Criticisms of Theory of Natural Selection. 363 



of emphasis, by the Duke of Argyll, Mr. Mivart, Pro- 

 fessors Nageli, Bronn, Broca, Eimer, and, indeed, by all 

 other writers who have hitherto advanced it. For, as 

 thus presented, I think I have shown that it admits of 

 being adequately met. But now, I must confess, to me 

 individually it does appear that behind this erroneous 

 presentation of the difficulty there lies another question, 

 which is deserving of much more serious attention. 

 For although it admits of being easily shown — as I have 

 just shown — that the difficulty as ordinarily presented 

 fails on account of its extravagance, the question 

 remains whether, if stated with more moderation, a 

 real difficulty might not be found to remain. 



My quarrel with the conclusion, like my quarrel 

 with the premiss, is due to its universality. By say- 

 ing in the premiss that all incipient organs are neces- 

 sarily useless at the time of their inception, these 

 writers admit of being controverted by fact ; and by 

 saying in the conclusion that, if all incipient organs 

 are useless, it necessarily follows that in no case can 

 natural selection have been the cause of building up 

 an organ until it becomes useful, they admit of being 

 controverted by logic. For, even if the premiss were 

 true in fact — namely, that all incipient organs are use- 

 less at the time of their inception, — it would not 

 necessarily follow that in no case could natural selec- 

 tion build up a useless structure into a useful one ; 

 because, although it is true that in no case can natural 

 selection do this by acting on a useless structure 

 directly, it may do so by acting on the useless struc- 

 ture indirectly, through its direct action on some other 

 part of the organism with which the useless structure 

 happens to be correlated. Moreover, as I believe, and 



