ON THE DIKECTIVITY OF LIFE. 



269 



tadpole of to-day is of a fish type, and passes into an amphibian 

 and then a true air-breathing frog. 



But what some appear not to have observed is that you cannot 

 have " advance " without some retrogression ; because every change 

 implies new adaptations to the new conditions of life ; but with 

 these is correlated the disuse of certain organs no longer required ; 

 which consequently degenerate by atrophy, often remaining rudi- 

 mentary, or they may vanish altogether. In all cases the resulting 

 creature becomes perfectly adapted to its requirements. 



Thus, parasites show a great amount of degradation, just as does 

 an oyster. The whole of the class Monocotyledons has been 

 evolved from aquatic Dicotyledons, and though many are now 

 terrestrial plants, they all have retained the " degraded " characters 

 due to an aquatic environment. 



Mr. Sutton questions the value of " induction " (i.e., numerous 

 coincidences, all being independent of one another, yet equally 

 supporting the same probability) as "proving " a statement. 



But to do so in one science and not accept it in another is 

 scarcely justifiable. Every " belief " in the revelations of geology 

 in based on induction; as we cannot make Nature retrace her 

 steps and prove by experiment how coal was made, how animals 

 came successively into existence, etc., etc., yet it was partly the 

 fossils of Patagonia which suggested evolution to Darwin. 



In astronomy, no intelligent person believes that the sun rises 

 and sets or that the earth is flat; but our "convictions" are based 

 solely on " probabilities," but of so high an order that any alterna- 

 tive is now unthinkable."^ 



Mr. Sutton, however, accepts induction himself when he quotes 

 Wallace's statement — "Science demands the recognition of an 

 intelligent Creator." No one denies this. But it is impossible to 

 prove (i.e., by any experiment) that there is a God. The knowledge, 

 or conviction in His existence, is based solely on induction ; of 

 course, apart from all revelation. 



I am surprised that Mr. Sutton, one of our greatest cultivators, 

 should say, "No experiments exist which in the slightest degree 

 prove the evolution of man or other living beings." 



* A murderer is pronounced guilty almost always on circumstantial 

 evidence, i.e., induction. 



