OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 173 



inheritance of acquired characters" is true, then 

 there is no reason why a species may not evolve eyes 

 in various parts of the body and at different times. 



If pigment spots are rudimentary eyes, then the 

 star-fishes, which have these spots, have been extreme- 

 ly slow in evolving eyes, for they have lived through 

 nearly the whole authentic geological time, and would, 

 no doubt, have been benefited by better eyes, and 

 during all this time pigment spots have, it is pre- 

 sumed, existed, on which spots heredity and natural 

 selection have been at work, and yet after these fifty 

 millions of years, they have nothing but pigment 

 spots, which are supposed to represent eyes. 



It may be claimed, however, that the eye-spots of 

 star-fishes are of comparatively recent origin. The 

 burden of proof is on him who claims this. But if 

 we were to grant this to be true, it would not improve 

 the matter, for it would only show the extreme diffi- 

 culty of forming even a rudimentary eye from 

 patches of pigment deposited "as it were by acci- 

 dent." 



The most that is claimed for the " eye-specks " of 

 star-fishes functionally, is that they are more sensitive 

 to heat and light than other parts of the body, and 

 that they can convert light into heat. It is claimed 

 that this entitles them to be called " rudimentary 

 eyes." I see no sufficient reason why this should be 

 so. There is no evidence that such an organ can be 

 or has ever been developed into an organ of sight. 

 Calling them "eye-specks" and rudimentary eyes 

 does not make them homologous to eyes. It is im- 

 possible to show that they are homologous to eyes. 

 They are heat-specks instead of eye-specks. If they 

 are sensitive to light at all, it is by converting it into 

 heat. That they could ever become sensitive to light, 



