184 REV. G. F. WHIDBORNE, M.A., ON QUESTIONS INVOLVED 
we cannot arrive at definite conclusions as in the case of the laws 
of gravitation for instance. Therefore it can never be more than 
a more or less good induction. 
I shonld, perhaps, refer to one point that I like very much in 
the paper, where the author speaks of evolution on these lines in 
the sixth section, p. 14. I will read the passage, as I think it 
very important. “For the doctrine of chances, applied to the 
unaided advance from protoplasm by evolution, at once shows 
how improbable it is that even in an illimitable time the present 
‘cosmos, with its intricate variety elaborately in order, could be 
achieved by it (¢.e., chance) alone; and the acknowledged time- 
limit turns this improbability into a mathematical impossibility.” 
I think we ought to be thankful that mathematics can be 
brought into the question. 
Mr. ScainzeL observed that it was well known that Darwin’s 
bold hypothesis “has gained much popular credence with the 
general public so that evolution and its accessories—‘ natural 
selection,’ ‘struggle for existence,’ and ‘survival of the fittest ’~— 
have become popular catchwords suppesed to be sufficient to 
explain all the mysteries of nature, while the unthinking multitude 
are using the theory of evolution in many ways not contemplated 
by its authors.” Those are words quoted from Sir J. W. Dawson’s 
article in the ‘‘ Expositor,’ and no one ventures to range Sir J. W. 
Dawson among the “ unscientific.” 
The author refers to the varieties produced by human agency. 
This is the special work of the fancier, an individual unfortunately 
not represented in nature. But all the dog varieties are dogs 
differing only in outward form, and they breed together, which 
would not be the case if they were of different species—and 
the same holds good of fancy pigeons. Nobody has ever succeeded 
in producing a lion, or even a rabbit from a dog, or a vulture or 
partridge from a pigeon. The able lecturer again alludes to the 
same subject further on (p. 16). Allow me to give an illustration. 
It is a fact that when fancy pigeons are turned out into a state 
of nature they soon revert to the rock pigeon, their ancestor. 
““ Natural Selection,” says Mr. Duncan Graham, in his book, Is 
Natural Selection the Creator of Species? p, 75—‘‘here makes 
the awkward mistake of exterminating the improved breeds and 
preserving the parent forms.” The same, by Mr. Wallace’s own 
admission, is the case with fancy rabbits. 
