271

must be due to the development of new positive characters

which distinguish it from other species ; the action of nature

can be but that of a pruning knife applied to the sprouting

tree of organic life.

This, of course, Darwin well knew, and he never for a

moment pretended (as some of his opponents have very

unjustly and foolishly represented that he did pretend) that

(; Natural Selection " could account for, or produce, the

variations upon the occurrence of which the origin of every

new species must absolutely depend.

But Mr. Darwin was most exceptionally fortunate in the

character of his hypothesis, for it was of such a nature as

to be almost incapable of disproof. Having taken up the

position that every characteristic of a species exists through

its utility to that species, and that it may be assumed to have

so originated unless proof to the contrary can be given, his

opponent was thereby reduced to sore straits indeed, and it

would be similar even if we knew, from some infallible source,

that the hypothesis was a false one.

For its opponent would have to show that minute, hap-

hazard variations in all directions in all the organs of every

species, were impossible or did not take place ; he would also

have to show that there were structures or functions possessed

by some species which were not only of no use to it now,

but could never have been of any use to any of its ancestors

at any period of the world's history, or, under any possible

conditions, no use to even any hypothetical ancestor which an

advocate of " Natural Selection " can suggest may have

existed under conditions widely divergent from those which

form the present environment of the species in question.

A disciple of Mr. Darwin can also always say : " It is very

true that this or that character could not have been produced

by " Natural Selection " directly, but it may have been

produced by it indirectly, for you cannot deny that it may

must be due to the development of new positive characters

which distinguish it from other species ; the action of nature

can be but that of a pruning knife applied to the sprouting

tree of organic life.

This, of course, Darwin well knew, and he never for a

moment pretended (as some of his opponents have very

unjustly and foolishly represented that he did pretend) that

(; Natural Selection " could account for, or produce, the

variations upon the occurrence of which the origin of every

new species must absolutely depend.

But Mr. Darwin was most exceptionally fortunate in the

character of his hypothesis, for it was of such a nature as

to be almost incapable of disproof. Having taken up the

position that every characteristic of a species exists through

its utility to that species, and that it may be assumed to have

so originated unless proof to the contrary can be given, his

opponent was thereby reduced to sore straits indeed, and it

would be similar even if we knew, from some infallible source,

that the hypothesis was a false one.

For its opponent would have to show that minute, hap-

hazard variations in all directions in all the organs of every

species, were impossible or did not take place ; he would also

have to show that there were structures or functions possessed

by some species which were not only of no use to it now,

but could never have been of any use to any of its ancestors

at any period of the world's history, or, under any possible

conditions, no use to even any hypothetical ancestor which an

advocate of " Natural Selection " can suggest may have

existed under conditions widely divergent from those which

form the present environment of the species in question.

A disciple of Mr. Darwin can also always say : " It is very

true that this or that character could not have been produced

by " Natural Selection " directly, but it may have been

produced by it indirectly, for you cannot deny that it may