266 SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE ORGANISM 



transforming effects of fluctuating variability, in connection 

 with selective principles, are possible in the case of new 

 quantitative differences (in the widest sense), but we are 

 not entitled to say so at present. 



And this is the only condition on which we can give 

 credit to the second doctrine of dogmatic Darwinism. Its 

 second principle, indeed, proves to be absolutely inadequate 

 to explain the origin of any other kind of specific properties 

 whatever. 



I cannot enter here into the whole subject of Darwinian 

 criticism. 1 Our aims are of a positive character, they 

 desiderate construction and only use destruction where it 

 is not to be avoided. So I shall only mention that 

 dogmatic Darwinism has been found to be unable to 

 explain every kind of mutual adaptations, e.g. those exist- 

 ing between plants and insects ; that it can never account 

 for the origin of those properties that are indifferent to the 

 life of their bearer, being mere features of organisation as 

 an arrangement of parts ; that it fails in the face of all 

 portions of organisation which are composed of many 

 different parts like the eye and nevertheless are 

 functional units in any passive or active way ; and that, last 

 not least, it has been found to be quite inadequate to 

 explain the first origin of all newly formed constituents of 

 organisation even if they are not indifferent : for how 

 could any rudiment of an organ, which is not functioning 

 at all, not only be useful to its bearer, but be useful in 

 such a degree as to decide about life or death ? 



1 See Wigand, Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschuny Newton s und 

 Cuvier's, Braunschweig, 1874-7 ; Nageli, Mechanisch-physiologische Theorie 

 der Abstammungslehre, Miinchen, 1884 ; G. Wolff, Beitrdge zur Kritik der 

 Darwin' schen Lehre, 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1898 ; etc. 



