RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 183 



It must be claimed, however, by evolution that 

 organs can not only become rudimentary but entirely 

 disappear, as is claimed to have taken place in the case 

 of the legs of most snakes. 



If a mere rudiment can survive so long in the case 

 of the mammal, why shall we assume that functional 

 legs may totally disappear by disuse? 



Evolutionists commonly assume that rudimentary 

 organs were at one time functional, and that they have 

 become rudimentary by disuse. 



With regard to mammas, Mr. Darwin says: "In 

 the mammalia, for instance, the males always possess 

 rudimentary mammse." Again, "Rudimentary organs 

 declare their origin and plain meaning in various 

 ways." * 



Again, "Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, 

 are essentially useless, as teeth which never cut 

 through the gums. As they would be of even less 

 use, when in a still less developed condition, they 

 cannot have been formed through variation and nat- 

 ural selection, which latter acts solely by the preser- 

 vation of useful modifications. They relate to a for- 

 mer state of things, and have been partially retained 

 by the power of inheritance." f Again, "On the 

 view of descent with modification, the origin of rudi- 

 mentary organs is simple. ... I believe that 

 disuse has been the main agency; that it has led in 

 successive generations to the gradual reduction of 

 various organs until they have become rudimentary."! 



From the above quotations I think that Mr. Dar- 

 win claims that the mammas of male mammals were 

 originally functional, and have become rudimentary by 

 disuse. 



How could these organs have been evolved in the 

 males, and if they were once functional how could 



* Origin of Species, p. 405. + Ibid, p. 406. X Ibid, p. 408. 



