DARWINISM.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 747, 23 January 1888, Page 3

DARWINISM.

(Br A. Ireland.) Ihvra appeared jn the " Week'y Press " some time ago the report of aj lecture on Dnrwin'sra, g'.ven by Professor Hutton. From the tone of that lecture the learned Professor appears to think fr.e position impregnable — ihat thire is nothiig of any weight that can be brought against the theory. A* a mat er of f ie : there are many weak points m it, a few ol which I shall jus* po ; nt out. The first difficulty for the theory o Ewufion ti overcome is to accuunt foi the diwn of life oa vhe earth. Darwin admits that the (Creator breathed the breath cf life into the first orgauism. But Professor Baeekel denies the existence of a Creator altogether ; and Haeckel jb r *ck' ned about as great an authority on Evolution as Darwin. Haeckel acoounts for the endowing of inorganio matter with life by spontaneous generation At the present time no scientist worthy of the name believes m it Haeckel himself admits that it is an impossibility now ; | bnt he oontends tbat m the early ages of I the earth's history conditions may hive prevailed whioh world admit of it*possibility. As an instance, he mentions the larae amount of car oon that mv t h »v f - existed dnncg the carboniferous period. This is w*ak reasoning lnd«ei; it is begging the queation at oDoe, and the carboniferous period h _ nothiug wbatevei to do with it, as life existed ages before j ihat period. |

Haeckel thinks himself very fortunate m having discovered that organism c«li«d monera. He cnneide/s mto be the most simple of all organic beings, awd dfaorihe* it as oonsiating of mere lumps of pure albumen, without organs or heteroce ieouparta. He thinks it does not r» quire an unreasonable amount of imagination to conceive of the change whioh would be r.. cessary to prodnce by spontaneous generation suoh a simple creature Tho monera is therefore classed as the firat living creature, and as it is said not to hive any organs or bet ro>eneoun parts it is aßeumed that a le*a eftort was required to produce it from m rgamc ma ter. Let us for a momeot consider how far Haecsel ia correct m nay ng that tlie monera ha no organs or hererogtueo is parte- Tlv monera has the pow« r of loooraotion, of assimi'ation ot its food md of propa at on each and all of whch are impossible without organs, lt also has feet or fingerlike processes which it moves. How oould these feet be moved without some org<m to move them ? Although the organs may not be visible, yet anyone who otn reaso . may know that th«re oonld 'be no su. h thirtg aa motion without organs. Aga n, it is impossible to oonobive of a creature digesting its food, and capable of self propagation without organs or hetero geneous pirte. The monera multipli sby a division of ita body into two parte, each of whioh becomes a new individual. Tne essenoe of Darwinism is natural Fe'ection by which Darw'n maint.ins that Evolution has been accomplished. Now. what is meant r»y nutural selection ? It means that there is a law pervading all organisms which causes individuals to vary, that natural selection selects and retains such of tnese variations as will prove beneficial, and rejeo 8 such a' wonld be of no nse. By on accumulation of variations which are beneficial, it von -y a quest on of time to deve'op the moat perfect animal from the nunc pritnicive one. Now we shall see how natural selection would act on the monera, whioh ia said by Professor Haeckel to be the first croa'ure that lived on thia earth, cousequeotiy the primeval parent of all other organisms. If such be the case, we bave no choice but to start with the monera. For the sake cf argument let us suppose that an individual moneron de/etopeß an an eye. The question ia, how is natural selection to *elect and retain this variation ? When the first individual with an eye oomes to divide itself into two, ono of two thingß must take place, viz., either the eye must go wiLh one part, the other becoming eyelet's, or the eye muat be divided each m dividual getting h *lf an eye When these two with half an eye eaoh come to divide again there will be a quart' r of an e;e to each, and m a wry few generations the laat vestige of an eye disappears. Any other variation mupt come to the same result. The only other thing which could take place would be equally fatal, viz , when the moneron which had the eye fir-jt came to divide itself, one half would retain the eye entire, and the other be withont any. When the new individual which retains tho whole eye comts to divide itself again, the same thing will happen again, oae half retain the whole eye and the other ha'f have none. Fol lowing this process ou; it can eaii'y bo seen that only thia one original eye will be handed down to eaoh generation. No matter how fast th-y multip'y, or how numerous they become, only one individual m each generation will have an eye. And should any accident happen to it, or the individual poßßeesing it it would be desi royc d for ever Thus, with regard to cb« monera, the primeval parent of all organisms, natural "election ia of no avail. Let ua now see how it would act on more advanced animals. Ifc i 8 a well-known fact tnat there is m Nature a tendency to reproduce m the offspring tbe charact- r istica of the parents Mm can take ad vantage of tbia by selecting a>y variation and breeding any animal with the aim m view of producing a now variety m a splits, but it takes unromittiug care and application on the part of tin breeder to accomplish any result, as Natnre, unassisted by man, invariably loses any variation m one or two generations. Observation establishes the fact that there is no such thing as natural selection.

It is admitted by Darwin that what are known technically as monstrosities, that is, pronounced or large variations, ar« invariably lost. He udraits that ' natural selection has no power to retain large vnriatons. It ia only by selecting and retaining minute variations over almost < ia finitely long periods of time,, that natural selection works. One is quite safe m saying this, as it can never be leafed, because man's experience on the eaith has been too short to be of any use ; but it seems a moßt strange thing, and requires further explanation, how natural salection can aot on minute variations, and yet be powerless with such as ere fcaeily observed and conic} be traced by man. There are other weak points, but space will not permit of my dealing with them m this paper, and those already mentioned will snffloe lo shew that the evolution thecry is not so strong and complete, nur , so unassailable as Professor Hut ton would I have us believe.