Criticisms of Theory of Natural Selection. 341 



I will now pass on to consider another miscon- 

 ception of the Darwinian theory, which is very 

 prevalent in the public mind. It is virtually asked, 

 If some species are supposed to have been improved 

 by natural selection, why have not all species been 

 similarly improved ? Why should not all inverte- 



nnderstandings. One of the latter it is necessary to state, because it 

 pervades the quotation which I am about to supply. He everywhere 

 compares "natural selection" with "the struggle for existence," uses 

 them as convertible terms, and while absurdly stating that " Darwin 

 defines natural selection as the struggle for existence," complains of 

 " the liability of error, both on his own part and on the part of his 

 readers," wliich arises from his not having everywhere adhered to this 

 definition ! (p. 8). 



" Darwin has put forth two distinct and contradictory theories of the 

 functions of natural selection. According to the one theory natural 

 selection is selective or preservative, and nothing more. According to 

 the other theory natural selection creates the variations (!)... It cer- 

 tainly seems absurd to speak of natural selection, or the struggle for 

 existence, as selective or preservative, for the struggle for existence 

 does not preserve at all, not even the fit variations, as both the fit 

 and the unfit struggle for existence, the unfit naturally more than the 

 fit, and the fit are preserved, not in consequence of the struggle, but in 

 consequence of their fitness. Suppose two varieties of the same species 

 are driven, by an increase of their numbers, to seek for subsistence in a 

 colder region than they have been accustomed to, and that one of these 

 varieties had a hardier constitution than the other ; and let us suppose 

 that the fermer withstood the severe climate better than the latter, and 

 consequently survived, while the other perished. In this case the hardier 

 survived, not because of the stru;jgle, but because it had a constitution 

 better adapted to the climate. I wish to ascertain if a certain metal in 

 my possession is gold or some baser metal, and I apply the usual lest ; 

 but the mere fact of my testing this metal would not make it gold or any 

 other kind of metal." 



I have thought it worth while to quote this passage for the sake of 

 showing the extraordinary contusion of mind which still prevails on the 

 part of Darwin's critics, even with reference to the very fundamental 

 parts of his theory. For, as I have said, the writer of this passage shows 

 himself a shrewd critic in some other parts of Ins essay, where he is not 

 engaged especially on the theory ot natural selection. 



