A REPLY TO ''FALLACIES OF EVOLUTIONS in 



must be as they are " almost as a matter of course." Rather will he be 

 constrained to ask, " How can these things be ? " audit is fortunate 

 that there is now a voice of authoritative teaching to answer, " Art 

 thou a master in Israel and knowest not ? " 



Next we come to the argument from geographical distribution. 

 Here the alleged fallacy of evolution is as follows : " If the environ- 

 ment be taken to be the cause of the specific characters of the animals, 

 similar environments ought to be productive of similar species. But 

 this is very far from being the case." This is, perhaps, as good an 

 instance as we have met of our author's inability to view all the area 

 of an extensive problem. His idea of what constitutes an " environ- 

 ment " is about as adequate as the idea of space that a baby shows 

 when it tries to grasp the moon. The following expresses his idea : 

 " If the environment be taken to be the cause of the diversification of 

 the species, how is it that, where the scope for diversity of environ- 

 ment is apparently the least, the greater is the variety of species ? 

 We have before observed that there are about 120,000 species of ani- 

 mals; of these more than one half are aquatic, the inhabitants of seas^ 

 lakes, and rivers ; to which distinction, combined with temperature, 

 the grounds of diversification seem almost exclusively confined." 

 This is really exquisite — so exquisite that it seems a pity to mar its 

 comicality by a prosaic answer. But, even though I may spoil the joke 

 by explaining it, I must at least explain to the author himself how 

 good a joke he has made. 



First, then, besides varying in temperature, the ocean, in its differ- 

 ent parts, varies somewhat in depth, in the nature of its bottom, the 

 strength of its currents, the degree of its saltness, and its relations to 

 the laud. Next, as contrasted with the land, the water on the globe 

 presents an immensely greater — not only area — but cubical capacity 

 for sustaining life. Again, and of still greater importance, it is a mat- 

 ter of fact, whether or not the doctrine of evolution is true, that geol- 

 ogy reveals the existence of multitudinous forms of aquatic life as 

 preceding in time the advent of terrestrial life. And, as the theory 

 of evolution supposes that all the latter forms of life are the lineal 

 descendants of the former, it is clear that by the terms of this theory, 

 no less than by those of geological fact, far more time has been allowed 

 for the differentiation of aquatic than for that of terrestrial species. 

 Indeed, looking to the degree in which water, as contrasted with land, 

 has thus been favorably handicapped in the time allowed for the pro- 

 duction of species, the only wonder is, that the water does not show a 

 greater comparative wealth of specific forms than it does. But, lastly, 

 and most important of all, it is a huge blunder to imagine that an 

 " environment " consists merely in the physical conditions as to me- 

 dium, climate, etc., to which an organism is exposed. Of far more 

 importance are the innumerably complex relations of the organism to 

 its neighboring organisms, whether of its own or other species, to 



