^^^"" THE NEW EVOLUTION "^^"^^ 



between the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the mol- 

 lusks and the arthropods. If we are willing to accept 

 the facts at their face value, which would seem to be 

 the only thing to do, we must believe that there never 

 were such intermediates, or in other words that these 

 major groups from the very first bore the same relation 

 to each other that they do at the present day. Is this 

 creationism? Not at all. It simply means that life 

 at its very first beginnings from the single cell devel- 

 oped simultaneously and at once in every possible 

 direction. All of the phyla or major groups seem to 

 be of simultaneous development — at least we have no 

 evidence that it was otherwise. From each one of 

 these a separate developmental line or tree arose, 

 growing upward through the ages. 



The numerous developmental lines are explained by 

 the process of evolution as that term is commonly 

 understood, and this descriptive word should be re- 

 stricted to these developmental lines. 



The gaps within these lines, and between related 

 lines which run more or less parallel, are explained by 

 an extension of the theory of mutations. 



The complete absence of any intermediate forms 

 between the major groups of animals, which is one 

 of the most striking and most significant phenomena 

 brought out by the study of zoology, has hitherto 

 been overlooked, or at least ignored. This condition 

 may readily be explained by an application of the 

 facts gained through the study of embryology by a 

 theory which may be called the theory of eogenesis. 



Restriction or expansion of the meaning of a well 



[^68] 



