FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   255   256   >>   >|  
upernatural design. Now, if adaptations were caused by natural selection, we can very well understand why they should never be homologous in different lines of descent, even in cases where they have been brought to be so closely analogous as to have deceived so good a naturalist as Mr. Mivart. Indeed, as I have already observed, so well can we understand this, that any single instance to the contrary would be sufficient to destroy the theory of natural selection _in toto_, unless the structure be one of a very simple type. But on the other hand, it is impossible to suggest any rational explanation why, if all adaptations are due to supernatural design, such scrupulous care should have been taken never to allow homologous adaptations to occur in different divisions of the animal or vegetable kingdoms. Why, for instance, should the eye of a cuttle-fish _not_ have been constructed on the same ideal pattern as that of vertebrate? Or why, among the thousands of vertebrated species, should no one of their eyes be constructed on the ideal pattern that was devised for the cuttle-fish? Of course it may be answered that perhaps there was some hidden reason why the design should never have allowed an adaptation which it had devised for one division of organic nature to appear in another--even in cases where the new design necessitated the closest possible resemblance in everything else, save in the matter of anatomical homology. Undoubtedly such may have been the case--or rather such _must_ have been the case--if the theory of special design is true. But where the question is as to the truth of this theory, I think there can be no doubt that its rival gains an enormous advantage by being able to _explain_ why the facts are such as they are instead of being obliged to take refuge in hypothetical possibilities of a confessedly unsubstantiated and apparently unsubstantial kind. Therefore, as far as this objection to the theory of natural selection is concerned--or the allegation that homologous structures occur in different divisions of organic nature--not only does it fall to the ground, but positively becomes itself converted into one of the strongest arguments in favour of the theory. As soon as the allegation is found to be baseless, the very fact that it cannot be brought to bear upon any one of all the millions of adaptive structures in organic nature becomes a fact of vast significance on the opposite side. * *
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   255   256   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

design

 

theory

 
adaptations
 

natural

 

selection

 

nature

 

organic

 
homologous
 

brought

 

allegation


devised

 

divisions

 

structures

 
pattern
 
constructed
 

understand

 

cuttle

 
instance
 

advantage

 

obliged


explain
 

homology

 
Undoubtedly
 

anatomical

 

matter

 

special

 

question

 

enormous

 

converted

 
significance

ground

 

positively

 

strongest

 
arguments
 

baseless

 
favour
 
millions
 

apparently

 

unsubstantial

 
unsubstantiated

confessedly

 
refuge
 
hypothetical
 

possibilities

 

Therefore

 

resemblance

 

opposite

 
concerned
 
adaptive
 

objection