EVIDENCES FROM MORPHOLOGY 133 
to perform the same functions. How, then, are we to explain these 
things? By design manifested in special creation, or by descent with 
adaptive modification? If it is said by design manifested in special 
creation, we must suppose that the Deity formed an archetypal 
plan of certain structures, and that he determined to adhere to this 
plan through all the modifications which those structures exhibit. But, 
if so, why is it that some structures are selected as typical and not 
others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for instance, be tortured 
Fic. 13.—Paddle of whale compared with hand of man. (From Romanes.) 
into every conceivable variety of modification in order to subserve as 
great a variety of functions; while another structure, such as the eye, 
is made in different sub-kingdoms on fundamentally different plans, 
notwithstanding that it has throughout to perform the same func- 
tion? Will any one have the hardihood to assert that in the case of 
the skeleton the Deity has endeavored to show his ingenuity, by the 
manifold functions to which he has made the same structure sub- 
servient; while in the case of the eye he has endeavored to show his 
resources, by the manifold structures which he has adapted to serve 
the same function? If so, it becomes a most unfortunate circum- 
stance that, throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all 
cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the 
