86 
intelligence, we must admit ; but these gentlemen seem to overlook that 
even the differences referred to are very limited, and that man’s utmost skill 
fails to enlarge them beyond these limits. Moreover, the moment man s 
influence is withdrawn, the animals return to their original condition, clearly 
showing that the alterations thus effected were abnormal. That this is the 
case with pigeons is admitted both by Mr. Darwin and Mr. Warington, and 
several instances are given in illustration of the fact ; and yet, on the other 
hand, they argue as if the changes made had become inherent and constant. 
We know that this not so ; but, granting that the changes have become 
inherent, we are then involved in this difficulty, that there is not a “ pro- 
gress to perfection” according to the Darwinian theory, but a stopping short 
in these varieties which we are told are fixed. In either case, then, a viola- 
tion of the theory. Mr. Warington states that these changes are brought 
about by u the law of natural selection,” but of this there is no explanation 
Mr. Warington. — If you read the paper you will find there is. 
Captain Fishbourne. — I am aware of what is stated ; but I say there is 
nothing intelligible in what is called “ natural selection.” Are we to under- 
stand that the flower, that requires a particular fertilizing pollen to produce a 
given change, selects both the insect that is to carry the pollen as well as the 
particular pollen that is to be carried to it ? Or are we to suppose that the 
insect is the selector ? If neither is, then there is no selection. If the 
insect is, then it is required to exercise a degree of intelligence far transcend- 
ing anything that can be conceived of in man. The fact is, there is no such 
thing in nature as this natural selection : it is contrary to common sense to 
suppose anything of the kind. As to the most difficult part of the theory, 
that of transmutation, we are left without even a hint of the process, *and are 
given, instead, a lame attempt at the description of the formation of an eye. 
Mr. Darwin says 
“ It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We 
know that this instrument has been perfected by long-continued efforts of 
the highest human intellects, and we naturally infer that the eye has been 
formed by an analogous process. But may not this inference be pre- 
sumptuous ? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intel- 
lectual powers like those of man ? If we must compare the eye to an optical 
instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent 
tissue with spaces filled with fluid, and a nerve sensitive to light beneath, 
and suppose every part of the layer to be continually changing slowly in den- 
sity, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed 
at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer 
slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power 
(natural selection ) always intently watching each slight accidental alteration 
in the transparent layers, and carefully selecting each alteration, which under 
varied circumstances may in any way or in any degreee tend to produce a 
distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be 
multiplied by the million, and each to be preserved till a better be produced, 
and then the old ones to be destroyed.” (p. 219, 4th edition.) 
This is the idea given of an eye forming itself. But what determines the 
kind of eye that is to be formed— whether it is to be the eye of a cabbage 
or that of a man ; for by the theory they are equally derivable from the “one 
