Criticisms of Theory of hi atural Seleciion. 3 5 1 



are then useless, though afterwards, when more fully 

 developed, they become useful. For it belongs to 

 the very essence of the theory of natural selection, 

 that a structure must be supposed already useful 

 before it can come under the influence of natural 

 selection : therefore the theory seems incapable of 

 explaining the origin and conservation of incipicut 

 organs, or organs which are not yet sufficiently 

 developed to be of any service to the organisms 

 presenting them. 



This objection is one that has been advanced by 

 all the critics of Darwinism ; but has been presented 

 with most ability and force by the Duke of Argyll. I 

 will therefore state it in his words. 



If the doctrine of evolution be true — that is to say, if all 

 organic creatures have been developed by ordinary generation 

 from parents — then it follows of necessity that the primaeval 

 germs must have contained potentially the whole succeeding 

 series. Moreover, if that series has been developed gradually 

 and very slowly, it follows, also as a matter of necessity, that 

 eveiy modification of structure must have been functionless at 

 first, when it began to appear. . . . Things cannot be selected 

 until they have first been produced. Nor can any structure 

 be selected by utility in the struggle for existence until it has 

 not only been produced, but has been so far perfected as to 

 actually be used. 



The Duke proceeds to argue that all adaptive 

 structures must therefore originally have been due 

 to special design : in the earlier stages of their develop- 

 ment they must all have been what he calls ''pro- 

 phetic germs." Not yet themselves of any use, 

 and therefore not yet capable of being improved by 

 natural selection, both in their origin and in the first 

 stages (at all events) of their development, they must 



