Questions

This is a list of all the questions and their associated study carrel identifiers. One can learn a lot of the "aboutness" of a text simply by reading the questions.

identifier question
14558And how have the more complex arrangements of so many flowers been brought about?
14558But if what lies below the horse''s''knee''thus corresponds to the middle finger in ourselves, what has become of the four other fingers or digits?
14558But is this the case?
14558Do young birds pursue and capture these distasteful butterflies till they have learned by bitter experience what species to avoid?
14558Is he developed in a different way from other mammals, as we should certainly expect if he has had a distinct and altogether different origin?
14558Selection?_ 1.
14558Should we expect that_ one_ ever to be found, and should the fact that it could not be found be taken as a proof that it was not there?
14558Soc._(?
14558We can not help asking, therefore, why have other and much more elaborate methods been needed?
14558how did perigynous or epigynous flowers arise from hypogynous flowers?
14558how the various forms of inflorescence were evolved?
14558{(?)
14558{(?)
30429But here the question arises, can it be manifested inwardly without such a transformation of energy?
30429Can we longer refuse to believe that even thought force is in some mysterious way correlated to the other natural forces?
30429God is infinite, and therefore includes nature; but is nature all?
30429In absence of antecedents, what was the cause of this fire- mist-- of these forces active in it?
30429Is it possible, then, that the protoplasm which produces the mould is exactly the same composition as that which produces the human child?
30429O death, where is thy sting?
30429O grave, where is thy victory?"
30429Or is the evolution of thought entirely independent of the matter of the brain?
30429Returning now to our protoplasm, let us ask the question: Where did it come from?
30429The question naturally arises, is there any explanation for the loss of hair covering?
30429WAS MAN CREATED?
30429What will be the result of this?
30429What, then, has science demonstrated?
30429What, then, is a true conscience?
30429[ 48]"Can we longer doubt,"says Barker,[49]"that the brain too, is a machine for the conversion of energy?
30429_ Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?_ No.
30429and,_ à fortiori_, between all four?
30429or, How did it come into existence?
21019After we have read all this, we instinctively ask ourselves: do we actually live at the beginning of the 20th century?
21019But how does he settle with Romanes?
21019But is not this another plain indication of the decay of Darwinism?
21019But what is the Darwinian position?
21019But what is to be thought of his search after truth since he completely ignores his adversaries?
21019But what will Brother Bebel with his Haeckelism say to the present article?
21019But where is there mention of the professional colleagues of Haeckel whose testimonies could be taken seriously?
21019Does this article betoken the death- bed of Darwinism?
21019Does this in any way tend to establish Schmidt''s honesty?
21019For has not Professor Marsh told his readers that"to doubt evolution is to doubt science?"
21019For who would undertake to popularize what is not novel or striking?
21019For, what do we know of the so- called process of growth?
21019How could man who had sprung from the irrational brute possess a soul?
21019How do those groups of species which constitute what are called distinct genera arise?
21019How is either phenomenon to be explained?
21019How then fares it with the anthropological basis of Haeckel''s whole system?
21019Is it possible, that even at this late day the whole structure of scientific method is to be subverted in this fashion?
21019Is not this exactly what we have repeatedly asserted?
21019Is there any evidence that such a struggle for life among mature forms, as Darwin postulates, actually occurs?
21019Is there any reason to believe that new species may originate by the accumulation of fluctuating individual variations?
21019It does indeed meet with approval, but the question is, from whom?
21019It may be asked: What bearing has this principle of multiple origins?
21019On the contrary, is there not convincing proof that many, and presumably most, adaptations can not be thus accounted for?
21019The reader may now ask, What, then, is your idea of evolution?
21019What conclusions did he reach?
21019What then is there in the whole phenomenon worthy of notice with regard to the theory of Descent?
21019Why does Schmidt not mention here the names of Ruetimeyer, His, and Semper?
21019Why not?
21019Will Haeckel, in his usual manner try to cast suspicion on Hertwig also?
22428201- 210 How Instinct may be best Studied Definition of Instinct Does Man possess Instincts?
22428211- 230 Instinct or Reason in the Construction of Birds''Nests Do Men build by Reason or by Imitation?
22428And what do most of us do at the present day but imitate the buildings of those that have gone before us?
22428Are not improved Steam Engines or Clocks the lineal descendants of some existing Steam Engine or Clock?
22428But do these figures at all approximately represent the relative intellect of the three groups?
22428But what proof is given or suggested that this was the mode by which the adjustment took place?
22428Do Birds sing by Instinct or by Imitation?
22428Do they fall in with any other groups of natural phenomena?
22428Do they not teach us something of the system of Nature?
22428Does Nature descend to imposture or masquerade?
22428For are not all inventions of the same kind directly affiliated to a common ancestor?
22428How did such an extraordinary organ come to be developed?
22428How did this arise?
22428How do young Birds learn to build their first Nest?
22428How else, in fact, should they make it?
22428How were all or any of these faculties first developed, when they could have been of no possible use to man in his early stages of barbarism?
22428How, then, could they inlay, or weave, or twist the materials of a nest?
22428If any modifications of structure could be the result of law, why not all?
22428If any varieties of colour, why not all the varieties we see?
22428If some self- adaptations could arise, why not others?
22428Is not the_ à priori_ evidence in favour of an identity of the causes that have produced such similar results?
22428Is the savage really no farther removed from the philosopher, and so much removed from the ape, as these figures would indicate?
22428Is there ever a new Creation in Art or Science any more than in Nature?
22428Now, if the Creator''s mind is like ours, whence this ugliness?
22428The question forces itself upon every thinking mind,--why are these things so?
22428To every thoughtful naturalist the question must arise, What are these for?
22428Was this single island selected for a fantastic display of creative power, merely to excite a childlike and unreasoning admiration?
22428What have the houses of most savage tribes improved from, each as invariable as the nest of a species of bird?
22428What have they to do with the great laws of creation?
22428What is the meaning of this strange travestie?
22428What is there in the life of the savage, but the satisfying of the cravings of appetite in the simplest and easiest way?
22428What thoughts, ideas, or actions are there, that raise him many grades above the elephant or the ape?
22428What we now have to inquire is,--Can this theory be applied in any way to the question of the origin of the races of man?
22428What, I would ask, are we to do with phenomena such as these?
22428What, then, can he use but mud?
22428Why are the Macaws and the Cockatoos similarly restricted?
22428Why are the closely allied species of brown- backed Trogons all found in the East, and the green- backed in the West?
22428Why are the genera of Palms and of Orchids in almost every case confined to one hemisphere?
22428Why does each Bird build a peculiar kind of Nest?
22428Why is this bird so extraordinarily abundant, while others producing two or three times as many young are much less plentiful?
22428Why, as a general rule, are aquatic, and especially sea birds, very numerous in individuals?
22428Wild cats are prolific and have few enemies; why then are they never as abundant as rabbits?
22428Would the area of rock actually laid open to the eye be the thousandth or the ten- thousandth part of the earth''s surface?
22428_ Do Birds sing by Instinct or by Imitation?_ The Hon.
22764And what are varieties but groups of forms, unequally related to each other, and clustered round certain forms-- that is, round their parent- species?
22764As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not Nature effect?
22764But have we any right to assume that things have thus remained from the beginning of this world?
22764But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in nature?
22764But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely- linking intermediate varieties?
22764But may not this inference be presumptuous?
22764But what is meant by this system?
22764Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and for seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?
22764Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature?
22764Do they believe that at each supposed act of creation one individual or many were produced?
22764Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?
22764How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation?
22764How, then, comes it that such a vast number of the seedlings are mongrelized?
22764How, then, does the lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater difference between species?
22764It may well be asked how is it possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?
22764Look at a plant in the midst of its range, why does it not double or quadruple its numbers?
22764Now do these complex and singular rules indicate that species have been endowed with sterility simply to prevent their becoming confounded in nature?
22764Now what does this remarkable law of the succession of the same types within the same areas mean?
22764Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?
22764Were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full grown?
22764What can be more extraordinary than these well- ascertained facts?
22764What can be plainer than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming?
22764What now are we to say to these several facts?
22764What reason, it may be asked, is there for supposing in these cases that two individuals ever concur in reproduction?
22764Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare?
22764Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos?
22764Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils?
22764Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?
22764Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
22764Why should not Nature have taken a leap from structure to structure?
22764Why should similar bones have been created in the formation of the wing and leg of a bat, used as they are for such totally different purposes?
22764Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinary shaped pieces of bone?
22764Why should the degree of sterility be innately variable in the individuals of the same species?
22764Why should there often be so great a difference in the result of a reciprocal cross between the same two species?
22764Why should this be so?
22764Why should this be so?
22764Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
22764Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands?
22764Why, it may be asked, have all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists rejected this view of the mutability of species?
22764Why, it may even be asked, has the production of hybrids been permitted?
22764Why, on the theory of Creation, should this be so?
22764Would the just- hatched young occasionally crawl on and adhere to the feet of birds roosting on the ground, and thus get transported?
22764and in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother''s womb?
22764if that between America and Europe is ample, will that between the Continent and the Azores, or Madeira, or the Canaries, or Ireland, be sufficient?
2009And even if one was so, what chance was there of the perpetuation of such a variation?"
2009But how to obtain the beginning of such useful development?"
2009But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in nature?
2009But if the same species can be produced at two separate points, why do we not find a single mammal common to Europe and Australia or South America?
2009But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely- linking intermediate varieties?
2009But may not the areas of preponderant movement have changed in the lapse of ages?
2009But may not this inference be presumptuous?
2009But what is meant by this system?
2009But what other natural material could bees use?
2009But why, it may be asked, are certain forms treated as the mimicked and others as the mimickers?
2009Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?
2009Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under nature?
2009Do they believe that at each supposed act of creation one individual or many were produced?
2009Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?
2009He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the Cambrian system was deposited?
2009How will the struggle for existence, briefly discussed in the last chapter, act in regard to variation?
2009How, then, comes it that such a vast number of the seedlings are mongrelized?
2009How, then, does the lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater difference between species?
2009Is this the case?
2009It may well be asked how it is possible to reconcile this case with the theory of natural selection?
2009Now do these complex and singular rules indicate that species have been endowed with sterility simply to prevent their becoming confounded in nature?
2009Now, what does this remarkable law of the succession of the same types within the same areas mean?
2009One writer asks, why has not the ostrich acquired the power of flight?
2009Or, again, why has not any member of the group acquired a long proboscis?
2009Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?
2009Were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full grown?
2009What can be more extraordinary than these well- ascertained facts?
2009What can be plainer than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming?
2009What now are we to say to these several facts?
2009What reason, it may be asked, is there for supposing in these cases that two individuals ever concur in reproduction?
2009What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
2009What then checks an indefinite increase in the number of species?
2009Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity?
2009Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare?
2009Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos?
2009Why does it not double or quadruple its numbers?
2009Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?
2009Why have not apes acquired the intellectual powers of man?
2009Why have not the more highly developed forms every where supplanted and exterminated the lower?
2009Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
2009Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure?
2009Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone apparently representing vertebrae?
2009Why should the degree of sterility be innately variable in the individuals of the same species?
2009Why should the sepals, petals, stamens, and pistils, in each flower, though fitted for such distinct purposes, be all constructed on the same pattern?
2009Why should there often be so great a difference in the result of a reciprocal cross between the same two species?
2009Why should this be so?
2009Why should this be so?
2009Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
2009Why, it has been asked, if instinct be variable, has it not granted to the bee"the ability to use some other material when wax was deficient?"
2009Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands?
2009Why, it may be asked, until recently did nearly all the most eminent living naturalists and geologists disbelieve in the mutability of species?
2009Why, it may even be asked, has the production of hybrids been permitted?
2009Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and so little real novelty?
2009Would the just- hatched young sometimes adhere to the feet of birds roosting on the ground and thus get transported?
2009and in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother''s womb?
22728> If freely allowed, the characters of pure parents will be lost, number of races thus< illegible> but differences besides the< illegible>. 22728 ? 22728 ? 22728 Again we have to ask: how soon did any of these influences produce an effect on Darwin''s mind? 22728 And why should we not admit this theory of descent{514}? 22728 Are not all the most varied species, the oldest domesticated: who< would> think that horses or corn could be produced? 22728 Are not all those plants and animals, of which we have the greatest number of races, the oldest domesticated? 22728 But geologists consider Europe as a passage from sea to island to continent( except Wealden, see Lyell). 22728 But geologists consider Europe as a passage from sea to island to continent( except Wealden, see Lyell). 22728 But is there any evidence that the species, which surround us on all sides, have been thus produced? 22728 Can any distinct line be drawn_ between a race and a species_? 22728 Can it be said that the_ limit of variation_ or the number of varieties capable of being formed under domestication are known? 22728 Can it be shown that organic beings in a natural state are_ all absolutely invariable_? 22728 Degradation and complication? 22728 Dieffenbach) phanerogamic plants? 22728 Digitalis shows jumps in variation, like Laburnum and Orchis case-- in fact hostile cases. 22728 Europe we find equally European. 22728 Everyone will allow if every fossil preserved, gradation infinitely more perfect; for possibility of selection a perfect gradation is required. 22728 Finally, if we narrow the question into, why do we not find in some instances every intermediate form between any two species? 22728 Gradual appearance and disappearance of groups What is the Natural System? 22728 Hence more forms< on?> the island. 22728 Hence in past ages mere[ gaps] pages preserved{114}. 22728 Hence we should expect every now and then a wild form to vary{49}; possibly this may be cause of some species varying more than others. 22728 I believe this from numbers, who have lived,--mere chance of fewness. 22728 If so, is it so improbable that the deerhound and long- legged shepherd dog have so descended? 22728 In how few places in any one region like Europe will these contingencies be going on? 22728 In how few places in any one region like Europe will these contingencies be going on? 22728 Introduce here contrast with Lamarck,--absurdity of habit, or chance?? 22728 Introduce here contrast with Lamarck,--absurdity of habit, or chance?? 22728 Is there then any direct evidence in favour< of> or against this view? 22728 It is not clear in the original to how much of the passage the two? 22728 Justly argued against Lamarck?
22728Lastly, words inserted by the editor, of which the appropriateness is doubtful, are printed thus< variation?>.
22728N.B.--There ought somewhere to be a discussion from Lyell to show that external conditions do vary, or a note to Lyell''s works< work?>.
22728Now what evidence of this is there?
22728Other cases just< the> reverse, mountains of eastern S. America, Altai, S. India{ 124}: mountain summits of islands often eminently peculiar.
22728Other cases just< the> reverse, mountains of eastern S. America, Altai, S. India{ 124}: mountain summits of islands often eminently peculiar.
22728Probably double plants and all fruits owe their developed parts primarily to sterility and extra food thus applied{74}.
22728Probably double plants and all fruits owe their developed parts primarily to sterility and extra food thus applied{74}.
22728Recapitulation Why do we wish to reject the Theory of Common Descent?
22728Recent as the yet discovered fossil mammifers of S. America are, who will pretend to say that very many intermediate forms may not have existed?
22728So we see in grey- hound, bull- dog, in race- horse and cart- horse, which have been selected for their form in full- life, there is much less(?)
22728Some nearest species will not cross( crocus, some heath), some genera cross readily( fowls{68} and grouse, peacock& c.).
22728Such words are followed by an inserted mark of interrogation.
22728The
22728These animals therefore, I consider then mere introduction from continents long since submerged.
22728These generally very slow, doubtful though< illegible> how far the slowness would produce tendency to vary.
22728These generally very slow, doubtful though< illegible> how far the slowness would produce tendency to vary.
22728This point which all theories about climate adapting woodpecker{50} to crawl up trees,< illegible> miseltoe,< sentence incomplete>.
22728What then would be the natural and almost inevitable effects of the gradual change into the present more temperate climate{366}?
22728When therefore did the current of his thoughts begin to set in the direction of Evolution?
22728Who can answer the same question with respect to instincts?
22728Who will say what could thus be effected in the course of ten thousand generations?
22728Why again is the same species much more abundant in one district of a country than in another district?
22728Why on the ordinary theory should the Galapagos Islands abound with terrestrial reptiles?
22728Why on the theory of absolute creations should this large and diversified island only have from 400 to 500(?
22728Why were the plants in Eastern and Western Australia, though wholly different as species, formed on the same peculiar Australian types?
22728Will analogy throw any light on the fact of the supposed races of nature being sterile, though none of the domestic ones are?
22728[ In continent, if we look to terrestrial animal, long continued change might go on, which would only cause change in numerical number
22728and why should many equal- sized islands in the Pacific be without a single one{386} or with only one or two species?
22728e. the above mentioned parents> descendant; the parent more variable than foetus, which explains all.]
22728or have they descended, like our domestic races, from the same parent- stock?
22728p. 244, note 10.> What is it in domestication which causes variation?"
22728whether they should both be called genera or families; or whether one should be a genus, and the other a family{439}?
22728{ 123} Note in the original,"Would it be more striking if we took animals, take Rhinoceros, and study their habitats?"
22728{ 175} Between the lines occurs:--"one form be lost."
22728{ 236}< Note in original.> Seals?
22728{ 301}< Note in original.> Is this the Galeopithecus?
22728{ 320}< Note in original.> Neither highest or lowest fish(_ i.e._ Myxina or Lepidosiren) could be preserved in intelligible condition in fossils.
5273Do we consider the deficiency of this sixth sense in man as the slightest evidence against design? 5273 What Is Darwinism?
5273Why do n''t he say,cries the theologian,"that the complicated organs of plants and animals are the product of the divine intelligence?
5273[ III-14] What does the difference between Mr. Darwin and his reviewer now amount to? 5273 A good deal may be made of this, but does it sustain the indictment? 5273 And if individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of species?
5273And who that is convinced of this can long undoubtingly hold the original distinctness of turnips from cabbages as an article of faith?
5273And why not suppose that the finder of the watch, or of the watch- wheel, infers both design and human workmanship?
5273And would an explanation of the mode in which those woodpeckers came to be green, however complete, convince him that the color was undesigned?
5273Are they veritable Melchizedeks, without pedigree or early relationship, and possibly fated to be without descent?
5273As the intellectual connection here is realized through the material connection, why may it not be so in the case of species and genera?
5273As to the latter, is the common apprehension and sense of mankind in this regard well grounded?
5273Because natural, that is,"stated, fixed, or settled,"is it any the less designed on that account?
5273But does the one really exclude the other?
5273But how would it be if you saw the men doing the same thing over and over?
5273But how?
5273But is it a teleology, or rather-- to use the new- fangled term-- a dysteleology?
5273But now, as the genus and the species have no material existence, how can they vary?
5273But what is the position of the reviewer upon his own interpretation of these passages?
5273But what of the vast majority that perish?
5273But where is there the slightest evidence of a common progenitor?
5273But why not say the same of the aurochs, contemporary both of the old man and of the new?
5273But would any of them be preserved and carried to an equal degree of deviation?
5273But you will ask me,''Do you, then, reject the doctrine of evolution?
5273But, this being proved is it now very improbable that both were derived from the almond, or from some common amygdaline progenitor?
5273Can it be that there was no design, no designer, directing the powers of life in the formation of this wonderful organ?
5273Can the derivative hypothesis be maintained and carried out into a system on similar grounds?
5273Can we rightly reason from our own intelligence and powers to a higher or a supreme intelligence ordering and shaping the system of Nature?
5273Could she accomplish similar results when left to herself?
5273Do order and useful- working collocation, pervading a system throughout all its parts, prove design?
5273Do you accept the creation of species directly and without secondary agencies and processes?''
5273Does the investigation of physical causes stand opposed to the theological view and the study of the harmonies between mind and Nature?
5273First, Do they die out as a matter of fact?
5273For it is still to ask: whence this rich endowment of matter?
5273Have these changes modified in the slightest degree the supposed evidence of design?"
5273Have they had a career, and can that career be ascertained or surmised, so that we may at least guess whence they came, and how, and when?
5273Have we not similar grounds for inferring design in the supposed varieties of species, that we have in the case of the supposed species of a genus?
5273He set before himself a single problem-- namely, How are the fauna and flora of our earth to be accounted for?
5273How came they to be applied to natural selection by a divine who professes that God ordained whatsoever cometh to pass?
5273How could he know whether the blow was intentional or not?
5273How if you at length discovered a profitable end of the operation, say the winning of a wager?
5273How many of the land animals and plants which are enumerated in the Massachusetts official reports would it be likely to contain?
5273How moving them?
5273How, then, can we suppose Chance to be the author of a system in which everything is as regular as clockwork?
5273II Do Species wear out?
5273If any of us were born unlike our parents and grandparents, in a slight degree, or in whatever degree, would the case be altered in this regard?
5273If only individual chairs exist, how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of the species?
5273If species do not exist at all, as the supporters of the transmutation theory maintain, how can they vary?
5273If that does not refer the efficiency of physical causes to the First Cause, what form of words could do so?
5273Is it compatible with our seemingly inbore conception of Nature as an ordered system?
5273Is there anything in Nature which in the long- run may answer to artificial selection?
5273It is asked, If the first was so created for its obvious and actual use, and the second for such use as it has, what was the design of the third?
5273More than this, is it not most presumable that an intellectual conception realized in Nature would be realized through natural agencies?
5273Now, if the eye as it is, or has become, so convincingly argued design why not each particular step or part of this result?
5273Now, is not all this a question of degree, of mere gradation of difference?
5273Now, the question is, Does this involve the destruction or only the reconstruction of our consecrated ideas of teleology?
5273Now, where is the design in all this?
5273Or are they now coming upon the stage-- or rather were they coming but for man''s interference-- to play a part in the future?
5273Or are they remnants, sole and scanty survivors of a race that has played a grander part in the past, but is now verging to extinction?
5273Or, pourquoi la reproduction est- elle possible, habituelle, feconde indefiniment, entre des etres organises que nous dirons de la meme espece?
5273Rather does not the proof extend to the intermediate species, and go to show that all four were equally designed?
5273Shall we quarrel with Science if she should show how these words are true?
5273Should we be less apt to infer creative wisdom if we had only four senses instead of five, or three instead of four?
5273So in the counterpart case of natural selection: must we not infer intention from the arrangements and the results?
5273So it has been asked, If a man can make a telescope, why can not God make a telescope which produces others like itself?
5273So the question comes to this: What will an hypothesis of the derivation of species explain which the opposing view leaves unexplained?
5273Such being the results of the want of adequate knowledge, how is it likely to be when our knowledge is largely increased?
5273The practical question will only be, How much difference between two sets of individuals entitles them to rank under distinct species?
5273The questions,"What will he do with it?"
5273This raises the question, Why does Darwin press his theory to these extreme conclusions?
5273To the triumphant outcry,"How can an organ, such as an eye, be formed under Nature?"
5273To which we reply by asking, Which does the question refer to, the category of thought, or the individual embodiment?
5273VIII WHAT IS DARWINISM?
5273Viewed philosophically, the question only is, Which is the better supported hypothesis of the two?
5273Was this the result of a mere Epicurean or Lucretian"fortuitous concourse"of living"atoms"?
5273Well, if this be so, why denounce the modern man of science so severely upon the other page merely for accepting the permission?
5273Were the old alchemists atheists as well as dreamers in their attempts to transmute earth into gold?
5273What are these probabilities?
5273What better evidence for such hypothesis could we have than the variations and grades which connect these species with each other?
5273What is now to be thought of the ordinary glandular hairs which render the surface of many and the most various plants extremely viscid?
5273What is the bearing of these remarkable adaptations and operations upon doctrines of evolution?
5273What more than this could be said for such an hypothesis?
5273What work will this hypothesis do to establish a claim to be adopted in its completeness?
5273What would come of it?
5273What, then, are organs not adapted to use marks of?
5273When plants are seen to move and to devour, what faculties are left that are distinctively animal?
5273Whence comes that of which all we see and know is the outcome?
5273Who shall decide between such extreme views so ably maintained on either hand, and say how much of truth there may be in each?
5273Why do all hypotheses of derivation converge so inevitably to one ultimate point?
5273Why is this, but that the link of generation has been sundered?
5273Why may not the new species, or some of them, be designed diversifications of the old?
5273Why not?
5273Why should these plants take to organic food more than others?
5273Why should time be lost by this preliminary and incomplete closing?
5273Why these two stages?
5273Why this continual striving after"the unattained and dim?"
5273Why, but because, by their complete extinction in South America, the line of descent was there utterly broken?
5273Would they doubt, or deny my intention, on that account?
5273XII DURATION AND ORIGINATION OF RACE AND SPECIES-- IMPORT OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION I Do Varieties wear out, or tend to wear out?
5273[ VIII-1] The Nation, May 28, 1874) The question which Dr. Hodge asks he promptly and decisively answers:"What is Darwinism?
5273and if not, why not?
5273and if they varied it by other arrangements of the balls or of the blow, and these were followed by analogous results?
5273and"How far will he carry it?"
5273or, does it tend to atheism or pantheism?
5273use of sexual reproduction?
5273we would respond with a parallel question, How can a complex and elaborate organ, such as a nettle- sting, be formed under Nature?