DISCUSSION 151 



only to the normal and average circumstances 

 of organisms. 



We now come to the evidence tending to show 

 that organisms are not well adapted. 1 



Pathologists have, according to von Hansemann, 

 the best right to be heard here, for we constantly 

 light upon instances of defective adaptation, 

 especially in men ; for instance the teeth, which cause 

 pain when they are cut, when they are changed, and 

 when they decay. Elephants and rodents are much 

 better equipped in this respect, for their teeth are 

 constantly growing ; and tortoises are better off still, 

 for they possess a horny substance which takes the 

 place of teeth, whilst granivorous birds have a 

 gizzard. The human teeth are therefore a clumsy 

 arrangement. Would not the Professor nevertheless 

 regret it, if he had no teeth ? They certainly 

 answer their purpose, though perhaps not in such 

 a way that no better method could be imagined. 



Further, the methods of reproduction among 

 mammals are, according to von Hansemann, al 

 together inexpedient an arbitrary assertion, which 

 he has not proved to be true. He derives his chief 

 argument for the absence of expediency from 

 pathology, which he regards as consisting of a chain 

 of instances of inexpedient devices, of faulty adapta 

 tion of the individual to his surroundings. 



1 Haeckel and other materialists have drawn up a very long list of 

 dysteleologies, or instances of non-beneficial action. For a criticism of it 

 see the Apologetische Vortrdge (Apologetic Lectures), published by the 

 Volksverein for Catholic Germany, No. 2, 1907, p. 125 et seq. 



