82 
and divergence the rule, and almost, if not altogether, sets aside 
what Mr .Warington calls its “ two first elements and I the 
canon that “ like produces like.” For, if not ;— if that were the 
rule, then if we begin with one form only, only one form would 
have been reproduced; or, if we begin with a few forms 01 
with eight or ten, then only the few forms or the eight or ten 
instead of myriads, would have been the result. If, on the 
other hand, it is attempted t6 turn this logic against the 
hypothesis that like producing like is the rule of nature, and 
variations are the exceptions; and if I am told that I cannot 
account for those myriad forms which do vary before our veiy 
eyes, as I frankly admit they do,— I beg leave to reply, non 
constat. The theory of Creation I contend for, assumes that 
bv tbe fiat of an all- wise and omnipotent Creator, the eaith, 
made up of varied elements, brought forth a varied flora ol 
several kinds to begin with; and afterwards that the waters 
and the earth likewise brought forth every living creature 
after its kind. It begins with varied genera and species, 
which are to increase and multiply m the earth and waters ; 
like producing like, “ after their kind,” and variations produc- 
inq new varieties. , • 
At the first, in any one genus or species, it does not begin 
with one merely, according to our hypothesis, but always with 
two at least— “male and female created He them, —and 
these pairs are never precisely ahke. Hence the consistent 
origin of fresh varieties upon this hypothesis, it may even be 
of new species. What is common and like m the two parents 
or progenitors, we may believe to be naturally inherited an 
reproduced; wherein they differ or vary, the result will be a 
fresh difference or modified variation. If Mr. Warington s 
woman with the web-foot had only had— like the Upland 
goose— a web-footed mate, this Hsus natures might probably 
have been perpetuated, instead of fading away as it did, a 
mere transient sport,” obliterated in a few generations. . 
Not to follow in detail the other instances he has given ol 
abnormities and defects, transmitted exceptionally and after- 
wards extinguished, I come to his summary of what they teach 
us. He admits that in these instances the varieties were 
highly disadvantageous or of even an abortive character, and 
not improvements upon the ordinary forms of life. But what 
of that ? You have only to suppose the contrary to the facts 
of the case, and all will go well with Darwinism. ^ He says, 
“ Suppose these variations had been beneficial ! I reply. 
They were not. But I must quote his naive argument at 
length : — 
Had the variations been beneficial, and so themselves have tended to 
