Page eighteen 



E\OLUTION 



June, 1930 



Question Box 



Answers by Allan Strong Broms, unless otherwise credited 



WHY DOES EVOLUTION BRANCH 

 OUT? 



Q. — In his debate. Prof. McCabe said 

 that in Australia and New Zealand 

 only those groups of animals are 

 found that were also on the main- 

 land before those islands were de- 

 tached and he uses that as a proof 

 of evolution. Now, if higher species 

 developed on the mainland of Asia 

 why did they not also develop on 

 these detached islands? G. J. S. 



A. — So far as we know, evolution is 

 not guided along any set lines by 

 outside direction that could keep it 

 alike in two or more detached areas. 

 Evolution occurs in plants and ani- 

 mals through variations (in all sorts 

 of directions) which help or hinder 

 the organisms in their struggles to 

 survive. If, under existing condi- 

 tions, such variations aid survival, 

 they tend to be preserved by heredity, 

 otherwise they are weeded out by this 

 so-called "natural selection." If ex- 

 actly the same variations were to be 

 repeated under exactly the same con- 

 ditions on both mainland and island, 

 then only would the evolutions tend 

 to be parallel. But any given favor- 

 able variation or series of variations 

 (such as those producing the warm- 

 blooded, fur-bearing mammals) is not 

 likely to be repeated under exactly 

 the same conditions of climate and 

 other surroundings, so it is very 

 improbable that any given course of 

 evolution will be duplicated on main- 

 land and island after detachment. 



Furthermore, isolation on islands 

 or by mountain barriers often pro- 

 tects organisms from evolution-stim- 

 ulating severity in the struggle for 

 existence. Life then becomes too easy 

 and the organisms just stay put. Or 

 the conditions of life, though severe, 

 just because they are different, pro- 

 mote divergent evolutions, each adap- 

 tive to local needs. 



Marked steps in evolution generally 

 come through environmental changes. 

 If environmental changes diverge, so 

 will the resulting organic evolutions. 

 We are pretty sure, for example, that 

 the warm-blooded mammals arose 

 durfng the Permian glacial period 

 that man himself evolved in a rela- 

 tively treeless region when aridity 

 gradually wiped out the forests that 

 had protected his ape ancestors, and 

 likewise that man's inventive mind 

 evolved under the severe necessities 

 of the Pleistocene ice age. Such 

 conditions were, however, just local, 

 and evolution proceeded elsewhere but 



hestitatingly, or not at all, or in other 

 directions. 



ARE BIRTHMARKS CAUSED BY 

 FRIGHT? 



Q. — Are birthmarks caused by fright 

 of the mother? P. K. M. 



A. — The superstition that birthmarks 

 are due to fright of the mother dur- 

 ing pregnancy is one that all mothers 

 seem to accept and all scientfsts deny. 

 When a child is born marked, it is 

 so easy for the mother to search 

 her memory for a fright and find it. 

 And mothers, despite the doctors, \», ill 

 probably forever try to make geniases 

 of their unborn babies by themselves 

 studying art, music and literature. 

 The studies fortunately do no harm 

 and may later be passea on to the 

 children by education. But biolo- 

 gists are very sure that no more 

 direct influence can be co'inted on. 



A child starts to grow from a germ 

 cell derived from the father and 

 mother, and the mixture of parental 

 traits in this original cell determines 

 the characteristics of the child to be 

 born. Then the training or mutila- 

 tions of the parents' bodies before 

 conception do not seem to be trans- 

 mitted to the child. Once the child 

 starts its growth, it is completely pro- 

 tected from outside influences. No 

 nerves pass from mother to child to 

 carry mental or emotional impres- 

 sions, only a tube for the blood that 

 bears oxygen and food-liquids to the 

 child and wastes from it. Even then, 

 the mothers blood stream does not 

 reach the child, but trades its bur- 

 dens at the doorstep, so to speak, 

 where they are filtered through thin 

 membranes into the child's blood 

 stream. These membranes, further- 

 more, are very choosey as to what 

 shall pass through. Poisons of disease 

 or fright or worry are strictly barred. 

 Our unborn babies are better safe- 

 guarded than we know. 



IS THERE A SEAT OF LIFE? 



Q. — Is there an organic seat of life in 

 the human body? If so, where is it 

 located and how does it function? 



C. D. V. 

 A. — If you mean, as I assume, a par- 

 ticular organ or spot as the cause, 

 container and controller of life, the 

 answer is surely "no." That disposes 

 of the second part of your question, 

 but the answer itself needs amplify- 

 ing. I really mean that modern bi- 

 ologists do not set apart any one 



organ as the seat of life. An organism 

 consists of a vast number of cells 

 making up tissues grouped into or- 

 gans, most of them living and inter- 

 dependent in their living. Life per- 

 meates every part and does not eman- 

 ate from any single part. Of course, 

 there are tender and indispensible 

 spots, to destroy or injure which de- 

 stroys life. But there are several 

 such, so no single one can properly 

 be called the seat of life. Each has 

 evolved with the body as a whole to 

 do its essential part in the elaborate 

 process of living, but it can do only 

 that part and depends upon other 

 organs to do other necessary things. 

 Scientific biologists do not think of 

 life apart from the organism and 

 make no use of the conception of a 

 separate spirit or soul which can 

 settle down in some "vital center" 

 and so give life to an otherwise dead 

 body. The scientific mind is not 

 tricked by such ideas that pretend 

 to explain, but digs for the deeper 

 explanations in the laws of physics 

 and chemistry as they operate within 

 the organism. 



WHO IS HE? 



Fundamentalists often try to bolster 

 up their cause by quoting "authori- 

 ties" of whom we've never heard. 

 Readers will perform a useful service 

 by helping to trace them down. Our 

 wideawake friend, O. 0. Whitenack, 

 wrote the following self-explanatory 

 letter to Sir Arthur Keith of London: 

 Dear Dr .Keith: 



An article against the theory of evo- 

 lution is being circulated in Denver 

 in which the following quotation is 

 emphasized: "Nine-tenths of the talk 

 of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, 

 not founded on observation, and whol- 

 ly unsupported by facts. This Mu- 

 seum is full of proofs of the utter fal- 

 sity of their views. — Dr. Etheridge, 

 of the British Museum." Any in- 

 formation you may be able to give 

 me concerning the genuineness of this 

 quotation will be greatly appreciated. 

 (Signed) O. O. Whitenack. 



To this Dr. Keith replied: 



London, W.C.2. March 4, 1929. 

 Dear Mr. Whitenack: 



The "Dr. Etheridge of the British 

 Museum" who is credited with the 

 statement that "nine-tenths of the talk 

 of evolutionists is sheer nonsense" is 

 not known over here either at the Bri- 

 tish Museum or elsewhere. So we 

 must conclude he is a "Mrs. Harris" ^ 

 which fundamentalists have created 

 to tell lies for them. 



(Signed) ARTHUR KEITH 



If any of our readers know the 

 pedigree of this "Dr Etheridge" or 

 any other "Mi<s. Hairis," we'll '.be 

 glad to print it. 



