THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 



419 



The readers of Owen will no doubt remember the paragraphs on the distribution 

 of the Mammalia in his " Palaeontology," in which he asserts the value of even 

 the negative portions of geological evidence. Objecting to the ' ' conjecture that the 

 mammalian class may have been as richly represented in primary and more ancient 

 secondary as in tertiary times, could we but get remains of the terrestrial fauna of 

 the continents," he insists that the negative evidence furnished by the total absence 

 of mammalian remains Irom the primary, and "the scanty and dubious" traces of 

 them in the secondary beds, is sufficient to carry conviction to the unbiassed mind 

 that this class did not exist at all during primary times, and only began to exist in 

 secondary times, and says that, " to the mind that will not accept such conclusion, 

 the stratified oolitic rocks must cease to be trustworthy records of the condition of 

 life on the earth at this period." The applicability of this to the case in hand is 

 obvious. 



Again, as we descend into the crust of the earth, the animal kingdom gradually 

 loses its present high and diversified character — first, one great class and then 

 another disappears from the stage of existence, until as we approach the lowest of 

 the fossiliferous beds, the evidences of former life become not only confined to the 

 lowest forms, but gradually more and more rare, and finally they cease altogether. 

 This is the lowest zone of ancient life, and below it no trace of organic life is found. 

 And this too, be it remembered, in situations not at all ill-calculated to pi-eserve 

 any forms of life which might have been committed to their charge, many of these 

 rocks being in fact much less metamorphosed than many others higher up in the 

 geological series, which actually do retain impressions of the organisms originally 

 buried in them. From these facts the conclusion naturally follows, that if we have 

 not in these lowest fossiliferous strata actually reached the dawn of life on the earth, 

 we have approached sufficiently near to warrant our forming an opinion respecting 

 it, and to make the expectation of further discoveries in this direction all but hopeless. 



Here again we find additional proof of the trustworthiness of the geological records. 

 In them we find an almost complete history of the pi-ogress of life on the earth 

 from its dawn millions of ages ago down to the' present day. In them we find 

 breaks certainly — breaks sufficient to show us that our history of life on the earth, 

 full as it undoubtedly is, is not perfect ; and to stimulate the diligent inquirer with 

 the hope of occasionally adding a new link to the chain — but as certainly we find 

 nothing in them to warrant the idea of such breaks as the Development Theory 

 demands — breaks of thousands of centuries, at least as often as the commencement 

 of each geological formation, and probably of much more frequent occurrence. 



On these and many other grounds, therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that the 

 facts of geology do not support the Theory of Development, and in concluding this 

 communication, I would urge upon your readers the duty of a thorough and im- 

 partial examination of the bearings of geology upon this " theory" before its 

 claims are admitted or even temporized with. It is evidently, as Professor Owen 

 expresses it, a " chance aim of human fancy, unchecked and unguided by observed 

 facts;" and further he says respecting it, that "observation of the effects of any 

 of the hypothetical transmuting influences in changing any known species into 

 another has not yet been recorded." 



The "inconsistencies and absurdities" Lieut. Hutton speaks of are merely 

 imaginary. For example, I believed, and still believe, that if I could show one of 

 the links of the supposed chain of development to be defective, the whole theory 

 would fail as a theory attempting to account for the conditions of life on the earth, 

 because insufficient to account for the phenomena of life. Well, did I not show 

 the defectiveness of the supposed link between man and the brute ? And did not 

 Lieut. Hutton acknowledge this defect by attempting to patch it up with an act 

 of " special interposition ?" Did he not, therefore, by this act acknowledge that 

 his theory was, by itself, insufficient to explain the conditions of life ? Then let 

 Lieut. Hutton show where the "inconsistency" or "absurdity" of my assertion 

 lies, and having done that, let him next explain his own inconsistency in intro- 

 ducing creational acts into a "Theory of Development." 



His other objections are about equally well founded, and as my communication 

 is already far too lengthy, I therefore pass them over in silence. 



Glossop, July 26th. 



I am, &c, 



T. Gkindley. 



