THE OEIGIN OP MAN 31 



scientist " announced that he had communicated with 

 the spirit of a dog and learned from the dog that it 

 was happy. Must we believe this, too ? 



But is the law of " natural selection " a sufficient 

 explanation, or a more satisfactory explanation, than 

 sexual selection ? It is based on the theory that where 

 there is an advantage in any characteristic, animals 

 that possess this characteristic survive and propagate 

 their kind. This, according to Darwin's argument, 

 leads to progress through the " survival of the fittest.'* 

 This law or principle (natural selection), so carefully 

 worked out by Darwin, is being given less and less 

 weight by scientists. Darwin himself admits that he 

 " perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural 

 selection and the survival of the fittest" (page 76). 

 John Burroughs, the naturalist, rejects it in a recent 

 magazine article. The followers of Darwin are trying 

 to retain evolution while rejecting the arguments that 

 led Darwin to accept it as an explanation of the varied 

 life on the planet. Some evolutionists reject Darwin's 

 line of descent and believe that man, instead of coming 

 from the ape, branched off from a common ancestor 

 farther back, but " cousin " ape is as objectionable as 

 " grandpa " ape. 



While " survival of the fittest " may seem plausible 

 when applied to individuals of the same species, it af- 

 fords no explanation whatever, of the almost infinite 

 number of creatures that have come under man's ob- 

 servation. To believe that natural selection, sexual 

 selection or any other kind of selection can account for 

 the countless differences we see about us requires more 



