Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: June 2, 2025
But the most elaborate criticisms of the 'Origin of Species' which have appeared are two works of very widely different merit, the one by Professor Kolliker, the well-known anatomist and histologist of Wurzburg; the other by M. Flourens, Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences.
The decade that followed that discovery was a time of great activity in the study of microscopic organisms and microscopic tissues, and such men as Ehrenberg and Henle and Bory Saint-Vincent and Kolliker and Rokitansky and Remak and Dujardin were widening the bounds of knowledge of this new subject with details that cannot be more than referred to here.
The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis. But leaving our own impressions of the 'Origin of Species, and turning to those passages especially cited by Professor Kolliker, we cannot admit that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them.
It will be obvious from what has preceded, that we do not agree with Professor Kolliker in thinking the objections which he brings forward so weighty as to be fatal to Darwin's view. But even if the case were otherwise, we should be unable to accept the "Theory of Heterogeneous Generation" which is offered as a substitute. That theory is thus stated:
Upon this, Professor Kölliker remarks that the absence of transitional forms in the fossil world, though not necessarily fatal to Darwin's views, weakens his case. The struggle for existence does not take place." To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kölliker, very justly, attaches no weight. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, and a natural selection, do not exist.
The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis. But leaving our own impressions of the "Origin of Species," and turning to those passages specially cited by Professor Kölliker, we cannot admit that they bear the interpretation he puts upon them.
We have dwelt at length upon this subject, because of its great general importance, and because we believe that Professor Kolliker's criticisms on this head are based upon a misapprehension of Mr. Darwin's views substantially they appear to us to coincide with his own. The other objections which Professor Kolliker enumerates and discusses are the following :
No transitional forms between existing species are known; and known varieties, whether selected or spontaneous, never go so far as to establish new species." To this Professor Kolliker appears to attach some weight. He makes the suggestion that the short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological product. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the organic remains of earlier epochs."
It comprises a brief but clear sketch of Darwin's views, followed by an enumeration of the leading difficulties in the way of their acceptance; difficulties which would appear to be insurmountable to Professor Kolliker, inasmuch as he proposes to replace Mr.
Yet more, for the sake of hypothesis, we will assume it proved. What follows? Are we to get no more sugar while we smoke? By no means. Hard by the stomach lies the pancreas, an organ so similar in structure to the salivary glands, that even so minute an observer as Kölliker does not think it requisite to give it a separate description.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking