no 
for the theory of organic evolution, the evidences for 
which Mr. Romanes has so lucidly stated, would have 
caused men to see the folly of supposing that organs and 
still more, instincts should be given to animals not for 
their own use, but solely for the use of man, long before 
man himself came upon the scene. , 
There need be no great wonder in our minds when 
we find that this argument has been so little used, when 
we consider how little support it renders to the theory of 
Natural Selection. 
It is with great reluctance that I have entered on a 
discussion, so purely theological, in this connection ; but 
it seemed to me necessary, if possible, to remove the 
impression that the argument for Natural Selection is 
especially strong in its refutation of the principles of 
a rational theology. 
(c) THE ANALOGY BETWEEN NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL 
SELECTION. 
“ The chief objection to historical parallels is, that the diligent 
narrator may lack space, or (what is often the same thing) may not be 
able to think of them with any degree of particularity, though he may 
have a philosophical confidence, that, if known, they would be 
illustrative.”—(Middle march. vol. ii., p. 213.) 
“ Like—but oh ! how different.” 
—Wordsworth. 
The third argument is based upon the close analogy 
between Natural and Artificial Selection. Dr. Romanes 
puts the case thus :— 
“ The third general class of facts which tell so immensely in 
favour of Natural Selection as an important cause of organic evolution,