204 DESIGN IN NATURE 



These remarks have a very special bearing on the descent of the horse, of which so much has been made. 

 This is a one-toed animal, said to be descended from a five-toed ancestor. The premises are inadequate to warrant 

 such a conclusion. The quadruped, as is well known, has typically five toes. The ox, deer, pig, &c., however, 

 have only two. Similarly the typical birds have five toes. The ostrich, emu, &c., have, as a rule, only two, and 

 these birds practically walk and run on one, which is greatly developed. The same is true of the extinct moa. 

 There are, moreover, infinitely greater structural differences between ordinary fore limbs and the flying wings of 

 birds and bats than there are between the one-toed horse and its supposed ancestors with five toes. 



From these remarks it will be evident that too much emphasis has been placed on structural modifications 

 in the limbs of the horse as proving descent and evolution, and too little on the structural modifications of the 

 flying wings of birds and mammals as disproving descent and evolution. It is not permitted in science to blow 

 hot and cold, and to strain points in order to buttress untenable positions. 



If a special set of structural differences and modifications are quoted in support of a particular theoretical 

 contention, antagonistic differences — provided they exist — should be referred to, or even quoted. 



There is warrant for believing that the structural differences in animals and in their travelling organs are due 

 to design and a common plan, and that the animals and their modified limbs are part of the great scheme of 

 nature — the animals and their limbs forming parts of fundamental wholes. 



It is not permissible to set aside original endowments by the introduction of sub-groups or intercalary 

 forms or the over-statement of one set of facts and the under-statement or suppression of an equally or more 

 important set. 



Professor Huxley, as explained, founds his belief in the doctrine of evolution largely on a consideration of 

 extinct geologic forms, especially those of reptiles, birds, and horses. The birds he is inchned to believe are the 

 descendants of extinct reptiles, and the horse of pristine five-toed mammals. The extinct birds and horses he 

 classifies as intercalary forms or sub-groups, as contra-distinguished from the great groups, including birds and 

 mammals. The sub-groups he regards as connecting Unks between the great groups. It should, however, be borne 

 in mind that, in a perfect scheme of nature, the intermediary sub-groups may be as important, in a way, as the 

 larger groups ; both representing parts of a more or less arbitrary classification. If there are intermediate forms 

 between the extinct bird and reptile, and between the horse and an extinct five-toed mammal, it does not neces- 

 sarily follow that the birds are evolved by direct descent from the reptiles, or the modern horses from remote 

 five-toed mammals. The so-called intermediate sub-groups and links may be regarded as independent factors, 

 and, as such, are entitled to great consideration. Mere numbers in groups do not seriously affect the question 

 of types. The general plan of creation, as an ascending series, gives practically the same value to groups and 

 sub-groups, and the fact that sub-groups resemble other groups above and below them, neither proves identity nor 

 direct descent. 



Huxley, with characteristic candour, admits the extreme persistence in certain cases of various types of plants 

 and animals, and endeavours to explain the absence of change in hving forms (as in Egypt) for thousands of years, 

 by saying that the physical conditions in certain countries and during certain periods remain unaltered. He in 

 this way indirectly refers the endless modifications which, according to evolution, occur in hving things to exter- 

 nalities, such as chmate, environment, extraneous stimulation, irritabihty, &c. Of this, however, as I have already 

 shown, we have no distinct proof ; the changes which occur in living forms are not due to accidental circumstances. 

 Like other evolutionists, Huxley avails himself of whatever connecting Unks exist or may come to hand, and at the 

 same time endeavours to show that the geological record, from the nature of things, can never be perfect. He 

 indeed emphasises this point. This is at once an ingenious and clever device. If an advocate of evolution be 

 permitted to employ such geologic forms as exist and which serve his purpose as connecting links to strengthen his 

 argument at one point and to say, when the connecting finks fail him, that the geologic record is imperfect, he gains 

 a double advantage : he gets credit for what is, and claims credit for what, there is every reason to believe, is not. 

 The imperfection of the geologic record is elaborated by Mr. Darwin in his " Origin of Species " by means of natural 

 selection, and all who write on evolution take refuge in connecting Unks when possible, and when the supply ruijs 

 out, they naively turn round and assert that their production is almost certainly merely a question of time as the 

 geologic record becomes more perfect day by day. Another coign of vantage appropriated by evolutionists is that 

 furmshed by duration or time. If the changes and modifications said to be effected by evolution cannot be demon- 

 strated, they boldly assert that sufficient time has not elapsed, and some of them (Haeokel, for example) extend the 

 period even to a hundred or more nulhons of years. In so doing they flout human experience, history, and even 

 the geologic record. 



Professor Huxley has stated his views with great perspicuity as foUows : i— "From almost the origin of the 



' "Lectures and Essays on Evolution." New York, 187t). 



