THE DARWINIAN THEORY. 
4i9 
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 mammaUan remains from 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 Ufe 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 preserve 
any fonns 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 progress 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 efiects 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 ah-eady far too lengthy, I therefore pass them over in silence. 
Glossop, July 2Qth. 
I am, &c., 
T. Grindlet. 
