EVIDENCES OF DESIGN IN REPRODUCTIVE ELEMENTS 



^M 



determined from the beginning, but not by the beings who take part in it. It is plain that the reproductive 

 process is not the outcome of any form of " evolution " or " natural selection." Each plant and animal only 

 reproduces itself, and the reproduction is direct, and not the result of roundabout methods, as claimed by the 

 theories referred to. No plant or animal can deduce itself from another plant or animal ; neither can plants and 

 animals A'ary at discretion, and select or reject structural peculiarities and properties in themselves which, as a matter 

 of fact, have no existence at the period of impregnation. " Natural selection " cannot be applied to a thing 

 before or during its formation. The successive steps in the reproductive process are fixed beforehand, and the 

 structures which are developed, as the result of impregnation, are formed before they are reqiured, and before 

 they are of use to the individual. All this bespeaks design of a high order. It is inconceivable that the things 

 developing can have any idea of the complicated whole they are building up, or of the separate and combined 

 functions they are to perform in the economy of the adult. As already stated, the reproductive act, in its entirety, 

 cannot be regarded as intellectual. It is, in a very large number of cases, quite involuntary. This is especially 

 true where there is only one sex, and in hermaphrodites, where the two sexes are found in one and the same 

 individual. It is also true in the case of plants, especially where the male and female elements occur in separate 

 specimens located at considerable distances from each other, and where the interposition of winds, insects, birds, &c., 

 becomes a necessity. The latter cannot be regarded as intelligent 

 fructifiers : they can only be considered as the agents of a higher 

 power, which perform work they are predestined to perform as 

 integral parts of the great scheme of creation. 



In the lowest plants and animals, where the parts greatly 

 resemble each other, and there is httle difierentiation, reproduc- 

 tion is largely effected by simple division or by budding (Plates 

 bci., Ixii., Ixiii., and Ixiv.) 



In these cases every part of the individual is capable of 

 the reproductive act. There are no organs of reproduction. 

 In the atoms and molecules of the individual resides the power 

 of reproduction, and this more than any other thing shows the 

 fundamental nature of reproduction. As every living thing can 

 reproduce itself, it follows that reproduction is at once funda- 

 mental and universal. As, further, reproduction can be effected 

 in the absence of separate sexual elements, it is clear that the 

 latter, when they exist, are the result of differentiation — the 

 simple thing becoming complex. But (and here comes the crux) 

 the simple cannot of itself become complex. If it does so, the 

 change must be referred to an external controlling power, and 

 that power is the Creator or First Cause. From simple, homo- 

 geneous matter, similarly conditioned and placed, only simple matter can result. The moment a departure is 

 made from the simple to the complex, differentiation (of a kind) is established, and that differentiation involves 

 design and means to ends. The simple plants and animals cannot diflerentiate of themselves. There is nothing 

 in them to reproduce new structures and to enable them to assume new functions. The power to differentiate 

 must reside in the Uving things in a potential form, and the act of reproduction proves that plants and animals, 

 be they simple or complex, are the outcome of one or more special substances which have separate existences 

 from the first, and in turn produce others. In no other way can the diversified and countless multitudes of 

 plants and animals be accounted for. Living substances devoted to the construction of plants and animals no 

 more admit of admixture than do the components of crystals. If plants and animals differ markedly from each 

 other, so did the cells and sexual elements from which they were originally derived. It is idle to assert that plants 

 and animals can depart indefinitely from their originals, if only sufficient time be allowed. If this were so, there 

 could be no types or permanent forms, and even the simplest kinds of classification would be impossible. As a 

 corollary, no law and order could anywhere be traced. 



In addition to the simple forms of reproduction already referred to there are others which are more comphcated, 

 and in which the developing individual seems, for short intervals, to lose its identity. The white cabbage butterfly 

 may be taken as an example. The extraordinary transformations through which the butterfly passes during 

 development are illustrated at Fig. 33. 



At A of Fig. 33 the female butterfly is seen laying her eggs (B), which are living but not moving. 



At C, one of the eggs has developed into an active aggressive caterpillar, very destructive to vegetation. 



Fig. 33. — Various phases in the development of the white 

 cabhage butterfly {Pieris rapse). 



A. The white butterfly in the act of laying its eggs (B). 



C. The caterpillar stage of the butterfly. 



D. The pupa stage of the butterfly (from nature), (the 

 Author). 



