346 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



suggestive of "improvement" to our imperfect 

 means of judging. Lastly, not to continue citing 

 an endless number of such considerations, there is 

 the broad fact that it is only to those cases where, 

 for some reason or another, the lower forms have 

 not been exposed to a struggle of fatal intensity, that 

 the objection applies. But we know that in millions 

 of other cases the lower (i.e. less fitted) forms have 

 succumbed, and therefore I do not see that the ob- 

 jection has any ground to stand upon. That there is 

 a general tendency for lower forms to yield their 

 places to higher is shown by the gradual advance of 

 organization throughout geological time ; for if all the 

 inferior forms had survived, the earth could not have 

 contained them, unless she had been continually 

 growing into something like the size of Jupiter. 

 And if it be asked why any of the inferior forms 

 have survived, the answer has already been given, 

 as above. 



There is only one other remark to be made in this 

 connexion. Mr. Syme chooses two cases as illus- 

 trations of the supposed difficulty. These are suf- 

 ficiently diverse viz. Foraminifera and Man. Touch- 

 ing the former, there is notLing 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 man- 

 kind 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. Con- 

 sequently, in regard to the present objection, the 



