populations and clearly passed by learning, rather than genetic predisposition—has persisted as a favored candidate for a “golden barrier” to separate humans from animals, but must now be rejected as well.[10]

Gould then points to how Chimpanzees have developed learning from other chimpanzees through observations and imitation. So, chimpanzees also have culture.”

              “Yes, Spencer,” Percy replied, “But there is a difference between the culture between chimpanzee culture and ancient Greek culture. The alphabet of man is the first step towards the examination of mankind itself. This is when man first started to look inward and upward to question what it is to be man, and to ask what life means. This is only capable with a robust language with analyticity in its characteristic with comprehensive syntax.”

Spencer replies by telling Percy, “In this crucial genealogical connection, the most mentally deficient among us is as fully human as Einstein.”

Frank then makes a puffing noise and replied, “As if the fat, protein and water of the gross brain mass tells us anything about the genius of Einstein.

“Frank,” Spencer adds, “Darwin isn’t belittling the profound effect of the acquisition of words for mankind.”

“The answer is yes and no, Darwin still has much to say about language, but he does compare brain mass with language” Albert replied. “Darwin, in his conclusion grapples with two of man’s complex devices—that of the genealogy of language and conscience:

A great stride in the development of the intellect will have followed, as soon as the half-art and half-instinct of language came into use; for the continued use of language will have reacted on the brain and produced an inherited effect; and this again will have reacted on the improvement of language. As Mr. Chauncey Wright has well remarked, the largeness of the brain in  man relatively to his body, compared with the lower animals, may be attributed in chief part to the early use of some simple form of language,–that wonderful engine which affixes signs to all sorts of objects and qualities, and excites trains of thought which would never arise from the mere impression of the senses, or if they did arise could not be followed out. The higher intellectual powers of man, such as those of ratiocination, abstraction, and self-consciousness, &c., probably follow from the continued improvement and exercise of the other mental faculties.

              The development of the moral qualities is a more interesting problem. The foundation lies in the social instincts, includes under this term the family ties. These instincts are highly complex, and in the case of the lower animals give special tendencies towards certain definite actions; but the more important elements are love, and the distinct emotion of sympathy. Animals endowed with the social instincts take pleasure in one another’s company, warn one another of dangers, defend and aid one another in many ways. These instincts do not extend to all the individuals of the species, but only to those of the same community. As they are highly beneficial to the species, they have in all probability been acquired through natural selection.

              A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives—of approving of some and disapproving of others; and the fact that man is the one being who certainly deserves this designation, is the greatest of all distinction between him and the lower animals. But in the fourth chapter I have endeavored to shew that the moral sense follows, firstly, from the enduring and ever-present nature of the social instincts; secondly, from man’s appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of his fellows; and thirdly, from the high activity of his mental faculties, with past impressions extremely vivid; and in these latter respects he differs from the lower animals. Owing to this condition of mind, man cannot avoid looking both backwards and forwards, and comparing past impressions. Hence after some temporary desire or passion has mastered his social instincts, he reflects and compares the now weakened impression of such past impulses with the ever-present social instinct; and he then feels that sense of dissatisfaction which all unsatisfied instincts leave behind them, he therefore resolves to act differently for the future,–and this is conscience.

              Frank then countered with, “Yes, but evolution is the survival of the fittest. Ergo, to apply morality, or abstract thought, or even the vast efforts and resources we apply into aesthetics that we humans continually see the world with and act on, evolution just seems to have this limitation in explanation.”   

“Exactly my point,” Percy said. “What does evolution have to say about the alphabet of man, of morality and love, of conscience and of beauty? The biggest question here left unsaid is, what does evolution have to say about what kind of being I am, what type of life I should life, should I govern or be governed?”

Spencer and Albert both sat back in their seats and took a deep breath, both with a wrinkled brow. They both wrestled with something to say, but were both left silent until one broke it.

“Frank, Percy,” Albert said, ”maybe evolution does have its limits, but it does have explanatory power… There is still one more question Darwin wrestles with—that all of humanity wrestles with—the question of God. Darwin here states his position on the existence of God:

The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinction between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand, a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.

              Henry then broke his long awaited silence, “Yes, Darwin can’t perceive the providence of an all knowing, all pervasive God in action. The stock reply to Darwin is Paley’s Argument for intelligent design. Here is his argument:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. The watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehend its construction, and design its use. … Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.”[11]

“Yes, Henry,” Albert replied, “But a biologist by the name of, Richard Dawkins, responds with moxie to this question of intelligent design:

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but he is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.”[12]

Frank then says, “So Dawkins is claiming design without a designer. A functional design, or teleology in the Greek, without a designer. Interesting he is using final causes without a designer being present in the first place.”

“Yes, Frank,” Albert replied. “Darwin gives us a Functional teleology without designer. Design, but without a providential designer. However, Darwin himself wrestles with this question when he corresponds with a fellow colleague and critic of his named Asa Gray, Darwin writes:

[I] have been interested by your theological remarks in the Review, but I must reconsider them. It has always seemed to me that for an Omnipotent and omniscient Creator to foresee is the same as to preordain; but then when I come to think over this I get into an uncomfortable puzzle something analogous with “necessity and Free-will” or the “Origin of evil”, or other such subject quite beyond the scope of the human intellect.

              But let us not get weighed down by this theological, or more critically debates that have nothing to do with his naturalist position in science,” Albert said, “Let’s get back to the basics about evolution and survival of the fittest, for here in this next passage, Darwin finally dives more into the laws of natures with natural selection and the two forms of sexual selection that supervene atop each other:

Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sec, in the relation for the propagation of the species; whilst natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life. The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners. This latter kind of selection is closely analogous to that which man unintentionally, yet effectively, brings to bear on his domesticated productions, when he preserves during a long period the most pleasing or useful individuals, without any wish to modify the breed. “General Summary and Conclusion” Chapter XXI.

              So finally we have natural selection as the driving force for which we exist, being the drive for both sexes to exist at all; then we have the primary type of sexual selection to drive away or kill other males; the secondary sexual selection is to excite the charms of females, with which the females are no longer passive, but actively choose which whom they want to select. Darwin goes no further than this.”

              “Nevertheless, modern day evolutionary psychology,” Spencer says, “Goes much further than this! The secondary sexual selection, for women, begin to dictate who they are more attracted to. Yes, a huge factor being the beauty the man, but also who is the greater provider plays a much larger role now. Women will often pick who can carry the heaviest load, who is the most intelligent, and who can give their children a worry-free life thanks to riches and, yes, even greed.

              “Yes, Spencer,” Albert replied, “That does seem to be the case under certain circumstances, that those who have a better advantage, to be more specific, a higher social rank, are those who are more likely to reproduce. It would seem that Capitalism would give the advantage to those with whom have have most money, who often have the vice of greed, where ‘might makes right’ is the code to survive in the higher social rank. However, Darwin himself talks about the great evil of poverty—here in his own words:

              The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: All ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage.  On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. “General Summary and Conclusion” Chapter XXI

Here Darwin and Mr. Galton rank the ‘inferior and the better members’ of society based on social rank and wealth. He labels poverty itself as a great evil. However, the seeds of social Darwinism is already sowed. Gentlemen,” Spencer said, “It is a great moral evil that the leading reason for abortions is poverty. It disgusts me that this capitalistic society puts the youngest, healthiest women in a position that forces them into getting an abortion, for if they didn’t get an abortion, how would they afford to pay even the birth of their child? How would they afford healthcare, how would they afford everything a child’s needs to flourish in this world? It disgusts me how ugly the system works against women when they’re the healthiest to have the them—and are forced to have an abortion because of this degenerate social system, which the majority find themselves in.” Spencer then pounded the table and said, “It’s unjust, uncivilized, and anti-life!”

I could tell all the men around the table nod in disagreement with social darwinism. Then Albert replied, “Climbing the social ladder is often done unjustly. What one’s career was often was determined with what career their father had before them. So, it did have the seed of fatalism worked within it. You are right, Spencer. It doesn’t sit well with me either. But the cards fall where they fall. Sadly, morality doesn’t fit into the neat, evolutionary picture.”

              “No it doesn’t, friend.” Frank said, and took a deep breath to center himself, “Evolutionary thought now pervades the sciences, it explains Thucydides’ work, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and even the storm and stress of Goethe’s The Sorrow’s of Young Werther. Progress at the expense of struggle for surviving is the cost for continual life.”

              A quiet grew as all eyes turned to Daedalus, and all gave a heavy sigh as they all knew that they were all together in this, or, otherwise, all suffer together.

              The next day Daedalus and Nausica went to the zoo and explored every part of the animal kingdom, but when he saw the chimpanzee exhibit, he sat and watched, but something in his subconscious disturbed him. He couldn’t explain it until a chimpanzee came next to the glass and reached a hand out that touched it. Daedalus then put his hand where the chimpanzee had put hers. It then looked deeply into Daedalus’ eyes and stared through him. He saw pity in the Chimpanzee’s eyes, and Daedalus then wondered which side of the glass he was on… The shackles of society, his place, his birth, his taxes, his work, his car, his rent, his education, his religion, his political position, and his social rank—and even the freedoms he could afford. The reality of the situation dawned on him as he realized they were both in cages. It brought a chill over his body that he felt for a couple minutes as he looked at the goosebumps his arm was showing. He felt as though he was a stranger in a strange place, where animals were forced to live in tiny boxes for the amusement of people walking by, while the habitat of their true birth was deforested and destroyed by man. He then jerked his arm away because of the shame he felt, he discovered, when he paid for his ticket, which meant he was complacent with this circus mankind created to humor other humans. A tear came to his eye as he looked at Nausica. Nausica, so intuitive to Daedalus’ emotions, embraced him, and the two left. That night they slept in the same bed, embracing each other for warmth.

---

[1] Darwin, Charles. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Ed. Francis Darwin. 1887.

[2] Darwin, Charles. “Natural Selection.” The Origin of Species. Francis Darwin. 1859.

[3] Darwin, Charles. “Sexual Selection” On the Origin of Species. 1859.

[4] Darwin, Charles. “Introduction” The Descent of Man. 1871.

[5] Darwin, Charles. “Natural Selection” The Descent of Man. 1871.

[6] Darwin, Charles. “Chapter II: Conclusion” The Descent of Man. 1871

[7] Darwin, Charles. “Chapter VI, On the Attributes and genealogy of Man.” The Descent of Man. 1871.

[8] Darwin, Charles. “Chapter XX, Summary” The Descent of Man. 1871

[9] Darwin Charles. “Chapter XXI, General Summary and Conclusion” The Descent of Man. 1871

[10] Gould, Stephen Jay. “The Human Difference” The New York Times, July 2nd, 1999.

[11] Paley, William. Natural Theology. London: J. Faulder. 1802

[12] Dawkins, Richard. Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York, 1987.