OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTION 175 



they homologous or even analogous to eyes — neither 

 like them in structure nor in function. 



There is no chain of intermediate forms connecting 

 them with eyes. They have existed through nearly 

 all geological time without being developed into eyes, 

 in the star-fishes, and we do not know that eyes have 

 ever been evolved from them. 



In all cases "eye-specks" occupy positions on the 

 bodies of animals different from that of any true eyes, 

 consequently, no known eyes could have been evolved 

 from known " eye-specks." 



I regard eye-specks, therefore, as of no value as 

 evidence in trying to account for the evolution of 

 true eyes. The whole tribe of eye-specks ought to 

 be "ruled out of court." 



If we consider the eyes of any class of animals, 

 we know of no stages in their evolution. It is not 

 claimed that the eyes of the highest members of any 

 class are essentially different in structure from those 

 of the lowest members of that class. 



If it is difficult to account for the evolution of any 

 known eye, vastly more difficult does it become to 

 account for the independent evolution of the many 

 eyes referred to above, some of which, although inde- 

 pendently produced, seem to be quite homologous in 

 structure. 



It is not to be wondered that in considering this 

 subject, Darwin, as he says," felt this difficulty far too 

 keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in 

 extending the ' principle of natural selection to so 

 startling a length." 



The evolution of ears presents similar difficulties. 

 The simplest form of ear is a sac filled with a watery 

 liquid in which the auditory nerves are spread out, 

 and in which are minute hard granules called otoliths. 



