MATERIALISTIC EVOLUTION 27 



any scientific support. The same may be said of the assumed 

 monophyletic evolution of the whole animal kingdom on the one 

 hand, and of the whole vegetable kingdom on the other, from 

 one primary form respectively. 1 



The suggestion is quite prudently made by him 

 that some 2000 years from now we may possibly 

 know something more definite. But this at 

 present is the extent of our knowledge, based upon 

 entirely fragmentary evidence which in the minds 

 of not a few deep and careful thinkers fails to 

 support even the probability of any true evolution 

 of species. In saying this it is important to re 

 member, however, that the word &quot;species&quot; itself 

 has been given almost as many meanings as there 

 are men using it. No man of even moderate in 

 formation will question the facts of transformism 

 as verified in the mutations of mere varieties. 



To be told now that Darwin himself expressly 

 stated that there was no cogency of evidence to 

 compel the intellect to admit the evolutionary 

 change of even one single species into another, may 

 still convey a gentle shock to some minds. The 

 word &quot;species&quot; must not, of course, be understood 

 here as a &quot;variety,&quot; but should be taken in a strict 

 sense. In a letter written to Bentham, Darwin 

 definitely states: &quot;When we descend to details, we 

 can prove that no one species has changed.&quot; 

 These words his son Francis softens down to mean 

 that : &quot;We cannot prove that a single species has 

 a ibid., P . 15. 



