435
all the better for my argument, for the result will show
that exceptional ability on the part of one parent, com
bined with training from earliest infancy of the offspring,
will produce most wonderful results. But it may be very
much questioned whether, in nature, this marriage of
skilled and unskilled ever takes place. The struggle for
existence compels all of them to meet their fate by attain
ing a common excellence in various arts. When the two
sexes practically occupy different spheres, and perform
different actions, this is a case of those secondary sexual
elements, which afford one of the most striking and mar
vellous illustrations of correlation ; but mysterious as this
fact is, there is nothing in it, so far as I can see, to militate
against the idea of the transforming influence of changed
habits. On the contrary, if we suppose, as seems reason
able, that this difference in the modes of life, is itself an
adaptation to new conditions, it shows how new habits
arise and are inherited in the different sexes of the same
species. This argument seems to justify the doctrine for
which we are contending; a transforming influence takes
place independently of Natural Selection, which is not
Natural Selection. It produces marked results which, in
combination with other transforming influences—such as
changed conditions, correlated variation, etc.,—will amply
suffice for the transmutation of species.
Pure Darwinism, which relies on the selection of favour
able birth variations, denies that any acquired character
can be inherited ; and it may be well to consider the
arguments by which this theory is supported.
Dr. Weismann contends that no character can be
acquired for which there is not an inborn disposition.
He asserts that every character acquired by an individual
has two elements,—the predisposition of the organism or
of one of its parts which causes it to respond in a certain