I may premise, that according to the view ordinarily received, the myriads of organisms peopling this world have been created by so many distinct acts of creation. As we know nothing of the «illegible» will of a Creator,—we can see no reason why there should exist any relation between the organisms thus created; or again, they might be created according to any scheme. But it would be marvellous if this scheme should be the same as would result from the descent of groups of organisms from [certain] the same parents, according to the circumstances, just attempted to be developed.
With equal probability did old cosmogonists say fossils were created, as we now see them, with a false resemblance to living beings[{105}]; what would the Astronomer say to the doctrine that the planets moved «not» according to the law of gravitation, but from the Creator having willed each separate planet to move in its particular orbit? I believe such a proposition (if we remove all prejudices) would be as legitimate as to admit that certain groups of living and extinct organisms, in their distribution, in their structure and in their relations one to another and to external conditions, agreed with the theory and showed signs of common descent, and yet were created distinct. As long as it was thought impossible that organisms should vary, or should anyhow become adapted to other organisms in a complicated manner, and yet be separated from them by an impassable barrier of sterility[{106}], it was justifiable, even with some appearance in favour of a common descent, to admit distinct creation according to the will of an Omniscient Creator; or, for it is the same thing, to say with Whewell that the beginnings of all things surpass the comprehension of man. In the former sections I have endeavoured to show that such variation or specification is not impossible, nay, in many points of view is absolutely probable. What then is the evidence in favour of it and what the evidence against it. With our imperfect knowledge of past ages [surely there will be some] it would be strange if the imperfection did not create some unfavourable evidence.
Give sketch of the Past,—beginning with facts appearing hostile under present knowledge,—then proceed to geograph. distribution,—order of appearance,—affinities,—morphology &c., &c.
Our theory requires a very gradual introduction of new forms[{107}], and extermination of the old (to which we shall revert). The extermination of old may sometimes be rapid, but never the introduction. In the groups descended from common parent, our theory requires a perfect gradation not differing more than breed«s» of cattle, or potatoes, or cabbages in forms. I do not mean that a graduated series of animals must have existed, intermediate between horse, mouse, tapir[{108}], elephant [or fowl and peacock], but that these must have had a common parent, and between horse and this «?» parent &c., &c., but the common parent may possibly have differed more from either than the two do now from each other. Now what evidence of this is there? So perfect gradation in some departments, that some naturalists have thought that in some large divisions, if all existing forms were collected, a near approach to perfect gradation would be made. But such a notion is preposterous with respect to all, but evidently so with mammals. Other naturalists have thought this would be so if all the specimens entombed in the strata were collected[{109}]. I conceive there is no probability whatever of this; nevertheless it is certain all the numerous fossil forms fall in«to», as Buckland remarks, not present classes, families and genera, they fall between them: so is it with new discoveries of existing forms. Most ancient fossils, that is most separated «by» space of time, are most apt to fall between the classes—(but organisms from those countries most separated by space also fall between the classes «e.g.» Ornithorhyncus?). As far as geological discoveries «go» they tend towards such gradation[{110}]. Illustrate it with net. Toxodon,—tibia and fibula,—dog and otter,—but so utterly improbable is «it», in ex. gr. Pachydermata, to compose series as perfect as cattle, that if, as many geologists seem to infer, each separate formation presents even an approach to a consecutive history, my theory must be given up. Even if it were consecutive, it would only collect series of one district in our present state of knowledge; but what probability is there that any one formation during the immense period which has elapsed during each period will generally present a consecutive history. [Compare number living at one period to fossils preserved—look at enormous periods of time.]
Referring only to marine animals, which are obviously most likely to be preserved, they must live where «?» sediment (of a kind favourable for preservation, not sand and pebble)[{111}] is depositing quickly and over large area and must be thickly capped, «illegible» littoral deposits: for otherwise denudation «will destroy them»,—they must live in a shallow space which sediment will tend to fill up,—as movement is «in?» progress if soon brought «?» up «?» subject to denudation,—[if] as during subsidence favourable, accords with facts of European deposits[{112}], but subsidence apt to destroy agents which produce sediment[{113}].
I believe safely inferred «that» groups of marine «?» fossils only preserved for future ages where sediment goes on long «and» continuous«ly» and with rapid but not too rapid deposition in «an» area of subsidence. In how few places in any one region like Europe will «?» these contingencies be going on? Hence «?» in past ages mere [gaps] pages preserved[{114}]. Lyell's doctrine carried to extreme,—we shall understand difficulty if it be asked:—what chance of series of gradation between cattle by «illegible» at age «illegible» as far back as Miocene[{115}]? We know then cattle existed. Compare number of living,—immense duration of each period,—fewness of fossils.
This only refers to consecutiveness of history of organisms of each formation.
The foregoing argument will show firstly, that formations are distinct merely from want of fossils «of intermediate beds», and secondly, that each formation is full of gaps, has been advanced to account for fewness of preserved organisms compared to what have lived on the world. The very same argument explains why in older formations the organisms appear to come on and disappear suddenly,—but in [later] tertiary not quite suddenly[{116}], in later tertiary gradually,—becoming rare and disappearing,—some have disappeared within man’s time. It is obvious that our theory requires gradual and nearly uniform introduction, possibly more sudden extermination,—subsidence of continent of Australia &c., &c.
Our theory requires that the first form which existed of each of the great divisions would present points intermediate between existing ones, but immensely different. Most geologists believe Silurian[{117}] fossils are those which first existed in the whole world, not those which have chanced to be the oldest not destroyed,—or the first which existed in profoundly deep seas in progress of conversion from sea to land: if they are first they «? we» give up. Not so Hutton or Lyell: if first reptile[{118}] of Red Sandstone «?» really was first which existed: if Pachyderm[{119}] of Paris was first which existed: fish of Devonian: dragon fly of Lias: for we cannot suppose them the progenitors: they agree too closely with existing divisions. But geologists consider Europe as «?» a passage from sea to island «?» to continent (except Wealden, see Lyell). These animals therefore, I consider then mere introduction «?» from continents long since submerged.
Finally, if views of some geologists be correct, my theory must be given up. [Lyell’s views, as far as they go, are in favour, but they go so little in favour, and so much more is required, that it may «be» viewed as objection.] If geology present us with mere pages in chapters, towards end of «a» history, formed by tearing out bundles of leaves, and each page illustrating merely a small portion of the organisms of that time, the facts accord perfectly with my theory[{120}].