XV VARIATION AND EVOLUTION 175 



some definite use to the individual. Otherwise it 

 could not have developed through the action of 

 natural selection. But there are plenty of characters 

 to which it is exceedingly difficult to ascribe any 

 utility, and the ingenuity of the supporters of this 

 view has often been severely taxed to account for 

 their existence. On the more modern view this 

 difficulty is avoided. The origin of a new variation 

 is independent of natural selection, and provided 

 that it is not directly harmful there is no reason 

 why it should not persist. In this way we are 

 released from the burden of discovering a utilitarian 

 motive behind all the multitudinous characters of 

 living organisms. For we now recognise that the 

 function of natural selection is selection, and not 

 creation. It has nothing to do with the formation 

 of the new variation. It merely decides whether it 

 is to survive or to be eliminated. 



One of the arguments made use of by supporters 

 of the older view is that drawn from the study of 

 adaptation. Animals and plants are as a rule re- 

 markably well adapted to living the life which their 

 surroundings impose upon them, and in some cases 

 this adaptation is exceedingly striking. EspecialK- 

 is this so in the many instances of what is called 

 protective coloration, where the animal comes to 

 resemble its surroundings so closely that it may 

 reasonably be supposed to cheat even the keenest- 

 sighted enemy. Surely, we are told, such perfect 

 adaptation could hardly have arisen through the 

 mere survival of chance sports. Surely there must 

 be some guiding hand moulding the species into the 

 required shape. The argument is an old one. For 



