166 THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION 



mula NaCl. In the case of the former salts the crystal units 

 consist of multimolecules of the formula NaB -(1120)2 and 

 Nal -(1120)2, the water of crystallization not being mechani- 

 cally confined in the crystals, but combined with the respec- 

 tive salt in the exact ratio of two molecules of water to 

 one of the salt. Judged by all chemical tests, such as heat 

 of formation, the law of combination in fixed ratios, the mani- 

 festation of selective affinity, etc., the multimolecule is quite 

 as much entitled to be considered a natural unit as is the 

 monomolecule. 



But it is not in the crystalloidal multimolecule, but in the 

 larger and more complex multimolecule of colloids (viscid sub- 

 stances like gum arable, gelatine, agar-agar, white of egg, 

 etc.), that Moore professes to see a sort of intermediate be- 

 tween the cell and inorganic units. Such colloids form with 

 a dispersing medium (like water) an emulsion, in which the 

 dispersed particles, known as ultramicrons or "solution ag- 

 gregates," are larger than monomolecules. It is among these 

 multimolecules of colloids that Moore would have us search 

 for a transitional link connecting the cell with the inorganic 

 world. Borrowing Herbert Spencer's dogma of the compli- 

 cation of homogeneity into heterogeneity, he asserts that such 

 colloidal multimolecules would tend to become more and more 

 complex, and consequently more and more instable, so that 

 their instability would gradually approach the chronic insta- 

 bility or constant state of metabolic fluxion manifest in living 

 organisms. The end-result would be a living unit more simply 

 organized than the cell, and evolution seizing upon this sub- 

 microscopic unit would, in due time, transform it into cellular 

 life of every variety and kind. Ce n'est que le premier pas 

 qui coute! 



It should be noted that this so-called law is a mere vague 

 formula like the *'law" of natural selection and the "law'^ of 

 evolution. The facts which it is alleged to express are not 

 cited, and its terms are far from being quantitative. It is 

 certainly not a law in the sense of Arrhenius, who says: 



