diff options
Diffstat (limited to '30429-h/30429-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 30429-h/30429-h.htm | 3527 |
1 files changed, 3527 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/30429-h/30429-h.htm b/30429-h/30429-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5979fa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/30429-h/30429-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3527 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Was Man Created?, by Henry A. Mott, Jr. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .75em;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; clear: both;} + + hr { width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 12%; margin-right: 12%;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} + + .poem {margin-left:15%; margin-right:15%;} + + .right {text-align: right;} + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .caption {margin-left:22%; margin-right:22%; text-align: center;} + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + p.dropcap:first-letter{float: left; padding-right: 3px; font-size: 250%; line-height: 83%; width:auto;} + .caps {text-transform:uppercase;} + + a:link {color:#0000ff; text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#6633cc; text-decoration:none} + + ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin solid gray;} + + .spacer2 {padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;} + .hang {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;} + + + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30429 ***</div> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i002.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="center">FOSSIL MAN OF MENTONE. (From Popular Science Monthly, October, 1874.)</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<h1>WAS MAN CREATED?</h1> +<p> </p> +<h3>BY</h3> + +<h2>HENRY A. MOTT, <span class="smcap">Jr.</span>, E.M., <span class="smcap">Ph.D.</span>, <span class="smcap">Etc.</span>,</h2> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><i>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.</i></p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Author of the "Chemists' Manual," "Adulteration of Milk," "Artificial Butter," +"Testing the Value of Rifles by Firing under Water," Etc., Etc.</span></p> +<p> </p><p> </p> +<h4>NEW YORK:<br />GRISWOLD & COMPANY,<br />150 <span class="smcap">Nassau Street</span>.<br />1880.</h4> + +<p> </p><p> </p> + +<h4><span class="smcap">Copyright by</span><br />HENRY A. MOTT, <span class="smcap">Jr.</span>,<br />1880.</h4> +<p> </p> +<h4><span class="smcap">Trow's<br />Printing and Bookbinding Co.</span>,<br /><i>205-213 East 12th St.</i>,<br />NEW YORK.</h4> +<p> </p> +<h4>Electrotyped by <span class="smcap">Smith & McDougal</span>, 82 Beekman Street, N. Y.</h4> +<p> </p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span></p> +<h2>PREFACE.</h2> + + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">This</span> 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, +"<i>Seeing, they see, but will not perceive; and hearing, they hear, but will not understand.</i>"</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> truth, according to the <i>law of non-contradiction</i>. 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 <i>truth</i> of certain doctrines which <i>he regards</i> +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."<small><a name="f1.1" id="f1.1" href="#f1">[1]</a></small> 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."<small><a name="f2.1" id="f2.1" href="#f2">[2]</a></small> 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."</p> + +<p class="right">AUTHOR</p> +<p><small><span class="smcap">January 25, 1880</span>.</small></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p> +<h2>TABLE OF CONTENTS.</h2> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Table of Contents"> +<tr><td> </td><td align="right"><span class="smcap">page</span></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Preface</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_v">v</a>, <a href="#Page_vi">vi</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Chart of Man's Development</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_10">10-13</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Protoplasm</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_18">18</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Cells</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_20">20</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Life</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_22">22</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Vital Force</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_24">24</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Analysis of Man</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_26">26</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Unity of Organic and Inorganic Nature</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_28">28</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Spontaneous Generation</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_30">30</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Coming into Existence of Man</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Evolution</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_58">58</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Theories of the World's Formation</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_64">64</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Bible</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_70">70</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Kant's Cosmogony</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Nature a Perpetual Creation</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_82">82</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Laws of Evolution</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Survival of the Fittest</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Rudimentary Organs</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Reproduction by Means of Eggs</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Double-Sexed Individuals</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Inheritance</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_100">100</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Artificial Monsters</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Acquired Qualities</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_106">106</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Geological Record</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_108">108</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Ontogeny</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span><span class="smcap">The Attributes of Man</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Muscular Force</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Thought Force</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_118">118</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Attributes of Animals</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_122">122</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Attributes of a Savage</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Language</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_128">128</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Faith</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_130">130</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">True Conscience</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_132">132</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Belief in God</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Proof of the Existence of God</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_138">138</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Unity of all Nature</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_140">140</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Soul</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_143">143</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Finite Senses of Man</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_144">144</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">The Unseen Universe</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_148">148</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Manifestations of God</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_150">150</a></td></tr> +<tr><td><span class="smcap">Hope of Immortality</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_142">142-151</a></td></tr></table> + +<p> </p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p> + +<h1>WAS MAN CREATED?</h1> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p> +<h3>HAECKEL'S CHART OF MAN'S DEVELOPMENT, Arranged by HENRY A. MOTT, Jr., Ph. D.</h3> + +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i010.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i011.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i012.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i013.jpg" alt="" /></div> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span></p> + +<p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p> +<h2>WAS MAN CREATED?</h2> + +<h3>WHAT SCIENCE CAN ANSWER.</h3> + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">"The</span> 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, "<i>Was Man Created?</i>" 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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:<small><a name="f3.1" id="f3.1" href="#f3">[3]</a></small> "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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> simplest being which possesses such a +phenomena; and such are the little homogeneous specks of protoplasm, +constituting the Group <i>Monera</i>, 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 +<i>Protanæba primitiva</i>. 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."</p> + +<p>It is to this simple state of the monera the <i>fertilized</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> +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, <i>à fortiori</i>, 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."<small><a name="f4.1" id="f4.1" href="#f4">[4]</a></small> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>sarcode</i>. 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."</p> + +<p>"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.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>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,<small><a name="f5.1" id="f5.1" href="#f5">[5]</a></small> gives the formula for protoplasm (as a whole), +C<sub>24</sub>H<sub>17</sub>N<sub>3</sub>O<sub>8</sub> + S and P, in small quantities under some circumstances. +It is therefore, he says, a nitryl of cellulose: C<sub>24</sub>H<sub>20</sub>O<sub>2</sub> + 3NH<sub>3</sub>. +According to Mulder the composition of albumen, one of the class of +protein substances to which protoplasm belongs, is 10(C<sub>40</sub>H<sub>31</sub>N<sub>5</sub>O<sub>12</sub>) + +S<sub>2</sub>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 <span class="smcap">Yes</span>, 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> firm +like leather. Its prominent physical properties are excitability and +contractility, which Kühne and others have especially investigated. The +motion of protoplasm in plants was first made known by Bonaventure Corti +a century ago in the Charœ 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."</p> + +<p>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<small><a name="f6.1" id="f6.1" href="#f6">[6]</a></small> +varies greatly, but are generally invisible to the naked eye, ranging +from <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">500</span> +to <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">10000</span> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> shape of cells varies greatly; the normal form, though, is +spheroidal as in the cells of fat, but they often become<small><a name="f7.1" id="f7.1" href="#f7">[7]</a></small> +many-sided—sometimes flattened as in the cuticle, and sometimes +elongated into a simple filament as in fibrous tissue or muscular fibre.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> 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."</p> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>Schleiden,<small><a name="f8.1" id="f8.1" href="#f8">[8]</a></small> 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."</p> + +<p>It has been seen, then, that plants can manufacture protoplasm, a +faculty which animals are not possessed of; they at<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> 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."</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> 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.<small><a name="f9.1" id="f9.1" href="#f9">[9]</a></small></p> + +<p>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° 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,<small><a name="f10.1" id="f10.1" href="#f10">[10]</a></small> "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."</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>"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."</p> + +<p>"Seeds of wheat produced antecedent to the Pharaohs," says Bastain,<small><a name="f11.1" id="f11.1" href="#f11">[11]</a></small> +"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 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span>the absence of water had deprived them, and without +which, life in any real sense is impossible."</p> + +<p> </p> +<h3>ANALYSIS OF A MAN.</h3> +<p class="center">(<span class="smcap">By Prof. Miller.</span>)</p> +<p> </p> + +<p class="center">A man 5 feet 8 inches high, weighing 154 pounds.</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="18" summary="a man"> +<tr><td> </td><td align="center">lbs.</td><td align="center">oz.</td><td align="center">grs.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Oxygen</td><td align="right">111</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Hydrogen</td><td align="right">14</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Carbon</td><td align="right">21</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Nitrogen</td><td align="right">3</td><td align="right">10</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>Inorganic elements in the ash:</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>Phosphorus</td><td align="right">1</td><td align="right">2</td><td align="right">88</td></tr> +<tr><td>Calcium</td><td align="right">2</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Sulphur</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">219</td></tr> +<tr><td>Chlorine</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">2</td><td align="right">47</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td> 1 ounce = 437 grains.</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>Sodium</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">2</td><td align="right">116</td></tr> +<tr><td>Iron</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">100</td></tr> +<tr><td>Potassium</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">290</td></tr> +<tr><td>Magnesium</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">12</td></tr> +<tr><td>Silica</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">2</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td align="right">—</td><td align="right">—</td><td align="right">—</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Total</span></td><td align="right">154</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr></table> + + +<p class="center">The quantity of the substances found in a human body weighing 154 pounds:</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="18" summary="quantity"> +<tr><td> </td><td align="center">lbs.</td><td align="center">oz.</td><td align="center">grs.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Water</td><td align="right">111</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Gelatin</td><td align="right">15</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Albumen</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="right">3</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Fibrine</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Fat</td><td align="right">12</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td>Ashes</td><td align="right">7</td><td align="right">9</td><td align="right">0</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td align="right">—</td><td align="right">—</td><td align="right">—</td></tr> +<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">Total</span></td><td align="right">154</td><td align="right">0</td><td align="right">0</td></tr></table> + +<p class="center">(From the "<span class="smcap">Chemists' Manual</span>.")</p> + + + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>Professor Owen<small><a name="f12.1" id="f12.1" href="#f12">[12]</a></small> 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 amœba."</p> + +<p>"There is," says Dumas,<small><a name="f13.1" id="f13.1" href="#f13">[13]</a></small> "an eternal round in which death is +quickened and life appears, but in which matter merely changes its place +and form."</p> + +<p>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 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>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<small><a name="f14.1" id="f14.1" href="#f14">[14]</a></small> to say: +"Abandoning<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> 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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span>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<small><a name="f15.1" id="f15.1" href="#f15">[15]</a></small> 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.</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i031fig1.png" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—A Moneron (Protamœba) in act of reproduction; +<i>A</i>, the whole Moneron, which moves like ordinary Amœba, by means of +variable processes: <i>B</i>, a contraction around its circumference parts it +into two halves; <i>C</i>, the two halves separate, and each now forms independent individuals. (Much enlarged.)—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i031fig2.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—<i>A</i>, is a crawling Amœba (much +enlarged).—<i>Haeckel.</i> The whole organism has the form-value of a naked +cell and moves about by means of changeable processes, which are extended from the protoplasmic body and again drawn in. In the inside is +the bright-colored, roundish cell-kernel or nucleus. <i>B</i>, Egg-cell of a Chalk Sponge (Olynthus).—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i031fig3.png" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Represents the next higher stage, Mulberry-germ or Morula (Synamœba).—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span></p> +<h3>THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN,<br /> +BY THE SLOW PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT.</h3> + + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">It</span> 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.</p> + +<p>The start, then, must be made with a homogeneous mass of protoplasm, +such as the existing <i>Protamœba primitiva</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> similar to the white corpuscle of the blood, and +called <i>amœbæ</i>. 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 <i>Gregarinæ</i>, first clearly pointed out this +fact, that we must distinguish thoroughly between the plasson of cytods +and the protoplasm of cells.</p> + +<p>An irrefutable proof that such single-celled primæval animals like the +amœba 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>amœbæ</i> +(synamœbæ).</p> + +<p>From the community of amœba morula, now arose ciliated larvæ. 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 synamœbæ which crept about slowly at the bottom +of the Laurentian primeval ocean by means of movements like those of an +amœba, that the newly-formed planæa 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 planæa consisted, then, of two kinds of cells—inner +ones like the amœbæ, 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.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span></p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 35"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig I.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i035fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i035fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—The Norwegian Flimmer-ball (Magosphœra +Planula), swimming by means of its vibratile fringes; seen from the surface.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—The same in section. The pear-shaped cells are +seen bound together in the centre of the gelatinous sphere by a +thread-like process. Each cell contains both a kernel and a contractile vesicle. (<span class="smcap">Planæa Series.</span>)—<i>Haeckel.</i>]</p> + +<p> </p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 35"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig III.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. IV.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i035fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i035fig4.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Figs. III and IV.</span>—Represents <span class="smcap">Gastræa Series</span>. The body +consists merely of a simple primitive intestine, the wall of which is formed of two primary germ-layers.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 37"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig I.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" valign="top"><img src="images/i037fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td align="center" valign="top"><img src="images/i037fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i037fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Figs.</span> I and II.—Represents the next higher stage +(Tubularia). Fig. I, a simple Gliding Worm (Rhabdocœlum); <i>m</i>, mouth; <i>sd</i>, throat-epithelium; <i>sm</i>, throat-muscles; <i>d</i>, stomach-intestine; +<i>nc</i>, kidney-ducts; <i>nm</i>, opening of the kidneys; <i>au</i>, eye; <i>na</i>, nose-pit. Fig. II, the same Gliding Worm, showing the remaining organs; +<i>g</i>, brain; <i>au</i>, eye; <i>na</i>, nose-pit; <i>n</i>, nerves; <i>h</i>, testes; ♂, male opening; ♀, female opening; <i>e</i>, +ovary; <i>f</i>, ciliated outer-skin.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig.</span> III.—Represents Soft Worms (Scolecida) and is a +young Acorn Worm (Balanoglossus), after <i>Agassiz</i>. <i>r</i>, acorn-like proboscis; <i>h</i>, collar; <i>k</i>, gill-openings and gill-arches of the +anterior intestine, in a long row, one behind the other, on each side; <i>d</i>, digestive posterior intestine, filling the greater part of the body +cavity; <i>v</i>, intestinal vessel, lying between two parallel folds of the skin; <i>a</i>, anus.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span>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 gastræada 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.<small><a name="f16.1" id="f16.1" href="#f16">[16]</a></small> By motion of the cilia or fringes of the +skin-layer, the gastræa swam freely about in the Laurentian ocean.</p> + +<p>The development of the gastræa now deviated in two directions—one +branch of gastræads 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> was covered with +cilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape, entirely +without appendages. These acœlomatous worms did not as yet possess a +true body cavity (cœlom) 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 cœlom) and blood in their interior. The +nearest still living cœlomati is probably the acorn worms +(balanoglossus). The form value of this stage must, moreover, have been +represented by several different intermediate stages.</p> + +<p>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 cœlomati, the most ancient skull-less vertebrata were +directly developed. Among the cœlomati 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 larvæ of the ascidia.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 41"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig I.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" valign="top"><img src="images/i041fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td align="center" valign="top"><img src="images/i041fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center" valign="top"><img src="images/i041fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Appendicularia, seen from the left side, <i>m</i>, +mouth; <i>k</i>, gill intestine; <i>o</i>, œsophagus; <i>v</i>, stomach; <i>a</i>, anus; +<i>n</i>, nerve ganglia (upper throat-knots); <i>g</i>, ear vesicle; <i>f</i>, ciliated +groove under the gill; <i>h</i>, heart; <i>e</i>, ovary; <i>c</i>, notochord; <i>s</i>, tail.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—Represents Sack Worms (Himatega), and is the +structure of an Ascidian, seen from the left. <i>sb</i>, gill-sac; <i>v</i>, +stomach; <i>i</i>, large intestine; <i>c</i>, heart; <i>t</i>, testes; <i>vd</i>, seed duct; +<i>o</i>, ovary; <i>o'</i>, matured eggs in the body cavity. After <i>Milne-Edwards</i>.</p> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Represents the <span class="smcap">Acrania Series</span>. Lancelet +(Amhioxus Lanceolatus), twice the actual size, seen from the left. <i>a</i>, mouth-opening, surrounded by cilia; <i>b</i>, anal-opening; <i>c</i>, +ventral-opening (Porus abdominalis); <i>d</i>, gill-body; <i>e</i>, stomach; <i>f</i>, +liver-cœcum; <i>g</i>, large intestine; <i>h</i>, cœlum; <i>i</i>, notochord +(under it the aorta); <i>k</i>, arches of the aorta; <i>l</i>, main gill-artery; +<i>m</i>, swellings on its branches; <i>n</i>, hollow vein; <i>o</i>, intestinal vein.—<i>Haeckel.</i>]</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span></p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i043fig1.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents the <span class="smcap">Monorhina Series</span>. Lamprey +(Petromyzon Americanus) from the Atlantic—<i>Orton.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i043fig2.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—Represents the Selachii. Shark (Carcharias vulgaris) from the Atlantic—<i>Orton.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i043fig3.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Represents the Mud-fish (Dipneusta). +Lepidosiren annecteus, one-fourth natural size; African rivers.—<i>Orton.</i> Form a link between typical fishes and the Amphibians.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>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 +(gonœhorismus).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> fore-legs, and ventral fins or +hind-legs), arose the primæval fish (selachii), which is best +represented by the still-living shark (squalacei).</p> + +<p>Out of the primæval fish arose the mud-fish (dipneusta), which is very +imperfectly represented by the still-living salamander fish; the +primæval 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 <i>might</i>, in some respect, be like the ceratodus and +proloptems; but this is not certain.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 primæval 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span></p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 47"> +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></td><td> </td><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>Fig. 1</i></b></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i047fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td valign="bottom" align="center"><i><b>Ceratodus</b></i><br /><i><b>Forsteri</b></i></td> +<td align="center" valign="middle"><b><i>Fig. 2</i></b></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i047fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Figs.</span> I and II.—The Ceratodus Forsteri occur in the +swamps of Southern Australia. Form transition between fishes and Amphibia.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i049fig1.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents the Gilled Amphibians (Soyobranchia). +The Axolotl (Siredon pisciforme), after Tegetmeier. The ordinary form with persistent branchiæ.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i049fig2.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—Proteus Anguinus. Europe.—<i>Orton.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i049fig3.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Represents the Tailed Amphibians (Soyura). Great Water-Newt (Triton cristatus), after <i>Bell.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>From the marsupialia originated a most interesting small group of +semi-apes (prosimiæ), 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +primæval<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>spontaneously</i> 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."</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i053.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig</span>. I.—Salamandra Maculata.—<i>Haeckel</i>. The Water Newts +and Salamanders were the next higher stage after the Proteus and the Axolotl.</p> + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p><p> </p> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i055fig1.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig</span>. I.—Represents Primæval Amniota (Protamnia). Lizard (Lacerta), after <i>Orton</i>.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i055fig2.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig</span>. II.—Represents Primary Mammals (Promammalia). +<span class="smcap">Amniota Series.</span> Duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus paradoxus).—<i>Haeckel</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p><p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span>"Feeling evidently,"<small><a name="f17.1" id="f17.1" href="#f17">[17]</a></small> +says <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'Hæckel'">Haeckel</ins>, "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 æsthetic 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."</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span></p> +<h3><a name="EVOLUTION" id="EVOLUTION"></a>EVOLUTION.</h3> + + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">In</span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest +form," says Henry Hartshorne,<small><a name="f18.1" id="f18.1" href="#f18">[18]</a></small> "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.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i059.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Skeleton of Platypus.—<i>Haeckel.</i></p> + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span></p><p> </p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span></p> + + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i061.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents Pouched Animals (Marsupialia). Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly, Feb., 1876.)</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>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.</p> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>The following is a brief description of the various theories of the +world's formation:</p> + +<p><i>First Theory.</i>—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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> +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.</p> + +<p><i>Second Theory.</i>—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.</p> + +<p><i>Third Theory.</i>—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 +<i>matter</i>,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose" (Phin).</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i065.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Skeleton of Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly.)</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span></p> +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i067.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents Semi-Apes (Prosimiæ). The Slow Loris, after +<i>Tickel</i> and <i>Alp. Miln-Edwards</i>. (Natural History, by <i>Duncan</i>.)</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>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."<small><a name="f19.1" id="f19.1" href="#f19">[19]</a></small></p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> instance, let us ask, <i>Does it contain any +abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?</i> No. <i>Does it contain +any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?</i> 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."</p> + +<p>The first words in the Mosaic account are:<small><a name="f20.1" id="f20.1" href="#f20">[20]</a></small> "In the beginning God +created the heaven and the earth."<small><a name="f21.1" id="f21.1" href="#f21">[21]</a></small> 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."<small><a name="f22.1" id="f22.1" href="#f22">[22]</a></small> * * * "All things were +made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made."<small><a name="f23.1" id="f23.1" href="#f23">[23]</a></small> +Science points also to a beginning.</p> + +<p>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 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>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,<small><a name="f24.1" id="f24.1" href="#f24">[24]</a></small> +"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 <i>first beginning</i> of the eternal phenomena of the motion of +the universe as of its final end."<small><a name="f25.1" id="f25.1" href="#f25">[25]</a></small> 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."<small><a name="f26.1" id="f26.1" href="#f26">[26]</a></small></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i071.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents Tailed Apes (Menocerca). Proboscis +Monkey (Presbytes larvatus). (Mammalia.)—<i>Louis Figuier.</i></p> + +<p class="caption">The natives of Borneo pretend that these monkeys, or, as sometimes +called, Kahan, are men who have retired to the woods to avoid paying +taxes; and they entertain the greatest respect for a being who has found +such ready means of evading the responsibilities of +society.—<i>Figuier.</i></p> + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span></p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i073.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Photographically reduced from diagrams of the natural size +(except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn +by <i>Waterhouse Hawkins</i>, from specimens in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. (<i>Huxley's</i> "Man's Place in Nature.")</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span></p> + +<p>If, therefore, science makes the "history of creation" its highest and +most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with "<i>the +coming into being of the form</i> of natural bodies." Let us look for a +minute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,<small><a name="f27.1" id="f27.1" href="#f27">[27]</a></small> 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 in<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>herent 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,<small><a name="f28.1" id="f28.1" href="#f28">[28]</a></small> "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."</p> + +<p>Whewell<small><a name="f29.1" id="f29.1" href="#f29">[29]</a></small> has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without +a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic +matter in space.</p> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span></p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 77"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i077fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i077fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i077fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center" valign="top"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Represents Man-like Apes (Anthropoides).<br />The Male Gorilla. (Natural History, by <i>Duncan</i>.)</td> +<td align="center" valign="top"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—Represents Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi).<br />Imaginative. (From Scientific American.)</td> +<td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Men (Homines). From Woolly-haired Men developed the Papuans.<br />(Scientific American, March 11, 1876.)</td></tr></table> + + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span></p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span></p> +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i079.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—The Monkey Men of Dourga Strait. (Natural History, by <i>Rev. Dr. Wood</i>.)</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p>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 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span>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."<small><a name="f30.1" id="f30.1" href="#f30">[30]</a></small> +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 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span>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."</p> + +<p>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 <i>geocentric</i> error, that the earth is the fixed central point of the +whole universe, round which the sun, moon and stars move; and secondly, +the <i>anthropocentric</i> 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."</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Page 83"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></td><td> </td><td align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td><span class="spacer2"> </span></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—Australian Savage.—<i>Orton.</i></td><td> </td> +<td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. II.</span>—Skull of Orang-utan (Simia satyrus).—<i>Orton.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></td><td> </td><td align="center"><b>Fig. IV.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td><td> </td><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig4.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. III.</span>—Skull of Chimpanzee (Troglodytes niger).</td><td> </td> +<td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. IV.</span>—Skull of Gorilla.—<i>Duncan.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><b>Fig. V.</b></td><td> </td><td align="center"><b>Fig. VI.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig5.jpg" alt="" /></td><td> </td><td align="center"><img src="images/i083fig6.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. V.</span>—Skull of European.</td><td> </td> +<td align="center"><span class="smcap">Fig. VI.</span>—Skull of Negro.—<i>Orton.</i></td></tr></table> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p><p> </p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> 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."</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>KANT'S COSMOGONY.</h3> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> 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 <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">1000</span> 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.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="heads"> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i087mongolian.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087malay.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087ethiopian.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087amer_indi.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Mongolian.</td> +<td align="center">Malay.</td> +<td align="center">Ethiopian.</td> +<td align="center">American Indian.</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="4" align="center"><img src="images/i087central.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="4" align="center"><span class="smcap">Facial Angle</span>, by <i>Prof. Nelson Sizer</i>.<br />1, Snake; 2, Dog; 3, Elephant; 4, Ape;<br />5, Human Idiot; +6, The Bushman; 7, The Uncultivated; 8, The Improved;<br />9, The Civilized; 10, The Enlightened; 11, The Caucasian (highest type).</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i087caucasian.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087noseape.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087julia.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td align="center"><img src="images/i087idiot.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Caucasian<br />(after <i>Van Evrie</i>).</td> +<td align="center">Head of Nose-Ape<br />(after <i>Brehm</i>).</td> +<td align="center">Julia Pastrana<br />(Photographed by <i>Hintye</i>).</td> +<td align="center">Living Idiot<br />(on Blackwell's Island).</td></tr></table> + + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span></p><p> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> 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.</p> + + +<h3>LAWS OF EVOLUTION.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Haeckel<small><a name="f31.1" id="f31.1" href="#f31">[31]</a></small> 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 (œcology); 10. The unity of biological +phenomena.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>law of natural selection</i>, pointed<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> out by Darwin, is +called by Herbert Spencer, <i>The struggle for existence</i>. Darwin +discovered that natural selection produces fitness between organisms and +their circumstances, which explains the law of <i>the survival of the +fittest</i>.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <ins class="correction" title="Not in the original.">the</ins> 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.</p> + +<p>Organized beings, as a rule, are gifted with enormous powers<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> important facts which sustain the theory of +development, I propose now to present as briefly as possible.</p> + + +<h3>RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.</h3> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>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, +cæcilia) and in fishes; also in numerous invertebrate animals which pass +their lives in the dark, as do many beetles, crabs, snails, worms, etc.</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> possesses in his 3-5 tail vertebræ, 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.</p> + +<p>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.<small><a name="f32.1" id="f32.1" href="#f32">[32]</a></small> The fine wool-like +hair or so-called lanugo with which the human fœtus, during the fifth +and<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> 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 fœtus, and +finds it quite similar in texture. Eschricht<small><a name="f33.1" id="f33.1" href="#f33">[33]</a></small> 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 fœtus +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 fœtus 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?</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span></p> + +<p class="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i096.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig. I.</span>—The Hairy-Faced Burmese Family. (From Scientific American, Feb. 20, 1875.)</p> + +<p> </p><p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span></p><p> </p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Professor Grant Allen<small><a name="f34.1" id="f34.1" href="#f34">[34]</a></small> has given much study to the subject of the +loss of hair in the human being; and his investigations <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span>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.</p> + +<p>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 con<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span>tinual +friction of the surface of the back would arrest the growth of hair; for +hair grows where there is normally less friction, and <i>vice versâ</i>.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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."</p> + + +<h3>REPRODUCTION BY MEANS OF EGGS.</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>DOUBLE-SEXED INDIVIDUALS.</h3> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3>INHERITANCE.</h3> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> 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<sub>72</sub>H<sub>112</sub>N<sub>18</sub>SO<sub>22</sub>, as representing the +composition of albumen. In a <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">2000</span> of an inch cube, he reckons—</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="albumen"> +<tr><td>Albumen</td><td><span class="spacer2"> </span></td><td align="right">18,000,000,000,000</td><td align="right"> molecules.</td></tr> +<tr><td>Water</td><td><span class="spacer2"> </span></td><td align="right">992,000,000,000,000</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td> </td><td colspan="2" align="right">—————————————</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td> </td><td align="right">1,010,000,000,000,000</td><td align="right">molecules.</td></tr></table> + +<p>Or, in a sphere of the same diameter, 530,000,000,000,000 of the two +components. Taking a single mammalian spermatozoon, having a mean +diameter of <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">6000</span> of an inch; "it might contain two and a half million +of such gemmules. If these were lost, destroyed, or fully developed at +the rate of one in each second, this number would be exhausted in about +one month; but since a number of spermatozoa appears to be necessary to +produce perfect fertilization, it is quite easy to understand that the +number of gemmules introduced into the ovum may be so great that the +influence of the male parent may be very marked, even after having been, +as regards particular character, apparently dormant for many years." The +germinal vesicle of a mammalian ovum being about <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">1000</span> of an inch, mean +diameter, might contain five hundred million of gemmules, which, if used +up at the rate of one per second, would last more than seventeen years. +If the whole ovum, about <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">150</span> in diameter, were all gemmules, the +number would be sufficient to last, at this rate, one per second for +5,600 years! This, however, is not probable; but Mr. Sorby's remarks has +completely removed all doubt as to its physical possibility from the +Darwinian theory; "and they prompt us," says Slack, "to a wonderful +conception of the powers residing in minute quantities of matter."</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span>The laws of inheritance are divisible into two series, conservative and +progressive transmission; the laws of adaptation to direct (active) or +indirect (potential) adaptation.</p> + +<p>External causes often influence the reproductive system, especially in +organism propagating in a sexual way. This can be strikingly shown in +artificially produced monstrosities. Monstrosities can be produced by +subjecting the parental organism to certain extraordinary conditions of +life; and curiously enough, such an extraordinary condition of life does +not produce a change of the organism itself, but a change in its +descendants. The new formation exists in the parental organism only as a +possibility (potential); in the descendants it becomes a reality +(actual). Most commonly, monstrosities with very abnormal forms are +sterile, but there are instances where they reproduce their kind and +become a species.<small><a name="f35.1" id="f35.1" href="#f35">[35]</a></small> Geoffroy St. Hilaire, who perhaps made the deepest +investigations ever conducted into the nature and causes of their +production, first conceived the idea of artificially producing them, and +to this end he began modifications of the physical conditions of the +evolution of the chicken during natural and artificial incubation. He +determined the fact that monsters could be produced in this way, but +scarcely carried his investigation further. This work has been taken up +by M. Dareste, and he has lately published a volume in Paris which +recounts the results of a quarter of a century's experimenting. Eggs, he +states, were submitted to incubation in a vertical instead of a +horizontal position; they were covered with varnish in certain places so +as to stop or modify evaporation and respiration. The evolution of the +chick was rendered slower by a temperature below that of the normal heat +of incubation. Finally, eggs were warmed only at one point, so that the +young animal, during development, was submitted at different +parts to variable temperatures.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span></p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="illustrations"> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><b>Fig. 1.</b></td><td colspan="3" align="center"><b>Fig. 2.</b></td><td colspan="3" align="center"><b>Fig. 3.</b></td><td colspan="3" align="center"><b>Fig. 4.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="3" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td colspan="3" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="3" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig4.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="12" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig5.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr><tr><td colspan="12" align="center"><b>Fig. 5.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="4" align="center"><b>Fig. 6.</b></td><td colspan="4" align="center"><b>Fig. 7.</b></td><td colspan="4" align="center"><b>Fig. 8.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="4" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig6.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="4" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig7.jpg" alt="" /></td> +<td colspan="4" align="center"><img src="images/i104fig8.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span>These perturbations resulted in the most curious and unlooked for +deformities in the embryo, some being not alone peculiar to the bird, +but being similar to those which have been recognized in many other +animals, and even in the human species. The data obtained have been +deemed so important that M. Dareste has recently received the Lacaze +prize for physiology from the French Academy of Sciences.</p> + +<p>It would be impossible to review even a fraction of the many forms of +monstrosities which M. Dareste has discovered. Those that we give will, +however, suffice to convey an idea of the wonderful variations produced. +Fig. 1 is a chick embryo with the encephalon entirely outside the head, +the heart, liver, and gizzard outside the umbilical opening, right wing +lifted up beside the head, and the development of the left one stopped. +In Fig. 2 the encephalon is herniated and marked with blood spots, the +eye is rudimentary and replaced by a spot of pigment, the upper beak is +shorter than the lower one, while the heart, liver, etc., are all +outside. In Figs. 3 and 4 the head is compressed, eyes well developed, +but in the back instead of in the sides of the head; the body is bent, +abdominal intestines not closed, heart largely developed and herniated. +The literal references to the foregoing are: <i>am</i>, amnion; <i>al</i>, +allantois; <i>v</i>, vitellus; <i>h</i>, encephalon; <i>i</i>, eye; <i>c</i>, heart; <i>f</i>, +liver; <i>g</i>, gizzard; <i>ms</i>, upper, and <i>mi</i>, lower member.</p> + +<p>The commonest case of monstrosity observed by M. Dareste has been that +of the head protruding from the navel, and the heart or hearts above the +head. This is a most extraordinary and new monster, and, if it persist, +a chicken with its heart on its back, like a hump, may be expected. A +curious fact discovered is the duplicity of the heart at the beginning +of incubation,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> two hearts, beating separately, being clearly seen. +Another anomaly consists in heads with a frontal swelling, which is +filled by the cerebral hemispheres.</p> + +<p>M. Dareste's artificial monsters are all produced from the single germ +or cicatricule (as the white circular spot seen in the yellow of the +egg, and from which the embryo springs, is termed). He has not yet been +able to determine artificially the production of monsters, the origin of +which takes place in a peculiar state of the cicatricule before +incubation. But having submitted to incubation some 10,000 eggs, he has +obtained several remarkable examples of double monstrosities in process +of formation, some representations of which are given herewith. Fig. 5 +shows three embryos, all derived from a single cicatricule. Fig. 6 +represents three embryos from two cicatricules. On one side of the line +of junction are two imperfectly developed embryos, one having no heart. +The single embryo on the other side is generally normal, but has a heart +on the right side. In Fig. 7 are twins, one well formed, the heart +circulating colorless blood, the other having no heart and a rudimentary +head. Fig. 8 exhibits a double monster with lateral union. The heads are +separate, and there are three upper and three lower members, those of +the latter on the median line belonging equally to each of the pair.</p> + + +<h3>ACQUIRED QUALITIES.</h3> + +<p>When an organism has been subjected to abnormal conditions in life it +can transmit any peculiarity it may have acquired. This is, however, not +always possible, otherwise descendants of men who have lost their arm or +leg would be born without the corresponding arm or leg—this shows that +some acquired qualities are more easily transmitted than +others—although there are cases, as, for instance, a race of dogs +without tails has<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> been produced by cutting off the tails of both sexes +of the dog, during several generations. "A few years ago," says Haeckel, +"a case occurred on an estate near Jena in which, by the careless +slamming of a stable-door, the tail of a bull was wrenched off, and the +calves begotten by this bull were all born without a tail. This is +certainly an exception; but it is very important to note the fact that +under certain unknown conditions such violent changes are transmitted in +the same manner as many diseases." The transmission of diseases such as +consumption, madness, and albinism form examples. Albinoes are those +individuals who are distinguished by the absence of coloring matter from +their skins; they are of frequent occurrence among men, animals and +plants. Among many animals, such as rabbits and mice, albinoes with +white fur and red eyes are so much liked that they are propagated. This +would be impossible were it not for the law of the transmission of +adaptations. Hornless cattle have descended from a single bull born in +1770 of horned parents, but whose absence of horns was the result of +some unknown cause.</p> + +<p>The law of interrupted or latent transmission, as illustrated in +grandchildren who are like the grandparents, but quite unlike the +parents. Animals often resume a form which have not existed for many +generations. One of the most remarkable instances of this kind of +reversion, or "atavism," is the fact that in some horses there sometimes +appear singular dark stripes similar to those of the zebra, quagga, and +other wild species of African horse.</p> + +<p>Nutrition directly modifies adaptation, as is well illustrated by +animals which have been bred for domestic or other purposes. If a farmer +is breeding for fine wool he gives much different food to the sheep than +he would if he wished to obtain flesh or an abundance of fat. Even the +bodily form of man is quite different according to its nutrition. Food +containing<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> much nitrogen produces little fat, that containing little +nitrogen produces a great deal of fat. People who by means of Banting's +system, at present so popular, wish to become thin, eat only meat and +eggs—no bread, no potatoes.</p> + +<p>Man can breed for milk in cattle, for feathers in pigeons, for colored +flowers in plants, and, in fact, for almost any desirable quality.</p> + + +<h3>GEOLOGICAL RECORD.</h3> + +<p><i>The Geological Record</i> (<ins class="correction" title="original reads 'paleontology'">palæontology</ins>) furnishes weighty evidence of +man's descent; for the circumstantial evidence derived from this source +is written without the possibility of a mistake, with no chance of +error, on the stratified rocks. It is true that the geological record +must be incomplete, because it can only preserve remains found in +certain favorable localities, and under particular conditions; that this +valuable record must be destroyed by processes of denudation, and +obliterated by processes of metamorphosis, it cannot be doubted. "Beds +of rock of any thickness, crammed full of organic remains, may yet," +says Huxley, "by the percolation of water through them, or the influence +of subterranean heat (if they descend far enough toward the centre of +the earth), lose all trace of these remains, and present the appearance +of beds of rock formed under conditions in which there was no trace of +living forms. Such metamorphic rocks occur in formations of all ages; +and we know with perfect certainty, when they do appear, that they have +contained organic remains, and that those remains have been absolutely +obliterated." If we look at the geological record, we find:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The First Epoch.</span>—<i>The Archilithic</i>, or Primordial Epoch, constitutes +the <i>Age of Skull-less Animals and Sea-weed Forests</i>, and is made up of +the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian Period.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Second Epoch.</span>—<i>The Palæolithic</i>, or Primary Epoch,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> constitutes the +<i>Age of Fishes and Fern Forests</i>, and is made up of the Devonian, Coal, +and Permian Period.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Third Epoch.</span>—<i>The Mesolithic</i>, or Secondary Epoch, constitutes the +<i>Age of Reptiles and Pine Forests, Coniferæ</i>, and is made up of the +Triassic, Jurassic, and Chalk Period.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Fourth Epoch.</span>—<i>The Cænolithic</i>, or Tertiary Epoch, constitutes the +<i>Age of Mammals and Leaf Forests</i>, and is made up of the Eocene, +Miocene, and Phocene Period.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">The Fifth Epoch.</span>—The <i>Anthropolithic</i>, or Quaternary Epoch, constitutes +the <i>Age of Man and Cultivated Forests,</i> and is made up of the Glacial +and Postglacial Period, and the Period of Culture.</p> + +<p>During the archilithic epoch the inhabitants of our planet, as has been +already stated, consisted of skull-less animals, or aquatic forms. No +remains of terrestrial animals or plants, dated from this period, have +as yet been found.</p> + +<p>The archilithic period was longer than the whole long period between the +close of the archilithic and the present time; for if the total +thickness of all sedimentary strata be estimated as about one hundred +and thirty thousand feet, then seventy thousand feet belong to this +epoch. It was during this epoch that the little mass of protoplasm, +which has been so often spoken of, came into existence.</p> + +<p>It has been stated above that palæontology is quite deficient. This is +not only true of the record, but of the lack as yet of sufficient +investigations. The greatest fields of investigation in this department +have never been explored. The whole of the petrifactions accurately +known do not probably amount to a hundredth part of those which, by more +elaborate explorations, are yet to be discovered. The most ancient of +all distinctly preserved petrifactions is the Eozoon Canadense, which +was found in the lowest Laurentian strata in the Ottawa formation.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span>Probably no discovery in palæontology ranks higher than the discovery of +the descendants of the horse. The horse, for example, as far as his +limbs and teeth go, differs far more from extant graminivora than man +differs from the ape. Had not fossil ungulates been found, which +demonstrate the common origin of the horse with didactyles and +multidactyles, some would have deemed the horse a special miraculous +creation. But now the links are complete, and the descent of the horse +is found to follow exactly what the doctrine of evolution could have +predicted.</p> + + +<h3>ONTOGENY.</h3> + +<p>It has been stated that the palæontological record is quite incomplete, +owing to many facts, some of which have been mentioned; fortunately, the +history of the development of the organic individual, or ontogeny, comes +in to fill up many deficiencies.</p> + +<p>Ontogeny is a repetition of the principal forms through which the +respective individuals have passed from the beginning of their tribe, +and its great advantage is that it reveals a field of information which +it was impossible for the rocks to retain; for the petrification of the +ancient ancestors of all the different animal and vegetable species, +which were soft, tender bodies, was not possible.</p> + +<p>The annexed plate illustrates the dog, rabbit, and man in their first +stages of development. Illustrations of a fish, an amphibious animal, a +reptile, a bird, or any mammal, could also be given; for all vertebrate +animals of the most different classes, in their early stages of +development, cannot be distinguished, and the nearer the animal +approaches man in the ascending scale, the longer does this similarity +continue to exist—when reptiles and birds are distinctly different from +mammals, the dog and the man are almost identical.</p> + +<p>The gill-arches of the fish exist in man, in dogs, in fowls, in +reptiles, and in other vertebrate animals during the first stages of +their development. Man also possesses, in his first stages, a real tail, +as well as his nearest kindred—the tailless apes (orang-outang, +chimpanzee, gorilla), and vertebrate animals in general. The tail, as +has been stated, man still retains, though hidden as a rudiment.</p> + + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="embryo"> +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Fig. I.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. IV.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. VII.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig1.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig4_7.png" alt="" /></td></tr> + +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Fig. II.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. V.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. VIII.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig2.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig5_8.png" alt="" /></td></tr> + +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><b>Fig. III.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. VI.</b></td><td align="center"><b>Fig. IX.</b></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig3.jpg" alt="" /></td><td colspan="2" align="center"><img src="images/i111fig6_9.png" alt="" /></td></tr></table> + +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig.</span> I.—Human Embryo.—<i>Ecker.</i><br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig.</span> II.—Embryo of Dog.—<i>Bischoff.</i><br /> +<span class="smcap">Fig.</span> III.—Dog Embryo.—<i>Huxley.</i><br /> +<span class="smcap">Figs.</span> IV, V, and VI.—Embryo of Rabbit in three stages of development.—<i>Haeckel.</i><br /> +<span class="smcap">Figs.</span> VII, VIII, and IX.—Embryo of Man in three stages +of development.—<i>Haeckel.</i> <i>v</i>, fore brain; <i>z</i>, twix brain; <i>m</i>, +middle brain; <i>h</i>, hind brain; <i>n</i>, after brain; <i>r</i>, spinal marrow; +<i>e</i>, nose; <i>a</i>, eye; <i>o</i>, ear; <i>k</i>, gillarches; <i>g</i>, heart; <i>w</i>, +vertebral column; <i>f</i>, fore limbs; <i>b</i>, hind limbs; <i>s</i>, tail.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span>"Man presents in his earliest stages of embryonic growth, a skeleton of +cartilage, like that of the lamprey; also, five origins of the aorta and +five slits on the neck, like the <i>lamprey</i> and the <i>shark</i>. Later, he +has but four aortic origins, and a heart now divided into two chambers, +like <i>bony fishes</i>; the optic lobes of his brain also having a very +fish-like predominance in size. Three chambers of the heart and three +aortic origins follow, presenting a condition permanent in the +<i>batrachia</i>; then two origins with enlarged hemispheres of the brain, as +in <i>reptiles</i>. Four heart chambers and one aortic root on each side, +with slight development of the cerebellum, agree with the characters of +the <i>crocodiles</i>, and immediately present the special mammalian +conditions, single aortic root, and the full development of the +<ins class="correction" title="original reads 'cerebelbellum'">cerebellum</ins>. Later comes that of the cerebrum, also in its higher +mammalian or human traits." At no time in the development of the egg, +save at the start, do the embryos of the various vertebra assume the +<i>exact</i> or <i>entire</i> characteristics of one another, but they assimilate +so closely that it requires the eye of the expert to distinguish them; +and, as has already been stated, the more closely an animal resembles +another, the longer and the more intimately do their embryos resemble +one another; so that, for example, the embryo of the snake and of a +lizard remain like one another longer than do those of a snake and of a +bird; and the embryo of a dog and of a cat remain like one another for a +far longer period than do those of a dog and a bird, or a dog and an +opossum, or even those of a dog and a monkey.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span>Surely it must be admitted that the short brief history given by the +development of the egg, is far more wonderful than phylogeny or the long +and slow history of the development of the tribe, which has taken +thousands of years. Compare this time with the time required for the +development of the smallest mammals—the harvest mice which develops in +three weeks, or the smallest of all birds, the humming-bird, which quits +the egg on the twelfth day, or with man who passes through the whole +course of his development in forty weeks, or with the rhinoceros who +requires 1½ years, or the elephant who requires ninety weeks. How +insignificant are these various periods to the long period originally +required; yet in these short periods the whole phylogeny is run through +in the ontogeny or the history of the development of the egg.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span></p> +<h3><a name="THE_ATTRIBUTES_OF_MAN" id="THE_ATTRIBUTES_OF_MAN"></a>THE ATTRIBUTES OF MAN.</h3> + + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">We</span> must now consider briefly some of the attributes of man, and see if +he really possesses attributes which are in no inferior degree possessed +by animals. Before proceeding directly to the consideration of the +attributes of man, it will be best to show the correlation that exists +between what are called man's vital forces and the physical forces of +nature. To do this let us choose three forms of its manifestation: these +shall be heat evolved within the body; muscular energy or motion; and +lastly, nervous energy or that form of force which, on the one hand, +stimulates a muscle to contract, and on the other appears in forms +called mental. It will not take any extensive argument to demonstrate +that the heat of the body does not differ from heat from any other +source. It is known that the food taken into the body contains potential +energy, which is capable of being in part converted into actual heat by +oxidation; and since we know that the food taken into the body is +oxidized by the oxygen of the air supplied by the lungs, the heat of the +body must be due to the slow oxidation of the carbon, perhaps also +hydrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus in the food. Now since this so-called +vital heat is developed by oxidation, is recognized by the same tests +and applied to the same purposes as any other heat, it is as truly +correlated to the other forces as when it has a purely physical origin. +The amœboid activity of a white blood corpuscle is stimulated within +certain limits by heat.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> Hatching of eggs and the germination of seeds +may be likewise hastened or retarded by access or deprivation of heat. +It was considerations such as these which led to the doctrine of +correlation of the vital and physical forces.</p> + +<p>With respect to the muscular force exerted by an animal, it was supposed +that it was created by the animal. Dr. Frankland<small><a name="f36.1" id="f36.1" href="#f36">[36]</a></small> says to this: "An +animal can no more generate an amount of force capable of moving a grain +of sand, than a stone can fall upwards or a locomotive drive a train +without fuel." As the amount of CO<sub>2</sub> exhaled by the lungs is increased +in the exact ratio of work done by the muscle, it cannot be doubted that +the actual force of the muscle is due to the converted potential energy +of the food. Since every exertion of a muscle and nerves involves the +death and decay of those tissues to a certain extent, as shown by the +excretions, Prof. Orton<small><a name="f37.1" id="f37.1" href="#f37">[37]</a></small> has been led to say: "An animal begins to +die the moment it begins to live." "A muscle," says Barker,<small><a name="f38.1" id="f38.1" href="#f38">[38]</a></small> "is like +a steam-engine, is a machine for converting the potential energy of +carbon into motion; but unlike a steam-engine, the muscle accomplishes +this conversion directly, the energy not passing through the +intermediate stages of heat. For this reason the muscle is the most +economical producer of mechanical force known." The muscles which give +the downward stroke of the wing of a bird are fastened to the +breastbone, and their power in proportion to the weight of the bird is +as 10,000 to 1. This great power is needed, for the air is 770 times +lighter than water; the hawk being able to travel 150 miles an hour.</p> + +<p>The last of the so-called vital forces under consideration, is that<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span> +produced by the nerves and nervous centres. Barker says: "In the nerve +which stimulates a muscle to contract, this force is undeniably motion, +since it is propagated along this nerve from one extremity to the +other." This force has been likened unto electricity, the gray or +cellular matter being the battery, the white or fibrous matter the +conductors. Du Bois Reymond<small><a name="f39.1" id="f39.1" href="#f39">[39]</a></small> has demonstrated that this force is not +electricity, though by showing that its velocity is only ninety-seven +feet a second. The velocity varies, though, in different animals; it is, +according to Prof. Orton,<small><a name="f40.1" id="f40.1" href="#f40">[40]</a></small> "more rapid in warm-blooded than in +cold-blooded animals, being nearly twice as fast in man as in the frog." +Wheatstone, by his method, gives the velocity of electricity in copper +wire at 62,000 geographical miles per second; but as neither Fizeau, +Gould, Gonnelle and others could arrive at the same result, the method +was shown to be incorrect, and it remained for Dr. Siemen<small><a name="f41.1" id="f41.1" href="#f41">[41]</a></small> to +discover the true method, which gives the velocity just one-half that of +Wheatstone's estimate, or 31,000 geographical miles per second. In the +opinion of Bence Jones, the propagation of a nervous impulse is a sort +"of successive molecular polarization, like magnetism." But that this +agent is a force as analogous to electricity as is magnetism, is shown +not only by the fact that the transmission of electricity along a nerve +will cause the contraction of a muscle to which it leads, but also by +the important fact discovered by Marshall, that the contraction of a +muscle is excited by diminishing its normal electrical current,<small><a name="f42.1" id="f42.1" href="#f42">[42]</a></small> a +result which could take place only with a stimulus, says Barker, +"closely allied to electricity. Nerve force must therefore be transmuted +potential energy." Prof. Huxley says,<small><a name="f43.1" id="f43.1" href="#f43">[43]</a></small> "the +results <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>of recent +inquiries into the structure of the nervous system of animals, converge +toward the conclusion that the nerve-fibres which we have hitherto +regarded as ultimate elements of nervous tissue, are not such, but are +simply the visible aggregations of vastly more attenuated filaments, the +diameter of which dwindles down to the limits of our present microscopic +vision, greatly as these have been extended by modern improvements of +the microscope; and that a nerve is, in its essence, nothing but a +linear tract of specially modified protoplasm between two points of an +organism, one of which is able to affect the other by means of the +communication so established. Hence it is conceivable that even the +simplest living being may possess a nervous system."</p> + +<p>Herbert Spencer<small><a name="f44.1" id="f44.1" href="#f44">[44]</a></small> says all direct and indirect evidence "justifies us +in concluding that the nervous system consists of <i>one</i> kind of matter. +In the gray tissue this matter exists in masses containing <i>corpuscles</i>, +which are soft and have granules dispersed through them, and which, +besides being thus unstably composed, are placed so as to be liable to +disturbances to the greatest degree. In the white tissue this matter is +collected together in extremely slender <i>threads</i> that are denser, that +are uniform in texture, and that are shielded in an unusual manner from +disturbing forces, except at their two extremities."</p> + +<p>The last consideration is that form of force (thought power) which +appears in manifestations called mental. It must be noticed at the +outset, that every external manifestation of thought force is a muscular +one, as a word spoken or written, a gesture, or an expression of the +face always takes place; hence this force must be intimately correlated +to nerve force. It is very certain, then, that thought force is capable +in external manifestations of converting itself into actual motion. But +here the question arises, can it be manifested inwardly without such<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> a +transformation of energy? Or is the evolution of thought entirely +independent of the matter of the brain?</p> + +<p>This question can be answered by actual experiment, strange as it may +appear. Experiments have demonstrated that any change of temperature +within the skull was soonest manifested externally in that depression +which exists just above the occipital protuberance. Here Lombard<small><a name="f45.1" id="f45.1" href="#f45">[45]</a></small> +fastened to the head at this point two little bars, one made of bismuth, +the other of an alloy of antimony and zinc, which were connected with a +delicate galvanometer;<small><a name="f46.1" id="f46.1" href="#f46">[46]</a></small> to neutralize the result of a gradual rise of +temperature over the whole body, a second pair of bars, reversed in +direction, was attached to the leg or arm, so that if a like increase of +heat came to both, the electricity developed by one would be neutralized +by the other, and no effect would be produced by the needle unless only +one was affected. By long practice it was ascertained that a mental +torpor could be induced, lasting for hours, in which the needle remained +stationary. But let a person knock on the door outside of the room, or +speak a single word, even though the experimenter remained absolutely +passive, the reception of the intelligence caused the needle to swing +twenty degrees. "In explanation of this production of heat," says +Barker,<small><a name="f47.1" id="f47.1" href="#f47">[47]</a></small> "the analogy of the muscle at once suggests itself. No +conversion of energy is complete, and as the heat of muscular action +represents force which has escaped conversion into motion, so the heat +evolved during the reception of an idea is energy which has escaped +conversion into thought, from precisely the same cause." Dr. Lombard's +experiments have shown that the amount of heat developed by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>the +recitation to one's self of emotional poetry, was in every case less +when recitation was oral; this is of course accounted for by the +muscular expression. Chemistry teaches that thought-force, like +muscle-force, comes from the food, and demonstrates that the force +evolved by the brain, like that produced by the muscle, comes not from +the disintegration of its own tissue, but is the converted energy of +burning carbon.<small><a name="f48.1" id="f48.1" href="#f48">[48]</a></small> "Can we longer doubt," says +Barker,<small><a name="f49.1" id="f49.1" href="#f49">[49]</a></small> "that the +brain too, is a machine for the conversion of energy? Can we longer +refuse to believe that even thought force is in some mysterious way +correlated to the other natural forces? and this even in the face of the +fact that it has never yet been measured.<small><a name="f50.1" id="f50.1" href="#f50">[50]</a></small> Have we not a right to ask +'why a special force (vital force) should be needed to effect the +transformation of physical forces into those modes of energy which are +active in the manifestation of living beings, while no peculiar force is +deemed necessary to effect the transformation of one mode of physical +force into any other mode of physical force?"</p> + +<p>Richard Owen says:<small><a name="f51.1" id="f51.1" href="#f51">[51]</a></small> "In the endeavor to clearly comprehend and +explain the functions of the combination of forces called 'brain,' the +physiologist is hindered and troubled by the views of the nature of +those cerebral forces which the needs of dogmatic theology have imposed +on mankind. * * * Religion, pure and undefiled, can best answer how far +it is righteous or just to charge a neighbor with being unsound in his +principles who holds the term 'life' to be a sound expressing the sum of +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span>living phenomena, and who maintains these phenomena to be modes of +force into which other forms of force have passed from potential to +active states, and reciprocally, through the agency of the sums or +combinations of forces impressing the mind with the ideas signified by +the terms 'monad,' 'moss,' 'plant,' or 'animal.'"</p> + +<p>We have now shown that the very forces which give vent to the attributes +of man, are correlated to the physical forces. Let us now consider his +attributes as manifested by his mental powers. There is no doubt the +difference between the mental faculties of the ape and that of the +lowest savage, who cannot express any number higher than four and who +uses hardly any abstract terms for common objects or for the +affections,<small><a name="f52.1" id="f52.1" href="#f52">[52]</a></small> is still very great and would still be great, says +Darwin, "even if one of the higher apes had been improved or civilized +as much as a dog has been in comparison with its parent form, the wolf +or jackal." But when we examine the interval of mental power between one +of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or a lancelet, and one of the higher +apes, and recognize the fact that this interval is filled up by +numberless gradations, it does not become so difficult to understand the +interval between an ape and man, which is not by far so great. As in +finding out what is peculiar to a living body in distinction to a body +not living, we found it absurd to take man as the perfection of the +animal scale—the microscopic monad possessing life as well as him—so +in the case of man's mental attributes, which have always been +increasing, always perfecting, since the first genuine man came into +existence, it would be equally absurd to compare the intellectual man of +to-day with an ape to see what attributes he possesses which the ape +does not possess; but if we go down in the scale and compare the savage +with the ape, the difficulty is not by far so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> great. It will be found +on close examination, though, that man and the higher animals, +especially the primates, have many instincts in common. "All," says +Darwin, "have the same senses, intuitions and sensations; similar +passions, affections, and emotions; even the more complex ones, such as +jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude and magnanimity; they practice +deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule +and even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; they +possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, +choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, +though in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species +graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence; they +are also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of +man."<small><a name="f53.1" id="f53.1" href="#f53">[53]</a></small> Nevertheless, in the face of these facts, many authors have +insisted that man is divided by an inseparable barrier from all the +lower animals in his mental faculties. It only shows the improper or +imperfect consideration of the subject they have under discussion.</p> + +<p>It may be thought at first that some of the mental attributes mentioned +above are not possessed by animals. I therefore will briefly consider a +few of the more complex ones. We can dismiss the consideration of such +attributes as happiness, terror, suspicion, courage, timidity, jealousy, +shame, and wonder, as well-known attributes. <i>Curiosity</i> in animals is +often observed. An instance mentioned by Brehm will serve to illustrate: +Brehm gives a curious account of the instinctive dread which his monkeys +exhibited for snakes; but their curiosity was so great that they could +not desist from occasionally satiating their horror in a most human +fashion, by lifting up the lid of the box in which the snakes were kept. +<i>Imitation</i> is also found among the action of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> animals, especially among +monkeys, which are well known to be ridiculous mockers.</p> + +<p>It is unnecessary to refer to the faculty of attention, as it is common +to almost all animals, and the same may be said of memory as for persons +or places.</p> + +<p>One would hesitate to believe an animal possesses <i>imagination</i>, but +such is the case. Dreaming, it will be admitted, gives us the best +notion of this power. Now as dogs, cats, horses, and probably all the +higher animals, even birds, have vivid dreams—this is shown by their +movements and the sounds uttered—"we must admit," says Darwin, "they +possess some power of imagination. There must be something special which +causes dogs to howl in the night, and especially during moonlight, in +that remarkable and melancholy manner, called baying. All dogs do not do +so; and, according to Housyeau,<small><a name="f54.1" id="f54.1" href="#f54">[54]</a></small> they do not look at the moon, but at +some fixed point near the horizon. Housyeau thinks that their +imaginations are disturbed by the vague outlines of the surrounding +objects, and conjure up before them fantastic images; if this be so, +their feelings may almost be called superstitious."</p> + +<p>The next mental faculty is <i>reason</i>, which stands at the summit; but +still there are few persons who will deny that animals possess some +power of reasoning. A few illustrations will be all that is necessary to +satisfy the inquiring mind on this point. Reugger, a most careful +observer, states that when he first gave eggs to his monkey in Paraguay +they smashed them, and thus lost much of their contents; afterward they +gently hit one end against some hard body, and picked off the bits of +shell with their fingers. After cutting themselves <i>once</i> with any sharp +tool, they would not touch it again, or would handle it with the +greatest caution. Lumps of sugar were often given them, wrapped<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> up in +paper; and Reugger sometimes put a live wasp in the paper, so that in +hastily unfolding it they got stung; after this had <i>once</i> happened, +they afterward first held the packet to their ears to detect any +movement within.</p> + +<p>The following cases relating to dogs are described by Darwin: Mr. +Colquhoun winged two wild ducks, which fell on the farther side of a +stream; his retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not +succeed; she then, though never before known to ruffle a feather, +deliberately killed one, brought over the other, and returned for the +dead bird. Colonel Hutchinson relates that two partridges were shot at +once—one being killed, the other wounded; the latter ran away, and was +caught by the retriever, who, on her return, came across the dead bird; +"she stopped, evidently greatly puzzled, and after one or two trials, +finding she could not take it up without permitting the escape of the +winged bird, she considered a moment, then deliberately murdered it by +giving it a severe crunch, and afterward brought away both together. +This was the only known instance of her ever having wilfully injured any +game. Here we have reason, though not quite perfect; for the retriever +might have brought the wounded bird first, and then returned for the +dead one, as in the case of the two wild ducks. I give the above cases +as resting on the evidence of two independent witnesses; and because in +both instances the retrievers, after deliberation, broke through a habit +which was inherited by them (that of not killing the game retrieved), +and because they show how strong their reasoning faculty must have been +to overcome a fixed habit."<small><a name="f55.1" id="f55.1" href="#f55">[55]</a></small></p> + +<p>It has often been said that no animal uses any tool, but this can be so +easily refuted on reflection, that it is hardly worth while considering; +for illustration, though, the chimpanzee in a state of nature cracks +nuts with a stone; Darwin saw a young orang put a<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> stick in a crevice, +slip his hand to the other end, and use it in a proper manner as a +lever. The baboons in Abyssinia descend in troops from the mountains to +plunder fields, and when they meet troops of another species a fight +ensues. They commence by rolling great stones at their enemies, as they +often do when attacked with fire-arms.</p> + +<p>The Duke of Argyll remarks that the fashioning of an implement for a +special purpose is absolutely peculiar to man; and he considers this +forms an immeasurable gulf between him and the brutes. "This is no +doubt," says Darwin, "a very important distinction; but there appears to +me much truth in Sir J. Lubbock's suggestion,<small><a name="f56.1" id="f56.1" href="#f56">[56]</a></small> that when primeval man +first used flint-stones for any purpose, he would have accidentally +splintered them, and would then have used the sharp fragments. From this +step it would be a small one to break the flints on purpose, and not a +very wide step to fashion them rudely. The later advance, however, may +have taken long ages, if we may judge by the immense interval of time +which elapsed before the men of the neolithic period took to grinding +and polishing their stone tools. In breaking the flints, as Sir J. +Lubbock likewise remarks, sparks would have been emitted, and in +grinding them heat would have been evolved; thus the two usual methods +of 'obtaining fire may have originated.' The nature of fire would have +been known in many volcanic regions where lava occasionally flows +through forests."</p> + +<p>It becomes a difficult task to determine how far animals exhibit any +traces of such high faculties as <i>abstraction</i>, <i>general conception</i>, +<i>self-consciousness</i>, <i>mental individuality</i>. There can be no doubt, if +the mental faculties of an animal can be improved, that the higher +complex faculties such as abstraction and self-consciousness have +developed from a combination of the simpler ones; this seems to be well +illustrated in the young child, as<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> such faculties are developed by +imperceptible degrees. These high faculties are very sparingly possessed +by the savage; as Buchner<small><a name="f57.1" id="f57.1" href="#f57">[57]</a></small> has remarked, how little can the +hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses very few +abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness +or reflect on the nature of her own existence. If there exist a class of +people so inferior in their mental faculties as these, it is not +difficult for us to understand how the educated animal who possesses +memory, attention, association, and even some imagination and reason, +can become capable of abstraction, &c., in an inferior degree even to +the savage. It certainly cannot be doubted that an animal possesses +mental individuality—as when a master returns to a dog which he has not +seen for years, and the dog recognizes him at once.</p> + +<p>One of the chief distinctions between man and animals is the faculty of +language. Let us look at this for a moment. "The essential differences," +says Prof. Whitney, "which separate man's means of communication in kind +as well as degree from that of the other animals is that, while the +latter is instinctive, the former is in all its parts arbitrary and +conventional. No man can become possessed of any language without +learning it; no animal (that we know of) has any expression which he +learns, which is not the direct gift of nature to him." Any child of +parents living in a foreign country grows up to speak the foreign +speech, unless carefully guarded from doing so; or it speaks both this +and the tongue of its parent with equal readiness. A child must learn to +observe and distinguish before speech is possible, and every child +begins to know things by their name before he begins to call them. "If +it were not for the added push," says Prof. Whitney, "given by the +desire of communication, the great and wonderful<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> power of the human +soul would never move in this particular direction; but when this leads +the way, all the rest follows." No philologist now supposes that any +language has been deliberately invented; it has been slowly and +unconsciously developed by many steps.</p> + +<p>There can be no question that language owes its origin to the imitation +and modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, +and man's own instinctive cries, aided by signs and gestures; and this +is the opinion of Max Müller. And Prof. Whitney remarks that "spoken +language began, we may say, when a cry of pain, formally wrung out by +real suffering, and seen to be understood and sympathized with, was +repeated in imitation, no longer as a mere instinctive utterance, but +for the purpose of intimating to another." Darwin says that "the early +progenitor of man probably first used his voice in producing true +musical cadences, that is, in singing, as do some gibbon-apes at the +present day. It is therefore probable that the imitation of musical +cries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of +very complex emotions."</p> + +<p>The nearest approach to language are the sounds uttered by birds. All +that sing exert their power instinctively, but the actual song, and even +the call notes, are learned from their parents or foster-parents. These +sounds are no more innate than language is in man, as has been proved by +Davies Barrington.<small><a name="f58.1" id="f58.1" href="#f58">[58]</a></small> The first attempt to sing "may be compared to the +imperfect endeavor in a child to babble." Prof. Whitney says, if the +last transition forms of man "could be restored, we should find the +transition forms toward our speech to be, not at all a minor provision +of natural articulate signs, but an inferior system of conventional +signs, in tone, gesture, and grimace. As between these three natural +means of expression, it is simply by a kind of process of<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> natural +selection and survival of the fittest that the voice has gained the +upper hand, and come to be so much the most prominent that we give the +name of language (tonguiness) to all expression." A single utterance or +two at first had to do the duty of a whole clause; afterward man learned +to piece together parts of speech, and thus arose sentences.</p> + +<p>Although no language, as has already been said, has been deliberately +invented, "still each word may not be unfitly compared to an invention; +it has its own place, mode, and circumstances of devisal, its +preparation in the previous habits of speech, its influence in +determining the after progress of speech development; but every language +in the gross is an institution, on which scores or hundreds of +generations and unnumbered thousands of individual workers have +labored."<small><a name="f59.1" id="f59.1" href="#f59">[59]</a></small></p> + +<p>There is no question at all but that the mental powers in the earliest +progenitors of man must have been more highly developed than in the ape, +before even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use; +but the constant advancement of this power would have reacted on the +mind to enable it to carry on longer trains of thought. "A complex train +of thought," says Darwin, "can no more be carried on without the aid of +words, whether spoken or silent, than a long calculation without the use +of figures in algebra. It appears also that even an ordinary train of +thought almost requires or is greatly facilitated by some form of +language; for the dumb, deaf, and blind girl, Laura Bridgman, was +observed to use her fingers while dreaming.<small><a name="f60.1" id="f60.1" href="#f60">[60]</a></small> Nevertheless a long +succession of vivid ideas may pass through the mind, without the aid of +any form of language, as we may infer from the movements of dogs during +their dreams."</p> + +<p>The struggle for existence is going on in every language; one <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span>after +another will be swept out of existence, and the languages best fitted +for the practical uses of the masses of people will alone survive. Max +Müller has well remarked: "A struggle for life is constantly going on +amongst the words and grammatical forms in each language. The better the +shorter; the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and +they owe their success to their own inherent virtue."<small><a name="f61.1" id="f61.1" href="#f61">[61]</a></small></p> + +<p>It must not be thought for a moment that that which distinguishes a man +from the lower animals is the understanding of articulate sounds—for, +as every one knows, dogs understand many words and sentences; and Darwin +says, at this stage they are at the same stage of development as +infants, between the ages of ten and twelve months, who understand many +words and sentences, but still cannot utter a single word. It is not the +mere articulation which is our distinguishing character; for parrots and +other birds possess the power. Nor is it the mere capacity of connecting +definite sounds with definite ideas; for it is certain that some +parrots, which have been taught to speak, connect unerringly words with +things, and persons with events." The lower animals, as has already been +stated, differ from man solely in his almost infinitely larger power of +associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas; and this +obviously depends on the high development of his mental powers.</p> + +<p>We now come to the consideration of a very delicate subject—a subject +which is certainly at best very unsatisfactory to handle, as far as +popular sentiment is concerned; for, no matter how successfully it may +be handled, according to one class of thinkers, to another class of more +orthodox thinkers it would be entirely at fault. The subject is, <i>Man's +Moral Sense, Belief in God, Religion, Conscience, and Hope of +Immortality</i>.</p> + +<p>It has been stated by some writers that where "faith com<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span>mences science +ends." How erroneous is such a statement as this! for, as Krauth has +said, "The great body of scientific facts is actually the object of +knowledge to a few, and is supposed to be a part of the knowledge of the +many, only because the many have faith in the statements of the few, +though they can neither verify them, nor even understand the processes +by which they are reached."<small><a name="f62.1" id="f62.1" href="#f62">[62]</a></small></p> + +<p>"We believe," says Lewes, "that the sensation of violet is produced by +the striking of the ethereal waves against the retina more than seven +hundred billions of times in a second. * * * These statements are +accepted <i>on trust</i> by us who know that there are thinkers for whom they +are irresistible conclusions." It is evident that it is to faith that +science owes, to a very great extent, her progress and development; for +it is impossible for man to prove by experimental demonstration all the +facts of science, and since a certain number of facts have got to be +accepted before a new experiment can be attempted, he has to accept on +faith that such and such a statement is a fact, because such and such a +scientist has claimed to have demonstrated it. "We are not <i>responsible</i> +for the fact," says Krauth, "that under the conditions of knowledge we +<i>know</i>, or in defect of them do not know; we are responsible if, under +the conditions of a well-grounded faith, we disbelieve."<small><a name="f631" id="f63.1" href="#f63">[63]</a></small></p> + +<p>Let us look, then, at the belief in God. The question under +consideration at first will not be whether there exists a God, the +creator and ruler of the universe—for this will be afterward +considered—but is there any evidence that man was aboriginally endowed +with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God.</p> + +<p>Schweinfurth relates that the Niam-niam, that highly inter<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>esting dwarf +people of Central Africa, have no word for God, and therefore, it must +be supposed, no idea; and Moritz Wagner has given a whole selection of +reports on the absence of religious consciousness in inferior nations. +The idea that conscience is a sort of permanent inspiration or dwelling +of God in the soul, I think, on consideration, any reasonable man will +not assume. "It is a purely human faculty," says Savage, "like the +faculty for art or music; and it gets its authority, as they do by being +true, and just in so far as it is true. Consciousness is our own +knowledge of ourselves and of the relation between our own faculties and +powers. Conscience is our recognition of the relations, as right or +wrong, in which we stand to those about us, God and our fellows. +<i>Con-scio</i> is to know with, in relation.</p> + +<p>There is such a thing, of course, as a <i>false conscience</i> and a <i>true +conscience</i>. All the false "conscientiousness grows out of the fact that +men suppose they stand in certain relationships that do not really +exist. Thus they imagined duties that are not duties at all." The +virtues which must be practised by rude men, so that they can hold +together in tribes, are of course important. No tribe could hold +together if robbery, murder, treachery, etc., were common; in other +words, there must be honor among thieves. "A North-American Indian is +well pleased with himself, and is honored by others, when he scalps a +man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending +person, and dries it as a trophy. The murder of infants has prevailed on +the largest scale throughout the world, and has been met with no +reproach; but infanticide, especially of females, has been thought to be +good for the tribe, or at least not injurious. Suicide during former +times was not generally considered as a crime, but rather, from the +courage displayed, as an honorable act; and it is still practised by +some semi-civilized and savage nations without reproach, for it does not +obviously concern others<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> of the tribe. It has been recorded that an +Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and +strangled as many travelers as did his father before him."<small><a name="f64.1" id="f64.1" href="#f64">[64]</a></small></p> + +<p>See how weak the conscience of even more highly civilized men are in +their dealings with the brute creation; how the sportsman delights in +hunting-scenes, Spanish bull-fights, cock-fights, etc.; how indignant +was the sensitive Cowper, if any one should "needlessly set foot upon a +worm"! The rights of the worm are as sacred in his degree as ours are, +and a true conscience will recognize them. What, then, is a true +conscience? Savage states in a few words, it is "one that knows and is +adjusted to the realities of life. When men know the truth about God, +about themselves—body and mind and spirit—about the real relations of +equity in which they stand to their fellow-men in state and church and +society, and when they appreciate these, and adjust their conscience to +them, then they will have a true conscience. An absolutely true +conscience, of course, cannot exist so long as our knowledge of the +reality of things is only partial."</p> + +<p>It is evident, then, that the conscience of man depends on his education +and environments, and therefore is the subject of improvement. It +becomes, then, the duty of every man to search for truth, for his +conscience is not infallible, and by so doing he will bring it to accord +with the real facts of God. "Throw away," says Savage, "prejudice and +conceit, seek to make your conscience like the magnetic needle. The +needle ever and naturally seeking the unchanging pole." As conscience, +then, is but a faculty capable of development, it is not so difficult to +understand a race of people whose conscience was in just the first +stages of development; and, finally, a race which did not possess this +faculty at all, as in the inferior nations which Wagner speaks of.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span></p> +<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i134.jpg" alt="" /></div> +<p class="caption"><span class="smcap">Fig.</span> I.—Butcher's Shop of the Anziques, Anno 1598.<br />(From Man's Place in Nature, by <i>Huxley</i>.)</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span>What kind of conscience and intelligence had the people near Cape Lopez, +called the Anziques, which M. du Chaillu describes. They had incredible +ferocity; for they ate one another, sparing neither friends nor +relations. Their butcher-shops were filled with human flesh, instead of +that of oxen or sheep, for they ate the enemies they captured in battle. +They fattened, slayed, and devoured their slaves also, unless they +thought they could get a good price for them; and moreover, for +weariness of life or desire for glory (for they thought it a great thing +and a sign of a generous soul to despise life), or for love of their +rulers, offered themselves up for food. There were, indeed, many +cannibals, as in the East Indies and Brazil and elsewhere, but none such +as these, since the others only ate their enemies, but these their own +blood relations.</p> + +<p>There is therefore, combining the fact mentioned by Wagner with the fact +that some nations have no idea of one or more gods, not even a word to +express it (proving that they have no idea), I say, there is therefore +no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with any such belief as +the existence of an Omnipotent God; and in this assertion almost all the +learned men concur. "If, however," says Darwin, "we include under the +term religion, the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is +wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less +civilized races. Nor is it difficult to understand how it arose."</p> + +<p>The savage has a stronger belief in bad spirits than in good ones. "The +same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen +spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in +monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers +remained poorly developed, to very strange superstitions and customs. +Many of these are terrible to think of: such as the sacrifice of human +beings to a blood-<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span>loving god, the trial of innocent persons by the +ordeal of poison, of fire, of witchcraft, etc.; yet it is well +occasionally to reflect on these superstitions, for they show us what an +infinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason, to +science, and to our accumulated knowledge."<small><a name="f65.1" id="f65.1" href="#f65">[65]</a></small> As Sir J. Lubbock has +well observed: "It is not too much to say that the possible dread of +unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters +every pleasure. These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest +faculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of +the instincts of the lower animals."</p> + +<p>The belief, then, of the existence of an Omnipotent God came with the +development of the mental faculties; and although there does exist such +a belief in the minds of men whose conscience is in a normal condition, +still there are temptations to unbelief, and these have led men to +atheism. I cannot think of an atheist unless I associate in my thoughts +the words:</p> + +<p class="poem">"The ruling passion, be it what it may—<br /> +The ruling passion conquers reason still."</p> + +<p>The atheist has decided not to believe in the existence of a God, unless +he can see Him and understand Him; in other words, the finite would +comprehend the infinite. Following the logical method of reasoning of an +atheist, the simple fact of seeing God in no way ought to prove his +existence. For when you say you see a person, and that you have not the +least doubt about it, I answer, that what you are really conscious of is +an affection of your retina. And if you urge that you can check your +sight of the person by touching him, I would answer, that you are +equally transgressing the limits of fact; for what you are really +conscious of is, not that he is there, but that the nerves of your hand +have undergone a change. All you hear and see and touch<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> and taste and +smell are mere variations of your own condition, beyond which, even to +the extent of a hair's-breadth, you cannot go. That anything answering +to your impression exists outside of yourself is not a <i>fact</i>, but an +<i>inference</i>, to which all validity would be denied by an idealist like +Berkeley, or by a skeptic like Hume.<small><a name="f66.1" id="f66.1" href="#f66">[66]</a></small></p> + +<p>Thomas Cooper<small><a name="f67.1" id="f67.1" href="#f67">[67]</a></small> said:</p> + +<p class="poem">"I do not say—there is no God;<br /> +But this I say—<span class="smcap">I know not</span>."</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>Mr. Bradlaugh says: "The atheist does not say, 'There is no God'; but he +says, I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the +word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. +I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no +conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so +imperfect that he is unable to define it to me."</p> + +<p>Austin Holyoake<small><a name="f68.1" id="f68.1" href="#f68">[68]</a></small> says: "The only way of proving the fallacy of +atheism is by <i>proving</i> the existence of a God."</p> + +<p>If it is logical proof that is wanted, there is plenty. The following +arguments, although not all meeting my approbation, are still of +interest:</p> + +<p>The <i>Ontological Argument</i> has been presented in different forms. 1. +Anselm,<small><a name="f69.1" id="f69.1" href="#f69">[69]</a></small> Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), states this argument +thus: We have an idea of an infinitely perfect being. But real existence +is an element of infinite perfection. Therefore an infinitely perfect +being exists; otherwise the infinitely perfect, as we conceive it, would +lack an essential element of perfection.</p> + +<p>2. Descartes<small><a name="f70.1" id="f70.1" href="#f70">[70]</a></small> (1596-1650) states the argument thus: +The <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span>idea of an +infinitely perfect being which we possess could not have originated in a +finite source, and therefore must have been communicated by an +infinitely perfect being.</p> + +<p>3. Dr. Samuel Clark<small><a name="f71.1" id="f71.1" href="#f71">[71]</a></small> (1705) argues that time and space are infinite +and necessarily existent, but they are not substances. Therefore there +must exist an eternal and infinite substance of which they are +properties.</p> + +<p>4. Cousin<small><a name="f72.1" id="f72.1" href="#f72">[72]</a></small> maintained that the idea of the finite implies the idea of +the infinite as inevitably as the idea of the "me" implies that of the +"not me."</p> + +<p>The <i>Cosmological Argument</i> may be stated thus: "Every new thing and +every change in a previously existing thing must have a cause sufficient +and pre-existing. The universe consists of a series of changes. +Therefore the universe must have a cause exterior and anterior to +itself.</p> + +<p>The <i>Teleological Argument</i>, or argument from design or final causes, is +as follows: Design, or the adaptation of means to effect an end, implies +the exercise of intelligence and free choice. The universe is full of +traces of design. Therefore the "First Cause" must have been a personal +spirit.</p> + +<p>The <i>Moral Argument</i> may be thus stated: "In looking at the works of God +there is," says Rev. Dr. Hopkins, "I suppose, evidence enough, +especially if interpreted by the moral consciousness, to prove to a +candid man the being of God." The educated man is a religious being. The +instinct of prayer and worship, the longing for and faith in divine love +and help, are inseparable from human nature under normal conditions, as +known in history.</p> + +<p>It is evident from the above that it is not for logical reasoning or +arguments that the atheist is led to say, "that up to this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span>moment the +world has remained without knowledge of a God."<small><a name="f73.1" id="f73.1" href="#f73">[73]</a></small> It is from the folly +of his heart; and, as Solomon says, that "though you bray him and his +false logic in the mortar of reason, among the wheat of facts, with the +pestle of argument, yet will not his folly depart from him."<small><a name="f74.1" id="f74.1" href="#f74">[74]</a></small> I fully +agree with Hobbes when he says, "where there is no reason for our +belief, there is no reason we should believe," but I think the several +arguments given above, which could be greatly expanded, affords +sufficient reason for a perfect belief in an Infinite God. For—</p> + +<p class="poem">"God is a being, and that you may see<br /> +In the fold of the flower, in the leaf of the tree,<br /> +In the storm-cloud of darkness, in the rainbow of life,<br /> +In the sunlight at noontide, in the darkness of night,<br /> +In the wave of the ocean, in the furrow of land,<br /> +In the mountain of granite, in the atom of sand;<br /> +Gaze where ye may from the sky to the sod—<br /> +Where can you gaze and not see a God."</p> + +<p>Yes, the infinite God must include all. If he is not in the dust of our +streets, in the bricks of our house, in the beat of our hearts, then he +is not infinite, but is finite, having boundaries. Yes, God's power it +was that set the nebulous mass into vibration, and caused the world to +be formed; it was His force which first shaped the atoms into molecules, +and then into more complex chemical products, till finally "organizable +protoplasm" was reached, which, by evolution, climbed up to man. 'Tis +God we see in the family, in society, in the state, in all religions, up +to the highest outflowings of Christianity. 'Tis Him we see in art, +literature, and science; and so proclaims Evolution. "God is the +universal causal law; God is the source of all force and all matter." +"For us," says Haeckel, "all nature is animated, <i>i. e.</i>, penetrated +with Divine spirit, with law, and with necessity." We know of no matter +without this Divine spirit.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span></p><p>The "ultimate repulsion, constituting the extension and impenetrability +of the atoms of matter," says Dr. Samuel Brown, "could be conceived of +in no other way than as the persistent existence of the will of God +himself, in whom we live and move and have our being, and which, if but +for an instant withdrawn, the whole material universe and its forces in +all their vastness, glory, and beauty, would collapse and sink in a +moment into their original nothingness."</p> + +<p>The advancement of science, instead of depriving man of his God, only +deprives men of their earlier and ruder conceptions of Deity, only to +impart a larger and grander thought of Him. "It is true, in the +educational process some few minds have lost sight of Him altogether, +but these are the exceptional, and therefore notable instances; with the +great body of men, the conception of God has steadily enlarged with the +progress of science."<small><a name="f75.1" id="f75.1" href="#f75">[75]</a></small> If science can demonstrate that Evolution is +true, then it is God's truth, and as such it is man's religious duty to +accept it; if he rejects it, superstitiously or unreasonably, he not +only defrauds himself but insults the Author of truth.</p> + +<p>What, then, has science demonstrated? Science has demonstrated the <span class="smcap">Unity +of the Forces</span>: Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, motion, are all +correlated to one another, and are all mutually convertible one into +another. Heat may be said to produce electricity—electricity to produce +heat; magnetism to produce electricity—electricity, magnetism, and so +on for the rest.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Unity of Matter and Force.</span>—"For if matter were not force, and +immediately known as force, it could not be known at all—could not be +rationally inferred."</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Unity of the Life Substance in all Organic and Animal Bodies.</span>—"A unity +of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial +composition."</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span><span class="smcap">Unity of Animate and Inanimate Nature in Matter, Form, and Force.</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Unity of the Laws of Development.</span>—Hence we can proclaim the unity of +all nature and of her laws of development.</p> + +<p>In the beautiful words of Giordano Bruno: "A spirit exists in all +things, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine +substance within itself, by which it is animated." Hence we arrive at +the sublime idea, since we can in no other way account for the ultimate +cause of anything, that it is God's spirit which pervades and sustains +all nature. By this admission we are not led to say: "There is no God +but force;" but rather, "There is no force but God." God is infinite, +and therefore includes nature; but is nature all? It is all that our +finite minds can discover, 'tis true; but can there not exist another +nature or world unknown to us; and if so, since God is infinite, he will +include that world also. Let us look to this and see what science can +answer.</p> + +<p>It will be necessary for us to consider before proceeding, what is meant +by the term soul; and this becomes a somewhat difficult task, as the +term has been variously applied to signify the principle of life in an +organic body, or the first and most undeveloped stages of individualized +spiritual being, or finally, all stages of spiritual individuality, +incorporeal as well as corporeal.<small><a name="f76.1" id="f76.1" href="#f76">[76]</a></small> The popular belief is, that the +soul is not material but substantial, a divine gift to the highest alone +of God's creatures; but scientific men, such as Carl Vogt, Moleschott, +Büchner, Schmidt, Haeckel, consider the phenomena of the soul to be +functions of the brain and nerves. Schmidt says: "The soul of the +new-born infant is, in its manifestations, in no way different from that +of the young animal. These are the functions of the infantine nervous +system, with this they grow and are developed together with speech."</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span>The idea of the immortality of the soul was not aboriginal with mankind, +as Sir J. Lubbock has shown that the barbarous races possess no clear +belief of this kind, and Rajah Brook, at a missionary meeting in +Liverpool, told his hearers there that the Dyaks, a people with whom he +was connected, had no knowledge of God, of a soul, or of any future +state.</p> + +<p>Darwin remarks, that "man may be excused for feeling some pride at +having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit +of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of +having been aboriginally placed there, may give hope for a still higher +destiny in the distant future."</p> + +<p>The belief in a future life amongst the civilized race of mankind is +almost universally prevalent. The proofs of immortality are various. The +desire that man has to live forever and his horror of annihilation is +one; the good suffer in this world and the wicked triumph—this would +indicate the necessity of future retribution. The infinite +perfectibility of the human mind never reaches its full capacity in this +life; the faculty of insight which sees in an individual all its past +history at a glance is the immortal attribute and is continually on the +increase; and it is possible that Aristotle was right so far as he +stated that the lower faculties of the soul, such as sensation, +imagination, feeling, memory, etc., are perishable. No matter if this be +so or not, it is certain that in the next life, where all is perfection, +only the fittest attributes will exist, the others would have perished. +The doctrine of the immortality of the soul has been defended by +Marhemeke, Blasche, Weisse, Hinnichs, Fecham, J. H. Fichte, and others.</p> + +<p>Let us look for a moment at the visible universe and see if it is not +reasonable, on a scientific basis, to admit of the existence of another +universe, although it remains unseen to us. One can<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> not help but be +struck with the fact that energy is being dissipated in this visible +universe, that the visible universe is apparently very wasteful. Look at +the sun which pours her vast store of high-class energy into space, at +the rate of 185,000 miles per second. What will be the result of this? +The answer is simple: The inevitable destruction of the visible +universe. Yes, just as the visible universe had its beginning it will +have its end. But there existed a power before the visible universe came +into existence, and which is acting in the visible universe as the +ultimate cause of all phenomena. "For we are obliged," says Herbert +Spencer in his First Principles, "to regard every phenomenon as a +manifestation of some power by which we are acted upon; though +omnipresence is unthinkable, yet, as experience discloses no bounds to +the diffusion of phenomena, we are unable to think of limits to the +presence of this power, while the criticisms of science teaches us that +this power is incomprehensible." And so we should expect, for a finite +cannot comprehend an infinite. It is for this and other reasons one is +led to believe that the visible universe is only an infinitesimal part +of "that stupendous whole which is alone entitled to be called <span class="smcap">The +Universe</span>."<small><a name="f77.1" id="f77.1" href="#f77">[77]</a></small> As there existed an invisible universe before the visible +one came into existence, we can conclude that there still exists an +invisible universe now, and that this invisible universe will still +exist when the present visible one has passed away. Let us see what +light our finite senses can throw on this. It is well known that all our +senses have only a certain narrow gauge within which they are able to +bring us into sensible contact with the world about us. All outside this +range we are unable to reach. For example, we do not see all forms and +colors; we do not hear all sounds; we do not smell all odors; we cannot +conscientiously touch all substances; we cannot taste all flavors.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> +Vision depends on the wave motion of light. The length of a wave of mean +red light is about <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">39000</span>th of an inch, that of violet +<span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">57500</span>th of an +inch. But the number of oscillations of ether in a second, necessary to +produce the sensation of red, are 477,000,000,000,000, all of which +enter the eye in one second. For the sensation of violet, the eye must +receive 699,000,000,000,000 oscillations in one second, as light travels +185,000 miles in one second. But when waves of light having all possible +lengths act on the eye simultaneously, the sensation of white is +produced. So, as has been previously stated, without eyes the world +would be wrapped in darkness, there being no light and color outside of +one's eye. So we see our sense of sight has its limits, and we know how +finite these are. That there are vibrations of the ether on each side of +our limits of vision cannot be doubted; and if our eyes were acute +enough to receive them, we could have the sensation of some color, which +must under present conditions remain forever blank. The owl and bat can +see when we cannot; their eyes can receive oscillations of ether, which +pass by without affecting us. So with sound, which "is a sensation +produced when vibrations of a certain character are excited in the +auditory apparatus of the ear."<small><a name="f78.1" id="f78.1" href="#f78">[78]</a></small> The longest wave which can give an +impression has a length of about 66 ft., which is equal to 16½ +vibrations per second; when the wave is reduced to three or four tenths +of an inch, equal to from 38,000 to 40,000 vibrations per second, sound +becomes again inaudible. The piano, for instance, only runs between +27½ vibrations in a second up to 3,520. Sound travels about 1,093 +feet per second, and the human voice can be heard 460 feet away, whilst +a rifle can be heard 16,000 feet (3.02 miles), and very strong +cannonading 575,840 feet, or 90 miles. That there are vibrations above +and below 16½ and 40,000, there is no room to doubt, as there exist<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> +ears which can hear them, such as the hare; but to us they are as though +they did not exist.</p> + +<p>Of all our senses, the sense of smell far surpasses that of the other +sense. Valentine has calculated that we are able to perceive about the +three one-hundred-millionth of a grain of musk. The minute particle +which we perceive by smell, no chemical reaction can detect, and even +spectrum analysis, which can recognize fifteen-millionths of a grain, is +far surpassed. But this sense in man is far surpassed by the hound.</p> + +<p>Our sense of taste is also limited, and as has been already stated, +cannot distinguish all flavors. We can recognize by taste one part of +sulphuric acid in 1000 parts of water; one drop of this on the tongue +would contain <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>1</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">2000</span> +of a grain (<span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>3</sup></span>⁄<span style="font-size: 0.6em;">400</span> of a grain) of sulphuric acid. +The length of time needed for reaction in sensation has been determined +by Vintschgau and Hougschmied, and in a person whose sense of taste was +highly developed, the reaction time was, for common salt, 0.159 second; +for sugar, 0.1639 second; for acid, 0.1676 second; and for quinine, +0.2351 second.</p> + +<p>Reviewing, then, the above, it is evident there are eyes which can see +what we cannot, there are ears which can hear what we cannot, and there +are animals who can smell and touch what we cannot. "For anything we +know to the contrary, then," says Savage, "a refined and spiritualized +order of existences may be the inhabitants of another and unseen world +all about us." As Milton has said:</p> + +<p class="poem">"Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth<br /> +Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep."</p> + +<p>If there is a life very much different from and very much higher than +our present one, it is not strange we are ignorant of it. It is +impossible to make a person understand anything which is entirely unlike +all that has ever been seen or heard, for every idea<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> in the world that +man has came to him by nature. Man<small><a name="f79.1" id="f79.1" href="#f79">[79]</a></small> cannot conceive of anything the +hint of which has not been received from his surroundings. He can +imagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with the pouch of a +kangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak of a bird, and with +the tail of a lion; and yet every point of this monster he borrowed from +nature. Everything he can think of, everything he can dream of, is +borrowed from his surroundings—everything. "So, if an angel should come +and tell of another life, it would mean nothing to us, unless we could +translate it into terms of our own experience. We could not understand a +'light that never was on land or sea.' Our ignorance is not even then a +probability against our belief."<small><a name="f80.1" id="f80.1" href="#f80">[80]</a></small></p> + +<p>As has already been stated, the visible universe must have its doom, +must end as it began, by consisting of a single mass of matter; but is +there not a more primitive state of matter than the matter such as we +know it? Yes; and the so-called ether is that matter. It is unlike any +of the forms of matter which we can weigh and measure. It is in some +respects like unto a fluid, and in some respects like unto a solid. It +is both hard and elastic to an almost inconceivable degree. "It fills +all material bodies like a sea in which the atoms of the material bodies +are as islands, and it occupies the whole of what we call empty space. +It is so sensitive that a disturbance in any part of it causes a 'tremor +which is felt on the surface of countless worlds.' It exerts frictions; +and although the friction is infinitely small, yet as it has an almost +infinite time to work in, it will diminish the momentum of the planets, +and diminish their ability to maintain their distance from the sun, the +consequence of which will be the planets will fall into the sun, and the +solar system will end where it begun."<small><a name="f81.1" id="f81.1" href="#f81">[81]</a></small></p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span>According to Sir William Thompson, the ultimate atoms of matter are +vortex rings, which Professor Clifford describes as being more closely +packed together (finer grained) in ether than in matter. And he says, +"whatever may turn out to be the ultimate nature of the ether and of +molecules, we know that to some extent at least they obey the same +dynamic laws, and that they act on one another in accordance with these +laws. Until therefore it is absolutely disproved, it must remain the +simplest and most probable assumption that they are finally made of the +same stuff, that the material molecule is in some kind of knot or +coagulation of ether."<small><a name="f82.1" id="f82.1" href="#f82">[82]</a></small></p> + +<p>The molecule of matter such as we know, then, may have been, and very +probably was, produced by evolution from the atoms or vortex rings of +ether, according to the theory advanced by the authors of the work +called the "Unseen Universe," which I have referred to. The world of +ether is to be regarded in some sort the obverse complement of the world +of sensible matter, so that whatever energy is dissipated in the one is +by the same act accumulated in the other; or, as Fiske describes it, "it +is like the negative plate in photography, where light answers to shadow +and shadow to light." Every act of consciousness is accompanied by +molecular displacements in the brain, and these of course are responded +to by movements in the ethereal world. Views of this kind were long ago +entertained by Babbage, and they have since recommended themselves to +other men of science, and amongst others to Jevon, who says: "Mr. +Babbage has pointed out that if we had power to follow and detect the +manifest effects of any disturbance, each particle of existing matter +must be a register of all that has happened. * * * The air itself is one +vast library on whose pages are forever written all that man has ever +said or whispered. There in their mutable but unerring charac<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>ters, +mixed with, the earliest as well as the latest sighs of mortality, stand +forever recorded vows unredeemed, promises unfulfilled, perpetuating in +the united movements of each particle the testimony of man's changeful +will."<small><a name="f83.1" id="f83.1" href="#f83">[83]</a></small></p> + +<p>So thought affects the substance of the present visible universe; it +produces a material organ of memory. "But the motions which accompany +thought," say the authors,<small><a name="f84.1" id="f84.1" href="#f84">[84]</a></small> "will also affect the invisible order of +things," and thus it follows that "thought conceived to affect the +matter of another universe, simultaneously with this, may explain a +future state."<small><a name="f85.1" id="f85.1" href="#f85">[85]</a></small></p> + +<p>Death, then, is for the individual but a transfer from one physical +state of existence to another, according to the "authors'"<small><a name="f86.1" id="f86.1" href="#f86">[86]</a></small> idea; and +so, on the largest scale, the death or final loss of energy by the whole +visible universe has its counterpart in the acquirement of a maximum of +life, the correlative unseen world. According to this theory, therefore, +as the psychical or spiritual phenomena of the visible world only begins +to be manifested with some complex aggregate of material phenomena, +therefore it is necessary for the continuance of mind in a future state +to have some sort of material vehicle also, which the ether is supposed +to supply. "The essential weakness of such a theory as this," says +Fiske, "lies in the fact that it is thoroughly materialistic in +character. We have reason for thinking it probable that ether and +ordinary matter are alike composed of vortex rings in a +quasi-frictionless fluid; but whatever be the fate of this subtle +hypothesis, we may be sure that no theory will ever be entertained in +which analysis of ether shall require different symbols from that of +ordinary matter. In our authors' theory, therefore, the putting on of +immortality is in nowise the passage from a material to a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>spiritual +state. It is the passage of one kind of materially conditioned state to +another." This theory, dealing with matter, should receive support by +actual experience, as matter is a subject of investigation. To accept +it, therefore, as being possible without any positive evidence for its +support, it remains but a weak speculation, no matter how ingenious it +may seem.</p> + +<p>To support an after life, which is not materially conditioned, I agree +with Mr. Fiske, that although it will be unsupported by any item of +experience whatever, it may nevertheless be an impregnable assertion.</p> + +<p>If all were to agree, what we call matter is really force, as it +certainly is, for if matter were not force it would be unthinkable, +being force it becomes thinkable; this point I have touched on before, +but it may be well to elaborate on it a little just here. The great +lesson that Berkeley taught mankind was that what we call material +phenomena are really the products of consciousness co-operating with +some unknown power (not material) existing beyond consciousness. "We do +very well to speak of matter," says Fiske, "in common parlance, but all +that the word really means is a group of qualities which have no +existence apart from our minds." The ablest modern thinkers, then, +believe that the only real things that exist are the mind and God, and +that the universe is only the infinitely varied manifestation of God in +the human conscience. It is evident, then, that <i>matter</i>, the only thing +the materialist concedes real existence, is simply an orderly +phantasmagoria; and God and soul, which materialists regard as mere +fictions of the imagination, are the only conceptions that answer to +real existence.<small><a name="f87.1" id="f87.1" href="#f87">[87]</a></small></p> + +<p>For instance, let us see what it is we know about a table. You say you +can see it; I can respond that all you are conscious of is that the +nerves of your eye have undergone a change. You<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> say, I can check my +sight of it by touching it; to this I reply, all that you are really +conscious of is a sensation, and that something outside of you has +produced it. But that all that is outside of me is anything more than +the manifestation to me of a power or of God, is an inference and cannot +be proven. To constant manifestations of this power, always assuming the +same form and characters which can be studied, different names have been +given; but that the dust of the street or beat of our heart is anything +else but that peculiar manifestation of the infinite God, cannot be +contradicted.</p> + +<p>Mr. Savage says, "The movement of electricity along a telegraph-line is +accompanied by certain molecular changes in the wire itself; but the +wire is not electricity, neither does it produce it. Thus modern science +has found it utterly impossible to explain mind either as a part or a +product of matter. It is perfectly reasonable, then, for any man to +believe in a purely intellectual and spiritual existence, apart from any +material form or substance."</p> + +<p>To comprehend the immortal life is an impossibility; it transcends any +earthly experience of man. The caterpillar probably knows nothing about +any life higher than that of his toilsome crawling on the ground; but +that is no proof against the fact that we know he is to become a +butterfly. The boy knows nothing about manhood, and cannot know. Though +he sees men and their labors all about him, he has and can have no +conception whatever of what it means to be a man; it transcends all +experience.<small><a name="f88.1" id="f88.1" href="#f88">[88]</a></small> "The existence," says Fiske, "of a single soul, or +congeries of psychical phenomena, unaccompanied by a material body, +would be evidence sufficient to demonstrate this hypothesis. But in the +nature of things, even were there a million such souls round about us, +we could not become aware<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> of the existence of one of them; for we have +no organ or faculty for the perception of soul apart from the material +structure and activities in which it has been manifested throughout the +whole course of our experience. Even our own self-consciousness involves +the consciousness of ourselves as partly material bodies. These +considerations show that our hypothesis is very different from the +ordinary hypothesis with which science deals. <i>The entire absence of +testimony does not raise a negative presumption, except in cases where +testimony is accessible.</i>"</p> + +<p>My object has not been to prove the purely spiritual theory of a future +life, but to show that it is a theory that intelligent people can +entertain as a foundation for their belief "in the hope of immortality." +But that the spiritual life instead of the material life is the state in +which we can hope for immortality, I think there can be no question; and +such was the opinion of Paul<small><a name="f89.1" id="f89.1" href="#f89">[89]</a></small> when he wrote: "Now this I say, +brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, +neither does corruption inherit incorruption.... So when this +corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have +put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is +written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'</p> + +<p class="poem">O death, where is thy sting?<br /> +O grave, where is thy victory?"</p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><b>Footnotes:</b></p> + +<p><a name="f1" id="f1" href="#f1.1">[1]</a> The Law of Disease, in College Courant, Vol. XIV.</p> + +<p><a name="f2" id="f2" href="#f2.1">[2]</a> Winchell. Evolution, p. 113.</p> + +<p><a name="f3" id="f3" href="#f3.1">[3]</a> Comparative Zoology, p. 43. 1876.</p> + +<p><a name="f4" id="f4" href="#f4.1">[4]</a> Huxley. Physical Basis of Life.</p> + +<p><a name="f5" id="f5" href="#f5.1">[5]</a> Johnson, Ency.</p> + +<p><a name="f6" id="f6" href="#f6.1">[6]</a> Comparative Anatomy—Orton, p. 32.</p> + +<p><a name="f7" id="f7" href="#f7.1">[7]</a> Analytical Anatomy and Phys.—Cutter, p. 16.</p> + +<p><a name="f8" id="f8" href="#f8.1">[8]</a> Biography of a Plant.</p> + +<p><a name="f9" id="f9" href="#f9.1">[9]</a> See Huxley—Invertebrate Animals, Anatomy of.</p> + +<p><a name="f10" id="f10" href="#f10.1">[10]</a> Phys. Basis of Life.</p> + +<p><a name="f11" id="f11" href="#f11.1">[11]</a> Beginnings of Life, p. 104, Vol. I.</p> + +<p><a name="f12" id="f12" href="#f12.1">[12]</a> Monthly Micros. Jour., May 1, '69, p. 294.</p> + +<p><a name="f13" id="f13" href="#f13.1">[13]</a> Chem. and Phys. Balance of Organic Nature, 1848, p. 48 (trans.).</p> + +<p><a name="f14" id="f14" href="#f14.1">[14]</a> Inaugural Address, Aug. 19, 1874.</p> + +<p><a name="f15" id="f15" href="#f15.1">[15]</a> Haeckel—Hist. of Creation.</p> + +<p><a name="f16" id="f16" href="#f16.1">[16]</a> See Haeckel—Evol. of Man.</p> + +<p><a name="f17" id="f17" href="#f17.1">[17]</a> Evolution of Man, Vol. II, p. 445.</p> + +<p><a name="f18" id="f18" href="#f18.1">[18]</a> Johnson's Cyclopedia, Article "Evolution."</p> + +<p><a name="f19" id="f19" href="#f19.1">[19]</a> Sumner, in Johnson's Cyc.</p> + +<p><a name="f20" id="f20" href="#f20.1">[20]</a> Christian Union, Vol. XIII, No. 17, p. 322.</p> + +<p><a name="f21" id="f21" href="#f21.1">[21]</a> Gen. i. 1.</p> + +<p><a name="f22" id="f22" href="#f22.1">[22]</a> St. John i. 1.</p> + +<p><a name="f23" id="f23" href="#f23.1">[23]</a> St. John i. 3.</p> + +<p><a name="f24" id="f24" href="#f24.1">[24]</a> Hist. of Creation, p. 8.</p> + +<p><a name="f25" id="f25" href="#f25.1">[25]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 324.</p> + +<p><a name="f26" id="f26" href="#f26.1">[26]</a> Heb. xi. 3. Revised English Ed.</p> + +<p><a name="f27" id="f27" href="#f27.1">[27]</a> <i>Loc. cit.</i>, Vol. I, p. 323.</p> + +<p><a name="f28" id="f28" href="#f28.1">[28]</a> <i>Loc. cit.</i>, Vol. I, p. 324.</p> + +<p><a name="f29" id="f29" href="#f29.1">[29]</a> Indications of the Creator.</p> + +<p><a name="f30" id="f30" href="#f30.1">[30]</a> Evolution and Progress, p. 26, Rev. Wm. I. Gill.</p> + +<p><a name="f31" id="f31" href="#f31.1">[31]</a> Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch., pp. 643-5.</p> + +<p><a name="f32" id="f32" href="#f32.1">[32]</a> Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, 1853, Vol. I, p. 71.</p> + +<p><a name="f33" id="f33" href="#f33.1">[33]</a> Ueber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen Körper.</p> + +<p><a name="f34" id="f34" href="#f34.1">[34]</a> Pop. Sci. Monthly, June, 1879, p. 250.</p> + +<p><a name="f35" id="f35" href="#f35.1">[35]</a> See Sci. Am., May 18, 1878.</p> + +<p><a name="f36" id="f36" href="#f36.1">[36]</a> Source of Muscular Power, Proc. Roy. Inst., June 8, 1866. Am. I. Sci., II, xlii, 393, Nov. 1866.</p> + +<p><a name="f37" id="f37" href="#f37.1">[37]</a> Comparative Zoology, p. 45.</p> + +<p><a name="f38" id="f38" href="#f38.1">[38]</a> Correlation of the Vital and Physical Forces, p. 54.</p> + +<p><a name="f39" id="f39" href="#f39.1">[39]</a> On the time required for the transmission of volition and sensation through the nerves, Proc. Roy. Inst.</p> + +<p><a name="f40" id="f40" href="#f40.1">[40]</a> Comparative Zoology, p. 165.</p> + +<p><a name="f41" id="f41" href="#f41.1">[41]</a> Sci. Amer., Nov. 13, 1876, p. 328.</p> + +<p><a name="f42" id="f42" href="#f42.1">[42]</a> Marshall, Outline of Physiology. Amer. Ed., 1868, p. 227.</p> + +<p><a name="f43" id="f43" href="#f43.1">[43]</a> Macmillon's Magazine, Pop. Sci. Monthly, April, 1876.</p> + +<p><a name="f44" id="f44" href="#f44.1">[44]</a> "Principles of Psychology," 1869, No. 20, p. 24.</p> + +<p><a name="f45" id="f45" href="#f45.1">[45]</a> J. S. Lombard, N. Y. Med. Jour., Vol. V, 198, June, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f46" id="f46" href="#f46.1">[46]</a> <i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 23.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f47" id="f47" href="#f47.1">[47]</a> The apparatus employed is illustrated and fully described in +Brown-Sequard's Archives de Phys., Vol. I, 498, June, 1868. By it the 1-4000th of a degree Centigrade may be indicated.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f48" id="f48" href="#f48.1">[48]</a> L. H. Wood, "On the influence of mental activity on the excretion +of phosphoric acid by the kidneys." Proc. Conn. Med. Soc., Nov., 1869, p. 197.</p> + +<p><a name="f49" id="f49" href="#f49.1">[49]</a> <i>Loc. cit.</i>, p. 24.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f50" id="f50" href="#f50.1">[50]</a> Address of Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, as retiring president, before the +Am. Ass. for Adv. of Sci., Chicago meeting, Aug. 1868. "Thought cannot be a physical force, because thought admits of no measure."</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f51" id="f51" href="#f51.1">[51]</a> Derivation hypothesis of life and species, forming fortieth chapter +of his Anatomy of Vertebrates, republished in Am. Jour. Sci., II, xlvii, 33, Jan. 1869.</p> + +<p><a name="f52" id="f52" href="#f52.1">[52]</a> Prehistoric Times, p. 354, by Lubbock.</p> + +<p><a name="f53" id="f53" href="#f53.1">[53]</a> Madness in Animals, Jour. Mental Sci., July, 1871. Dr. W. L. Lindsay.</p> + +<p><a name="f54" id="f54" href="#f54.1">[54]</a> Facultés Mentales des Animaux, 1872, Tom. XI, p. 181.</p> + +<p><a name="f55" id="f55" href="#f55.1">[55]</a> Primeval Man, 1869, pp. 145-147.</p> + +<p><a name="f56" id="f56" href="#f56.1">[56]</a> Prehistoric Times, 1865, p. 473.</p> + +<p><a name="f57" id="f57" href="#f57.1">[57]</a> "Conferences ser les Théorie Darwinienne," 1869, p. 132.</p> + +<p><a name="f58" id="f58" href="#f58.1">[58]</a> Philosoph. Trans., 1773, p. 262.</p> + +<p><a name="f59" id="f59" href="#f59.1">[59]</a> Prof. Whitney, p. 309.</p> + +<p><a name="f60" id="f60" href="#f60.1">[60]</a> Phys. and Pathol. of Mind. Dr. Maudsley. 3d ed., 1868, p. 199.</p> + +<p><a name="f61" id="f61" href="#f61.1">[61]</a> Nature, January 6, 1870, p. 257.</p> + +<p><a name="f62" id="f62" href="#f62.1">[62]</a> Problems i. 21.</p> + +<p><a name="f63" id="f63" href="#f63.1">[63]</a> Johnson's Cyc. Article "Faith." C. P. Krauth.</p> + +<p><a name="f64" id="f64" href="#f64.1">[64]</a> Darwin's Descent of Man, p. 117.</p> + +<p><a name="f65" id="f65" href="#f65.1">[65]</a> See Descent of Man, p. 96.</p> + +<p><a name="f66" id="f66" href="#f66.1">[66]</a> See Tyndall's Belfast Address.</p> + +<p><a name="f67" id="f67" href="#f67.1">[67]</a> Purgatory of Suicides.</p> + +<p><a name="f68" id="f68" href="#f68.1">[68]</a> Thoughts on Atheism, p. 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f69" id="f69" href="#f69.1">[69]</a> Monologium and Proslogium.</p> + +<p><a name="f70" id="f70" href="#f70.1">[70]</a> Meditations de Primaphilosophia Prop. 2, p. 89.</p> + +<p><a name="f71" id="f71" href="#f71.1">[71]</a> Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.</p> + +<p><a name="f72" id="f72" href="#f72.1">[72]</a> Elements of Psychology.</p> + +<p><a name="f73" id="f73" href="#f73.1">[73]</a> Thoughts on Atheism, by Holyoake, p. 4.</p> + +<p><a name="f74" id="f74" href="#f74.1">[74]</a> Proverbs xvii. 22.</p> + +<p><a name="f75" id="f75" href="#f75.1">[75]</a> Henry Ward Beecher.</p> + +<p><a name="f76" id="f76" href="#f76.1">[76]</a> See W. T. Harris. Johnson's Encyc. "Soul."</p> + +<p><a name="f77" id="f77" href="#f77.1">[77]</a> Unseen Universe.</p> + +<p><a name="f78" id="f78" href="#f78.1">[78]</a> Rood. "Sound," Johnson's Encyc.</p> + +<p><a name="f79" id="f79" href="#f79.1">[79]</a> See R. G. Ingersoll's Lecture on Hell.</p> + +<p><a name="f80" id="f80" href="#f80.1">[80]</a> Savage.</p> + +<p><a name="f81" id="f81" href="#f81.1">[81]</a> "The Unseen World." John Fiske, p. 21.</p> + +<p><a name="f82" id="f82" href="#f82.1">[82]</a> Fortnightly Review, June 1875, p. 784.</p> + +<p><a name="f83" id="f83" href="#f83.1">[83]</a> Ninth Bridgewater Treatise.</p> + +<p><a name="f84" id="f84" href="#f84.1">[84]</a> Of the Unseen Universe.</p> + +<p><a name="f85" id="f85" href="#f85.1">[85]</a> Anagram. Nature, Oct. 15, 1874.</p> + +<p><a name="f86" id="f86" href="#f86.1">[86]</a> Of the Unseen Universe.</p> + +<p><a name="f87" id="f87" href="#f87.1">[87]</a> Fiske. Unseen World, p. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f88" id="f88" href="#f88.1">[88]</a> Savage. Relig. of Evol., p. 246.</p> + +<p><a name="f89" id="f89" href="#f89.1">[89]</a> 1 Corinthians, xv., verses 50-54 (Part of). <i>Revised English Ed.</i>, 1877.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><b>Transcriber's Notes:</b></p> +<p>Some quotes in the original are opened with marks but are not closed. Obvious errors have been silently closed, while those requiring interpretation have been left open.</p> +<p>Other than the corrections noted by hover information, printer's inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.</p> +<p>Additional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate +both the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as presented in the original text.</p> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30429 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + + + |