We now see that in the growth of the embryo there is no anomaly, no two distinct forces, and no conflict. The Specific life-force of the race (in conjunction with General life-force) evolves the embryo in the appointed type, as the two combinations of force in the Jacquard loom weave the web, and throw up the appointed pattern.

We cannot see the process of adjusting the new combination (the Specific life-force) to produce the new type, or the forces that evolve the successive phases in the embryo, but we can see that there must be forces to bring them about, just as surely as we see the force of gravitation in the fall of the apple.

Our theory has now explained-intelligibly, as we think the existence of fragmentary organs and the significance of the phases of the embryo as completely as Huxley demands of a hypothesis. We believe it will also explain the other admitted facts of evolution; but if there is a single fact which, in the words of Huxley, "can be shown to be inconsistent with (not merely inexplicable by, but contrary to) the hypothesis," we freely admit that our theory "falls to the ground-it is worth nothing."1 1 Darwiniana, p. 463.

If, however, our theory is sound, it follows

That, the process of specific variation of mammals was completed in the womb of the first ancestor or of the immediate antecessor of a race, and that the process is repeated in the embryo of its latest descendant;

That, as every race reproduces a germ

plasm the same as that from which it came, type cannot be modified by any change in the corpus of the organism brought about by conditions, external or otherwise, or by accumulation of beneficial differences; and

That Type is immutable.

CHAPTER XII.

ARGUMENTATIVE.

We do not propose to anticipate arguments against this new theory of evolution, but we may examine two obvious objections.

This, it will be said, is merely the old theory of successive creations, according to which every new species was evolved by a "miracle" or by a direct intervention of "Supernatural Power."

Our theory does not assume, in the evolution of new species, any intervention of Supernatural Power different in principle from that which brought into existence the simplest forms of life.

If it is held that life was evolved by forces that previously existed in matter, then matter must have been endowed with properties that produced life. We cannot escape from a First Cause.

But what is a "miracle"?

A phenomenon, apparently at variance with some law of Nature we think we

understand, or something inexplicable by any law of Nature of which we have any knowledge, is, we presume, a "miracle."

Huxley says, "A phenomenon is explained when it is shown to be a case of some general law of Nature.” 1

Is, then, a phenomenon we cannot explain a miracle so long as it is inexplicable, and does it become “a case of some general law of Nature" when it can be explained? Was it a "miracle" that water should rise above its level into a vacuum before Torricelli explained the nature of a vacuum, and afterwards only a case of some general law of Nature?

Again, is an inexplicable phenomenon that frequently occurs not a "miracle" but only "a case of some general law of Nature because of its frequent recurrence? We do not understand why a grain of seed germinates and grows into a plant, but we do not call germination a miracle, but "a case of some general law of Nature."

Why, then, should it be a "miracle" and not some "general law of Nature," that specific variation arose in the germ-plasm, seeing that we can witness the processes of variation in the embryo of every mammal, as we can those of germination in the growth of every seed?

1 Darwiniana, p. 57.

We cannot see the force that causes variation in the embryo, but neither can we see the force that causes the grain of seed to germinate, or that brings the apple to the ground.

But it may be argued, that as it is an admitted fact that types more or less highly specialised succeeded each other, the Supernatural Power that caused the variation must have intervened after the simpler forms of life came into existence, and for that reason the intervention was miraculous.

But although Evolution, so far as we know, ceased when man, the most highly specialised organism, appeared-is there any ground for assuming that the Power that brought into existence simple forms of life did not also evoke the more highly specialised types that succeeded them, or that organisms when called into being were not, and are not still, sustained during life and reproduced by the Power that evoked them?

Whence or how comes the inexhaustible supply of force that sustains or renews all animated Nature?

The Darwinian problem-Given the existence of simple forms of life, how were complex forms evolved from them ?-assumes that there was a difference between the coming into existence of simple and of complex organisms, and that life exists independent of