160 SPECIES NOT 



annihilate my theory, for such could not have 

 been produced through natural selection." (Page 

 201.) 



To a person helieving such a doctrine as that 

 of natural selection, it is very difficult to put a 

 case, for he has so many ways of wriggling out of 

 the difficulty, that the chances are against you. 

 If instead of one organ. I prove that <tU 

 the organs of an animal have been formed for 

 the good of another, I may be met by the re- 

 joinderthe terms of my proposition are not 

 complied with. But I still contend that if the 

 argument is good for one, it must, a fortiori, be 

 good for all. Mr. Darwin must admit that 

 there are animals in vast numbers who live upon 

 peculiar kinds of food, and nothing else. If they 

 had not this food they would die. The carnivora, 

 for instance, live entirely upon the bodies of other 

 animals, to catch which they are provided with 

 adequate means, to eat which they are provided 

 with a special masticatory apparatus, and to digest 

 which their organs are peculiarly formed. Now 

 it would be impossible to argue that it is for 

 the good of an animal that it should be destroyed 

 and eaten by others. Yet, according to Mr. 

 Darwin's theory, these animals must have been 

 altered and modified from the form of their an- 

 cestors by "natural selection." Every modification 

 of their structure which would have given them 

 a better means of escape, would have acted inju- 

 riously, even to the extermination of the dominant 

 species which fed upon them. And yet it would 



