| ↑ 1 blocks not present in 1859 1860 1861 1866; present in 1869 1872 |
| Science
has not as yet proved the truth of this
belief, whatever the future may reveal.
|
|
| → includes no necessary and universal law of advancement or 1861 1866 |
| or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily include progressive 1869 1872 |
|
| → great existing differences in the 1861 1866 |
| different 1869 1872 |
|
| → which occur within almost every 1861 1866 |
| within each 1869 |
| within the same 1872 |
|
| → co-existence 1861 1866 |
| vertebrata, to the co-existence 1869 1872 |
|
| → fish in the vertebrata,— 1861 1866 |
| fish— amongst mammalia, 1869 1872 |
|
|
more highly developed than others? Why have not the more highly developed forms everywhere supplanted and exterminated the lower? Lamarck, who believed in an innate and inevitable tendency towards perfection in all organic beings, seems to have felt this difficulty so strongly, that he was led to suppose that new and simple forms
continually being produced by spontaneous generation. I need hardly say that Science in her present state does not countenance the belief that living creatures are now ever produced from inorganic matter. ↑
On
theory the
existence of lowly
offers no difficulty; for natural
→includes no necessary and universal law of advancement or
development— it only takes advantage of such variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its complex relations of life. And it may be asked what advantage, as far as we can see, would it be to an infusorian animalcule— to an intestinal worm— or even to an earth-worm, to be highly
If it were no advantage, these forms would be
by natural
unimproved or but little
and might remain for indefinite ages in their present
condition. And geology tells us that some of the lowest forms, as the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous period in nearly their present state. But to suppose that most of the many now existing low forms have not in the least advanced since the first dawn of life would be
for every naturalist who has dissected some of the beings now ranked as very low in the scale, must have been struck with their really wondrous and beautiful organisation. |
|
| Nearly the same remarks are applicable if we look to the
→great existing differences in the
grades of organisation
→which occur within almost every
great group; for instance,
the
→co-existence
of mammals and
→fish in the vertebrata,—
|
