28 THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION 



accept as evidence of mutations the behavior of Lamarckiana 

 and some other forms when they throw their marked vari- 

 ants." (Science, Feb. 3, 1922, p. 111.) 



The new forms, however, resulting from random assortment 

 and crossovers cannot be regarded as new species. "Analysis," 

 says Bateson, ''has revealed hosts of transferable characters. 

 Their combinations sufiice to supply in abundance series of 

 types which might pass for new species, and certainly would 

 be so classed if they were met with in nature. Yet critically 

 tested, we find that they are not distinct species and we 

 have no reason to suppose any accumulation of characters 

 of the same order would culminate in the production of distinct 

 species. Specific difference therefore must be regarded as 

 probably attaching to the base upon which these transfer- 

 ables are implanted, of which we know absolutely nothing at 

 all. Nothing that we have witnessed in the contemporary 

 world can colorably be interpreted as providing the sort of 

 evidence required." {Science, Jan. 20, 1922, pp. 59, 60.) 



Anyone thoroughly acquainted with the results of genetical 

 analysis and research will find it impossible to escape the 

 conviction that there is no such thing as experimental evi- 

 dence for evolution. In spite of the enormous advances made 

 in the fields of genetics and cytology, the problem of the 

 origin of species is, scientifically speaking, as mysterious as 

 ever. No variation of which we have experience is interpre- 

 table as the transmutation of a specific type, and David Starr 

 Jordan voices an inevitable conclusion when he says: ''None 

 of the created 'new species' of plant or animal I know of 

 would last five years in the open, nor is there the slightest 

 evidence that any new species of field or forest or ocean ever 

 originated from mutation, discontinuous variation, or hybridi- 

 zation." {Science, Oct. 20, 1922, p. 448.) 



"In any case," as Professor Caullery tells us in his Harvard 

 lecture on the "Problem of Evolution," "we do not see in the 

 facts emerging from Mendelism, how evolution, in the sense 

 that morphology suggests, can have come about. And it 



