OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 159 



"well developed legs. It is claimed that lizards have 

 lost their legs by disuse. 



If well developed wings and legs can, after many 

 successive generations, become less and less useful, 

 and finally become rudimentary or entirely disappear, 

 it would not seem possible that an entirely function- 

 less and merely rudimentary limb could endure 

 through countless generations of uselessness and then 

 become useful. 



It is no answer to this to say that an organ may 

 serve different purposes at different stages of its evo- 

 lution, for there is in every case a long rudimentary 

 period during which appendages and most organs can 

 be of no use whatever. 



The first limbs, it is presumed, were fins; from 

 which were evolved paddles, and from these were 

 evolved the first amphibian legs, and then the legs of 

 reptiles, wings of pterodactyls, birds and bats. We 

 find here a marvelous series of transitions. As to the 

 origin of fins we have no evidence whatever. They 

 are said to be homologous to the limbs of the higher 

 vertebrates, but I regard the homology as far-fetched. 

 The word homology will, I believe, have to answer 

 for a multitude of sins. To call all the above named 

 appendages homologous, would be to some persons a 

 satisfactory method of accounting for their origin, — 

 so much so, that the use of the word puts an end to 

 all controversy. 



Paleontology furnishes no evidence to show the 

 evolution of the first known legs from fins. The old- 

 est known vertebrates that possessed true legs with 

 separate toes were the Labyrinthodonts of the Sub- 

 carboniferous period, which had four toes on the 

 hind foot and five on the fore foot. There are no 

 fossils which show the evolution of the legs and feet 

 of these animals from the fins of fishes. The differ- 



