<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
#tab{width: 633px; background-color: #cc3333;}
#tap{margin: 15px 0; font: 10px Times New Roman;}
#subj{font: 22px Georgia; color: #ffff00 ; margin: auto auto 19px auto;}
#imag{background-color:#cc3333; padding-top: 19px;}
#imag1{max-width: 633px; background-color: #cc3333; padding: 17px; border: 12px double red;}
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table id="tab">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<p id="tap">
Cant read this Ad as images are invisible? <a href="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/388/4458.10tt54553465AAF1.php"> Go ahead and tap here to reload.</a>
<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="padding: 10px;">
<a target="" href="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/388/4458.10tt54553465AAF2.php" id="subj"> Ski packages: snow included </a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center" id="imag" >
<a href="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/388/4458.10tt54553465AAF3.php"><img src="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/54553465/388.4458/img0949888.jpg" id="imag1" ></a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<a href="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/388/4458.10tt54553465AAF4.html"><img src="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/54553465/388.4458/img1949888.jpg"/></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr>
<table style="width: 633px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 15px;">
<tr>
<td>
<span id="content">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p align="right">complete system, whose parts mutually correspond and concur by their reciprocal reaction to the same definite end. None of these parts can be
changed without affecting the others; and consequently each taken separately, indicates and gives all the rest.” he then gives ilhirations:
arguing that the carnivorous form of tooth necessitating a certain action of the jaw, implies a particular form in its condyles; implies also limbs
fit for seizing and holding prey; therefore implies claws, a certain structure of the leg-bones, a certain form of shoulder-blade. Summing up he
says, that “the claw,<i>the scapula, the condyle, the femur, and all the other bones,</i>taken separately, will give the tooth or one another; and by
commencing with any one, he who had a rational<B>conception of the laws of the organic economy, could reconstruct the whole animal.”</B></p>
<BR><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span>
<p align="center" style="font: 9px;">It will be seen that the method of restoration here contended for, is based on the alleged physiological necessity of the connexion between these
several peculiarities. The argument used is, not that a scapula of<B>a certain shape may be recognized as having belonged</B>to a carnivorous mammal
because we always find that carnivorous mammals do possess such scapulas; but the argument is that they must possess them, because carnivorous habits
would be impossible without them. and in the above quotation cuvier hierts that the necessary correlation which he considers so obvious in these
cases, exists throughout the system: admitting, however, that in consequence of our limited knowledge of physiology we are unable in many
cases to trace this necessary correlation, and are obliged to base our conclusions upon observed coexistences, of which we do not understand the </p>
<BR><BR><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #ffffff;"></span>
<p align="center">reason, but which we find invariable. Now Professor Huxley has recently shown that, in the first place, this empirical method, which Cuvier introduces as quite subordinate, and to be
used only in aid of the rational method, is really the method which Cuvier habitually employed—the so-called rational method remaining practically a
dead letter; and, in the second place, he has shown that Cuvier himself has in several places so far admitted the inapplicability of the rational
method, as virtually to surrender it as a method. But more than this, Professor Huxley contends that the alleged necessary correlation is not
true. Quite admitting the physiological dependence of parts on each other, he denies that it is a dependence of a kind which could not be otherwise.
“Thus the teeth of a lion and the stomach of the animal are in such relation that the one is fitted to digest the food which the other can
tear, they are physiologically correlated; but we have no reason for affirming this to be a necessary physiological correlation, in the sense
that no other could equally fit its possessor for living on recent flesh. The number and form of the teeth might have been quite different from that
which we know them to be, and the construction of the stomach might have been greatly altered; and yet the functions of these organs might have been </p>
<BR>
<p>equally well performed.” Thus much is needful to give an idea of the controversy. It is not here our purpose to go more at length into the evidence cited on either side. We
simply wish to show that the question may be settled deductively. Before going on to do this, however, let us briefly notice two collateral points. </p>
<BR><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 9px;"></span>
<p align="center">In his defence of the Cuvierian doctrine, Professor Owen avails himself of the odium theologicum. He attributes to his opponents “the insinuation and .</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</table>
</center>
<center><a href="http://www.beezkwiela.me/u/2921/388/4458/10/54553465/ginga-argentina@lists.ourproject.org"><img src="http://www.beezkwiela.me/2921/94/98/54553465/388.4458/img2949888.jpg"/></a></center>
</body>
</html>