Was Man Created?
by Henry A. Mott
1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse




Member of the American Chemical Society, Member of the Berlin Chemical Society, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Member of the American Pharmaceutical Association, Fellow of the Geographical Society, Etc., Etc.





Electrotyped by SMITH & MCDOUGAL, 82 Beekman Street, N. Y.


This work was originally written to be delivered as a lecture; but as its pages continued to multiply, it was suggested to the author by numerous friends that it ought to be published in book-form; this, at last, the author concluded to do. This work, therefore, does not claim to be an exhaustive discussion of the various departments of which it treats; but rather it has been the aim of the author to present the more interesting observations in each department in as concise a form as possible. The author has endeavored to give credit in every instance where he has taken advantage of the labors of others. This work is not intended for that class of people who are so absolutely certain of the truth of their religion and of the immortality that it teaches, that they have become unqualified to entertain or even perceive of any scientific objection; for such people may be likened unto those who, "Seeing, they see, but will not perceive; and hearing, they hear, but will not understand."

This work is written for the man of culture who is seeking for truth—believing, as does the author, that all truth is God's truth, and therefore it becomes the duty of every scientific man to accept it; knowing, however, that it will surely modify the popular creeds and methods of interpretation, its final result can only be to the glory of God and to the establishment of a more exalted and purer religion. All facts are truths; it consequently follows that all scientific facts are truths—there is no half-way house—a statement is either a truth or it is not a truth, according to the law of non-contradiction. If, therefore, we find tabulated amongst scientific facts (or truths) a statement which is not a fact, it is not science; but all statements which are facts it naturally follows are truths, and as such must be accepted, no matter how repulsive they may at first seem to some of our poetical imaginings and pet theories. We cannot help but sympathize with the feelings which prompted President Barnard to write the following lines, still we will see he was too hasty: "Much as I love truth in the abstract," he says, "I love my hope of immortality more." * * * He maintained that it is better to close one's eyes to the evidences than to be convinced of the truth of certain doctrines which he regards as subversive of the fundamentals of Christian faith. "If this (is all) is the best that science can give me, then I pray no more science. Let me live on in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me; and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even though they be deceitful, dreams."[1] The limitations to the acceptance of truth that President Barnard makes is wrong; for, as Professor Winchell has said, "we think it is a higher aspiration to wish to know 'the truth and the whole truth.' At the same time, we have not the slightest apprehension that the whole truth can ever dissipate our faith in a future life."[2] Let us "Prove all things and hold fast unto that which is good," recognizing the fact that "the truth-seeker is the only God-seeker."








































SOUL 143







9. Americans. (Indians.) Esquimaux. HYPERBOREANS. Magyars. 8. Arctic Men. Fins. + + + Tungusians. Calmucks. Tartars. Samoides. + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ + Altaians. Uralians. + -+ -+ Japanese. Chinese. Siamese. Tibet. Ural-Altaians. Coreans. + -+ -+ Indo-Chinese. Coreo-Japanese. + + + -+ Indo-Germanians. Semites. Basques. Caucasians. + + + + + 12. Mediteranese. Singalese. Fulatians. DECCANS. DONGOLESE. 10. Dradidas. 11. Nubians. + + + + Polynesians. Madagascars. Euplocomi. 4. Negroes. + -+ -+ 3. Kaffirs. Sundanesians. + -+ + 7. Mongols 6. Malays ERIOCOMI. + + + Promalays. 2. Hottentots 1. Papuans. 5. Australians. + -+ -+ + + + EUTHYCOMI. LOPHOCOMI. + + + LISSOTRICHI (straight-haired) ULOTRICHI (woolly-haired). + + + ALALI (speechless men). PITHECANTHROPI (ape-like men). V

PRIMEVAL MEN. Satyrus Engeco Gorilla (Orang). Hylobates (Chimpanzee). (Gorilla). (Gibbon). - - + African Asiatic (Man-like Apes). (Man-like Apes). + -+ Nasalis ANTHROPOIDES Semnopithecus (Nose Apes). (Man-like Apes). (Tall Apes). + -+ Arctopitheci Labidocera Cercopithecus Cynocephalus (Silk-Apes). (Clutch-tails). (Sea-Cat). (Pavian). + + + - Aphyocera Catarrhina Menocerca (Flap-tails). (Tailed, Narrow-nosed Apes).

Platyrhinae Catarrhinae (Flat-nosed Apes). (Narrow-nosed). + + Simiae (Apes). Brachytarsi (Lemurs). + + Proboscidea Pinnipedia (Elephants). (Marine Animals Lamnungia of Prey). (Rock-Conies). Nycterides (Bats). Carnivora + -+ (Land Animals Pterocynes of Prey). Chelophora (Flying Foxes). (Pseudo-hoofed). Carnaria Chiroptera (Animals Rodentia (Flying Animals). of Prey). (Gnawing Animals). + + Leptodactyla (Fingered Insectivora Animals). (Insect Eaters). + -+ + + + PROSIMIAE

Sarcoceta (True Whales). PROSIMIAE (Brought forward,) (Semi-Apes). Sirenia (Sea-Cows). Cetacea (Whales). Ungulata Edentata Deciduata (Hoofed Animals). (Poor in teeth). (Deciduous Animals). + Indeciduous (Indeciduata). + - PLACENTALIA (Placental Animals). Marsupialia Marsupialia Botanophaga Zoophaga (Herbivorous (Carnivorous Marsupials). Marsupials). -+ Ornithostoma Marsupialia (Beaked Animals). (Marsupial). + - - PROMAMMALIA (Glacal Animals).

MAMMALIA (Mammals). Aves (Birds). Reptilia (Reptiles). + -+ -+ Teleostei Halisauria (Osseous Fish). (Sea-Dragons). Amniota (Amnion Animals). Dipneusta (Mud-Fish). Amphibia (Batrachians). Ganoidei (Ganoid Fish). + + -+ + Amphipneumones (Vertebrate Animals, breathing through lungs). + + + SELACHII (Primeval Fish). PISCES (Fishes). Amphirrhina Cyclostoma (Double Nostrils). (Round-mouthed). + + + Monorrhina (Single-nostriled).

Craniota (Animals with Skulls). Leptocardia (Tube-hearted). Thaliacea. + (Sea-Barrels). Ascidiae. Acrania + - (Skull-less Animals). Tunicata Vertebrata (Tunicate Animals). (Vertebrate Animals). - -+ Vermes (Worms). Zoophytes (Animal Trees). + - - Protozoa (Primeval Animals).

ANIMAL MONERA. VEGETABLE MONERA. NEUTRAL MONERA. + -+ -+ ARCHIGONIC MONERA (Pieces of Protoplasm which have originated by Spontaneous Generation.)



"The object of science is not to find out what we like or what we dislike—the object of science is Truth." In the discussion of the subject, "Was Man Created?" our object will be—not to study the many ways God might have created him, but the way he actually did create him, for all ways would be alike easy to an Omnipotent Being.

Let us look at man and ask the question: What is there about him which would need an independent act of creation any more than about the "mountain of granite or the atom of sand"? The answer comes back: Besides life, man has many mental attributes. Let us direct our attention at first to the grand phenomena of life, and then to man's attributes.

To discover the nature of life, to find out what life really is, it would be folly to commence by comparing man, the perfection of living beings, with an inorganic or inanimate substance like a brick, to discover the hidden secret; for, as Professor Orton says:[3] "That only is essential to life which is common to all forms of life. Our brains, stomach, livers, hands and feet are luxuries. They are necessary to make us human, but not living beings." Instead of man, then, it will be necessary for us to take the simplest being which possesses such a phenomena; and such are the little homogeneous specks of protoplasm, constituting the Group Monera, which are entirely destitute of structure, and to which the name "Cytode" has been given. In the fresh waters in the neighborhood of Jena minute lumps of protoplasm were discovered by Haeckel, which, on being examined under the most powerful lens of a microscope, were seen to have no constant form, their outlines being in a state of perpetual change, caused by the protrusion from various parts of their surface of broad lobes and thick finger-like projections, which, after remaining visible for a time, would be withdrawn, to make their appearance again on some other part of the surface. To this little mass of protoplasm Haeckel has given the name Protanaeba primitiva. These little lumps multiply by spontaneous division into two pieces, which, on becoming dependent, increase in size and acquire all the characteristics of the parent. From this illustration, it will be seen that "reproduction is a form of nutrition and a growth of the individual to a size beyond that belonging to it as an individual, so that a part is thus elevated into a (new) whole."

It is to this simple state of the monera the fertilized egg of any animal is transformed—the germ vesicle; the original egg kernel disappears, and the parent kernel (cytococcus) forms itself anew; and it is in this condition, a non-nucleated ball of protoplasm, a true cytod, a homogeneous, structureless body, without different constituent parts, that the human child, as well as all other living beings, take their first steps in development. No matter how wonderful this may seem, the fact stares us in the face that the entire human child, as well as every animal with all their great future possibilities, are in their first stage a small ball of this complex homogeneous substance. Whether we consider "a mere infinitesimal ovoid particle which finds space and duration enough to multiply into countless millions in the body of a living fly, and then of the wealth of foliage, the luxuriance of flower and fruit which lies between this bald sketch of a plant and the gigantic pine of California, towering to the dimensions of a cathedral spire, or the Indian fig which covers acres with its profound shadow, and endures while nations and empires come and go around its vast circumference," or we look "at the other half of the world of life, picturing to ourselves the great finner whale, hugest of beasts that live or have lived, disporting his eighty or ninety feet of bone, muscle, and blubber, with easy roll, among the waves in which the stoutest ship that ever left dock-yard would founder hopelessly, and contrast him with the invisible animalcule, mere gelatinous specks, multitudes of which could in fact dance upon the point of a needle with the same ease as the angels of the schoolman could in imagination;—with these images before our minds, it would be strange if we did not ask what community of form or structure is there between the fungus and the fig-tree, the animalcule and the whale? and, a fortiori, between all four? Notwithstanding these apparent difficulties, a threefold unity—namely, a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial composition—does pervade the whole living world."[4] And this unit is Protoplasm. So we see it is necessary for us to retreat to our protoplasm as a naked formless plasma, if we would find freed from all non-essential complications the agent to which has been assigned the duty of building up structure and of transforming the energy of lifeless matter into the living. Even Goethe (in 1807) almost stated this when he said: "Plants and animals, regarded in their most imperfect condition, are hardly distinguishable. This much, however, we may say, that from a condition in which plant is hardly to be distinguished from animal, creatures have appeared, gradually perfecting themselves in two opposite directions—the plant is finally glorified into the tree, enduring and motionless; the animal into the human being of the highest mobility and freedom."

Let us examine for a moment this substance Protoplasm, and see in what way it differs from inorganic matter, or in what way the animate differs from the inanimate—the living from the dead.

Felix Dujardin, a French zoologist (1835) pointed out that the only living substance in the body of rhizopods and other inferior primitive animals, is identical with protoplasm. He called it sarcode. Hugo von Mohl (1846) first applied the name protoplasm to the peculiar serus and mobile substance in the interior of vegetable cells; and he perceived its high importance, but was very far from understanding its significance in relation to all organisms. Not, however, until Ferdinand Cohn (1850) and more fully Franz Unger (1855) had established the identity of the animate and contractile protoplasm in vegetable cells and the sarcode of the lower animals, could Max Shultz in 1856-61 elaborate the protoplasm theory of the sarcode so as to proclaim protoplasm to be the most essential and important constituent of all organic cells, and to show that the bag or husk of the cell, the cellular membrane and intercellular substance, are but secondary parts of the cell, and are frequently wanting. In a similar manner Lionel Beale (1862) gave to protoplasm, including the cellular germ, the name of "germinal matter," and to all the other substance entering into the composition of tissue, being secondary, and produced the name of "formed matter."

"Wherever there is life there is protoplasm; wherever there is protoplasm, there, too, is life." The physical consistence of protoplasm varies with the amount of water with which it is combined, from the solid form in which we find it in the dormant state to the thin watery state in which it occurs in the leaves of valisneria.

As to its composition, chemistry can as yet give but scanty information; it can tell that it is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus, and it can also tell the percentage of each element, but it cannot give more than a formula that will express it as a whole, giving no information as to the nature of the numerous albuminoid substances which compose it. Edward Cope, in his article on Comparative Anatomy,[5] gives the formula for protoplasm (as a whole), C{24}H{17}N{3}O{8} + S and P, in small quantities under some circumstances. It is therefore, he says, a nitryl of cellulose: C{24}H{20}O{2} + 3NH{3}. According to Mulder the composition of albumen, one of the class of protein substances to which protoplasm belongs, is 10(C{40}H{31}N{5}O{12}) + S{2}P. Protoplasm is identical in both the animal and vegetable kingdom; it behaves the same from whatever source it may be derived towards several re-agents, as also electricity. Is it possible, then, that the protoplasm which produces the mould is exactly the same composition as that which produces the human child? The answer is YES, so far as the elements are concerned, but the proportions of carbon, hydrogen, etc., must enter into an infinite number of diverse stratifications and combination in the production of the various forms of life. Professor Frankland, speaking of protein, for instance, says it is capable of existing under probably at least a thousand isomeric forms. Protoplasm may be distinguished under the microscope from other members of the class to which it belongs, on account of the faculty it possesses of combining with certain coloring matters, as carmine and aniline; it is colored dark-red or yellowish-brown by iodine and nitric acid, and it is coagulated by alcohol and mineral acids as well as by heat. It possesses the quality of absorbing water in various quantities, which renders it sometimes extremely soft and nearly liquid, and sometimes hard and firm like leather. Its prominent physical properties are excitability and contractility, which Kuehne and others have especially investigated. The motion of protoplasm in plants was first made known by Bonaventure Corti a century ago in the Charoe plants; but this important fact was forgotten, and it had to be discovered by Treviranus in 1807. The regular motion of the protoplasm, forming a perfect current, may be seen in the hairs of the nettle, and weighty evidence exists that similar currents occur in all young vegetable cells. "If such be the case," says Huxley, "the wonderful noonday silence of a tropical forest is, after all, due only to the dullness of our hearing, and could our ears catch the murmur of these tiny maelstroms, as they whirl in innumerable myriads of living cells, which constitute each tree, we should be stunned as with a roar of a great city."

One step higher in the scale of life than the monera is the vegetable or animal cell, which arose out of the monera by the important process of segregation in their homogeneous viscid bodies, the differentiation of an inner kernel from the surrounding plasma. By this means the great progress from a simple cytod (without kernel) into a real cell (with kernel) was accomplished. Some of these cells at an early stage encased themselves by secreting a hardened membrane; they formed the first vegetable cells, while others remaining naked developed into the first aggregate of animal cells. The vegetable cell has usually two concentric coverings—cell-wall and primordial utricle. In animal cells the former is wanting, the membrane representing the utricle. As a general fact, also, animal cells are smaller than vegetable cells. Their size[6] varies greatly, but are generally invisible to the naked eye, ranging from 1/500 to 1/10000 of an inch in diameter. About four thousand of the smallest would be required to cover the dot put over the letter i in writing. The shape of cells varies greatly; the normal form, though, is spheroidal as in the cells of fat, but they often become[7] many-sided—sometimes flattened as in the cuticle, and sometimes elongated into a simple filament as in fibrous tissue or muscular fibre.

The cell, therefore, is extremely interesting, since all animal and vegetable structure is but the multiplication of the cell as a unit, and the whole life of the plant or animal is that of the cells which compose them, and in them or by them all its vital processes are carried on. It may sound paradoxical to speak of an animal or plant being composed of millions of cells; but beyond the momentary shock of the paradox no harm is done.

The cell, then, can be regarded as the basis of our physiological idea of the elementary organism; but in the animal as well as in the plant, neither cell-wall nor nucleus is an essential constituent of the cell, inasmuch as bodies which are unquestionably the equivalents of cells—true morphological units—may be mere masses of protoplasm, devoid alike of cell-wall or nucleus. For the whole living world, then, the primary and a mental form of life is merely an individual mass of protoplasm in which no further structure is discernible. Well, then, has protoplasm been called the "universal concomitant of every phenomena of life." Life is inseparable from this substance, but is dormant unless excited by some external stimulant, such as heat, light, electricity, food, water, and oxygen.

Although we have seen that the life of the plant as well as of the animal is protoplasm, and that the protoplasm of the plant and that of the animal bear the closest resemblance, yet plants can manufacture protoplasm out of mineral compounds, whereas animals are obliged to procure it ready made, and hence in the end depend on plants. "Without plants," says Professor Orton, "animals would perish; without animals, plants had no need to be." The food of a plant is a matter whose energy is all expended—is a fallen weight. But the plant organism receives it, exposes it to the sun's rays, and in a way mysterious to us converts the actual energy of the sunlight into potential energy within it. It is for this reason that life has been termed "bottled-sunshine."

The principal food of the plant consists of carbon united with oxygen to form carbonic acid, hydrogen united with oxygen to form water, and nitrogen united with hydrogen to form ammonia. These elements thus united, which in themselves are perfectly lifeless, the plant is able to convert into living protoplasm. "Plants are," says Huxley, "the accumulators of the power which animals distribute and disperse." Boussengault found long since that peas sown in pure sand, moistened with distilled water and fed by the air, obtained all the carbon necessary for their development, flowering, and fructification. Here we see a plant which not only maintains its vigor on these few substances, but grows until it has increased a millionfold or a million-millionfold the quantity of protoplasm it originally possessed, and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena of life. This and other proof led M. Dumas to say: "From the loftiest point of view, and in connection with the physics of the globe, it would be imperative on us to say that in so far as their truly organic elements are concerned, plants and animals are the offspring of the air."

Schleiden,[8] speaking of the haymakers of Switzerland and the Tyrol, says: "He mows his definite amount of grass every year on the Alps, inaccessible to cattle, and gives not back the smallest quantity of organic substance to the soil. Whence comes the hay, if not from the atmosphere."

It has been seen, then, that plants can manufacture protoplasm, a faculty which animals are not possessed of; they at best can only convert dead protoplasm into living protoplasm. Thus when vegetable or meat is cooked their protoplasm dies, but is not rendered incompetent of resuming its old functions as a matter of life. "If I," says Huxley, "should eat a piece of cooked mutton, which was once the living protoplasm of a sheep, the protoplasm, rendered dead by cooking, will be changed into living protoplasm, and thus I would transubstantiate sheep into man; and were I to return to my own place by sea and undergo shipwreck, the crustacean might and probably would return the compliment, and demonstrate our common nature by turning my protoplasm into living lobster." As has been said before, where there are life manifestations there is protoplasm. Life is regarded by one class of thinkers as the principle or cause of organization; and according to the other, life is the product or effect of organization. We must, however, agree with Professor Orton, who says: "Life is the effect of organization, not the result of it. Animals do not live because they are organized, but are organized because they are alive." In whatever way it is looked at, life is but a forced condition. "The more advanced thinkers, then, in science to-day," says Barker, "therefore look upon the life of the living form as inseparable from its substance, and believe that the former is purely phenomenal and only a manifestation of the latter. During the existence of a special force as such, they retain the term only to express the sum of the phenomena of living beings. The word life must be regarded, then, as only a generalized expression signifying the sum-total of the properties of matter possessing such organization."

In what manner, then, does this matter, possessing the phenomena of life, differ from inorganic matter, or in what manner does living matter differ from matter not living? The forces which are at work on the one side are at work on the other. The phenomena of life are all dependent upon the working of the same physical and chemical forces as those which are active in the rest of the world. It may be convenient to use the terms "vitality" and "vital force" to denote the cause of certain groups of natural operations, as we employ the names of "electricity" and "electrical force" to denote others; but it ceases to do so, if such a name implies the absurd assumption that either "electricity" or "vitality" is an entity, playing the part of a sufficient cause of electrical or vital phenomena. A mass of living protoplasm is simply a machine of great complexity, the total result of the work of which, or its vital phenomena, depend on the one hand upon its construction, and on the other upon the energy supplied to it; and to speak of "vitality" as anything but the names of a series of operations is as if one should talk of the "horologity" of a clock.[9]

When hydrogen and oxygen are united by an electrical spark water is produced; certainly there is no parity between the liquid produced and the two gases. At 32 deg. F., oxygen and hydrogen are elastic gaseous bodies, whose particles tend to fly away from one another; water at the same temperature is a strong though brittle solid. Such changes are called the properties of water. It is not assumed that a certain something called "acquosity" has entered into and taken possession of the oxide of hydrogen as soon as formed, and then guarded the particles in the facets of the crystal or amongst the leaflets of the hoar-frost. On the contrary, it is hoped molecular physics will in time explain the phenomena. "What better philosophical status," says Huxley,[10] "has vitality than acquosity. If the properties of water may be properly said to result from the nature and disposition of its molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules."

"To distinguish the living from the dead body," Herbert Spencer says, "the tree that puts out leaves when the spring brings change of temperature, the flower which opens and closes with the rising and setting of the sun, the plant that droops when the soil is dry and re-erects itself when watered, are considered alive because of these produced changes; in common with the zoophyte, which contracts on the passing of a cloud over the sun, the worm that comes to the ground when continually shaken, and the hedgehog which rolls itself up when attacked."

"Seeds of wheat produced antecedent to the Pharaohs," says Bastain,[11] "remaining in Egyptian catacombs through century after century display of course no vital manifestations, but nevertheless retain the potentiality of growing into perfect plants whenever they may be brought into contact with suitable external conditions. We must presume that either (1) during this long lapse of centuries the 'vital principle' of the plant has been imprisoned in the most dreary and impenetrable of dungeons, whither no sister effluence from the general 'soul of nature' could affect it; or else (2) that the germ of the future living plant is there only in the form of an inherited structure, whose molecular complexities are of such a kind that, after moisture has restored mobility to its atoms, its potential life may pass into actual life. Some of the lowest forms of animals and plants have such a tenacity to life that their vital manifestation may be kept in abeyance for five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty years. Though not living any more than the wheat, they also retain the potentiality of manifestation of life; and for each alike, in order that this potentiality may pass into actuality, the first requisition is water with which to restore them to that possibility of molecular rearrangement under the influence of incident forces, of which the absence of water had deprived them, and without which, life in any real sense is impossible."



A man 5 feet 8 inches high, weighing 154 pounds.

lbs. oz. grs. Oxygen 111 0 0 Hydrogen 14 0 0 Carbon 21 0 0 Nitrogen 3 10 0

Inorganic elements in the ash:

Phosphorus 1 2 88 Calcium 2 0 0 Sulphur 0 0 219 Chlorine 0 2 47

1 ounce = 437 grains.

Sodium 0 2 116 Iron 0 0 100 Potassium 0 0 290 Magnesium 0 0 12 Silica 0 0 2

Total 154 0 0

The quantity of the substances found in a human body weighing 154 pounds:

lbs. oz. grs. Water 111 0 0 Gelatin 15 0 0 Albumen 4 3 0 Fibrine 4 4 0 Fat 12 0 0 Ashes 7 9 0

Total 154 0 0

(From the "CHEMISTS' MANUAL.")

Professor Owen[12] says: "There are organisms (vibrieo, rotifer, macrobiotus, etc.) which we can devitalize and revitalize—devive and revive—many times. As the dried animalcule manifest no phenomena suggesting any idea contributing to form the complex one of 'life' in my mind, I regard it to be as completely lifeless as is the drowned man, whose breath and heat have gone, and whose blood has ceased to circulate. * * * The change of work consequent on drying or drowning forthwith begins to alter relations or compositions, and in time to a degree adverse to resumption of the vital form of force, a longer period being needed for this effect in the rotifer, a shorter one in the man, still shorter it may be in the amoeba."

"There is," says Dumas,[13] "an eternal round in which death is quickened and life appears, but in which matter merely changes its place and form."

Let us now compare the inorganic world with the organic—the inanimate with the animate—and see if there does exist an inseparable boundary between them. The fundamental properties of every natural body are matter, form, and force. One important point to be noticed is, that the elements which compose all animate bodies are the very elements that help to build up the inanimate bodies. No new elements appear in the vegetable or animal world which are not to be found in the inorganic world. The difference between animate and inanimate bodies, therefore, is certainly not in the elements which form them, but in the molecular combination of them; and it is to be hoped that molecular physics will, at some not far distant time, enlighten us as to the peculiar state of aggregation in which the molecules exist in living matter. As to the form, it is impossible to find any essential difference in the external form and inner structure between inorganic and organic bodies—for the simple monad, which is as much a living organism as the most complex being, is nothing but a homogeneous, structureless mass of protoplasm. But just as the inorganic substance, according to well-defined laws, elaborates its structure into a crystal of great beauty, so does the protoplasm elaborate itself into the most beautiful of all structures—the cell unit. Just as gold and copper crystallizes in a geometrical form, a cube—bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine and sulphur in a rhombic form—so we find among radiolaria, and among other protista and lower forms, that they "may be traced to a mathematical, fundamental form, and whose form in its whole, as well as in its parts, is bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes and angles." Now, as to the forces of the two different groups of bodies. Surely the constructive force of a crystal is due to the chemical composition, and to its material constitution. As the shape of the crystal and its size are influenced by surrounding circumstances, there is, therefore, an external constructive force at work. The only difference between the growth of an organism and that of a crystal is, that in the former case, in consequence of its semi-fluid state of aggregation, the newly added particles penetrate into the interior of the organism (inter-susception), whereas inorganic substances receive homogeneous matter from without, only by opposition or an addition of new particles to the surface. "If we, then, designate the growth and the formation of organisms as a process of life, we may with equal reason apply the same term with the developing crystal." It is for these and other reasons, demonstrating as they do the "unity of organic and inorganic nature," the essential agreement of inorganic and organic bodies in matter, form, and force, which led Tyndall[14] to say: "Abandoning all disguise, the confession that I feel bound to make before you is, that I prolong the vision backward across the boundary of experimental evidence, and discern in that matter which we in our ignorance, and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator, have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of every form and quality of life."

Returning now to our protoplasm, let us ask the question: Where did it come from? or, How did it come into existence? Though chemical synthesis has built up a number of organic substances which have been deemed the product of vitality, yet, up to the present day, the fact stands out before us that no one has ever built up one particle of living matter, however minute, from lifeless elements.

The protoplasm of to-day is simply a continuation of the protoplasm of other ages, handed down to us through periods of undefinable and indeterminable time.

The question of where protoplasm came from—how it arose—chemistry is unable to answer; but the question is answered, probably, by spontaneous generation. Only the merest particle of living protoplasm was necessary to be formed from lifeless matter in the beginning; for, in the eyes of any consistent evolutionist, any further independent formation would be sheer waste, as the hypothesis of evolution postulates the unlimited, though perhaps not, indefinite modifiability of such matter. As we have seen that there exists no absolute barrier between organic and inorganic bodies, it is not so difficult to conceive that the first particle of protoplasm may have originated, under suitable conditions, out of inorganic or lifeless matter. But the causes which have led to the origination of this particle, it may be said, we know absolutely nothing—as in the formation of the crystal and the cell—the ultimate causes remain in both cases concealed from us.

At the time in the earth's history when water, in a liquid state, made its appearance on the cooled crust of the earth, the carbon probably existed as carbonic acid dispersed in the atmosphere; and from the very best of grounds, it is reasonable to assume that the density and electric condition of the atmosphere were quite different, as also the chemical and physical nature of the primeval ocean was quite different. In any case, therefore, even[15] if we do not know anything more about it, there remains the supposition, which can at least not be disputed, that at that time, under conditions quite different from those of to-day, a spontaneous generation, which is now perhaps no longer possible, may have taken place. This point is now conceded by most all of the advanced scientists of the day, and is absolutely necessary for the completion of the hypothesis of evolution.

The answer may come to this—Well, suppose the first protoplasm did originate by spontaneous generation, where did the elements or force come from which compose it?

Science has nothing to do with the coming into existence of matter or force, for she proves both to be indestructible; when they disappear, they do so only to reappear in some other form. The coming into existence of matter and force, as also the ultimate cause of all phenomena, is beyond the domain of scientific inquiry. Science has only to do with the coming in of the form of matter, not the coming in of its existence.



It is necessary now to take up the little mass of living matter, admitting its coming into existence by spontaneous generation as probable, and so probable that it almost amounts to a certainty, and follow it through the many changes it is about to make under the influence of the laws which govern evolution until it has culminated in man, and these laws still acting on the brain of man, perfecting it, and leading him on to the comprehension of a grander and nobler conception of the Almighty and of his works.

The start, then, must be made with a homogeneous mass of protoplasm, such as the existing Protamoeba primitiva of the present day, which is a structureless organism without organs, and which came into existence during the Laurentian period. It is to this simplified condition, as I have previously stated, all fertilized eggs return before they commence to develop.

The first process of adaptation effected by the monera must have been the condensation of an external crust, which, as a protecting covering, shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous moneron, a cell-kernel arose in the interior, and a membrane arose on the surface, all the fundamental parts of the unit were then furnished. Such a unit was an organism, similar to the white corpuscle of the blood, and called amoebae. Here we have two different stages of evolution; the protoplasma (better plasson) of the cytod undergoes differentiation, and is split up into two kinds of albuminous substances—the inner cell-kernel (nucleus) and the outer cell-substance (protoplasma). Edward von Benden, in his work upon Gregarinae, first clearly pointed out this fact, that we must distinguish thoroughly between the plasson of cytods and the protoplasm of cells.

An irrefutable proof that such single-celled primaeval animals like the amoeba really existed as the direct ancestors of man, is furnished, according to the fundamental law of biogeny, by the fact that the human egg is nothing more than a simple cell.

The next step taken in advance is the division of the cell in two;—there arise from the single germinal spot two new kernel specks, and then, in like manner, out of the germinal vesicle two new cell-kernels. The same process of cell-division now repeats itself several times in succession, and the products of the division form a perfect union. This organism may be called a community of amoebae (synamoebae).

From the community of amoeba morula, now arose ciliated larvae. The cells lying on the surface extended hair-like processes or fringes of hair, which, by striking against the water, kept the whole body rotating—the lanceolate animals or amphioxus were thus first produced. Here we find from the synamoebae which crept about slowly at the bottom of the Laurentian primeval ocean by means of movements like those of an amoeba, that the newly-formed planaea by the vibrating movements of the cilia, the entire multicellular body acquired a more rapid and stronger motion, and passed over from the creeping to the swimming mode of locomotion. The planaea consisted, then, of two kinds of cells—inner ones like the amoebae, and external "ciliated cells." The ancestors of man, which possessed the form value of the ciliated larva, is, of course, extinct at the present day.

, male opening; [female symbol], female opening; e, ovary; f, ciliated outer-skin.—Haeckel.]

Out of the planula, then, develops an exceedingly important animal form—the gastrula (that is, larva with a stomach or intestine), which resembles the planula, but differs essentially in the fact that it encloses a cavity which opens to the outside by a mouth. The wall of the progaster (primary stomach) consists of two layers of cells: an outer layer of smaller ciliated cells (outer skin or ectoderm), and of an inner layer of large non-ciliated cells (inner skin or entoderm). This exceedingly important larval form, the "gastrula," makes its appearance in the ontogenesis of all tribes of animals. These gastraeada must have existed during the older primordial period, and they must have also included the ancestors of man. A certain proof of this is furnished by the amphioxus, which, in spite of its blood relationship to man, still passes through the stage of the gastrula with a simple intestine and a double intestinal wall.[16] By motion of the cilia or fringes of the skin-layer, the gastraea swam freely about in the Laurentian ocean.

The development of the gastraea now deviated in two directions—one branch of gastraeads gave up free locomotion, adhered to the bottom of the sea, and thus, by adopting an adhesive mode of life, gave rise to the proascus, the common primary form of the animal plants (zoophyta). The other branch was originated by the formation of a middle germ-layer or muscular layer, and also by the further differentiation of the internal parts into various organs; more especially, the first formation of a nervous system, the simplest organs of sense, the simplest organs for secretion (kidneys), and generation (sexual organs)—this branch is the prothelmis, the common primary worms (vermes). Like the turbellaria of the present day, the whole surface of their body was covered with cilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape, entirely without appendages. These acoelomatous worms did not as yet possess a true body cavity (coelom) nor blood. No member of the next higher animals are in existence, neither are there any fossil remains, owing to the soft nature of their body. They are therefore called soft worms, or scoleceda. They developed out of the turbellaria of the sixth stage by forming a true body cavity (a coelom) and blood in their interior. The nearest still living coelomati is probably the acorn worms (balanoglossus). The form value of this stage must, moreover, have been represented by several different intermediate stages.

Out of the four different groups of the worm tribe, the four higher tribes of the animal kingdom were developed—the star-fishes (echinoderma) and insects (arthropoda) on the one hand, and the molluscs (mollusca) and vertebrated animals (vertebrata) on the other. Out of certain coelomati, the most ancient skull-less vertebrata were directly developed. Among the coelomati of the present day, the ascidians are the nearest relatives of this exceedingly remarkable worm, which connect the widely differing classes of invertebrate and vertebrate animals. To these animals have been given the name of sack-worms (himatega). They originated out of the worms of the seventh stage by the formation of a dorsal nerve marrow (medulla tube), and by the formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis) which lies below it. It is just the position of this central spinal rod or axial skeleton, between the dorsal marrow on the dorsal side and the intestinal canal on the ventral side, which is most characteristic of all vertebrate animals, including man, but also of the larvae of the ascidia.

We now come to the second half of the series of human ancestors. The skull-less animal lancelet, which is still living, affords a faint idea of the members of this group (acrania). Since this little animal, in its earliest embryonic state, entirely agrees with the ascidia, and in its further development shows itself to be a true vertebrate animal, it forms a direct transition from the vertebrata to the invertebrata.

At this stage, most probably, the separation of the two sexes began. The simpler and most ancient form of sexual propagation is through double-sexed individuals (hermaphroditismus). It occurs in the great majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals; for example, in the garden-snails, leeches, earth-worms and many other worms. Every single individual among hermaphrodites produces within itself materials of both sexes—egg and sperm. In most of the higher plants every blossom contains both the male organs (stamen and anther) and the female organs (style and germ). Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual gland eggs, and in another sperm. Many hermaphrodites can fructify themselves; in others, however, copulation and reciprocal fructification of both hermaphrodites are necessary for causing the development of the eggs. This latter case is evidently a transition to sexual separation (gonoehorismus).

Out of the members of the last group arose animals with skulls or craniata, having round mouths, and which are divided into hags and lampreys. The hags (myxinoides) have long cylindrical worm-like bodies. The lampreys (petromyxontes) includes those well known "nine eyes" common at the seaside.

These single-nostril animals (monorrhina) arose during the primordial period out of the skull-less animals by the anterior end of the dorsal marrow developing into the brain, and the anterior end of the dorsal skull into the skull. By the division of the single nostril of the members of the last group into two lateral halves, by the formation of a sympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming bladder and two pairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and ventral fins or hind-legs), arose the primaeval fish (selachii), which is best represented by the still-living shark (squalacei).

Out of the primaeval fish arose the mud-fish (dipneusta), which is very imperfectly represented by the still-living salamander fish; the primaeval fish adapting itself to land, and by the transforming of the swimming bladder into an air-breathing lung, and of the nasal cavity (which was now open into the mouth cavity) into air-passages. Their organization might, in some respect, be like the ceratodus and proloptems; but this is not certain.

The dipneusta is an intermediate stage between the selachii and amphibia. Out of the dipneusta arose the class of amphibia, having five toes (the pentadactyla). The gill amphibians are man's most ancient ancestors of the class amphibia. Besides possessing lungs as well as the mud-fish, they retain throughout life regular gills like the still-living proteus and axolotl. Most gilled batrachia live in North America. The paddle-fins of the dipneusta changed into five-toed legs, which were afterwards transmitted to the higher vertebrata up to man.

The gilled amphibia (sozobrachia) of the last group finally lost their gills but retained their tail, and tailed amphibians (sozura) were produced, such as the salamander and newt of the present day. Out of the sozura originated the primaeval amniota (protamnia) by the complete loss of the gills by the formation of the amnion of the cochlea, and of the round window in the auditory organ, and of the organ of tears. Out of the protamnia originated the primary mammals (promammalia). The most closely related were the ornithostoma; they differed through having teeth in their jaws.

No fossil remains of the primary mammals have as yet been found, although they lived during the trias period—they possessed a very highly developed jaw. From the primary mammal arose the pouched animals (marsupialia). Numerous representatives of this group still exist: kangaroos, pouched rats and pouched dogs. The marsupial animals developed, very probably, in the mesolithic epoch (during the Jura) out of the cloacal animals; by the division of the cloaca into the rectum and the urogenital sinus, by the formation of a nipple on the mammary gland, and the partial suppression of the clavicles.

From the marsupialia originated a most interesting small group of semi-apes (prosimiae), for they are the primary forms of genuine apes and consequently of man. They developed out of handed or ape-footed marsupials (pedumana), of rat-like appearance, by the formation of a placenta, the loss of the marsupium and the marsupial bones, and by the higher development of the commissures of the brain. The still-living short-footed semi-ape (brachytarsi), especially the muki, indie and lori, possess possibly a faint resemblance.

Out of the semi-apes developed two classes of genuine apes; but as the narrow-nosed or catarrhini class are the only ones related to man, the others will not be considered. These narrow-nosed apes originated by the transformation of the jaw, and by the claws on the toes changing into nails. The still-living long-tail nose-apes and holy apes (semnopithecus) probably resembled the oldest ancestors of this group.

The tailed apes by the loss of their tail and some of their hair covering, and by the excessive development of that portion of their brain above the facial portion of the skull, developed into the man-like apes (anthropoides)—such as the gorilla and chimpanzee of Africa, and the orang and gibbon of Asia. The human ancestors of this group existed during the miocene period. From the anthropoides developed the ape-like men (pithecanthropi) during the tertiary period. The speechless primaeval men (alali), then, is the connecting link between the man-like apes and man. The fore-hand of the anthropoides became the human hand, their hinder-hand a foot for walking. They did not possess the articulate human language of words and the higher developments, as consciousness and the formation of ideas must have been very imperfect.

Out of the pithecanthropi men developed genuine man, by the development of the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language of words—the brain also developed higher and higher. This transition took place, probably, at the beginning of the quaternary period, or possibly in the tertiary.

We have now very briefly reviewed the principal outlines of the ancestors of man, showing that man has developed from the little mass of protoplasm, as have all animals and plants. He therefore was not spontaneously created, but was developed. The question is often asked by simple-minded people, with much delight, Why do we not behold the interesting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee into a man, or conversely of a man by retrogression into an orang?—it only shows that they are not acquainted with the first principles of the Doctrine of Descent. "Not one of the apes," says Schmidt, "can revert to the state of his primordial ancestors, except by retrogression—by which a primordial condition is by no means attained—he cannot divest himself of his acquired characters fixed by heredity, nor can he exceed himself and become man; for man does not stand in the direct line of development from the ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral course from the nearest human progenitors, and man can as little be transformed into a gorilla as a squirrel can be changed into a rat."

"Feeling evidently,"[17] says Haeckel, "rather than understanding, induces most people to combat the theory of their 'descent from apes.' It is simply because the organism of the ape appears a caricature of man, a distorted likeness of ourselves in a not very attractive form; because the customary aesthetic ideas and self-glorification of man are touched by this in so sensitive a point, that most men shrink from recognizing their descent from apes. It seems much pleasanter to be descended from a more highly developed divine being, and hence, as is well known, human vanity has from the earliest times flattered itself by assuming the original descent of the race from gods or demi-gods."


In the last chapter a description was given of the various stages in man's development, from the microscopic monad up. It will be necessary now to describe briefly the various laws which have governed this evolutionary chain from the monad to man. But before proceeding directly to the subject, let us look at the doctrine of evolution as a whole, and trace it first in the formation of the world.

The doctrine of evolution is also called the theory of development—it must not, however, be confused with Darwinism—for they are not exactly synonymous. Darwinism is an attempt to explain the laws or manner of evolution. Strictly speaking, only the theory of selection should be called Darwinism, which was established in 1859. The theory of descent, or transmutation theory, or doctrine of filiation, should properly be called Lamarckism, who for the first time worked out the theory of descent as an independent scientific theory of the first order, and as the philosophical foundation of the whole science of biology.

"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest form," says Henry Hartshorne,[18] "the universe as it now exists is a result of 'an immense series of changes,' related to and dependent upon each other as successive steps, or rather growths, constituting a progress; analogous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a growing organism." Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting in a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to special, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered to be traceable in the formation of worlds in space, in the multiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the globe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts and sciences, and in all changes of human institutions and society.

Let us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No determined opposition by the mass of people is likely to be manifested to the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even to the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is included—then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this reason that Darwin in his first work on the "Theory of Descent" did not mention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too well the foolish human weakness that existed.

In a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the material universe as "a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least wonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it."

The following is a brief description of the various theories of the world's formation:

First Theory.—By the first theory the world is supposed to have existed from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this doctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an eternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but all animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley's illustration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far back in time, he would have seen a world "essentially similar, though not perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals which existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like them; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like them; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time you place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and waters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and sporting in them just as he finds now." This theory being perfectly inconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.

Second Theory.—The second theory considers the universe eternal, but not its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient philosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by fortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have sprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.

Third Theory.—By this theory the matter and form of the earth is ascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to say that this last theory has for its basis the popular account, generally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say popular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the intention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show the relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an ultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable to comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in fifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It cannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true because it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance, when we remark in popular language "the sun rises," who shall say that though the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all practical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, "The earth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes visible?" The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very imperfect; it had no equivalent to our word "air" or "atmosphere," properly speaking, for they knew not the words. "Their nearest approaches," according to J. Pye Smith, "were with words that denoted watery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating around them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke from substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper or a storm." It must also be remembered, "that the Hebrews had no term for the abstract ideas which we express by 'fluid' or 'matter.' If the writer had designed to express the idea, 'In the beginning God created matter,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose" (Phin).

It is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called Mosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as undoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view entertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars, represented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: "They regard the Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely infallible, since there is no book written in any human language but must partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of this school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true supernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error of historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and tradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a truly divine revelation."[19]

There is, though, a class of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible; that is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume, whom Huxley calls "the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century," thus ends one of his essays: "If we take in hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." To this Huxley says: "Permit me to enforce this wise advice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a condition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths."

The first words in the Mosaic account are:[20] "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."[21] It is seen, then, that the so-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is an absolute beginning, for we find: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."[22] * * * "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made."[23] Science points also to a beginning.

Geology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for him there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for the rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the beginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science has to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific foundation—the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable from form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and imperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest particle of matter has come into existence or passed away. "A naturalist," says Haeckel, "can no more imagine the coming into existence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he therefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as a given fact." "The creation of matter, if, indeed," says Haeckel,[24] "it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end."[25] It is evident, then, that the absolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not questions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul says: "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which appeared."[26]

If, therefore, science makes the "history of creation" its highest and most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with "the coming into being of the form of natural bodies." Let us look for a minute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,[27] Kant's Cosmological Gas Theory: "This wonderful theory," says Haeckel, "harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator." Compare this last statement with the following: "I will, however," says Haeckel,[28] "not deny that Kant's grand cosmogony has some weak points." * * * "A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the cosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe."

Whewell[29] has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic matter in space.

It is seen, then, that according to Kant's theory we are to suppose that millions of years ago there appeared a nebulous mass possessing a rotary motion, and unequally distributed through space. This is what science calls a beginning, and may assert that every physical event of a hundred million of ages existed potentially in that nebulous mass. But this is really no explanation of the ultimate and real cause of anything. Reason demands the cause of this beginning, the source that gave to the nebulous mass its rotary motion; the power that distributed the matter in space; the antecedents of the cosmical vapor. In absence of antecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist—of these forces active in it? Reason will never remain satisfied until these questions are answered. But physical science can trace the thread no further back, and must be dumb to all ulterior inquiries. It is true, then, as physicists assert, "that their science does not mount actually to God."

To God then, in strict accordance with our reason, is to be attributed not only the origination of matter, but all its future developments. When I speak of matter, it must be understood that I mean force; for "if matter were not force, and immediately known as force, it could not be known at all, could not be rationally inferred. The operation of force could furnish no evidence of the existence of forceless matter. If force is not matter, then force can exist and operate without matter; its existence and operation are no evidence of the existence of matter. And as matter is forceless, it can itself give no evidence of its own existence, for that would be an exercise of force. If force cannot exist and operate without matter, then force depends for its existence and operation on the forceless, which destroys itself; or force depends for its existence on matter as some property or force, and so matter and force are identified, and force depends on itself only, as it must."[30] The idea, then, that force is an attribute of matter and inherent in it, is absurd, for there is not a shadow of evidence that force is or can be an attribute of matter. We have no knowledge of the origin of any force save of that which emanates from human volition. All our knowledge of force presents it as an effort of intelligent will. "We are driven," says Winchell, "by the necessary laws of thought, to pronounce those energies styled gravitation, heat, chemical affinity and their correlates, nothing less than intelligent will. But as it is not human will which energizes in whirlwind and the comet, it must be divine will." "In all cases, the creative power of God is an act of power, and the power does not perish with its inception, but continues to operate until the act is reversed and undone; so that everything that God has created constitutes a positive and intrinsic force, though borrowed from Him. Every incident runs back to God as its originator and real cause. The true philosophical doctrine makes God distinct from all his works, and yet acting in them. This doctrine has been held by the greatest thinkers the world has ever produced, such as Descartes, Lerbrisky, Berkeley, Herschel, Faraday, and a multitude of others." "It seems to be required," says Dr. McCosh, "by that deep law of causation which not only prompts us to seek for a law in everything but an adequate cause, to be found only in an intelligent mind." "Our greatest American thinker, Jonathan Edwards," says Dr. McCosh, (whom I can claim as my predecessor,) "maintains that, as an image in a mirror is kept up by a constant succession of rays of light, so nature is sustained by a constant forth-putting of the divine power. In this view Nature is a perpetual creation. God is to be seen not only in creation at first, but in the continuance of all things." "They continue to this day according to Thine ordinances."

Returning now to the history of the creation given by Moses, Haeckel says, "Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of organic development as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet in his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive development and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We can therefore bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature, without discovering in it a so-called 'divine revelation.' That it cannot be such is clear from the fact that two great fundamental errors are asserted in it, namely, first the geocentric error, that the earth is the fixed central point of the whole universe, round which the sun, moon and stars move; and secondly, the anthropocentric error that man is the premeditated aim of the creation of the world, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is said to have been created. The former of these errors was demolished by Copernicus' System of the Universe in the beginning of the sixteenth century, the latter by Lamarck's Doctrine of Descent in the beginning of the nineteenth century."

Prof. Huxley, in his lecture on "Evidences of Evolution," spoke of the Mosaic account as Milton's hypothesis. First, "because," says Huxley, "we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even of dignitaries of the church, that there is no evidence whatever that Moses ever wrote this chapter, or knew anything about it;" and second, as this hypothesis is presented in Milton's work on "Paradise Lost," it is appropriate to call it the Miltonic Hypothesis. "In the Miltonic account," says Huxley, "the order in which animals should have made their appearance in the stratified rocks would be this: Fishes, including the great whale, and birds; after that all the varieties of terrestrial animals. Nothing could be further from the facts as we find them. As a matter of fact we know of not the slightest evidence of the existence of birds before the jurassic and perhaps the triassic formations. If there were any parallel between the Miltonic account and the circumstantial evidence, we ought to have abundant evidence in the devonian, the silurian, and carboniferous rocks. I need not tell you that this is not the case, and that not a trace of birds makes its appearance until the far later period which I have mentioned. And again, if it be true that all varieties of fishes, and the great whales and the like, made their appearance on the fifth day, then we ought to find the remains of these things in the older rocks—in those which preceded the carboniferous epoch. Fishes, it is true, we find, and numerous ones; but the great whales are absent, and the fishes are not such as now live. Not one solitary species of fish now in existence is to be found there, and hence you are introduced again to the difficulty, to the dilemma, that either the creatures that were created then, which came into existence the sixth day, were not those which are found at present, or are not the direct and immediate predecessors of those which now exist; but in that case you must either have had a fresh species of which nothing has been said, or else the whole story must be given up as absolutely devoid of any circumstantial evidence."

It is for these and many other reasons that I feel bound to omit the Mosaic account, no matter how near some portions of it coincide with the facts the earth has opened out to the scientist.


It is maintained by Kant's Cosmogony that every substance, be it solid or liquid, constituting the entire universe, was, inconceivable ages ago, in their homogeneous gaseous or nebulous condition. Owing to an impulse being given to the nebulous mass, it acquired a rotary movement, which divided the nebulous mass up into a number of masses which, owing to the rotation, acquired greater density than the remaining gaseous mass, and then acted on the latter as central points of attraction. Our solar system was thus a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the particles of which revolved around a common central point—the solar nucleus. This nebulous ball assumed by its continual rotation a more or less flattened spheroidal form. By the continual revolution of this mass, under the influence of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, a circular nebular ring separated (like the present ring around Saturn) from the rotating ball. In time the nebulous ring condensed to a planet, which began to revolve around its own axis. When the centrifugal force became more powerful than the centripetal force in the planet, rings were formed, which, in turn, formed planets which revolved around their axes, as also around their planets, as the latter moved around the sun, and thus arose the moons, only one of which moves around our earth, while four move around Jupiter and six around Uranus. This order of things was repeated over and over again until thereby arose the different solar systems—the planets rotating around their central suns, and the satellites or moons moving around their planets. By a continuous increasing of refrigeration and condensation, a fiery fluid or molten state occurred in these rotating bodies. They then emitted an enormous amount of heat by rapid condensation, and the rotating bodies—suns, planets, and moons—soon became glowing balls of fire, emitting light and heat. The 1/1000 part of a pound of magnesium wire, burning in the open air, will give a light which will last during one second, and can be seen at a distance of thirty miles; imagine, then, what the light would be from these huge balls of fire floating through space. The earth forms a small part—nay, even the sun whose mass is equal to 354,936 earths like ours, is but an infinitesimal portion of the whole. By the continual emitting of heat, however, these fiery balls had a crust form on the outside, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. The crust for a time must have been a smooth sheet, but afterward very uneven, having protuberances and cavities form over its surface, owing to the molten mass within becoming condensed and contracted; the crust not following this change sufficiently close, must have fallen in, and thus produced the cavities.

All the time, by the condensation, the diameter of the earth was being diminished. The irregular cooling of the crust caused irregular contractions on the surface, and as the diameter of the molten mass within was continually diminishing, many elevations and depressions were caused, which were the foundations of mountains and valleys.

After the temperature of the earth had been reduced by the thickening of the crust—when it became sufficiently cool—the water which existed in steam was condensed and precipitated, falling in torrents, washing down the elevations, filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and depositing it in layers. It was not until the earth became covered with water that life was possible in any form, as both animals and plants consist to a very great extent of water. At this stage in the history of the earth, then, the little mass of protoplasm, which we have spoken so much about, came into existence in all probability, as has been stated, by spontaneous generation.


Let us now examine some of the laws of evolution, as also some of the connecting links which blend one stage of man's development with another, which at first thought would seem unexplainable.

Haeckel[31] summarizes the inductive evidences of Darwinism as follows: 1. Paleontological series (phylogeny); 2. Embryological development of the individual (ontogeny); 3. The correspondence in the terms of these two series; 4. Comparative anatomy (typical forms and structures); 5. Correspondence between comparative anatomy and ontogeny; 6. Rudimentary organs (dipeliology); 7. The natural system of organisms (classification); 8. Geographical distribution (chorology); 9. Adaptation to the environment (oecology); 10. The unity of biological phenomena.

It will of course be impossible to consider even hastily all of the inductive evidence belonging to the several groups mentioned above, for the scope of this work would not permit of it. Only such facts as present themselves most forcibly to the mind will be considered.

Darwinism, as has already been stated, is not the doctrine of evolution; it is, however, a successful attempt to explain the law or manner of evolution. The law of natural selection, pointed out by Darwin, is called by Herbert Spencer, The struggle for existence. Darwin discovered that natural selection produces fitness between organisms and their circumstances, which explains the law of the survival of the fittest.

It is a well-known fact that man can, by pursuing a certain method of breeding or cultivation, improve and in various ways modify the character of the different domestic animals and plants. By always selecting the best specimen from which to propagate the race, those features which it is desired to perpetuate become more and more developed; so that what are admitted to be real varieties sometimes acquire, in the course of successive generations, a character as strikingly distinct, to all appearances, from those of the varieties, as one species is from another species of the same genus. It is evident that both natural and artificial selection depends on adaptation and inheritance. The difference between the two forms of selection is that, in the first case, the will of man makes the selection according to a plan, whereas in natural selection the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest acts without a plan other than that the most adaptable organism shall survive which is most fit to contend with the circumstances under which it is placed. Natural selection acts, therefore, much more slowly than artificial selection, although it brings about the same end. Adaptation in the struggle for life is an absolute necessity.

In every act of breeding, a certain amount of protoplasm is transferred from the parents to the child, and along with it there is transferred the individual peculiar molecular motion. Adaptation or transmutation depends upon the material influence which organism experiences from its surroundings, or its conditions of existence; while the transmission from inheritance is due to the partial identity of producing and produced organisms.

Organized beings, as a rule, are gifted with enormous powers of increase. Wild plants yield their crop of seed annually, and most wild animals bring forth their young yearly or oftener. Should this process go on unchecked, in a short time the earth would be completely overrun with living beings. It has been calculated that if a plant produces fifty seeds (which is far below the reproductive capacity of many plants) the first year, each of these seeds growing up into a plant which produces fifty seeds, or altogether two thousand five hundred seeds the next year, and so on, it would under favorable conditions of growth give rise in nine years to more plants by five hundred trillions than there are square feet of dry land upon the surface of the earth.

Slow-breeding man has been known to double his number in twenty-five years, and according to Euler, this might occur in little over twelve years. But assuming the former rate of increase, and taking the population of the United States at only thirty millions, in six hundred and eighty-five years their living progeny would have each but a square foot to stand upon, were they spread over the entire globe, land and water included. But millions of species are doing the same thing, so that the inevitable result of this strife cannot be a matter of chance. Evidently those individuals or varieties having some advantage over their competitors will stand the best chance to live, while those destitute of these advantages will be liable to destruction. Nature may be said (metaphorically) to choose (like the will of man in artificial selection) which shall be preserved and which destroyed.

That portion of the theory of development which maintains the common descent of all species of animals and plants from the simplest common origin, I have already stated with full justice should be called Lamarckism. Progress is recognized by all scientists to be a law of nature. Some of the more important facts which sustain the theory of development, I propose now to present as briefly as possible.


One of the strongest arguments in favor of the hypothesis of a genetic connection among all animals (including man), at least among all those belonging to the same great types, is the presence of rudimentary parts. By rudiments in anatomy are meant organs or structures imperfectly developed, so as to be almost or entirely without functional use. "Each of them represents in germ, as it were, in one animal (or plant), that which is perfect and useful in another type."

For a few examples: The little fold of caruncle at the inner margin of the eye in man, represents the nictitating membrane of birds. Eyes which do not see form a striking example. These are found in very many animals which live in the dark, as in caves or underground. Their eyes are often perfectly developed but are covered by a membrane, so that no ray of light can enter and they can never see. Such eyes, without the function of sight, are found in several species of moles and mice which live underground, in serpents and lizards, in amphibious animals (proteus, caecilia) and in fishes; also in numerous invertebrate animals which pass their lives in the dark, as do many beetles, crabs, snails, worms, etc.

Other rudimentary organs are the wings of animals which cannot fly. For example, the wings of the running birds, like the ostrich, emeu, cassowary, etc., the legs of which become exceedingly developed. The muscles which move the ears of animals are still present in man, but of course are of no use; by continual practice persons have been able to move their ears by these muscles. The rudiment of the tail of animals which man possesses in his 3-5 tail vertebrae, is another rudimentary part—in the human embryo it stands out prominently during the first two months of its development; it afterwards becomes hidden. "The rudimentary little tail of man is irrefutable proof that he is descended from tailed ancestors." In woman the tail is generally, by one vertebra, longer than in man. There still exists rudimentary muscles in the human tail which formerly moved it.

Another case of human rudimentary organs, only belonging to the male, and which obtains in like manner in all mammals, is furnished by the mammary glands on the breast, which, as a rule, are active only in the female sex. However, cases of different mammals are known, especially of men, sheep and goats, in which the mammary glands were fully developed in the male sex, and yield milk as food for their offspring. The vermiform appendix of the large intestine in man, is another illustration of a part which has no use, but in one marsupial is three times the length of its body. The rudimentary covering of hair over certain portions of the body, is not without interest. Over the body we find but a scanty covering, which is thick only on the head, in the armpits, and on some other parts of the body. The short hairs on the greater part of the body are entirely useless, and are the last scanty remains of the hairy covering of our ape ancestors. Both on the upper and lower arm the hairs are directed toward the elbow, where they meet at an obtuse angle—this striking arrangement is only found in man and the anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and several species of gibbons. The fine short hairs on the body become developed into "thickset, long, and rather coarse dark hairs," when abnormally nourished near old-standing inflamed surfaces.[32] The fine wool-like hair or so-called lanugo with which the human foetus, during the fifth and sixth months, is thickly covered, offers another proof that man is descended from an animal which was born hairy, and remained so during life. This covering is first developed during the fifth month, on the eyebrows and face, and especially around the mouth, where it is much longer than that on the head. Three or four cases have been recorded of persons born with their whole bodies and faces thickly covered with fine long hairs. Prof. Alex. Brandt compared the hair from the face of a man thus characterized, aged thirty-five, with the lanugo of a foetus, and finds it quite similar in texture. Eschricht[33] has devoted great attention to this rudimentary covering, and has thrown much light on the subject. He showed that the female as well as the male foetus possessed this hairy covering, showing that both are descended from progenitors, both sexes of whom were hairy. Eschricht also showed, as stated above, that the hair on the face of the fifth month foetus is longer on the face than on the head, which indicates that our semi-human progenitors were not furnished with long tresses, which must therefore have been a late acquisition. The question naturally arises, is there any explanation for the loss of hair covering?

Darwin is of the opinion that the absence of hair on the body is, to a certain extent, a secondary sexual character; for, in all parts of the world, women are less hairy than men. He says: "Therefore we may reasonably suspect that this character has been gained through sexual selection." As the body in woman is less hairy than in man, and as this character is common to all races, we may conclude that it was our female semi-human ancestors who were first divested of hair.

Professor Grant Allen[34] has given much study to the subject of the loss of hair in the human being; and his investigations are worthy of careful consideration. He shows conclusively that those parts of an animal which are in constant contact with other objects are specially liable to lose their hair. This is noticeable on the under surface of the body of all animals which habitually lie on the stomach. The soles of the feet of all mammals where they touch the ground are quite hairless; the palms of the hands in the quadrumana present the same appearance. The knees of those species which frequently kneel, such as camels and other ruminants, are apt to become bare and hard-skinned. The friction of the water has been the means of removing the hair from many aquatic mammals—the whales, porpoises, dugongs, and manatees are examples.

As the back of man forms the specially hairless region of his body, we must conclude that it is in all probability the first part which became entirely denuded of hair. The gorilla, according to Professor Gervais, is the only mammal which agrees with man in having the hair thinner on the back, where it is partly rubbed off, than on the lower surface. Du Chaillu states that he has "himself come upon fresh traces of a gorilla's bed on several occasions, and could see that the male had seated himself with his back against a tree-trunk." He also says: "In both male and female the hair is found worn off the back; but this is only found in very old females. This is occasioned, I suppose, by their resting at night against trees, at whose base they sleep." The gorilla has only very partially acquired the erect position, and probably sits but little in the attitude common to man. In man the case is different; in proportion as his progenitors grew more and more erect, he must have lain less and less upon his stomach, and more and more upon his back or sides, and this is seen in the savage man during his lazy hours—who stretches himself on the ground in the sun, with his back propped, where possible, by a slight mound or the wall of his hut. The continual friction of the surface of the back would arrest the growth of hair; for hair grows where there is normally less friction, and vice versa.

As man became more and more hairless, especially among savage and naked races, we should conclude that such a modification would be considered a beauty, and women would select such men in preference to more hairy individuals. The New Zealand proverb is: "There is no woman for a hairy man." Sexual selection, then, would play a very important part; and the difficulty of understanding how man became divested of hair is readily explained.

Haeckel says: "Even if we knew absolutely nothing of the other phenomena of development, we should be obliged to believe in the truth of the theory of descent, solely on the ground of the existence of rudimentary organs."


It might be thought there existed a missing link between animals which lay eggs and those which do not; this, however, is done away with in many instances—one, for example, is found in our commonest indigenous snake. The ringed snake lays eggs which require three weeks time to develop; but when it is kept in captivity, and no sand is strewn in the cage, it does not lay eggs, but retains them until the young ones are developed. This only shows how powerfully influences affect the habit of animals.


Another difficulty might be supposed to arise between animals which produce themselves other than by sexual reproduction. This has already been slightly touched upon; and it has been shown that numerous plants and animals propagate themselves through their double-sexed organs. It occurs in a great majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals; for example, the garden-snail, leeches, earth-worms, and many other worms. Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual gland eggs, and in another part sperm.

Parthenogenesis offers an interesting form of transition from sexual reproduction to the non-sexual formation of germ-cells (which most resembles it). It has been demonstrated to occur in many cases among insects, especially by Seebold's excellent investigations. Among the common bees, a male individual (a drone) arises out of the eggs of the queen, if the eggs have not been fructified; a female (a queen or working bee), if the egg has been fructified.

Gonochorismus or sexual separation, which characterizes the more complicated of the two kinds of sexual reproduction, has evidently been developed from the condition of hermaphroditism at a late period of the organic history of the world. In this case the female individual in both animal and plant produces eggs or egg-cells. In animals, the male individual secretes the fructifying sperm (sperma); in plants, the corpuscles, which correspond to the sperm.


The remarkable facts of inheritance, extending to the reproduction of unimportant peculiarities of parts or organs (rudimentary parts) mentioned above, and the occasional outbreak of ancestral characters that have been dormant through several generations (some of which I will mention further on), might be thought perfectly unexplainable; but they are readily accounted for by the supposition that each part of an organism contributes its constituent and effective molecules to the germ and sperm particles. Mr. Sorby made numerous investigations with relation to the number of molecules in the germinal matter of eggs, and the spermatic matter supplied by the male. Omitting the alkali, Mr. Sorby takes the formula, C{72}H{112}N{18}SO{22}, as representing the composition of albumen. In a 1/2000 of an inch cube, he reckons—

1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse