Here is a sentence taken almost at random from the body of the article:--

"We are always seeing something which adds to our total stock of

memories; we are always learning and doing something new. The vast

majority of these experiences are similar in kind to those already

passed through by our ancestors: they add nothing to the inheritance

of the race. . . . Though they leave physical traces on the

individual, they do not so far affect the underlying organisation of

the brain as to make the development of after-brains somewhat

different from previous ones. But there are certain functional

activities which do tend so to alter the development of after-brains;

certain novel or sustained activities which apparently result in the

production of new correlated brain elements or brain connections

hereditarily transmissible as increased potentialities of similar

activity in the offspring."

Of Natural Selection Mr. Allen writes much, as Professor Mivart and

others have been writing for many years past.

"It seems to me," he says, "easy to understand how survival of the

fittest may result in progress starting from such functionally produced

gains, but impossible to understand how it could result in progress if it

had to start in mere accidental structural increments due to spontaneous

variation alone." {252a}

Mr. Allen may say this now, but until lately he has been among the first

to scold any one else who said so.

Selections from Previous Works With Remarks on Romanes' Mental Evolution in Animals, and a Psalm of Montreal · 第 33 / 44 题