FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229  
230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   >>   >|  
e _Modification of Organisms_, p. 46. There is only one other remark to be made in this connexion. Mr. Syme chooses two cases as illustrations of the supposed difficulty. These are sufficiently diverse--viz. Foraminifera and Man. Touching the former, there is nothing that need be added to the general answer just given. But with regard to the latter it must be observed that the dominion of natural selection as between different races of mankind is greatly restricted by the presence of rationality. Competition in the human species is more concerned with wits and ideas than with nails and teeth; and therefore the "struggle" between man and man is not so much for actual _being_, as for _well-being_. Consequently, in regard to the present objection, the human species furnishes the worst example that could have been chosen. * * * * * Hitherto I have been considering objections which arise from misapprehensions of Darwin's theory. I will now go on to consider a logically sound objection, which nevertheless is equally futile, because, although it does not depend on any misapprehension of the theory, it is not itself supported by fact. The objection is the same as that which we have already considered in relation to the general theory of descent--namely, that similar organs or structures are to be met with in widely different branches of the tree of life. Now this would be an objection fatal to the theory of natural selection, supposing these organs or structures in the cases compared are not merely analogous, but also homologous. For it would be incredible that in two totally different lines of descent one and the same structure should have been built up independently by two parallel series of variations, and that in these two lines of descent it should always and independently have ministered to the same function. On the other hand, there would be nothing against the theory of natural selection in the fact that two structures, _not_ homologous, should come by independent variation in two different lines of descent to be adapted to perform the same function. For it belongs to the very essence of the theory of natural selection that a useful function should be secured by favourable variations of whatever structural material may happen to be presented by different organic types. Flying, for instance, is a very useful function, and it has been developed independently in at least four differen
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229  
230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

theory

 

objection

 
selection
 

natural

 

descent

 

function

 

independently

 
structures
 

regard

 

organs


species

 

homologous

 

variations

 
general
 
depend
 

supposing

 

misapprehension

 
supported
 

widely

 

relation


compared
 

similar

 
differen
 

considered

 

branches

 

structure

 

belongs

 

instance

 

essence

 
perform

adapted

 

independent

 

variation

 
secured
 

favourable

 
presented
 
organic
 

Flying

 

happen

 
structural

material

 
totally
 
incredible
 

analogous

 

developed

 

ministered

 

parallel

 
series
 
objections
 

answer