- MAN. 101 
man one. Between men and apes there exists a line of 
sharp demarcation.” 
One of the most recent authoritative publications by 
a German anthropologist urges that “the apes are to be 
regarded as degenerate branches of the pre-human 
stock.” This means, in a word, that man is not des- 
cended from the ape, but the ape from man. This is 
almost what may be called reductio ad absurdum, and yet 
it is one of the latest pronouncements of scientific thought 
(Editorial in “New York Herald,’ December 30, 1916). 
To the same effect are the words of Professor Wood- 
Jones, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Lon- 
don, England, who recently pointed out that so fat 
from man having descended from anthropoid apes, it 
would be more accurate to say that these have been des- 
cended from man. This was claimed not only by reason 
of the best anatomical research, but to be “deducible 
from the whole trend of geological and anthropological 
discovery.” On this account Professor Wood-Jones ap- 
pealed for “an entire reconsideration of the post-Dar- 
winian conceptions of man’s comparatively recent emer- 
gence from the brute kingdom.” (Quoted by W. H 
Griffith Thomas in “What about Evolution?’ p. 19.) 
It is refreshing to turn aside from speculation to 
revelation, from conjectures and theories to proven facts, 
and no one has stated ascertained facts, touching the 
origin of man, more succinctly and more clearly than 
Prof. Dr. Friedrich Pfaff, professor of Natural Science 
in the University of Erlangen. He shows conclusively 
that the age of man is comparatively brief, extending 
only to a few thousand years; that man appeared sudden- 
ly; that the most ancient man known to us is not essen- 
tially different fram the now living man, and that transi- 
tions from the ape to the man, or from the man to 
the ape, are nowhere found. The conclusion he reaches 
