EVIDENCES FROM MORPHOLOGY 



^33 



to perform the same functions. How, then, are we to explain these 

 things ? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with 

 adaptive modification ? If it is said by design manifested in special 

 creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal 

 plan of certain structures, and that he determined to adhere to this 

 plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. But, 

 if so, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not 

 others ? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured 



Fig. 13.— Paddle of whale compared with hand of man. {From Romanes.) 



into every conceivable variety of modification in order to subserve as 

 great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, 

 is made in different sub-kingdt-'ms on fundamentally different plans, 

 notwithstanding that it has throughout to perform the same func- 

 tion ? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of 

 the skeleton the Deity has endeavored to show his ingenuity^by the 

 manifold functions to which he has made the same structure sub- 

 servient; while in the case of the eye he has endeavored to show his 

 resources, by the manifold structures which he has adapted to serve 

 the same function? If so, it becomes a most unfortunate circum- 

 stance that, throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all 

 cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the 



