| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Was Man Created?
Author: Mott, Henry A. (Henry Augustus), 1852-1896
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Was Man Created?" ***
[Illustration: FOSSIL MAN OF MENTONE. (From Popular Science Monthly,
October, 1874.)]
WAS MAN CREATED?
BY
HENRY A. MOTT, JR., E.M., PH.D., ETC.,
_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._
AUTHOR OF THE "CHEMISTS' MANUAL," "ADULTERATION OF MILK," "ARTIFICIAL
BUTTER," "TESTING THE VALUE OF RIFLES BY FIRING UNDER WATER," ETC., ETC.
NEW YORK:
GRISWOLD & COMPANY,
150 NASSAU STREET.
1880.
COPYRIGHT BY
HENRY A. MOTT, JR.,
1880.
TROW'S
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING CO.,
_205-213 East 12th St._,
NEW YORK.
Electrotyped by SMITH & MCDOUGAL, 82 Beekman Street, N. Y.
PREFACE.
This work was originally written to be delivered as a lecture; but as
its pages continued to multiply, it was suggested to the author by
numerous friends that it ought to be published in book-form; this, at
last, the author concluded to do. This work, therefore, does not claim
to be an exhaustive discussion of the various departments of which it
treats; but rather it has been the aim of the author to present the more
interesting observations in each department in as concise a form as
possible. The author has endeavored to give credit in every instance
where he has taken advantage of the labors of others. This work is not
intended for that class of people who are so absolutely certain of the
truth of their religion and of the immortality that it teaches, that
they have become unqualified to entertain or even perceive of any
scientific objection; for such people may be likened unto those who,
"_Seeing, they see, but will not perceive; and hearing, they hear, but
will not understand._"
This work is written for the man of culture who is seeking for
truth--believing, as does the author, that all truth is God's truth, and
therefore it becomes the duty of every scientific man to accept it;
knowing, however, that it will surely modify the popular creeds and
methods of interpretation, its final result can only be to the glory of
God and to the establishment of a more exalted and purer religion. All
facts are truths; it consequently follows that all scientific facts are
truths--there is no half-way house--a statement is either a truth or it
is not a truth, according to the _law of non-contradiction_. If,
therefore, we find tabulated amongst scientific facts (or truths) a
statement which is not a fact, it is not science; but all statements
which are facts it naturally follows are truths, and as such must be
accepted, no matter how repulsive they may at first seem to some of our
poetical imaginings and pet theories. We cannot help but sympathize with
the feelings which prompted President Barnard to write the following
lines, still we will see he was too hasty: "Much as I love truth in the
abstract," he says, "I love my hope of immortality more." * * * He
maintained that it is better to close one's eyes to the evidences than
to be convinced of the _truth_ of certain doctrines which _he regards_
as subversive of the fundamentals of Christian faith. "If this (is all)
is the best that science can give me, then I pray no more science. Let
me live on in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me; and
when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be
able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant,
even though they be deceitful, dreams."[1] The limitations to the
acceptance of truth that President Barnard makes is wrong; for, as
Professor Winchell has said, "we think it is a higher aspiration to wish
to know 'the truth and the whole truth.' At the same time, we have not
the slightest apprehension that the whole truth can ever dissipate our
faith in a future life."[2] Let us "Prove all things and hold fast unto
that which is good," recognizing the fact that "the truth-seeker is the
only God-seeker."
AUTHOR
JANUARY 25, 1880.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE v, vi
CHART OF MAN'S DEVELOPMENT 10-13
PROTOPLASM 18
CELLS 20
LIFE 22
VITAL FORCE 24
ANALYSIS OF MAN 26
UNITY OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC NATURE 28
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION 30
THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN 33
EVOLUTION 58
THEORIES OF THE WORLD'S FORMATION 64
THE BIBLE 70
KANT'S COSMOGONY 76, 86
NATURE A PERPETUAL CREATION 82
LAWS OF EVOLUTION 90
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 92
RUDIMENTARY ORGANS 94
REPRODUCTION BY MEANS OF EGGS 99
DOUBLE-SEXED INDIVIDUALS 99
INHERITANCE 100
ARTIFICIAL MONSTERS 106
ACQUIRED QUALITIES 106
GEOLOGICAL RECORD 108
ONTOGENY 110
THE ATTRIBUTES OF MAN 115
MUSCULAR FORCE 116
THOUGHT FORCE 118
THE ATTRIBUTES OF ANIMALS 122
THE ATTRIBUTES OF A SAVAGE 126
LANGUAGE 128
FAITH 130
TRUE CONSCIENCE 132
BELIEF IN GOD 136
PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 138
UNITY OF ALL NATURE 140
SOUL 143
THE FINITE SENSES OF MAN 144
THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE 148
MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD 150
HOPE OF IMMORTALITY 142-151
WAS MAN CREATED?
HAECKEL'S CHART OF MAN'S DEVELOPMENT, Arranged by HENRY A. MOTT, Jr.,
Ph. D.
=9. Americans.= (_Indians._)
|
| Esquimaux.
| |
| HYPERBOREANS. Magyars.
| |
| =8. Arctic Men.= |
| | Fins.
+------+------+ |
| Tungusians. Calmucks. Tartars. | Samoides.
| | | | | |
+-----------+-------+----+-------+ +---+--+
| |
Altaians. Uralians.
| |
+-----------------+-------+
Japanese. Chinese. Siamese. |
| | Tibet. | |
| | | | Ural-Altaians.
Coreans. +-------+-------+ |
| | |
| Indo-Chinese. |
Coreo-Japanese. | |
| | |
+----+--------------+-----------------+
| Indo-Germanians.
| Semites. Basques. | Caucasians.
| | | | |
| +----------+--+--------+------------+
| |
| =12. Mediteranese.=
| |
| Singalese. | Fulatians.
| | | |
| DECCANS. | DONGOLESE.
| |
| =10. Dradidas.= | =11. Nubians.=
| | | |
| +----+--+--------+
| Polynesians. |
| | Madagascars. Euplocomi. =4. Negroes.=
| | | | |
| +-----+---+ | =3. Kaffirs.= |
| | | | |
| Sundanesians. | +---+----+
| | | |
=7. Mongols= =6. Malays= | ERIOCOMI.
| | | |
+------------+--------------+ |
Promalays. =2. Hottentots=|
| =1. Papuans.= | |
| =5. Australians.= | | |
| | +---+-------+ |
+--+--+ | |
| | |
EUTHYCOMI. LOPHOCOMI. |
| | |
| +----+----------+
| |
LISSOTRICHI (_straight-haired_) ULOTRICHI (_woolly-haired_).
| |
+------------+----------+
|
=ALALI= (_speechless men_).
=PITHECANTHROPI= (_ape-like men_).
|
V
|
PRIMEVAL MEN.
|
| Satyrus
Engeco Gorilla | (_Orang_). Hylobates
(_Chimpanzee_). (_Gorilla_). | | (_Gibbon_).
| | | | |
+---------------+ +---------+------------+
| |
African Asiatic
(_Man-like Apes_). (_Man-like Apes_).
| |
+-------------------------------------+
|
| Nasalis
ANTHROPOIDES Semnopithecus (_Nose Apes_).
(_Man-like Apes_). (_Tall Apes_). |
| | |
| +-------------+
| |
Arctopitheci Labidocera | Cercopithecus Cynocephalus
(_Silk-Apes_). (_Clutch-tails_). | (_Sea-Cat_). (_Pavian_).
| | | | |
+----------------+ +--------+---------------+
| |
Aphyocera Catarrhina Menocerca
(_Flap-tails_). (_Tailed, Narrow-nosed Apes_).
Platyrhinæ Catarrhinæ
(_Flat-nosed Apes_). (_Narrow-nosed_).
| |
+--------------------------------+
|
Simiæ
(_Apes_). Brachytarsi
| (_Lemurs_).
| |
+--------------+
Proboscidea | Pinnipedia
(_Elephants_). | (_Marine Animals
Lamnungia | | of Prey_).
(_Rock-Conies_). | | Nycterides |
| | | (_Bats_). Carnivora
+-------------+ | | (_Land Animals
| | Pterocynes of Prey_).
Chelophora | (_Flying Foxes_). |
(_Pseudo-hoofed_). | | Carnaria
| | Chiroptera (_Animals
Rodentia | (_Flying Animals_). of Prey_).
(_Gnawing Animals_). | | |
| | +------------------+
| Leptodactyla | |
| (_Fingered | Insectivora
| Animals_). | (_Insect Eaters_).
| | | |
+-----------+ | |
| | |
+----------------+------------------+
|
PROSIMIÆ
Sarcoceta (_True Whales_). PROSIMIÆ (_Brought forward_,)
| (_Semi-Apes_).
Sirenia (_Sea-Cows_).
Cetacea (_Whales_).
|
Ungulata Edentata Deciduata
(_Hoofed Animals_). (_Poor in teeth_). (_Deciduous Animals_).
| | |
+--------+----------------+ |
| |
Indeciduous |
(_Indeciduata_). |
| |
+-------------------------------------+--------+
|
PLACENTALIA
(_Placental Animals_).
|
Marsupialia | Marsupialia
Botanophaga | Zoophaga
(_Herbivorous_ | (_Carnivorous_
_Marsupials_). | _Marsupials_).
| | |
+--------------------------+-------------+
|
Ornithostoma Marsupialia
(_Beaked Animals_). (_Marsupial_).
| |
+---------------------------+-------+
|
PROMAMMALIA (_Glacal Animals_).
MAMMALIA (_Mammals_).
Aves (_Birds_). |
| |
Reptilia (_Reptiles_). |
| |
+---------------+---------+
|
Teleostei Halisauria |
(_Osseous Fish_). (_Sea-Dragons_). Amniota (_Amnion Animals_).
| Dipneusta | |
| (_Mud-Fish_). | Amphibia (_Batrachians_).
Ganoidei | | |
(_Ganoid Fish_). +----------+-------+--------------+
| |
| Amphipneumones
| (_Vertebrate Animals, breathing through lungs_).
| |
+--+------------------------------+
|
SELACHII (_Primeval Fish_).
|
PISCES
(_Fishes_).
|
|
Amphirrhina Cyclostoma
(_Double Nostrils_). (_Round-mouthed_).
| |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+
|
Monorrhina
(_Single-nostriled_).
Craniota
(_Animals with Skulls_).
Leptocardia |
(_Tube-hearted_). |
| |
Thaliacea. +--------+--------+
(_Sea-Barrels_). Ascidiæ. |
| | Acrania
+--------+-------+ (_Skull-less Animals_).
|
Tunicata Vertebrata
(_Tunicate Animals_). (_Vertebrate Animals_).
| |
+-------------------+---------+
|
Vermes
(_Worms_).
|
Zoophytes |
(_Animal Trees_). |
| |
+-----+-----+
|
Protozoa
(_Primeval Animals_).
ANIMAL MONERA.
|
|
VEGETABLE MONERA. | NEUTRAL MONERA.
| | |
+---------------------+-------------------+
|
ARCHIGONIC MONERA
(_Pieces of Protoplasm which have originated by Spontaneous Generation._)
WAS MAN CREATED?
WHAT SCIENCE CAN ANSWER.
"The object of science is not to find out what we like or what we
dislike--the object of science is Truth." In the discussion of the
subject, "_Was Man Created?_" our object will be--not to study the many
ways God might have created him, but the way he actually did create him,
for all ways would be alike easy to an Omnipotent Being.
Let us look at man and ask the question: What is there about him which
would need an independent act of creation any more than about the
"mountain of granite or the atom of sand"? The answer comes back:
Besides life, man has many mental attributes. Let us direct our
attention at first to the grand phenomena of life, and then to man's
attributes.
To discover the nature of life, to find out what life really is, it
would be folly to commence by comparing man, the perfection of living
beings, with an inorganic or inanimate substance like a brick, to
discover the hidden secret; for, as Professor Orton says:[3] "That only
is essential to life which is common to all forms of life. Our brains,
stomach, livers, hands and feet are luxuries. They are necessary to make
us human, but not living beings." Instead of man, then, it will be
necessary for us to take the simplest being which possesses such a
phenomena; and such are the little homogeneous specks of protoplasm,
constituting the Group _Monera_, which are entirely destitute of
structure, and to which the name "Cytode" has been given. In the fresh
waters in the neighborhood of Jena minute lumps of protoplasm were
discovered by Haeckel, which, on being examined under the most powerful
lens of a microscope, were seen to have no constant form, their outlines
being in a state of perpetual change, caused by the protrusion from
various parts of their surface of broad lobes and thick finger-like
projections, which, after remaining visible for a time, would be
withdrawn, to make their appearance again on some other part of the
surface. To this little mass of protoplasm Haeckel has given the name
_Protanæba primitiva_. These little lumps multiply by spontaneous
division into two pieces, which, on becoming dependent, increase in size
and acquire all the characteristics of the parent. From this
illustration, it will be seen that "reproduction is a form of nutrition
and a growth of the individual to a size beyond that belonging to it as
an individual, so that a part is thus elevated into a (new) whole."
It is to this simple state of the monera the _fertilized_ egg of any
animal is transformed--the germ vesicle; the original egg kernel
disappears, and the parent kernel (cytococcus) forms itself anew; and it
is in this condition, a non-nucleated ball of protoplasm, a true cytod,
a homogeneous, structureless body, without different constituent parts,
that the human child, as well as all other living beings, take their
first steps in development. No matter how wonderful this may seem, the
fact stares us in the face that the entire human child, as well as every
animal with all their great future possibilities, are in their first
stage a small ball of this complex homogeneous substance. Whether we
consider "a mere infinitesimal ovoid particle which finds space and
duration enough to multiply into countless millions in the body of a
living fly, and then of the wealth of foliage, the luxuriance of flower
and fruit which lies between this bald sketch of a plant and the
gigantic pine of California, towering to the dimensions of a cathedral
spire, or the Indian fig which covers acres with its profound shadow,
and endures while nations and empires come and go around its vast
circumference," or we look "at the other half of the world of life,
picturing to ourselves the great finner whale, hugest of beasts that
live or have lived, disporting his eighty or ninety feet of bone,
muscle, and blubber, with easy roll, among the waves in which the
stoutest ship that ever left dock-yard would founder hopelessly, and
contrast him with the invisible animalcule, mere gelatinous specks,
multitudes of which could in fact dance upon the point of a needle with
the same ease as the angels of the schoolman could in imagination;--with
these images before our minds, it would be strange if we did not ask
what community of form or structure is there between the fungus and the
fig-tree, the animalcule and the whale? and, _à fortiori_, between all
four? Notwithstanding these apparent difficulties, a threefold
unity--namely, a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity
of substantial composition--does pervade the whole living world."[4] And
this unit is Protoplasm. So we see it is necessary for us to retreat to
our protoplasm as a naked formless plasma, if we would find freed from
all non-essential complications the agent to which has been assigned the
duty of building up structure and of transforming the energy of lifeless
matter into the living. Even Goethe (in 1807) almost stated this when he
said: "Plants and animals, regarded in their most imperfect condition,
are hardly distinguishable. This much, however, we may say, that from a
condition in which plant is hardly to be distinguished from animal,
creatures have appeared, gradually perfecting themselves in two
opposite directions--the plant is finally glorified into the tree,
enduring and motionless; the animal into the human being of the highest
mobility and freedom."
Let us examine for a moment this substance Protoplasm, and see in what
way it differs from inorganic matter, or in what way the animate differs
from the inanimate--the living from the dead.
Felix Dujardin, a French zoologist (1835) pointed out that the only
living substance in the body of rhizopods and other inferior primitive
animals, is identical with protoplasm. He called it _sarcode_. Hugo von
Mohl (1846) first applied the name protoplasm to the peculiar serus and
mobile substance in the interior of vegetable cells; and he perceived
its high importance, but was very far from understanding its
significance in relation to all organisms. Not, however, until Ferdinand
Cohn (1850) and more fully Franz Unger (1855) had established the
identity of the animate and contractile protoplasm in vegetable cells
and the sarcode of the lower animals, could Max Shultz in 1856-61
elaborate the protoplasm theory of the sarcode so as to proclaim
protoplasm to be the most essential and important constituent of all
organic cells, and to show that the bag or husk of the cell, the
cellular membrane and intercellular substance, are but secondary parts
of the cell, and are frequently wanting. In a similar manner Lionel
Beale (1862) gave to protoplasm, including the cellular germ, the name
of "germinal matter," and to all the other substance entering into the
composition of tissue, being secondary, and produced the name of "formed
matter."
"Wherever there is life there is protoplasm; wherever there is
protoplasm, there, too, is life." The physical consistence of protoplasm
varies with the amount of water with which it is combined, from the
solid form in which we find it in the dormant state to the thin watery
state in which it occurs in the leaves of valisneria.
As to its composition, chemistry can as yet give but scanty information;
it can tell that it is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
sulphur, and phosphorus, and it can also tell the percentage of each
element, but it cannot give more than a formula that will express it as
a whole, giving no information as to the nature of the numerous
albuminoid substances which compose it. Edward Cope, in his article on
Comparative Anatomy,[5] gives the formula for protoplasm (as a whole),
C{24}H{17}N{3}O{8} + S and P, in small quantities under some circumstances.
It is therefore, he says, a nitryl of cellulose: C{24}H{20}O{2} + 3NH{3}.
According to Mulder the composition of albumen, one of the class of
protein substances to which protoplasm belongs, is 10(C{40}H{31}N{5}O{12})
+ S{2}P. Protoplasm is identical in both the animal and vegetable kingdom;
it behaves the same from whatever source it may be derived towards
several re-agents, as also electricity. Is it possible, then, that the
protoplasm which produces the mould is exactly the same composition as
that which produces the human child? The answer is YES, so far as the
elements are concerned, but the proportions of carbon, hydrogen, etc.,
must enter into an infinite number of diverse stratifications and
combination in the production of the various forms of life. Professor
Frankland, speaking of protein, for instance, says it is capable of
existing under probably at least a thousand isomeric forms. Protoplasm
may be distinguished under the microscope from other members of the
class to which it belongs, on account of the faculty it possesses of
combining with certain coloring matters, as carmine and aniline; it is
colored dark-red or yellowish-brown by iodine and nitric acid, and it is
coagulated by alcohol and mineral acids as well as by heat. It possesses
the quality of absorbing water in various quantities, which renders it
sometimes extremely soft and nearly liquid, and sometimes hard and firm
like leather. Its prominent physical properties are excitability and
contractility, which Kühne and others have especially investigated. The
motion of protoplasm in plants was first made known by Bonaventure Corti
a century ago in the Charoe plants; but this important fact was
forgotten, and it had to be discovered by Treviranus in 1807. The
regular motion of the protoplasm, forming a perfect current, may be seen
in the hairs of the nettle, and weighty evidence exists that similar
currents occur in all young vegetable cells. "If such be the case," says
Huxley, "the wonderful noonday silence of a tropical forest is, after
all, due only to the dullness of our hearing, and could our ears catch
the murmur of these tiny maelstroms, as they whirl in innumerable
myriads of living cells, which constitute each tree, we should be
stunned as with a roar of a great city."
One step higher in the scale of life than the monera is the vegetable or
animal cell, which arose out of the monera by the important process of
segregation in their homogeneous viscid bodies, the differentiation of
an inner kernel from the surrounding plasma. By this means the great
progress from a simple cytod (without kernel) into a real cell (with
kernel) was accomplished. Some of these cells at an early stage encased
themselves by secreting a hardened membrane; they formed the first
vegetable cells, while others remaining naked developed into the first
aggregate of animal cells. The vegetable cell has usually two concentric
coverings--cell-wall and primordial utricle. In animal cells the former
is wanting, the membrane representing the utricle. As a general fact,
also, animal cells are smaller than vegetable cells. Their size[6]
varies greatly, but are generally invisible to the naked eye, ranging
from 1/500 to 1/10000 of an inch in diameter. About four thousand of the
smallest would be required to cover the dot put over the letter i in
writing. The shape of cells varies greatly; the normal form, though, is
spheroidal as in the cells of fat, but they often become[7]
many-sided--sometimes flattened as in the cuticle, and sometimes
elongated into a simple filament as in fibrous tissue or muscular fibre.
The cell, therefore, is extremely interesting, since all animal and
vegetable structure is but the multiplication of the cell as a unit, and
the whole life of the plant or animal is that of the cells which compose
them, and in them or by them all its vital processes are carried on. It
may sound paradoxical to speak of an animal or plant being composed of
millions of cells; but beyond the momentary shock of the paradox no harm
is done.
The cell, then, can be regarded as the basis of our physiological idea
of the elementary organism; but in the animal as well as in the plant,
neither cell-wall nor nucleus is an essential constituent of the cell,
inasmuch as bodies which are unquestionably the equivalents of
cells--true morphological units--may be mere masses of protoplasm,
devoid alike of cell-wall or nucleus. For the whole living world, then,
the primary and a mental form of life is merely an individual mass of
protoplasm in which no further structure is discernible. Well, then, has
protoplasm been called the "universal concomitant of every phenomena of
life." Life is inseparable from this substance, but is dormant unless
excited by some external stimulant, such as heat, light, electricity,
food, water, and oxygen.
Although we have seen that the life of the plant as well as of the
animal is protoplasm, and that the protoplasm of the plant and that of
the animal bear the closest resemblance, yet plants can manufacture
protoplasm out of mineral compounds, whereas animals are obliged to
procure it ready made, and hence in the end depend on plants. "Without
plants," says Professor Orton, "animals would perish; without animals,
plants had no need to be." The food of a plant is a matter whose energy
is all expended--is a fallen weight. But the plant organism receives it,
exposes it to the sun's rays, and in a way mysterious to us converts the
actual energy of the sunlight into potential energy within it. It is for
this reason that life has been termed "bottled-sunshine."
The principal food of the plant consists of carbon united with oxygen to
form carbonic acid, hydrogen united with oxygen to form water, and
nitrogen united with hydrogen to form ammonia. These elements thus
united, which in themselves are perfectly lifeless, the plant is able to
convert into living protoplasm. "Plants are," says Huxley, "the
accumulators of the power which animals distribute and disperse."
Boussengault found long since that peas sown in pure sand, moistened
with distilled water and fed by the air, obtained all the carbon
necessary for their development, flowering, and fructification. Here we
see a plant which not only maintains its vigor on these few substances,
but grows until it has increased a millionfold or a million-millionfold
the quantity of protoplasm it originally possessed, and this protoplasm
exhibits the phenomena of life. This and other proof led M. Dumas to
say: "From the loftiest point of view, and in connection with the
physics of the globe, it would be imperative on us to say that in so far
as their truly organic elements are concerned, plants and animals are
the offspring of the air."
Schleiden,[8] speaking of the haymakers of Switzerland and the Tyrol,
says: "He mows his definite amount of grass every year on the Alps,
inaccessible to cattle, and gives not back the smallest quantity of
organic substance to the soil. Whence comes the hay, if not from the
atmosphere."
It has been seen, then, that plants can manufacture protoplasm, a
faculty which animals are not possessed of; they at best can only
convert dead protoplasm into living protoplasm. Thus when vegetable or
meat is cooked their protoplasm dies, but is not rendered incompetent of
resuming its old functions as a matter of life. "If I," says Huxley,
"should eat a piece of cooked mutton, which was once the living
protoplasm of a sheep, the protoplasm, rendered dead by cooking, will be
changed into living protoplasm, and thus I would transubstantiate sheep
into man; and were I to return to my own place by sea and undergo
shipwreck, the crustacean might and probably would return the
compliment, and demonstrate our common nature by turning my protoplasm
into living lobster." As has been said before, where there are life
manifestations there is protoplasm. Life is regarded by one class of
thinkers as the principle or cause of organization; and according to the
other, life is the product or effect of organization. We must, however,
agree with Professor Orton, who says: "Life is the effect of
organization, not the result of it. Animals do not live because they are
organized, but are organized because they are alive." In whatever way it
is looked at, life is but a forced condition. "The more advanced
thinkers, then, in science to-day," says Barker, "therefore look upon
the life of the living form as inseparable from its substance, and
believe that the former is purely phenomenal and only a manifestation of
the latter. During the existence of a special force as such, they retain
the term only to express the sum of the phenomena of living beings. The
word life must be regarded, then, as only a generalized expression
signifying the sum-total of the properties of matter possessing such
organization."
In what manner, then, does this matter, possessing the phenomena of
life, differ from inorganic matter, or in what manner does living matter
differ from matter not living? The forces which are at work on the one
side are at work on the other. The phenomena of life are all dependent
upon the working of the same physical and chemical forces as those
which are active in the rest of the world. It may be convenient to use
the terms "vitality" and "vital force" to denote the cause of certain
groups of natural operations, as we employ the names of "electricity"
and "electrical force" to denote others; but it ceases to do so, if such
a name implies the absurd assumption that either "electricity" or
"vitality" is an entity, playing the part of a sufficient cause of
electrical or vital phenomena. A mass of living protoplasm is simply a
machine of great complexity, the total result of the work of which, or
its vital phenomena, depend on the one hand upon its construction, and
on the other upon the energy supplied to it; and to speak of "vitality"
as anything but the names of a series of operations is as if one should
talk of the "horologity" of a clock.[9]
When hydrogen and oxygen are united by an electrical spark water is
produced; certainly there is no parity between the liquid produced and
the two gases. At 32° F., oxygen and hydrogen are elastic gaseous
bodies, whose particles tend to fly away from one another; water at the
same temperature is a strong though brittle solid. Such changes are
called the properties of water. It is not assumed that a certain
something called "acquosity" has entered into and taken possession of
the oxide of hydrogen as soon as formed, and then guarded the particles
in the facets of the crystal or amongst the leaflets of the hoar-frost.
On the contrary, it is hoped molecular physics will in time explain the
phenomena. "What better philosophical status," says Huxley,[10] "has
vitality than acquosity. If the properties of water may be properly said
to result from the nature and disposition of its molecules, I can find
no intelligible ground for refusing to say that the properties of
protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules."
"To distinguish the living from the dead body," Herbert Spencer says,
"the tree that puts out leaves when the spring brings change of
temperature, the flower which opens and closes with the rising and
setting of the sun, the plant that droops when the soil is dry and
re-erects itself when watered, are considered alive because of these
produced changes; in common with the zoophyte, which contracts on the
passing of a cloud over the sun, the worm that comes to the ground when
continually shaken, and the hedgehog which rolls itself up when
attacked."
"Seeds of wheat produced antecedent to the Pharaohs," says Bastain,[11]
"remaining in Egyptian catacombs through century after century display
of course no vital manifestations, but nevertheless retain the
potentiality of growing into perfect plants whenever they may be brought
into contact with suitable external conditions. We must presume that
either (1) during this long lapse of centuries the 'vital principle' of
the plant has been imprisoned in the most dreary and impenetrable of
dungeons, whither no sister effluence from the general 'soul of nature'
could affect it; or else (2) that the germ of the future living plant is
there only in the form of an inherited structure, whose molecular
complexities are of such a kind that, after moisture has restored
mobility to its atoms, its potential life may pass into actual life.
Some of the lowest forms of animals and plants have such a tenacity to
life that their vital manifestation may be kept in abeyance for five,
ten, fifteen, or even twenty years. Though not living any more than the
wheat, they also retain the potentiality of manifestation of life; and
for each alike, in order that this potentiality may pass into actuality,
the first requisition is water with which to restore them to that
possibility of molecular rearrangement under the influence of incident
forces, of which the absence of water had deprived them, and without
which, life in any real sense is impossible."
ANALYSIS OF A MAN.
(BY PROF. MILLER.)
A man 5 feet 8 inches high, weighing 154 pounds.
lbs. oz. grs.
Oxygen 111 0 0
Hydrogen 14 0 0
Carbon 21 0 0
Nitrogen 3 10 0
Inorganic elements in the ash:
Phosphorus 1 2 88
Calcium 2 0 0
Sulphur 0 0 219
Chlorine 0 2 47
1 ounce = 437 grains.
Sodium 0 2 116
Iron 0 0 100
Potassium 0 0 290
Magnesium 0 0 12
Silica 0 0 2
Total 154 0 0
The quantity of the substances found in a human body
weighing 154 pounds:
lbs. oz. grs.
Water 111 0 0
Gelatin 15 0 0
Albumen 4 3 0
Fibrine 4 4 0
Fat 12 0 0
Ashes 7 9 0
Total 154 0 0
(From the "CHEMISTS' MANUAL.")
Professor Owen[12] says: "There are organisms (vibrieo, rotifer,
macrobiotus, etc.) which we can devitalize and revitalize--devive and
revive--many times. As the dried animalcule manifest no phenomena
suggesting any idea contributing to form the complex one of 'life' in my
mind, I regard it to be as completely lifeless as is the drowned man,
whose breath and heat have gone, and whose blood has ceased to
circulate. * * * The change of work consequent on drying or drowning
forthwith begins to alter relations or compositions, and in time to a
degree adverse to resumption of the vital form of force, a longer period
being needed for this effect in the rotifer, a shorter one in the man,
still shorter it may be in the amoeba."
"There is," says Dumas,[13] "an eternal round in which death is
quickened and life appears, but in which matter merely changes its place
and form."
Let us now compare the inorganic world with the organic--the inanimate
with the animate--and see if there does exist an inseparable boundary
between them. The fundamental properties of every natural body are
matter, form, and force. One important point to be noticed is, that the
elements which compose all animate bodies are the very elements that
help to build up the inanimate bodies. No new elements appear in the
vegetable or animal world which are not to be found in the inorganic
world. The difference between animate and inanimate bodies, therefore,
is certainly not in the elements which form them, but in the molecular
combination of them; and it is to be hoped that molecular physics will,
at some not far distant time, enlighten us as to the peculiar state of
aggregation in which the molecules exist in living matter. As to the
form, it is impossible to find any essential difference in the external
form and inner structure between inorganic and organic bodies--for the
simple monad, which is as much a living organism as the most complex
being, is nothing but a homogeneous, structureless mass of protoplasm.
But just as the inorganic substance, according to well-defined laws,
elaborates its structure into a crystal of great beauty, so does the
protoplasm elaborate itself into the most beautiful of all
structures--the cell unit. Just as gold and copper crystallizes in a
geometrical form, a cube--bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine
and sulphur in a rhombic form--so we find among radiolaria, and among
other protista and lower forms, that they "may be traced to a
mathematical, fundamental form, and whose form in its whole, as well as
in its parts, is bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes
and angles." Now, as to the forces of the two different groups of
bodies. Surely the constructive force of a crystal is due to the
chemical composition, and to its material constitution. As the shape of
the crystal and its size are influenced by surrounding circumstances,
there is, therefore, an external constructive force at work. The only
difference between the growth of an organism and that of a crystal is,
that in the former case, in consequence of its semi-fluid state of
aggregation, the newly added particles penetrate into the interior of
the organism (inter-susception), whereas inorganic substances receive
homogeneous matter from without, only by opposition or an addition of
new particles to the surface. "If we, then, designate the growth and the
formation of organisms as a process of life, we may with equal reason
apply the same term with the developing crystal." It is for these and
other reasons, demonstrating as they do the "unity of organic and
inorganic nature," the essential agreement of inorganic and organic
bodies in matter, form, and force, which led Tyndall[14] to say:
"Abandoning all disguise, the confession that I feel bound to make
before you is, that I prolong the vision backward across the boundary of
experimental evidence, and discern in that matter which we in our
ignorance, and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator,
have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of every
form and quality of life."
Returning now to our protoplasm, let us ask the question: Where did it
come from? or, How did it come into existence? Though chemical synthesis
has built up a number of organic substances which have been deemed the
product of vitality, yet, up to the present day, the fact stands out
before us that no one has ever built up one particle of living matter,
however minute, from lifeless elements.
The protoplasm of to-day is simply a continuation of the protoplasm of
other ages, handed down to us through periods of undefinable and
indeterminable time.
The question of where protoplasm came from--how it arose--chemistry is
unable to answer; but the question is answered, probably, by spontaneous
generation. Only the merest particle of living protoplasm was necessary
to be formed from lifeless matter in the beginning; for, in the eyes of
any consistent evolutionist, any further independent formation would be
sheer waste, as the hypothesis of evolution postulates the unlimited,
though perhaps not, indefinite modifiability of such matter. As we have
seen that there exists no absolute barrier between organic and inorganic
bodies, it is not so difficult to conceive that the first particle of
protoplasm may have originated, under suitable conditions, out of
inorganic or lifeless matter. But the causes which have led to the
origination of this particle, it may be said, we know absolutely
nothing--as in the formation of the crystal and the cell--the ultimate
causes remain in both cases concealed from us.
At the time in the earth's history when water, in a liquid state, made
its appearance on the cooled crust of the earth, the carbon probably
existed as carbonic acid dispersed in the atmosphere; and from the very
best of grounds, it is reasonable to assume that the density and
electric condition of the atmosphere were quite different, as also the
chemical and physical nature of the primeval ocean was quite different.
In any case, therefore, even[15] if we do not know anything more about
it, there remains the supposition, which can at least not be disputed,
that at that time, under conditions quite different from those of
to-day, a spontaneous generation, which is now perhaps no longer
possible, may have taken place. This point is now conceded by most all
of the advanced scientists of the day, and is absolutely necessary for
the completion of the hypothesis of evolution.
The answer may come to this--Well, suppose the first protoplasm did
originate by spontaneous generation, where did the elements or force
come from which compose it?
Science has nothing to do with the coming into existence of matter or
force, for she proves both to be indestructible; when they disappear,
they do so only to reappear in some other form. The coming into
existence of matter and force, as also the ultimate cause of all
phenomena, is beyond the domain of scientific inquiry. Science has only
to do with the coming in of the form of matter, not the coming in of its
existence.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--A Moneron (Protamoeba) in act of reproduction;
_A_, the whole Moneron, which moves like ordinary Amoeba, by means of
variable processes: _B_, a contraction around its circumference parts it
into two halves; _C_, the two halves separate, and each now forms
independent individuals. (Much enlarged.)--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--_A_, is a crawling Amoeba (much
enlarged).--_Haeckel._ 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. _B_, Egg-cell of a
Chalk Sponge (Olynthus).--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the next higher stage,
Mulberry-germ or Morula (Synamoeba).--_Haeckel._]
THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN,
BY THE SLOW PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT.
It is necessary now to take up the little mass of living matter,
admitting its coming into existence by spontaneous generation as
probable, and so probable that it almost amounts to a certainty, and
follow it through the many changes it is about to make under the
influence of the laws which govern evolution until it has culminated in
man, and these laws still acting on the brain of man, perfecting it, and
leading him on to the comprehension of a grander and nobler conception
of the Almighty and of his works.
The start, then, must be made with a homogeneous mass of protoplasm,
such as the existing _Protamoeba primitiva_ of the present day, which
is a structureless organism without organs, and which came into
existence during the Laurentian period. It is to this simplified
condition, as I have previously stated, all fertilized eggs return
before they commence to develop.
The first process of adaptation effected by the monera must have been
the condensation of an external crust, which, as a protecting covering,
shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer
world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous moneron, a
cell-kernel arose in the interior, and a membrane arose on the surface,
all the fundamental parts of the unit were then furnished. Such a unit
was an organism, similar to the white corpuscle of the blood, and
called _amoebæ_. 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 _Gregarinæ_, first clearly pointed out this
fact, that we must distinguish thoroughly between the plasson of cytods
and the protoplasm of cells.
An irrefutable proof that such single-celled primæval animals like the
amoeba really existed as the direct ancestors of man, is furnished,
according to the fundamental law of biogeny, by the fact that the human
egg is nothing more than a simple cell.
The next step taken in advance is the division of the cell in
two;--there arise from the single germinal spot two new kernel specks,
and then, in like manner, out of the germinal vesicle two new
cell-kernels. The same process of cell-division now repeats itself
several times in succession, and the products of the division form a
perfect union. This organism may be called a community of _amoebæ_
(synamoebæ).
From the community of amoeba 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 synamoebæ which crept about slowly at the bottom
of the Laurentian primeval ocean by means of movements like those of an
amoeba, that the newly-formed 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 amoebæ, 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.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Norwegian Flimmer-ball (Magosphoera
Planula), swimming by means of its vibratile fringes; seen from the
surface.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--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. (PLANÆA SERIES.)--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIGS. III AND IV.--Represents GASTRÆA SERIES. The body
consists merely of a simple primitive intestine, the wall of which is
formed of two primary germ-layers.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIGS. I and II.--Represents the next higher stage
(Tubularia). Fig. I, a simple Gliding Worm (Rhabdocoelum); _m_, mouth;
_sd_, throat-epithelium; _sm_, throat-muscles; _d_, stomach-intestine;
_nc_, kidney-ducts; _nm_, opening of the kidneys; _au_, eye; _na_,
nose-pit. Fig. II, the same Gliding Worm, showing the remaining organs;
_g_, brain; _au_, eye; _na_, nose-pit; _n_, nerves; _h_, testes;
[male symbol], male opening; [female symbol], female opening; _e_,
ovary; _f_, ciliated outer-skin.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents Soft Worms (Scolecida) and is a
young Acorn Worm (Balanoglossus), after _Agassiz_. _r_, acorn-like
proboscis; _h_, collar; _k_, gill-openings and gill-arches of the
anterior intestine, in a long row, one behind the other, on each side;
_d_, digestive posterior intestine, filling the greater part of the body
cavity; _v_, intestinal vessel, lying between two parallel folds of the
skin; _a_, anus.]
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.[16] By motion of the cilia or fringes of the
skin-layer, the gastræa swam freely about in the Laurentian ocean.
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 was covered with
cilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape, entirely
without appendages. These acoelomatous worms did not as yet possess a
true body cavity (coelom) nor blood. No member of the next higher
animals are in existence, neither are there any fossil remains, owing to
the soft nature of their body. They are therefore called soft worms, or
scoleceda. They developed out of the turbellaria of the sixth stage by
forming a true body cavity (a coelom) and blood in their interior. The
nearest still living coelomati is probably the acorn worms
(balanoglossus). The form value of this stage must, moreover, have been
represented by several different intermediate stages.
Out of the four different groups of the worm tribe, the four higher
tribes of the animal kingdom were developed--the star-fishes
(echinoderma) and insects (arthropoda) on the one hand, and the molluscs
(mollusca) and vertebrated animals (vertebrata) on the other. Out of
certain coelomati, the most ancient skull-less vertebrata were
directly developed. Among the coelomati of the present day, the
ascidians are the nearest relatives of this exceedingly remarkable worm,
which connect the widely differing classes of invertebrate and
vertebrate animals. To these animals have been given the name of
sack-worms (himatega). They originated out of the worms of the seventh
stage by the formation of a dorsal nerve marrow (medulla tube), and by
the formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis) which lies below it.
It is just the position of this central spinal rod or axial skeleton,
between the dorsal marrow on the dorsal side and the intestinal canal on
the ventral side, which is most characteristic of all vertebrate
animals, including man, but also of the larvæ of the ascidia.
We now come to the second half of the series of human ancestors. The
skull-less animal lancelet, which is still living, affords a faint idea
of the members of this group (acrania). Since this little animal, in its
earliest embryonic state, entirely agrees with the ascidia, and in its
further development shows itself to be a true vertebrate animal, it forms
a direct transition from the vertebrata to the invertebrata.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Appendicularia, seen from the left side, _m_,
mouth; _k_, gill intestine; _o_, oesophagus; _v_, stomach; _a_, anus;
_n_, nerve ganglia (upper throat-knots); _g_, ear vesicle; _f_, ciliated
groove under the gill; _h_, heart; _e_, ovary; _c_, notochord; _s_,
tail.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Sack Worms (Himatega), and is the
structure of an Ascidian, seen from the left. _sb_, gill-sac; _v_,
stomach; _i_, large intestine; _c_, heart; _t_, testes; _vd_, seed duct;
_o_, ovary; _o'_, matured eggs in the body cavity. After
_Milne-Edwards_.]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the ACRANIA SERIES. Lancelet
(Amhioxus Lanceolatus), twice the actual size, seen from the left. _a_,
mouth-opening, surrounded by cilia; _b_, anal-opening; _c_,
ventral-opening (Porus abdominalis); _d_, gill-body; _e_, stomach; _f_,
liver-coecum; _g_, large intestine; _h_, coelum; _i_, notochord
(under it the aorta); _k_, arches of the aorta; _l_, main gill-artery;
_m_, swellings on its branches; _n_, hollow vein; _o_, intestinal
vein.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents the MONORHINA SERIES. Lamprey
(Petromyzon Americanus) from the Atlantic--_Orton._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents the Selachii. Shark (Carcharias
vulgaris) from the Atlantic--_Orton._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the Mud-fish (Dipneusta).
Lepidosiren annecteus, one-fourth natural size; African
rivers.--_Orton._ Form a link between typical fishes and the
Amphibians.]
At this stage, most probably, the separation of the two sexes began. The
simpler and most ancient form of sexual propagation is through
double-sexed individuals (hermaphroditismus). It occurs in the great
majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals; for example, in
the garden-snails, leeches, earth-worms and many other worms. Every
single individual among hermaphrodites produces within itself materials
of both sexes--egg and sperm. In most of the higher plants every blossom
contains both the male organs (stamen and anther) and the female organs
(style and germ). Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual
gland eggs, and in another sperm. Many hermaphrodites can fructify
themselves; in others, however, copulation and reciprocal fructification
of both hermaphrodites are necessary for causing the development of the
eggs. This latter case is evidently a transition to sexual separation
(gonoehorismus).
Out of the members of the last group arose animals with skulls or
craniata, having round mouths, and which are divided into hags and
lampreys. The hags (myxinoides) have long cylindrical worm-like bodies.
The lampreys (petromyxontes) includes those well known "nine eyes"
common at the seaside.
These single-nostril animals (monorrhina) arose during the primordial
period out of the skull-less animals by the anterior end of the dorsal
marrow developing into the brain, and the anterior end of the dorsal
skull into the skull. By the division of the single nostril of the
members of the last group into two lateral halves, by the formation of a
sympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming bladder and two
pairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and ventral fins or
hind-legs), arose the primæval fish (selachii), which is best
represented by the still-living shark (squalacei).
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 _might_, in some respect, be like the ceratodus and
proloptems; but this is not certain.
The dipneusta is an intermediate stage between the selachii and
amphibia. Out of the dipneusta arose the class of amphibia, having five
toes (the pentadactyla). The gill amphibians are man's most ancient
ancestors of the class amphibia. Besides possessing lungs as well as the
mud-fish, they retain throughout life regular gills like the
still-living proteus and axolotl. Most gilled batrachia live in North
America. The paddle-fins of the dipneusta changed into five-toed legs,
which were afterwards transmitted to the higher vertebrata up to man.
The gilled amphibia (sozobrachia) of the last group finally lost their
gills but retained their tail, and tailed amphibians (sozura) were
produced, such as the salamander and newt of the present day. Out of the
sozura originated the 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.
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.
[Illustration: FIGS. I and II.--The Ceratodus Forsteri occur in the
swamps of Southern Australia. Form transition between fishes and
Amphibia.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents the Gilled Amphibians (Soyobranchia).
The Axolotl (Siredon pisciforme), after Tegetmeier. The ordinary form
with persistent branchiæ.]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Proteus Anguinus. Europe.--_Orton._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the Tailed Amphibians (Soyura).
Great Water-Newt (Triton cristatus), after _Bell._]
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.
Out of the semi-apes developed two classes of genuine apes; but as the
narrow-nosed or catarrhini class are the only ones related to man, the
others will not be considered. These narrow-nosed apes originated by the
transformation of the jaw, and by the claws on the toes changing into
nails. The still-living long-tail nose-apes and holy apes
(semnopithecus) probably resembled the oldest ancestors of this group.
The tailed apes by the loss of their tail and some of their hair
covering, and by the excessive development of that portion of their
brain above the facial portion of the skull, developed into the man-like
apes (anthropoides)--such as the gorilla and chimpanzee of Africa, and
the orang and gibbon of Asia. The human ancestors of this group existed
during the miocene period. From the anthropoides developed the ape-like
men (pithecanthropi) during the tertiary period. The speechless
primæval men (alali), then, is the connecting link between the man-like
apes and man. The fore-hand of the anthropoides became the human hand,
their hinder-hand a foot for walking. They did not possess the
articulate human language of words and the higher developments, as
consciousness and the formation of ideas must have been very imperfect.
Out of the pithecanthropi men developed genuine man, by the development
of the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language
of words--the brain also developed higher and higher. This transition
took place, probably, at the beginning of the quaternary period, or
possibly in the tertiary.
We have now very briefly reviewed the principal outlines of the
ancestors of man, showing that man has developed from the little mass of
protoplasm, as have all animals and plants. He therefore was not
_spontaneously_ created, but was developed. The question is often asked
by simple-minded people, with much delight, Why do we not behold the
interesting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee into a man,
or conversely of a man by retrogression into an orang?--it only shows
that they are not acquainted with the first principles of the Doctrine
of Descent. "Not one of the apes," says Schmidt, "can revert to the
state of his primordial ancestors, except by retrogression--by which a
primordial condition is by no means attained--he cannot divest himself
of his acquired characters fixed by heredity, nor can he exceed himself
and become man; for man does not stand in the direct line of development
from the ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral
course from the nearest human progenitors, and man can as little be
transformed into a gorilla as a squirrel can be changed into a rat."
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Salamandra Maculata.--_Haeckel_. The Water Newts
and Salamanders were the next higher stage after the Proteus and the
Axolotl.]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Primæval Amniota (Protamnia). Lizard
(Lacerta), after _Orton_.]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Primary Mammals (Promammalia).
AMNIOTA SERIES. Duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus
paradoxus).--_Haeckel_.]
"Feeling evidently,"[17] says Haeckel, "rather than understanding,
induces most people to combat the theory of their 'descent from apes.'
It is simply because the organism of the ape appears a caricature of
man, a distorted likeness of ourselves in a not very attractive form;
because the customary 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."
EVOLUTION.
In the last chapter a description was given of the various stages in
man's development, from the microscopic monad up. It will be necessary
now to describe briefly the various laws which have governed this
evolutionary chain from the monad to man. But before proceeding directly
to the subject, let us look at the doctrine of evolution as a whole, and
trace it first in the formation of the world.
The doctrine of evolution is also called the theory of development--it
must not, however, be confused with Darwinism--for they are not exactly
synonymous. Darwinism is an attempt to explain the laws or manner of
evolution. Strictly speaking, only the theory of selection should be
called Darwinism, which was established in 1859. The theory of descent,
or transmutation theory, or doctrine of filiation, should properly be
called Lamarckism, who for the first time worked out the theory of
descent as an independent scientific theory of the first order, and as
the philosophical foundation of the whole science of biology.
"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest
form," says Henry Hartshorne,[18] "the universe as it now exists is a
result of 'an immense series of changes,' related to and dependent upon
each other as successive steps, or rather growths, constituting a
progress; analogous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a
growing organism." Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting
in a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to
special, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered
to be traceable in the formation of worlds in space, in the
multiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the
globe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts
and sciences, and in all changes of human institutions and society.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Platypus.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Pouched Animals (Marsupialia).
Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly, Feb., 1876.)]
Let us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No
determined opposition by the mass of people is likely to be manifested
to the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even
to the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is
included--then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this
reason that Darwin in his first work on the "Theory of Descent" did not
mention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too
well the foolish human weakness that existed.
In a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the
material universe as "a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least
wonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it."
The following is a brief description of the various theories of the
world's formation:
_First Theory._--By the first theory the world is supposed to have
existed from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this
doctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an
eternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but
all animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley's
illustration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far
back in time, he would have seen a world "essentially similar, though
not perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals
which existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like
them; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like
them; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time
you place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and
waters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and
sporting in them just as he finds now." This theory being perfectly
inconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.
_Second Theory._--The second theory considers the universe eternal, but
not its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient
philosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by
fortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have
sprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.
_Third Theory._--By this theory the matter and form of the earth is
ascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to
say that this last theory has for its basis the popular account,
generally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say
popular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the
intention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show
the relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an
ultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable
to comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in
fifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It
cannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true
because it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance,
when we remark in popular language "the sun rises," who shall say that
though the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all
practical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, "The
earth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes
visible?" The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very
imperfect; it had no equivalent to our word "air" or "atmosphere,"
properly speaking, for they knew not the words. "Their nearest
approaches," according to J. Pye Smith, "were with words that denoted
watery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating
around them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke
from substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper
or a storm." It must also be remembered, "that the Hebrews had no term
for the abstract ideas which we express by 'fluid' or 'matter.' If the
writer had designed to express the idea, 'In the beginning God created
_matter_,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose" (Phin).
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Kangaroo. (Popular Science
Monthly.)]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Semi-Apes (Prosimiæ). The Slow Loris,
after _Tickel_ and _Alp. Miln-Edwards_. (Natural History, by _Duncan_.)]
It is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called
Mosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as
undoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view
entertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars,
represented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: "They regard
the Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely
infallible, since there is no book written in any human language but
must partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of
this school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true
supernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error
of historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and
tradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a
truly divine revelation."[19]
There is, though, a class of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible;
that is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume,
whom Huxley calls "the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century,"
thus ends one of his essays: "If we take in hand any volume of divinity
or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, _Does it contain any
abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?_ No. _Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?_ No.
Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry
and illusion." To this Huxley says: "Permit me to enforce this wise
advice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important
they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a
world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each
and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence
somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he
entered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully
possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is
ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically
unlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a
condition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified
experimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon
the strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one
of our highest truths."
The first words in the Mosaic account are:[20] "In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth."[21] It is seen, then, that the
so-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is
an absolute beginning, for we find: "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God."[22] * * * "All things were
made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made."[23]
Science points also to a beginning.
Geology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for
him there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for
the rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the
beginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science
has to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific
foundation--the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable
from form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and
imperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest
particle of matter has come into existence or passed away. "A
naturalist," says Haeckel, "can no more imagine the coming into
existence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he
therefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as
a given fact." "The creation of matter, if, indeed," says Haeckel,[24]
"it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can
therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little
imagine a _first beginning_ of the eternal phenomena of the motion of
the universe as of its final end."[25] It is evident, then, that the
absolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not
questions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul
says: "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which
appeared."[26]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Tailed Apes (Menocerca). Proboscis
Monkey (Presbytes larvatus). (Mammalia.)--_Louis Figuier._
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.--_Figuier._]
[Illustration: GIBBON. ORANG. CHIMPANZEE. GORILLA. MAN.
FIG. I.--Photographically reduced from diagrams of the natural size
(except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn
by _Waterhouse Hawkins_, from specimens in the museum of the Royal
College of Surgeons. (_Huxley's_ "Man's Place in Nature.")]
If, therefore, science makes the "history of creation" its highest and
most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with "_the
coming into being of the form_ of natural bodies." Let us look for a
minute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,[27] Kant's Cosmological
Gas Theory: "This wonderful theory," says Haeckel, "harmonizes with all
the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no
irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely
mechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces
of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process,
every prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator." Compare
this last statement with the following: "I will, however," says
Haeckel,[28] "not deny that Kant's grand cosmogony has some weak
points." * * * "A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the
cosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in
explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the
gas-filled universe."
Whewell[29] has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without
a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic
matter in space.
It is seen, then, that according to Kant's theory we are to suppose that
millions of years ago there appeared a nebulous mass possessing a rotary
motion, and unequally distributed through space. This is what science
calls a beginning, and may assert that every physical event of a hundred
million of ages existed potentially in that nebulous mass. But this is
really no explanation of the ultimate and real cause of anything. Reason
demands the cause of this beginning, the source that gave to the
nebulous mass its rotary motion; the power that distributed the matter
in space; the antecedents of the cosmical vapor. In absence of
antecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist--of these forces
active in it? Reason will never remain satisfied until these questions
are answered. But physical science can trace the thread no further back,
and must be dumb to all ulterior inquiries. It is true, then, as
physicists assert, "that their science does not mount actually to God."
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Man-like Apes (Anthropoides). The
Male Gorilla. (Natural History, by _Duncan_.)]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi).
Imaginative. (From Scientific American.)]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Men (Homines). From Woolly-haired Men
developed the Papuans. (Scientific American, March 11, 1876.)]
[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Monkey Men of Dourga Strait. (Natural
History, by _Rev. Dr. Wood_.)]
To God then, in strict accordance with our reason, is to be attributed
not only the origination of matter, but all its future developments.
When I speak of matter, it must be understood that I mean force;
for "if matter were not force, and immediately known as force, it could
not be known at all, could not be rationally inferred. The operation of
force could furnish no evidence of the existence of forceless matter. If
force is not matter, then force can exist and operate without matter;
its existence and operation are no evidence of the existence of matter.
And as matter is forceless, it can itself give no evidence of its own
existence, for that would be an exercise of force. If force cannot exist
and operate without matter, then force depends for its existence and
operation on the forceless, which destroys itself; or force depends for
its existence on matter as some property or force, and so matter and
force are identified, and force depends on itself only, as it must."[30]
The idea, then, that force is an attribute of matter and inherent in it,
is absurd, for there is not a shadow of evidence that force is or can be
an attribute of matter. We have no knowledge of the origin of any force
save of that which emanates from human volition. All our knowledge of
force presents it as an effort of intelligent will. "We are driven,"
says Winchell, "by the necessary laws of thought, to pronounce those
energies styled gravitation, heat, chemical affinity and their
correlates, nothing less than intelligent will. But as it is not human
will which energizes in whirlwind and the comet, it must be divine
will." "In all cases, the creative power of God is an act of power, and
the power does not perish with its inception, but continues to operate
until the act is reversed and undone; so that everything that God has
created constitutes a positive and intrinsic force, though borrowed from
Him. Every incident runs back to God as its originator and real cause.
The true philosophical doctrine makes God distinct from all his works,
and yet acting in them. This doctrine has been held by the greatest
thinkers the world has ever produced, such as Descartes, Lerbrisky,
Berkeley, Herschel, Faraday, and a multitude of others." "It seems to be
required," says Dr. McCosh, "by that deep law of causation which not
only prompts us to seek for a law in everything but an adequate cause,
to be found only in an intelligent mind." "Our greatest American
thinker, Jonathan Edwards," says Dr. McCosh, (whom I can claim as my
predecessor,) "maintains that, as an image in a mirror is kept up by a
constant succession of rays of light, so nature is sustained by a
constant forth-putting of the divine power. In this view Nature is a
perpetual creation. God is to be seen not only in creation at first, but
in the continuance of all things." "They continue to this day according
to Thine ordinances."
Returning now to the history of the creation given by Moses, Haeckel
says, "Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of
organic development as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet
in his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive
development and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We
can therefore bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish
lawgiver's grand insight into nature, without discovering in it a
so-called 'divine revelation.' That it cannot be such is clear from the
fact that two great fundamental errors are asserted in it, namely, first
the _geocentric_ error, that the earth is the fixed central point of the
whole universe, round which the sun, moon and stars move; and secondly,
the _anthropocentric_ error that man is the premeditated aim of the
creation of the world, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is
said to have been created. The former of these errors was demolished by
Copernicus' System of the Universe in the beginning of the sixteenth
century, the latter by Lamarck's Doctrine of Descent in the beginning of
the nineteenth century."
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Australian Savage.--_Orton._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Skull of Orang-utan (Simia satyrus).--_Orton._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Skull of Chimpanzee (Troglodytes niger).]
[Illustration: FIG. IV.--Skull of Gorilla.--_Duncan._]
[Illustration: FIG. V.--Skull of European.]
[Illustration: FIG. VI.--Skull of Negro.--_Orton._]
Prof. Huxley, in his lecture on "Evidences of Evolution," spoke of the
Mosaic account as Milton's hypothesis. First, "because," says Huxley,
"we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even
of dignitaries of the church, that there is no evidence whatever that
Moses ever wrote this chapter, or knew anything about it;" and second,
as this hypothesis is presented in Milton's work on "Paradise Lost," it
is appropriate to call it the Miltonic Hypothesis. "In the Miltonic
account," says Huxley, "the order in which animals should have made
their appearance in the stratified rocks would be this: Fishes,
including the great whale, and birds; after that all the varieties of
terrestrial animals. Nothing could be further from the facts as we find
them. As a matter of fact we know of not the slightest evidence of the
existence of birds before the jurassic and perhaps the triassic
formations. If there were any parallel between the Miltonic account and
the circumstantial evidence, we ought to have abundant evidence in the
devonian, the silurian, and carboniferous rocks. I need not tell you
that this is not the case, and that not a trace of birds makes its
appearance until the far later period which I have mentioned. And again,
if it be true that all varieties of fishes, and the great whales and the
like, made their appearance on the fifth day, then we ought to find the
remains of these things in the older rocks--in those which preceded the
carboniferous epoch. Fishes, it is true, we find, and numerous ones; but
the great whales are absent, and the fishes are not such as now live.
Not one solitary species of fish now in existence is to be found there,
and hence you are introduced again to the difficulty, to the dilemma,
that either the creatures that were created then, which came into
existence the sixth day, were not those which are found at present, or
are not the direct and immediate predecessors of those which now exist;
but in that case you must either have had a fresh species of which
nothing has been said, or else the whole story must be given up as
absolutely devoid of any circumstantial evidence."
It is for these and many other reasons that I feel bound to omit the
Mosaic account, no matter how near some portions of it coincide with the
facts the earth has opened out to the scientist.
KANT'S COSMOGONY.
It is maintained by Kant's Cosmogony that every substance, be it solid
or liquid, constituting the entire universe, was, inconceivable ages
ago, in their homogeneous gaseous or nebulous condition. Owing to an
impulse being given to the nebulous mass, it acquired a rotary movement,
which divided the nebulous mass up into a number of masses which, owing
to the rotation, acquired greater density than the remaining gaseous
mass, and then acted on the latter as central points of attraction. Our
solar system was thus a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the
particles of which revolved around a common central point--the solar
nucleus. This nebulous ball assumed by its continual rotation a more or
less flattened spheroidal form. By the continual revolution of this
mass, under the influence of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, a
circular nebular ring separated (like the present ring around Saturn)
from the rotating ball. In time the nebulous ring condensed to a planet,
which began to revolve around its own axis. When the centrifugal force
became more powerful than the centripetal force in the planet, rings
were formed, which, in turn, formed planets which revolved around their
axes, as also around their planets, as the latter moved around the sun,
and thus arose the moons, only one of which moves around our earth,
while four move around Jupiter and six around Uranus. This order of
things was repeated over and over again until thereby arose the
different solar systems--the planets rotating around their central suns,
and the satellites or moons moving around their planets. By a continuous
increasing of refrigeration and condensation, a fiery fluid or molten
state occurred in these rotating bodies. They then emitted an enormous
amount of heat by rapid condensation, and the rotating bodies--suns,
planets, and moons--soon became glowing balls of fire, emitting light
and heat. The 1/1000 part of a pound of magnesium wire, burning in the
open air, will give a light which will last during one second, and can
be seen at a distance of thirty miles; imagine, then, what the light
would be from these huge balls of fire floating through space. The earth
forms a small part--nay, even the sun whose mass is equal to 354,936
earths like ours, is but an infinitesimal portion of the whole. By the
continual emitting of heat, however, these fiery balls had a crust form
on the outside, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. The crust for a
time must have been a smooth sheet, but afterward very uneven, having
protuberances and cavities form over its surface, owing to the molten
mass within becoming condensed and contracted; the crust not following
this change sufficiently close, must have fallen in, and thus produced
the cavities.
[Illustration: Mongolian.]
[Illustration: Malay.]
[Illustration: Ethiopian.]
[Illustration: American Indian.]
[Illustration: FACIAL ANGLE, by _Prof. Nelson Sizer_. 1, Snake; 2, Dog;
3, Elephant; 4, Ape; 5, Human Idiot; 6, The Bushman; 7, The
Uncultivated; 8, The Improved; 9, The Civilized; 10, The Enlightened;
11, The Caucasian (highest type).]
[Illustration: Caucasian (after _Van Evrie_).]
[Illustration: Head of Nose-Ape (after _Brehm_).]
[Illustration: Julia Pastrana (Photographed by _Hintye_).]
[Illustration: Living Idiot (on Blackwell's Island).]
All the time, by the condensation, the diameter of the earth was being
diminished. The irregular cooling of the crust caused irregular
contractions on the surface, and as the diameter of the molten mass
within was continually diminishing, many elevations and depressions were
caused, which were the foundations of mountains and valleys.
After the temperature of the earth had been reduced by the thickening of
the crust--when it became sufficiently cool--the water which existed in
steam was condensed and precipitated, falling in torrents, washing down
the elevations, filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and
depositing it in layers. It was not until the earth became covered with
water that life was possible in any form, as both animals and plants
consist to a very great extent of water. At this stage in the history of
the earth, then, the little mass of protoplasm, which we have spoken so
much about, came into existence in all probability, as has been stated,
by spontaneous generation.
LAWS OF EVOLUTION.
Let us now examine some of the laws of evolution, as also some of the
connecting links which blend one stage of man's development with
another, which at first thought would seem unexplainable.
Haeckel[31] summarizes the inductive evidences of Darwinism as follows:
1. Paleontological series (phylogeny); 2. Embryological development of
the individual (ontogeny); 3. The correspondence in the terms of these
two series; 4. Comparative anatomy (typical forms and structures); 5.
Correspondence between comparative anatomy and ontogeny; 6. Rudimentary
organs (dipeliology); 7. The natural system of organisms (classification);
8. Geographical distribution (chorology); 9. Adaptation to the environment
(oecology); 10. The unity of biological phenomena.
It will of course be impossible to consider even hastily all of the
inductive evidence belonging to the several groups mentioned above, for
the scope of this work would not permit of it. Only such facts as
present themselves most forcibly to the mind will be considered.
Darwinism, as has already been stated, is not the doctrine of evolution;
it is, however, a successful attempt to explain the law or manner of
evolution. The _law of natural selection_, pointed out by Darwin, is
called by Herbert Spencer, _The struggle for existence_. Darwin
discovered that natural selection produces fitness between organisms and
their circumstances, which explains the law of _the survival of the
fittest_.
It is a well-known fact that man can, by pursuing a certain method of
breeding or cultivation, improve and in various ways modify the
character of the different domestic animals and plants. By always
selecting the best specimen from which to propagate the race, those
features which it is desired to perpetuate become more and more
developed; so that what are admitted to be real varieties sometimes
acquire, in the course of successive generations, a character as
strikingly distinct, to all appearances, from those of the varieties, as
one species is from another species of the same genus. It is evident
that both natural and artificial selection depends on adaptation and
inheritance. The difference between the two forms of selection is that,
in the first case, the will of man makes the selection according to a
plan, whereas in natural selection the struggle for life and the
survival of the fittest acts without a plan other than that the most
adaptable organism shall survive which is most fit to contend with the
circumstances under which it is placed. Natural selection acts,
therefore, much more slowly than artificial selection, although it
brings about the same end. Adaptation in the struggle for life is an
absolute necessity.
In every act of breeding, a certain amount of protoplasm is transferred
from the parents to the child, and along with it there is transferred
the individual peculiar molecular motion. Adaptation or transmutation
depends upon the material influence which organism experiences from its
surroundings, or its conditions of existence; while the transmission
from inheritance is due to the partial identity of producing and
produced organisms.
Organized beings, as a rule, are gifted with enormous powers of
increase. Wild plants yield their crop of seed annually, and most wild
animals bring forth their young yearly or oftener. Should this process
go on unchecked, in a short time the earth would be completely overrun
with living beings. It has been calculated that if a plant produces
fifty seeds (which is far below the reproductive capacity of many
plants) the first year, each of these seeds growing up into a plant
which produces fifty seeds, or altogether two thousand five hundred
seeds the next year, and so on, it would under favorable conditions of
growth give rise in nine years to more plants by five hundred trillions
than there are square feet of dry land upon the surface of the earth.
Slow-breeding man has been known to double his number in twenty-five
years, and according to Euler, this might occur in little over twelve
years. But assuming the former rate of increase, and taking the
population of the United States at only thirty millions, in six hundred
and eighty-five years their living progeny would have each but a square
foot to stand upon, were they spread over the entire globe, land and
water included. But millions of species are doing the same thing, so
that the inevitable result of this strife cannot be a matter of chance.
Evidently those individuals or varieties having some advantage over
their competitors will stand the best chance to live, while those
destitute of these advantages will be liable to destruction. Nature may
be said (metaphorically) to choose (like the will of man in artificial
selection) which shall be preserved and which destroyed.
That portion of the theory of development which maintains the common
descent of all species of animals and plants from the simplest common
origin, I have already stated with full justice should be called
Lamarckism. Progress is recognized by all scientists to be a law of
nature. Some of the more important facts which sustain the theory of
development, I propose now to present as briefly as possible.
RUDIMENTARY ORGANS.
One of the strongest arguments in favor of the hypothesis of a genetic
connection among all animals (including man), at least among all those
belonging to the same great types, is the presence of rudimentary parts.
By rudiments in anatomy are meant organs or structures imperfectly
developed, so as to be almost or entirely without functional use. "Each
of them represents in germ, as it were, in one animal (or plant), that
which is perfect and useful in another type."
For a few examples: The little fold of caruncle at the inner margin of
the eye in man, represents the nictitating membrane of birds. Eyes which
do not see form a striking example. These are found in very many animals
which live in the dark, as in caves or underground. Their eyes are often
perfectly developed but are covered by a membrane, so that no ray of
light can enter and they can never see. Such eyes, without the function
of sight, are found in several species of moles and mice which live
underground, in serpents and lizards, in amphibious animals (proteus,
cæcilia) and in fishes; also in numerous invertebrate animals which pass
their lives in the dark, as do many beetles, crabs, snails, worms, etc.
Other rudimentary organs are the wings of animals which cannot fly. For
example, the wings of the running birds, like the ostrich, emeu,
cassowary, etc., the legs of which become exceedingly developed. The
muscles which move the ears of animals are still present in man, but of
course are of no use; by continual practice persons have been able to
move their ears by these muscles. The rudiment of the tail of animals
which man possesses in his 3-5 tail 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.
Another case of human rudimentary organs, only belonging to the male,
and which obtains in like manner in all mammals, is furnished by the
mammary glands on the breast, which, as a rule, are active only in the
female sex. However, cases of different mammals are known, especially of
men, sheep and goats, in which the mammary glands were fully developed
in the male sex, and yield milk as food for their offspring. The
vermiform appendix of the large intestine in man, is another
illustration of a part which has no use, but in one marsupial is three
times the length of its body. The rudimentary covering of hair over
certain portions of the body, is not without interest. Over the body we
find but a scanty covering, which is thick only on the head, in the
armpits, and on some other parts of the body. The short hairs on the
greater part of the body are entirely useless, and are the last scanty
remains of the hairy covering of our ape ancestors. Both on the upper
and lower arm the hairs are directed toward the elbow, where they meet
at an obtuse angle--this striking arrangement is only found in man and
the anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and several species
of gibbons. The fine short hairs on the body become developed into
"thickset, long, and rather coarse dark hairs," when abnormally
nourished near old-standing inflamed surfaces.[32] The fine wool-like
hair or so-called lanugo with which the human foetus, during the fifth
and sixth months, is thickly covered, offers another proof that man
is descended from an animal which was born hairy, and remained so during
life. This covering is first developed during the fifth month, on the
eyebrows and face, and especially around the mouth, where it is much
longer than that on the head. Three or four cases have been recorded of
persons born with their whole bodies and faces thickly covered with fine
long hairs. Prof. Alex. Brandt compared the hair from the face of a man
thus characterized, aged thirty-five, with the lanugo of a foetus, and
finds it quite similar in texture. Eschricht[33] has devoted great
attention to this rudimentary covering, and has thrown much light on the
subject. He showed that the female as well as the male foetus
possessed this hairy covering, showing that both are descended from
progenitors, both sexes of whom were hairy. Eschricht also showed, as
stated above, that the hair on the face of the fifth month foetus is
longer on the face than on the head, which indicates that our semi-human
progenitors were not furnished with long tresses, which must therefore
have been a late acquisition. The question naturally arises, is there
any explanation for the loss of hair covering?
[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Hairy-Faced Burmese Family. (From Scientific
American, Feb. 20, 1875.)]
Darwin is of the opinion that the absence of hair on the body is, to a
certain extent, a secondary sexual character; for, in all parts of the
world, women are less hairy than men. He says: "Therefore we may
reasonably suspect that this character has been gained through sexual
selection." As the body in woman is less hairy than in man, and as this
character is common to all races, we may conclude that it was our female
semi-human ancestors who were first divested of hair.
Professor Grant Allen[34] has given much study to the subject of the
loss of hair in the human being; and his investigations are worthy of
careful consideration. He shows conclusively that those parts of an
animal which are in constant contact with other objects are specially
liable to lose their hair. This is noticeable on the under surface of
the body of all animals which habitually lie on the stomach. The soles
of the feet of all mammals where they touch the ground are quite
hairless; the palms of the hands in the quadrumana present the same
appearance. The knees of those species which frequently kneel, such as
camels and other ruminants, are apt to become bare and hard-skinned. The
friction of the water has been the means of removing the hair from many
aquatic mammals--the whales, porpoises, dugongs, and manatees are
examples.
As the back of man forms the specially hairless region of his body, we
must conclude that it is in all probability the first part which became
entirely denuded of hair. The gorilla, according to Professor Gervais,
is the only mammal which agrees with man in having the hair thinner on
the back, where it is partly rubbed off, than on the lower surface. Du
Chaillu states that he has "himself come upon fresh traces of a
gorilla's bed on several occasions, and could see that the male had
seated himself with his back against a tree-trunk." He also says: "In
both male and female the hair is found worn off the back; but this is
only found in very old females. This is occasioned, I suppose, by their
resting at night against trees, at whose base they sleep." The gorilla
has only very partially acquired the erect position, and probably sits
but little in the attitude common to man. In man the case is different;
in proportion as his progenitors grew more and more erect, he must have
lain less and less upon his stomach, and more and more upon his back or
sides, and this is seen in the savage man during his lazy hours--who
stretches himself on the ground in the sun, with his back propped, where
possible, by a slight mound or the wall of his hut. The continual
friction of the surface of the back would arrest the growth of hair; for
hair grows where there is normally less friction, and _vice versâ_.
As man became more and more hairless, especially among savage and naked
races, we should conclude that such a modification would be considered a
beauty, and women would select such men in preference to more hairy
individuals. The New Zealand proverb is: "There is no woman for a hairy
man." Sexual selection, then, would play a very important part; and the
difficulty of understanding how man became divested of hair is readily
explained.
Haeckel says: "Even if we knew absolutely nothing of the other phenomena
of development, we should be obliged to believe in the truth of the
theory of descent, solely on the ground of the existence of rudimentary
organs."
REPRODUCTION BY MEANS OF EGGS.
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.
DOUBLE-SEXED INDIVIDUALS.
Another difficulty might be supposed to arise between animals which
produce themselves other than by sexual reproduction. This has already
been slightly touched upon; and it has been shown that numerous plants
and animals propagate themselves through their double-sexed organs. It
occurs in a great majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals;
for example, the garden-snail, leeches, earth-worms, and many other
worms. Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual gland eggs,
and in another part sperm.
Parthenogenesis offers an interesting form of transition from sexual
reproduction to the non-sexual formation of germ-cells (which most
resembles it). It has been demonstrated to occur in many cases among
insects, especially by Seebold's excellent investigations. Among the
common bees, a male individual (a drone) arises out of the eggs of the
queen, if the eggs have not been fructified; a female (a queen or
working bee), if the egg has been fructified.
Gonochorismus or sexual separation, which characterizes the more
complicated of the two kinds of sexual reproduction, has evidently been
developed from the condition of hermaphroditism at a late period of the
organic history of the world. In this case the female individual in both
animal and plant produces eggs or egg-cells. In animals, the male
individual secretes the fructifying sperm (sperma); in plants, the
corpuscles, which correspond to the sperm.
INHERITANCE.
The remarkable facts of inheritance, extending to the reproduction of
unimportant peculiarities of parts or organs (rudimentary parts)
mentioned above, and the occasional outbreak of ancestral characters
that have been dormant through several generations (some of which I will
mention further on), might be thought perfectly unexplainable; but they
are readily accounted for by the supposition that each part of an
organism contributes its constituent and effective molecules to the germ
and sperm particles. Mr. Sorby made numerous investigations with
relation to the number of molecules in the germinal matter of eggs, and
the spermatic matter supplied by the male. Omitting the alkali, Mr.
Sorby takes the formula, C{72}H{112}N{18}SO{22}, as representing the
composition of albumen. In a 1/2000 of an inch cube, he reckons--
Albumen 18,000,000,000,000 molecules.
Water 992,000,000,000,000 "
--------------------------------
1,010,000,000,000,000 molecules.
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 1/6000 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 1/1000 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 1/150 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."
The laws of inheritance are divisible into two series, conservative and
progressive transmission; the laws of adaptation to direct (active) or
indirect (potential) adaptation.
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.[35] 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.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
[Illustration: Fig. 3.]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.]
[Illustration: Fig. 5.]
[Illustration: Fig. 6.]
[Illustration: Fig. 7.]
[Illustration: Fig. 8.]
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.
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: _am_, amnion; _al_,
allantois; _v_, vitellus; _h_, encephalon; _i_, eye; _c_, heart; _f_,
liver; _g_, gizzard; _ms_, upper, and _mi_, lower member.
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, two hearts, beating separately, being clearly seen.
Another anomaly consists in heads with a frontal swelling, which is
filled by the cerebral hemispheres.
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.
ACQUIRED QUALITIES.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
Man can breed for milk in cattle, for feathers in pigeons, for colored
flowers in plants, and, in fact, for almost any desirable quality.
GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
_The Geological Record_ (palæontology) 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:
THE FIRST EPOCH.--_The Archilithic_, or Primordial Epoch, constitutes
the _Age of Skull-less Animals and Sea-weed Forests_, and is made up of
the Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian Period.
THE SECOND EPOCH.--_The Palæolithic_, or Primary Epoch, constitutes the
_Age of Fishes and Fern Forests_, and is made up of the Devonian, Coal,
and Permian Period.
THE THIRD EPOCH.--_The Mesolithic_, or Secondary Epoch, constitutes the
_Age of Reptiles and Pine Forests, Coniferæ_, and is made up of the
Triassic, Jurassic, and Chalk Period.
THE FOURTH EPOCH.--_The Cænolithic_, or Tertiary Epoch, constitutes the
_Age of Mammals and Leaf Forests_, and is made up of the Eocene,
Miocene, and Phocene Period.
THE FIFTH EPOCH.--The _Anthropolithic_, or Quaternary Epoch, constitutes
the _Age of Man and Cultivated Forests,_ and is made up of the Glacial
and Postglacial Period, and the Period of Culture.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ONTOGENY.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Human Embryo.--_Ecker._]
[Illustration: FIG. II.--Embryo of Dog.--_Bischoff._]
[Illustration: FIG. III.--Dog Embryo.--_Huxley._]
[Illustration: FIGS. IV, V, and VI.--Embryo of Rabbit in three stages of
development.--_Haeckel._]
[Illustration: FIGS. VII, VIII, and IX.--Embryo of Man in three stages
of development.--_Haeckel._ _v_, fore brain; _z_, twix brain; _m_,
middle brain; _h_, hind brain; _n_, after brain; _r_, spinal marrow;
_e_, nose; _a_, eye; _o_, ear; _k_, gillarches; _g_, heart; _w_,
vertebral column; _f_, fore limbs; _b_, hind limbs; _s_, tail.]
"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 _lamprey_ and the _shark_. Later, he
has but four aortic origins, and a heart now divided into two chambers,
like _bony fishes_; 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
_batrachia_; then two origins with enlarged hemispheres of the brain, as
in _reptiles_. Four heart chambers and one aortic root on each side,
with slight development of the cerebellum, agree with the characters of
the _crocodiles_, and immediately present the special mammalian
conditions, single aortic root, and the full development of the
cerebellum. 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
_exact_ or _entire_ 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.
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 1-1/2 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.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF MAN.
We 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 amoeboid activity of a white blood corpuscle is stimulated within
certain limits by heat. 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.
With respect to the muscular force exerted by an animal, it was supposed
that it was created by the animal. Dr. Frankland[36] 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{2} 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[37] has been led to say: "An animal begins to
die the moment it begins to live." "A muscle," says Barker,[38] "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.
The last of the so-called vital forces under consideration, is that
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[39] 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,[40] "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[41] 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,[42] 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,[43] "the results 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."
Herbert Spencer[44] says all direct and indirect evidence "justifies us
in concluding that the nervous system consists of _one_ kind of matter.
In the gray tissue this matter exists in masses containing _corpuscles_,
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 _threads_ that are denser, that
are uniform in texture, and that are shielded in an unusual manner from
disturbing forces, except at their two extremities."
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 a
transformation of energy? Or is the evolution of thought entirely
independent of the matter of the brain?
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[45]
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;[46] 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,[47] "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 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.[48] "Can we longer doubt," says Barker,[49] "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.[50] 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?"
Richard Owen says:[51] "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
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.'"
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,[52] 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 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."[53] 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.
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. _Curiosity_ 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.
_Imitation_ is also found among the action of animals, especially among
monkeys, which are well known to be ridiculous mockers.
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.
One would hesitate to believe an animal possesses _imagination_, 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,[54] 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."
The next mental faculty is _reason_, 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 _once_ 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 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 _once_ happened,
they afterward first held the packet to their ears to detect any
movement within.
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."[55]
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 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.
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,[56] 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."
It becomes a difficult task to determine how far animals exhibit any
traces of such high faculties as _abstraction_, _general conception_,
_self-consciousness_, _mental individuality_. 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 such faculties are developed by
imperceptible degrees. These high faculties are very sparingly possessed
by the savage; as Buchner[57] 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.
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 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.
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."
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.[58] 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 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.
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."[59]
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.[60] 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."
The struggle for existence is going on in every language; one 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."[61]
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.
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, _Man's
Moral Sense, Belief in God, Religion, Conscience, and Hope of
Immortality_.
It has been stated by some writers that where "faith commences 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."[62]
"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 _on trust_ 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 _responsible_
for the fact," says Krauth, "that under the conditions of knowledge we
_know_, or in defect of them do not know; we are responsible if, under
the conditions of a well-grounded faith, we disbelieve."[63]
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.
Schweinfurth relates that the Niam-niam, that highly interesting 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.
_Con-scio_ is to know with, in relation.
There is such a thing, of course, as a _false conscience_ and a _true
conscience_. 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 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."[64]
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."
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.
[Illustration: FIG. I.--Butcher's Shop of the Anziques, Anno 1598.
(From Man's Place in Nature, by _Huxley_.)]
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.
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."
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-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."[65] 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."
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:
"The ruling passion, be it what it may--
The ruling passion conquers reason still."
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 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 _fact_, but an
_inference_, to which all validity would be denied by an idealist like
Berkeley, or by a skeptic like Hume.[66]
Thomas Cooper[67] said:
"I do not say--there is no God;
But this I say--I KNOW NOT."
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."
Austin Holyoake[68] says: "The only way of proving the fallacy of
atheism is by _proving_ the existence of a God."
If it is logical proof that is wanted, there is plenty. The following
arguments, although not all meeting my approbation, are still of
interest:
The _Ontological Argument_ has been presented in different forms. 1.
Anselm,[69] 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.
2. Descartes[70] (1596-1650) states the argument thus: The 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.
3. Dr. Samuel Clark[71] (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.
4. Cousin[72] 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."
The _Cosmological Argument_ 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.
The _Teleological Argument_, 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.
The _Moral Argument_ 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.
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 moment the
world has remained without knowledge of a God."[73] 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."[74] 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--
"God is a being, and that you may see
In the fold of the flower, in the leaf of the tree,
In the storm-cloud of darkness, in the rainbow of life,
In the sunlight at noontide, in the darkness of night,
In the wave of the ocean, in the furrow of land,
In the mountain of granite, in the atom of sand;
Gaze where ye may from the sky to the sod--
Where can you gaze and not see a God."
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. e._, penetrated
with Divine spirit, with law, and with necessity." We know of no matter
without this Divine spirit.
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."
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."[75] 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.
What, then, has science demonstrated? Science has demonstrated the UNITY
OF THE FORCES: 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.
UNITY OF MATTER AND FORCE.--"For if matter were not force, and
immediately known as force, it could not be known at all--could not be
rationally inferred."
UNITY OF THE LIFE SUBSTANCE IN ALL ORGANIC AND ANIMAL BODIES.--"A unity
of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial
composition."
UNITY OF ANIMATE AND INANIMATE NATURE IN MATTER, FORM, AND FORCE.
UNITY OF THE LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT.--Hence we can proclaim the unity of
all nature and of her laws of development.
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.
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.[76] 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."
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.
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."
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.
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 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 THE
UNIVERSE."[77] 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. Vision
depends on the wave motion of light. The length of a wave of mean red
light is about 1/39000th of an inch, that of violet 1/57500th 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."[78] The longest wave which can give an impression has a length
of about 66 ft., which is equal to 16-1/2 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 27-1/2 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 16-1/2 and 40,000, there is no room to doubt,
as there exist ears which can hear them, such as the hare; but to us they
are as though they did not exist.
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.
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 1/2000 of a grain (3/400 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.
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:
"Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep."
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 in the world that
man has came to him by nature. Man[79] 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."[80]
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."[81]
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."[82]
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 characters,
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."[83]
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,[84] "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."[85]
Death, then, is for the individual but a transfer from one physical
state of existence to another, according to the "authors'"[86] 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 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.
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.
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 _matter_, 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.[87]
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 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.
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."
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.[88] "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 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. _The entire absence of
testimony does not raise a negative presumption, except in cases where
testimony is accessible._"
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[89] 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.'
O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory?"
Footnotes:
[1] The Law of Disease, in College Courant, Vol. XIV.
[2] Winchell. Evolution, p. 113.
[3] Comparative Zoology, p. 43. 1876.
[4] Huxley. Physical Basis of Life.
[5] Johnson, Ency.
[6] Comparative Anatomy--Orton, p. 32.
[7] Analytical Anatomy and Phys.--Cutter, p. 16.
[8] Biography of a Plant.
[9] See Huxley--Invertebrate Animals, Anatomy of.
[10] Phys. Basis of Life.
[11] Beginnings of Life, p. 104, Vol. I.
[12] Monthly Micros. Jour., May 1, '69, p. 294.
[13] Chem. and Phys. Balance of Organic Nature, 1848, p. 48 (trans.).
[14] Inaugural Address, Aug. 19, 1874.
[15] Haeckel--Hist. of Creation.
[16] See Haeckel--Evol. of Man.
[17] Evolution of Man, Vol. II, p. 445.
[18] Johnson's Cyclopedia, Article "Evolution."
[19] Sumner, in Johnson's Cyc.
[20] Christian Union, Vol. XIII, No. 17, p. 322.
[21] Gen. i. 1.
[22] St. John i. 1.
[23] St. John i. 3.
[24] Hist. of Creation, p. 8.
[25] _Ibid._, p. 324.
[26] Heb. xi. 3. Revised English Ed.
[27] _Loc. cit._, Vol. I, p. 323.
[28] _Loc. cit._, Vol. I, p. 324.
[29] Indications of the Creator.
[30] Evolution and Progress, p. 26, Rev. Wm. I. Gill.
[31] Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch., pp. 643-5.
[32] Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, 1853, Vol. I, p. 71.
[33] Ueber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen Körper.
[34] Pop. Sci. Monthly, June, 1879, p. 250.
[35] See Sci. Am., May 18, 1878.
[36] Source of Muscular Power, Proc. Roy. Inst., June 8, 1866. Am. I.
Sci., II, xlii, 393, Nov. 1866.
[37] Comparative Zoology, p. 45.
[38] Correlation of the Vital and Physical Forces, p. 54.
[39] On the time required for the transmission of volition and sensation
through the nerves, Proc. Roy. Inst.
[40] Comparative Zoology, p. 165.
[41] Sci. Amer., Nov. 13, 1876, p. 328.
[42] Marshall, Outline of Physiology. Amer. Ed., 1868, p. 227.
[43] Macmillon's Magazine, Pop. Sci. Monthly, April, 1876.
[44] "Principles of Psychology," 1869, No. 20, p. 24.
[45] J. S. Lombard, N. Y. Med. Jour., Vol. V, 198, June, 1867.
[46] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.
[47] 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.
[48] 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.
[49] _Loc. cit._, p. 24.
[50] 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."
[51] Derivation hypothesis of life and species, forming fortieth chapter
of his Anatomy of Vertebrates, republished in Am. Jour. Sci., II, xlvii,
33, Jan. 1869.
[52] Prehistoric Times, p. 354, by Lubbock.
[53] Madness in Animals, Jour. Mental Sci., July, 1871. Dr. W. L.
Lindsay.
[54] Facultés Mentales des Animaux, 1872, Tom. XI, p. 181.
[55] Primeval Man, 1869, pp. 145-147.
[56] Prehistoric Times, 1865, p. 473.
[57] "Conferences ser les Théorie Darwinienne," 1869, p. 132.
[58] Philosoph. Trans., 1773, p. 262.
[59] Prof. Whitney, p. 309.
[60] Phys. and Pathol. of Mind. Dr. Maudsley. 3d ed., 1868, p. 199.
[61] Nature, January 6, 1870, p. 257.
[62] Problems i. 21.
[63] Johnson's Cyc. Article "Faith." C. P. Krauth.
[64] Darwin's Descent of Man, p. 117.
[65] See Descent of Man, p. 96.
[66] See Tyndall's Belfast Address.
[67] Purgatory of Suicides.
[68] Thoughts on Atheism, p. 4.
[69] Monologium and Proslogium.
[70] Meditations de Primaphilosophia Prop. 2, p. 89.
[71] Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.
[72] Elements of Psychology.
[73] Thoughts on Atheism, by Holyoake, p. 4.
[74] Proverbs xvii. 22.
[75] Henry Ward Beecher.
[76] See W. T. Harris. Johnson's Encyc. "Soul."
[77] Unseen Universe.
[78] Rood. "Sound," Johnson's Encyc.
[79] See R. G. Ingersoll's Lecture on Hell.
[80] Savage.
[81] "The Unseen World." John Fiske, p. 21.
[82] Fortnightly Review, June 1875, p. 784.
[83] Ninth Bridgewater Treatise.
[84] Of the Unseen Universe.
[85] Anagram. Nature, Oct. 15, 1874.
[86] Of the Unseen Universe.
[87] Fiske. Unseen World, p. 52.
[88] Savage. Relig. of Evol., p. 246.
[89] 1 Corinthians, xv., verses 50-54 (Part of). _Revised English Ed._,
1877.
Transcriber's Notes:
Passages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.
Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.
Numbers enclosed in {brackets} are subscripted in the original text.
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.
Images have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest
paragraph break.
The following misprints have been addressed:
"Hæckel" standardized to "Haeckel" (page 57)
missing "the" added (page 91)
"paleontology" standardized to "palæontology" (page 108)
"cerebelbellum" corrected to "cerebellum" (page 113)
Some quotation marks in the original are not paired. Obvious errors have
been silently closed, while those requiring interpretation have been
left open.
Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in
spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Was Man Created?" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.