RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 185 



organs in males have not been separately evolved as 

 functional organs, and that they did not afterwards 

 become rudimentary by disuse. 



There could have been no necessity for their being 

 functional in both sexes, and, consequently they could 

 not have been developed by natural selection. The 

 female alone is, as a rule, present at the birth of the 

 young, and it is absolutely necessary that she should 

 have the instinct and the power to furnish food and 

 look after their interests in their extremely helpless 

 condition. Among all the mammals and most birds, 

 the female alone has the instinct to care for the 

 young. 



From the above I think it evident that the mammae 

 of males have always been rudimentary, and that, as 

 rudiments, they could not have been evolved by natu- 

 ral selection; also, that they have existed from the 

 earliest history of mammals. 



Here, then, we find rudiments that do not "relate 

 to a former state of things," and yet which have been 

 preserved among all mammals for millions of years. 

 Evolutionists offer no plausible theory by which to 

 explain the existence and preservation of these 

 organs. If they fail to account for these organs, is it 

 Tiot possible that their theory may be deficient when 

 applied to other rudimentary organs? 



There are other difficulties with regard to the evo- 

 lution of milk glands. The number of these glands 

 differs greatly in different animals, — varying from 

 two up to at least a dozen. They differ also in posi- 

 tion. In some cases they are towards the front of the 

 ventral part of the body ; in others at the posterior 

 part; and in others still, they are scattered along the 

 most of the ventral surface ; — the latter being true in 

 the great majority of cases, including the low forms. 

 From this it is safe to assume that the first mammals 



