19 



derangement of which would be fatal to the whole of the existing animal 

 creation. Have the evolutionists attempted to notice or explain the adjust- 

 ment of the masses, and forces, and distances of the heavenly bodies, as 

 bearing on the argument in favour of teleology ? 



The CHAIRMAN. As far as my reading goes, there is absolutely no modern 

 argument in that direction. Undoubtedly, a few centuries back the alche- 

 mists gave us a most interesting history of the evolution of matter, and 

 Paracelsus gave us certain speculations which are not looked upon with 

 respect by modern scientists, but form a curious parody of some forms of 

 modern thought. 



Mr. G. WISE. We find in the amoeba that which corresponds to diges- 

 tion, reproduction, and many of the functions of highly organised 

 creatures like ourselves. I have been reading the introductory chapter to 

 Foster's Physiology, and he there very beautifully shows that function pre- 

 cedes organisation, while a great German physiologist says that organs are 

 simply the localisation of functions. I should like to know whether that is 

 true or not ? 



The CHAIRMAN. I wish some able physiologist were here to answer that 

 question. For my part I think there is a good deal more of organisation in 

 the amoeba than the microscope will show. The differentiation of protoplasm 

 is not to be measured by our powers of perception. 



Mr. WISE. It is said that they are jellies which are purely transparent. 

 Can we in that case discern anything corresponding to organisation ? 



The CHAIRMAN. If an apparently perfectly structureless piece of jelly 

 performs functions, is not that a proof of organisation ? * 



The meeting was then adjourned. 



* Professor Lionel Beale, M.B., F.R.S., has kindly added a paper entitled 

 " Notes on Structure and Structureless." 



