ood enough to say
that, owing to the work of Darwin, the fact that the differences which
we see between organisms have been reached by a gradual evolution, is
not now disputed. That, at any rate, seems to be a solid achievement.
But he went on to declare that when we inquire by what method this
evolution was brought about biologists can return no answer. That
appears to me to be a most extraordinary perversion of the truth. The
reason why the gradual evolution of the various kinds of organisms is
not now disputed is that Darwin showed the method by which that
evolution can and must be brought about. So far from "returning no
answer," Darwin and succeeding generations of biologists do return a
very full answer to the question, "By what method has organic
evolution been brought about?" Our misleading writer proceeds as
follows: "The Darwinian theory of natural selection acting on minute
differences is generally considered nowadays to be inadequate, but no
alternative theory has taken its place." This is an entirely erroneous
statement. Though Darwin held that natural selection acted most widely
and largely on minute differences, he did not suppose that its
operation was confined to them, and he considered and gave importance
to a number of other characteristics of organisms which have an
important part in the process of organic evolution. The assertion that
the theory of natural selection as left by Darwin "is now generally
held to be inadequate" is fallacious. Darwin's conclusions on this
matter are generally held to be essentially true. It is obvious that
his argument is capable of further elaboration and development by
additional knowledge, and always was regarded as being so by its
author and by every other competent person. But that is a very
different thing from holding Darwin's theory of natural selection to
be "inadequate." It is adequate, because it furnishes the foundation
on which we build, and it is so solid, complete and far-reaching that
what has been added since Darwin's death is very small by comparison
with his original structure.

Lastly, we are told by the anonymous writer already quoted that at the
present time discussion is chiefly concentrated on the question as to
whether life is dependent only on the physical and chemical properties
of the living substance, protoplasm, or whether there is at work an
independent vital principle which sharply separates living from
non-living matter! And the obvious