346 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
suggestive of “improvement” to our imperfect 
means of judging. Lastly, not to continue citing 
an endless number of such considerations, there is 
the broad fact that it is only to those cases where, 
for some reason or another, the lower forms have 
not been exposed to a struggle of fatal intensity, that 
the objection applies. But we know that in millions 
of other cases the lower (i.e. less fitted) forms have 
succumbed, and therefore I do not see that the ob- 
jection has any ground to stand upon. That there is 
a general tendency for lower forms to yield their 
places to higher is shown by the gradual advance of 
organization throughout geological time ; for if a// the 
inferior forms had survived, the earth could not have 
contained them, unless she had been continually 
growing into something. like the size of Jupiter. 
And if it be asked why any of the inferior forms 
have survived, the answer has already been given, 
as above. 
There is only one other remark to be made in this 
connexion. Mr. Syme chooses two cases as illus- 
trations of the supposed difficulty. These are suf- 
ficiently diverse—viz. Foraminifera and Man. Touch- 
ing the former, there is notling that need be added 
to the general answer just given. But with regard to 
the latter it must be observed that the dominion of 
natural selection as between different races of man- 
kind is greatly restricted by the presence of rationality. 
Competition in the human species is more conceined 
with wits and ideas than with nails and teeth ; and 
therefore the “struggle” between man and man is 
not so much for actual being, as for well-being. Con- 
sequently, in regard to the present objection, the 
