72 J. W. SLATER, ESQ., P.C.S., F.E.S., ON 



REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING PAPER. 



Dr. D. Biddle, M.R.C.S., writes :— 



In regard to the compatibility of (what looks like) chance with 

 design, some very able remarks have been made by the author of 

 Ednor Whitlock, Mr. Hugh MacColl. He shows by a mathe- 

 matically conducted process of dotting paper within prescribed 

 limits, that pre-ordained patterns can be produced with unerring 

 precision, and even the shading be arranged, although the utmost 

 licence be allowed to "chance" — within those limits. 



But it has always appeared to me that the weak point in the 

 theory of evolution is the making time a cause of change. Natural 

 selection is admitted to be unavailing to produce new species 

 within the period allowed to any single observer, and some go so 

 far as to admit that the formatiou of new species by evolutionary 

 methods must be regarded as pre-historical. But everything is 

 possible, say they, if time be given. This is a delusion. It 

 has lately been asserted that Sir G. B. Airy tossed pennies 

 with a friend for a week, in order to find the longest run 

 of heads (or tails) obtainable in that period, and 28 was the 

 longest. But by the generally-accepted laws of probability, 

 if time were allowed, a run of a million would occur, and there 

 is nothing to prevent its occurrence early in the tossing. Common- 

 sense, however, avers that a run of one hundred would make 

 us doubt whether a fair penny was being fairly tossed. The 

 law is said to be that, however often one face has turned up in 

 succession, the chance is half, or absolutely equal, for the next 

 toss ; and yet it is affirmed that there is a constant tendency to 

 equalisation, which should make the chance favour the other face, 

 after a run on the former. This only shows how careful we 

 should be in accepting the dicta of theorisers. 



A theory which depends on chance-variations, occurring at 

 stupendous intervals of time, and of which no trustworthy instance 

 can be produced before our eyes, is doomed to failure, and must 

 ere long be laughed out of court. It is eminently unscientific, 

 for it believes in the production of an effect without the prior 

 action of any proper cause. 



Dr. H. B. Guppt writes : — 



Mr. Slater makes several very good points in his criticism of 

 the theory of natural selection, and I think most people nowadays 



