Unity of plan or final purpose, as a governing condition of organic development?
Series of species, uninterrupted or broken by intervals?
Extinction, cataclysmal or regulated?
Development, by epigenesis or evolution?
Primary life, by miracle or secondary law?
Cuvier held the work of organisation to be guided and governed by final purpose or adaptation. Geoffrey denied the evidence of design and contended for the principle which he called "unity of composition," as the law of organisation. Most of his illustrations were open to the demonstration of inaccuracy; and the language by which disciples of the kindred school of Schelling illustrated in the animal structure the transcendental idea of the whole in every part seemed little better than mystical jargon. With Cuvier, answerable parts occurred in the zoological scale because they had to perform similar functions.
As, however, my observations and comparisons accumulated, they enforced a reconsideration of Cuvier's conclusions. To demonstrate the evidence of the community of organisation I found the artifice of an archetype vertebrate animal essential; and from the demonstration of its principle, which I then satisfied myself was associated with and dominated by that of "adaptation to purpose," the step was inevitable to the conception of the operation of a secondary cause of the entire series of species, such cause being the servant of predetermining intelligent will.
But besides "derivation" or "filiation" another principle influencing organisation became recognisable, to which I gave the name of "irrelative repetition," or "vegetative repetition." The demonstrated constitution of the vertebrate endoskeleton as a series of essentially similar segments appeared to me to illustrate the law of irrelative repetition.
These results of inductive research swayed me in rejecting direct or miraculous creation, and in recognising a "natural law or secondary cause" as operative in the production of species "in orderly succession and progression."