In the preceding examples I have assumed that every organic entity was created in that stage of its being which constitutes the acme of its peculiar development; when all its faculties are in their highest perfection, and when it is best fitted to reproduce its own image. From the very nature of things I judge that this was the actual fact;[90] since, if we suppose the formation of the primitive creatures in an undeveloped or infant condition, a period would require to lapse before the increase of the species could begin; which time would be wasted. To those, indeed, who receive as authority the testimony of the Holy Scripture, the matter stands on more than probable ground; for its statements, as to the condition of the things created, are clear and full: they were not seeds, and germs, and eggs, and embryos,--but "the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself,"--"great whales,"--"winged fowl,"--"the beast of the earth,"--and "man."[91] But I do not mean to shield myself behind authority. I have begged the _fact_ of creation; but not the truth, nor even the existence, of any historic document describing it. It is essential to my argument that any such be left entirely out of the question; and, for the present, I accordingly ignore the Bible. It is possible that some opponent may object to my assumption of maturity in created organisms. "Your deductions may be sound enough," such an one may say, "provided your newly-created Locust-tree had so many concentric cylinders of timber, your Tree-fern had a well-developed stem of leaf-bases, your Coral a great aggregation of polype-cells, your Tortoise a carapace of many-laminated plates, your Elephant a half-worn set of molars, and your Man a thoroughly ossified skeleton. But how do you know that either of these organisms was created in this mature stage? I will not deny that each was created,--was called suddenly out of non-entity into entity; but I believe, or at least I choose to believe,--that each was created in the simplest form in which it can exist; as the seed, the gemmule, the ovum, the--ahem!" Pray go on! you were about to say "the infant," or "the foetus," or "the embryo," probably; pray make your selection: which will you say? "Well, I hardly know. Because, if I choose the new-born infant, you will say, Its condition implies a nine months' pre-existence, certainly; not to speak of the absurdity of a new-born infant being cast out into an open world without a parent to feed it. If I say, The foetus, or the still more incipient embryo, I involve, at once, a pre-existent mother. I am afraid you have me there!" I think I have. However, let us take up the matter orderly, and proceed on the supposition that my previous examples must be all cancelled, and the question argued _de novo_, on the assumption that each organism was created in its least developed condition.