132 



SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



account for their being left behind at that remote 

 period of the past, when they had to struggle with 

 the simple ancestors of existing higher forms, 

 which, according to Darwinism, would then attain 

 rank as new species by living down those which 

 did not improve likewise. The question is not— 

 why does not the mammal of to-day live down the 

 amoeba with which it does not come into close 

 competition, but why did not the amoeboid an- 

 cestor of the mammal by virtue of its advancing 

 organization exterminate the ancestor of the 

 present amoeba which was not improving ? 



(d) The plea of isolated stations and scanty 

 numbers cannot be applied to low forms of life in 

 general, for they are everywhere and exist in 

 enormous numbers. 



(e) It is surely strangely inconsistent with the 

 spirit of Darwinism to believe that during the 

 countless ages which have elapsed since the dawn 

 of life upon the globe any race of organic beings 

 can have lived without presenting variations which 

 according to the hypothesis should have been 

 preserved and accumulated. To put it plainly, 

 why should one race of simple organisms have 

 gone on varying generation after generation until 

 the accumulated variations produced an elephant, 

 while another, or a part of the same, simple race 

 never even presented any favourable variations for 

 natural selection to work upon? Any character 

 which a given race possessed would, according to 

 the hypothesis, vary in degree, and some of these 

 variations ought to be better fitted than others for 

 the battle of life. Time can scarcely enter as a 

 factor in the problem when it is a question why 

 one extremely simple form of life has by variation 

 and survival of the fittest given rise to a monkey, 

 while another in the same time has never got 

 beyond its extreme simplicity. 



(/) If we allow full force to the " main cause" 

 alluded to in this sentence, a stop is put to all 

 progress on the lines of Darwin's hypothesis. For 

 going back to the beginning the conditions of life 

 would — according to Darwin's views — be very 

 simple for all organisms. " Looking to the dawn 

 of life," he writes, " when all organic beings, as 

 we may imagine, presented the simplest structure." 

 These conditions of life only become more complex 

 when the higher organisms came into existence. 

 Thus, according to the above statement, it would 

 be of no advantage to simple forms of life to 

 become more highly organized until higher forms 

 come into existence and make the conditions of life 

 more complex. Hence no progress is possible : 

 there is no motive power for advance until the 

 higher forms exist ; and these higher forms are 

 themselves only produced by the advance of the 

 lower. There is no logical impossibility in 

 supposing that the tortoise supports the world ; 

 but what if the world has likewise to support the 



tortoise? The contrast ought not to be made 

 between a "very simple condition of life" and a 

 "high organization," but between a very simple 

 condition of life and an organization very little less 

 simple ; for the advances in organization by w^hich 

 Darwinism proceeds are of the infinitesimal sort. 

 It is difiicult again, on Darwinian principles, to see 

 how, if such small advances in organization occur 

 among the spontaneous variations in successive 

 generations, they should not be preserved and 

 accumulated, since all the advance ;in organiza- 

 tion which has taken place in animate nature is 

 supposed to have conferred advantages at each 

 step. 



It is also difficult to understand why such ad- 

 vances should take place in certain races — as w^e 

 must suppose they have done — and not in others : 

 no reason is given for such a difference. Or, 

 going back to the one simple form of life at the 

 beginning, it is difiicult to understand why a 

 part of the race should advance in organization, 

 and another part remain stationary. 



Mr. Wallace's explanation is no more satisfac- 

 tory ; it can hardly be said to go to the root of the 

 matter. The very manner in which the supposed 

 objection is put seems to evade the point. " It 

 may be asked," he says, "Why do any low forms 

 continue to exist ? Why have they not long since 

 been improved and developed into higher forms ? " 

 The question is rather : why were these low 

 forms not lived down by those noiv advanced in 

 the scale at the time when they had to struggle 

 together ? For on the principles of natural 

 selection, a new species arises by living down the 

 parent form and the unfavourable variations. The 

 question is, not why some have not been improved, 

 but why the unimproved have been allowed to 

 exist by those which were improved ; further, 

 why, granting abundant variation and an intense 

 struggle for existence, no effect should be produced 

 on certain of the most lowly forms of life in the 

 course of the countless ages since their first 

 appearance on the earth ; while on others, net 

 essentially different, the effect of the same forces has 

 been to convert a monad into a lion, an eagle, or an 

 alligator. Mr. Wallace expressly states (s) in the 

 passage in which he attempts to account for the 

 persistence of low forms of life, that " species 

 are continually undergoing modifications giving 

 them some superiority over other species, or 

 enabling them to occupy fresh places in nature." 

 Such a statement might easily be taken to imply 

 that all species must be advancing, yet it is the 

 preface to the explanation why so many forms 

 have been left behind in the battle of life. Mr. 

 Wallace believes that some from among these very 

 races which he thus complacently leaves behind 

 have been improved, while he endeavours to show 

 P) " Darwinism," p. 114. 



