73
neously asserted that the element of time has been assumed by
me to play an all-important part in modifying species.”
But this denial only extends to the hypothesis that
“all the forms of life are necessarily undergoing change
through some innate law.” For he goes on at once to
assert:—
“ Lapse of time is only so far important—and its importance in
this respect is great—that it gives a better chance of beneficial
variations arising, and of their being selected, accumulated and
fixed.”—(Origin of Species, p. 82.)
Now, if the process of the transmutation of species
by Natural Selection were always slow but, at the same
time, sure in each generation, it is obvious not only
that time would be required, but also that time would be
successful in bringing about the desired change. But if,
as we have seen, the conditions of life do not secure
the necessary power of selection in each generation,
how can a repetition of failures make an ultimate success ?
Mr. Wallace uses the same argument with respect to
accidental death.
“ Although in many individual cases death may be due to chance
rather than to any inferiority in those which die first, yet we cannot
possibly believe that this can be the case on the large scale on
which nature works.”—(.Darwinism. p. 122S
On what principle, we venture to ask, does Mr. Wallace
assume the universality of a discriminative death—because
nature works on so large a scale ? W T hence have the
observers of nature obtained their evidence of accidental
death if not from every sphere of organic life, from the
rapidly-increasing aphis to the slow-breeding elephant
and man ? Is it because spheres of nature remain to
be explored ? But surely we can only anticipate in
unexplored spheres the action of the principles with
which we are already acquainted in spheres which