OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 163 



structure of the pterodactyl as independently educed, 

 and having relation to physiology only." 



The cutting of a Gordian knot by the evolutionist 

 is nothing remarkable, since he is obliged to repeat 

 the operation a large number of times in order to 

 complete his theory. I presume that Prof. Romanes 

 intends to cut another Gordian knot when he tells us 

 that the wings of the bird and of the pterodactyl have 

 been independently evolved. 



The wings of the bird are composed of feathers 

 instead of membrane; only three fingers are repre- 

 sented, one of which is rudimentary, while the other 

 two are united and imperfect. The oldest birds and 

 pterodactyls found were in the Jurassic, and paleon- 

 tology has furnished no evidence that the one was 

 evolved from the other. 



Passing to the Eocene, we find a large number of 

 mammals, among which is the bat. It is claimed that 

 it was evolved from an insectivorous mammal. Its 

 wings are composed Of membrane stretched between 

 the bones of four greatly elongated fingers, the side 

 of the body, hind leg and tail. 



I quote from Romanes, page 347, with regard to 

 the evolution of homologous organs: " The objec- 

 tion is the same as that which we have already consid- 

 ered in relation to the general theory of descent, 

 namely, that similar organs or structures are to be 

 met with in widely different branches of the tree of 

 life. Now this would be an objection fatal to the 

 theory of natural selection, supposing these organs or 

 structures in the cases compared are not merely anal- 

 ogous but also homologous. For it would be incredi- 

 ble that in two totally different lines of descent one 

 and the same structure should have been built up in- 

 dependently by two parallel series of variations, and 

 that in these two lines of descent it should always 



