Rudiments. 1 19 



remains, encumbering the organism as it does with 

 the silent reproach of the better times that were! 

 That is not evolution. Why, too, on the Darwin- 

 ian presentation and hypothesis, should the animal 

 lose its incisors, when once it had them in its 

 mouth? They might be vastly more useful than 

 mere whalebone for much of the food which was 

 yet to come into its jaws. As to the matter then 

 of this argument, there is no upward evolution 

 conspicuous in it. 



131. And, as to the manner or form of the argu- 

 ment, there is rather a suspicion of downward evo- 

 lution in it. He illustrates these obscure 



... 1 1 • 1 Its Manner. 



functionless organs, not by what is clear 

 and substantiated as matter of fact, but by what 

 is obscurer still, the full legs which no science has 

 ever yet verified in the whale or the boa, the long 

 asinine or apish ears, which no one has yet seen in 

 man. "Ah! but — " a well-intentioned scientist 

 answers — " wherever rudimentary organs exist in 

 one type, they are sure to be found in their normal 

 state in a neighboring type!' , The reply to this 

 argument is very simple: it is merely to ask, what 

 does that prove? We do not want these crude 

 premises with only implied consequences, after the 

 style of Mr. Darwin, who wraps up a theory in 

 crude facts, and leaves it there. We should like to 

 know distinctly what does that argument prove; 

 and to see that no fallacy creeps into the conse- 

 quence. If the gentleman desires it, we shall give 



