« PreviousContinue »
were made to see with, then seeing must have existed before eyes; and if seeing existed before eyes, what could be the use of eyes ? And if seeing did not exist before eyes, how could eyes be made for that which is not-in other words, for nothing ? Clearly, then, eyes were not made to see with. In some of the philosophical speculations of the nineteenth century there is often a great flavour of this hypothetical reasoning of Lucretius.
We cannot help being driven to the cor.clusion respecting Mr. Darwin's theory, that, as it is now presented to us, though worked out with wonderful ingenuity and with almost boundless resources of knowledge, it is very far
He cannot bring forward one single case of the transmutation of species. After all the experiments he has made on pigeons, by careful selection and breeding a pigeon is a pigeon still. And there is no doubt that, in common with other domestic animals, if these pigeons were turned back again to their wild state, they would have no power to transmit the bias they have received from careful selection and breeding, and that in a few generations their progeny would revert to their own original form. There is a special provision for the protection of some animals which Natural Selection cannot by any means account for, and which seems to annul the idea of primitive community of species. We allude to the several forms of bodily apparatus which some animals possess, such as electric fishes, the poison of serpents, and also those curious cases of mimicry in insects, noticed by Mr. Mivart in his admirable book, “ The Genesis of Species.”
So far as we have the evidence of facts, it does not
support the hypothesis of indefinite variability; for there seems to be a certain limit in which the production of certain degrees of abnormality in individuals, when once attained, cannot be further increased; and this is shown, perhaps, in the distinction between species and race. The former, observes Professor De Quaterfrages, is the proper recognition of original organic differences; the latter marks merely the minor differences which have arisen under different circumstances of development, and which can be resolved back again into the original type. For instance, the wild turkey of North America, of deep brown, iridescent colour, is the parent of all the varied. types of the domestic breed, both in Europe and America. When released from the influence of domestication, and turned into the forest, this bird reverts to its original type. The different breeds of turkeys, then, constitute examples of races. Species embraces all the different races. Dif. ferent species are separated by fundamental differences of constitution, which render their copulative union infertile, except in a few isolated cases - such as the horse and the ass and a few others; but in all cases the hybrid are incapable of reproduction. Races, on the contrary, thrive by crossing, not only producing by their unions higher organisms, but also developing a higher reproductive power. Fertility, then, is the law of union between races; infertility marks unions between species.
Professor Huxley, though an ardent supporter of the theory of Evolution, says : "After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the
characters exhibited by species in Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural.”
Agassiz says also, “Had Mr. Darwin or his followers furnished a single fact to show that individuals change in the course of time, in such a manner as to produce at last species different from those known before, the state of the case might be different. But it stands recorded now, as before, that the animals known to the ancients are still in existence, exhibiting to this day the characters they exhibited of old. Until the facts of nature are shown to have been mistaken by those who have collected them, and that they have a different meaning from that now generally assigned to them, I shall therefore consider the transmutation theory as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its methods, and mischievous in its tendency."
But granting the principle of Natural Selection to be true, that species undergo advantageous modifications during a long course of descent, may not these which are called accidental causes be under the direction of an allprovident mind? Is it not reasonable to suppose that in natural, as well as in artificial selection, there is choice and guidance ? Man in his selection chooses two factors, both of them possessing the characteristic features he wants to obtain. Must there not be some design, or provision in nature, which gives similar results to those obtained only by man's thoughtful and well directed industry through domestication, “and which," as Mr. Darwin says, “works solely by and for the good of each being ?” Mr. Darwin denies this special guidance, for he says, “No shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that the variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork, through Natural Selection, of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided." We cannot so far follow Mr. Darwin, nor understand why his theory should banish the principle of finality, or that it should be used by most of his followers as a peremptory argument against final causes. Nor can we see that it is logically inconsistent with the views held by the majority of teleologists. Since the publication of his views upon Natural Selection, Mr. Darwin has grown bolder, and as his theory has now, he says, made good its claims to acceptance, he no longer hesitates to push it to its final conclusion. That conclusion is clear and definite. It is, that “Man, the wonder and glory of the universe,” is, to use his own words, "descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World. This creature, if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have been classed amongst the Quadrumana, as surely as would the common and still more ancient progenitor of the Old and New World monkeys. The Quadrumana and all the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal, and this through a long line of diversified forms, either from some reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of the past we can see that the early progenitor of all the vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiæ, with the two sexes united in the same
individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and heart) imperfectly developed. This animal seems to have been more like the larvæ of our existing marine ascidians than any other known form.”
Here we have, indeed, a long line of descent for man; and had one of our late proud and aristocratic dukes lived in the present age, he would not in the conceit of his rank and long line of forefathers have declared that “he sincerely pitied Adam because he had no ancestors," and the grand old gardener and his wife might, indeed, in the words of a modern poet, “smile at the claims of long descent"-a descent which, Mr.
“man ought not to be ashamed of.” As it may be interesting to know something about our early progenitors, we will give Mr. Darwin's account of these ascidians.
“ The ascidians are marine creatures permanently attached to a support. They hardly appear like animals, and consist of a simple tough leathery sac, with two small projecting orifices. They have recently been placed by some naturalists amongst the Vermes,
Their larvæ somewhat resemble tadpoles in shape, and have the power of swimming freely about.”
There is a remarkable and unique fact respecting these ascidians. It is that they possess a heart which, after having beat a certain number of times, stops, and then beats the opposite way, so as to reverse the course of the current, which returns by-and-bye to its original direction.
“ The GREATEST difficulty,” says Mr. Darwin, “which presents itself, when we driven to the above