﻿328 
  ADAPTIVENESS 
  AND 
  PURPOSIVENESS 
  

  

  fore 
  a 
  variation 
  may 
  have 
  a 
  prospective 
  value. 
  Moreover, 
  

   the 
  external 
  systematisation 
  which 
  forms 
  the 
  sieve 
  is 
  the 
  

   embodiment 
  of 
  the 
  results 
  of 
  ages 
  of 
  sifting. 
  Therefore 
  for- 
  

   tuitousness 
  dwindles 
  away. 
  Sir 
  Ray 
  Lankester 
  is 
  inaccurate 
  

   in 
  speaking 
  of 
  evolution 
  as 
  a 
  " 
  chapter 
  of 
  accidents 
  ". 
  

  

  (4) 
  Again, 
  we 
  must 
  bear 
  in 
  mind 
  that 
  in 
  addition 
  to 
  

   varying, 
  organisms 
  often 
  take 
  an 
  active 
  part 
  in 
  their 
  own 
  

   evolution. 
  They 
  are 
  anything 
  but 
  passive 
  in 
  a 
  game 
  Fate 
  

   plays. 
  They 
  may 
  select 
  the 
  environment 
  that 
  suits 
  them, 
  

   and 
  play 
  the 
  cards 
  with 
  which 
  variability 
  supplies 
  them. 
  

   And 
  this 
  is 
  not 
  automatic. 
  If 
  a 
  change 
  in 
  instinctive 
  be- 
  

   haviour 
  (e.g., 
  that 
  exhibited 
  in 
  fashioning 
  a 
  wasp's 
  nest) 
  

   be 
  the 
  outcrop 
  of 
  a 
  germinal 
  mutation, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  likely 
  to 
  

   persist 
  unless 
  it 
  is 
  congruent 
  with 
  the 
  previously 
  established 
  

   routine, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  likely 
  to 
  come 
  to 
  stay 
  unless 
  it 
  pass 
  

   muster 
  in 
  the 
  individual 
  apprenticeship 
  when 
  novelties 
  are 
  

   tested, 
  an 
  apprenticeship 
  in 
  which, 
  according 
  to 
  some 
  care- 
  

   ful 
  students 
  of 
  behaviour, 
  the 
  slender 
  rill 
  of 
  intelligence 
  

   is 
  sometimes 
  to 
  be 
  detected 
  even 
  in 
  those 
  creatures 
  most 
  

   thoroughly 
  dominated 
  by 
  instinctive 
  equipment. 
  

  

  We 
  see, 
  then, 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  legitimate 
  to 
  say 
  that 
  a 
  mecha- 
  

   nistic 
  description 
  has 
  been 
  given 
  of 
  the 
  establishment 
  of 
  

   adaptations, 
  or 
  even 
  to 
  say, 
  without 
  qualification, 
  that 
  they 
  

   have 
  been 
  turned 
  out 
  automatically 
  in 
  the 
  workshop 
  of 
  Na- 
  

   ture. 
  Darwin's 
  comparison 
  of 
  the 
  process 
  to 
  the 
  work 
  of 
  

   the 
  wind 
  expressed 
  an 
  error 
  of 
  judgment, 
  for 
  the 
  blowing 
  

   of 
  the 
  wind 
  is 
  altogether 
  mechanically 
  necessitated, 
  and 
  we 
  

   cannot 
  admit 
  that 
  this 
  is 
  true 
  of 
  organic 
  evolution 
  where 
  

   individuality 
  exists 
  and 
  counts. 
  

  

  But 
  let 
  us 
  suppose 
  that 
  we 
  have 
  made 
  some 
  mistake 
  in 
  

   cur 
  argument, 
  and 
  that 
  evolution 
  is 
  more, 
  not 
  less, 
  automatic 
  

   than 
  Darwin 
  believed. 
  What 
  then? 
  We 
  look 
  with 
  great 
  

  

  