26 



" no support whatever to the notion of a gradual transmutation of one 

 species to another," least of all "from an animal of a more simple to 

 one of a more complex structure." 



I believe that Sir C. Lyell was talking- at random when he' said, 

 speaking of a philosopher like me, " Henceforth his speculations know 

 no definite bounds ; he gives the rein to conjecture, and fancies that 

 the outward form, instinctive faculties, nay that reason itself may have 

 been gradually developed from some of the simplest states of existence. 

 That all animals, that man himself, and that irrational beings, may 

 have had one common origin." 



I believe that male and female apes must have become simla- 

 multaneously endowed with the reason of man ; for, if not. the one that 

 had such reason could not have consorted suitably with one that had not, 

 and such pairs, to be well matched, must have arisen contemporaneously 

 for several generations, or there would have been a reversion to the 

 ancestral ape, which never, since the world began, could light a fire or 

 cook its food, make a bow and arrow, or even a hoop. 



I believe all this, although I cannot deny that the dog or the 

 elephant exhibits far more of the human character than the ape, and 

 that there never has been, and never can be, any friendship or com- 

 munication between man and an ape such as there is with the dog or 

 even the wolf, and that the ape can never be trusted by man, or be 

 made useful to him, as the dog, the horse, and many other animals 

 can. 



I believe all this, I say. although it will be no use for me to deny 

 that the common bee closely resembles man in its classes, its govern- 

 ment, its laws, its public zeal, its loyalty, and its architecture ; in not 

 one of which respects does the ape even approach to it, much less to 

 us. 



I believe that our speech has its origin in the tones of the voices 

 of birds and beasts. You may ask me how. if so, it is that being so 

 much nearer to the ape than the nightingale, we do not screech like 

 the gorilla instead of singing as we do ; but I consider such a question 

 quite irrelevant to my grand argument. 



I believe that Agassiz was quite wrong when he stated that there 

 is nothing like parental descent connecting the line of creation ; that 

 Cuvier, to the same effect, was also equally wrong : and Owen also in 

 his notion that the foreknowledge of such a being as man must have 

 existed before man appeared or could appear. 



I believe that the wing of the bat, the thousands of lenses of the 

 eye, the electrical organs of fish, and all such wonders of Nature were 

 the results of natural selection, or to speak more plainly (?), by 

 " development," " plastic tendencies," " slight modifications," " genera- 

 tive variability," and so on. No doubt you must see all this as clearly 

 as I do. I have rather unfortunately said in another part of my book 

 that it is " most difficult to conjecture by what transitions such organs 

 could ever have arrived at their present state." Yes, it may be 

 unfortunate, but I have contradicted myself so often that I now do 

 not mind at all about it. Conjecture has so much befriended me that 

 it must stand me in stead once more here ; for " nothing can be more 

 hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in 

 members of the same class by natural selection and the struggle for 

 life." 



You may say that if even conjecture can do nothing here, it must 

 be hopeless to look for certainty. So be it. I must follow my own 

 method. If I am satisfied, that is enough. 



I believe that we are clearly of the same descent with animals of 

 the various kinds, as proved by the number of our vertebra. I believe, 



