66 THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. 



contradictory, but, further, the entire treatment shows that, 

 by his whole scientific education, the author is incapable 

 of the heavy task. I should not pronounce this harsh 

 judgment, but that Goette flatters himself that, as the 

 reformer of the science, he is about to place it on an 

 entirely new basis ; and but that, consequently, he treats 

 the great leaders of the science — Baer, Remak, Gegenbaur, 

 and others— in the most insolent manner, as narrow-minded 

 labourers who, " by reason of their lack of knowledge of the 

 history of evolution, have missed their aim." The following 

 samples seem to show the mode in which the new science 

 is constituted by Goette : " Perfect life renders evolution 

 impossible. The capacity of evolution in the mature egg 

 excludes real life. Egg-cleavage is not a living process of 

 evolution. The egg neither as a whole nor as to its parts, 

 neither in its origin nor in its complete state, is a cell. The 

 cells of the various tissues are not organisms, are not organic 

 individuals. The individuality of an organism is only a 

 peculiar expression of the end of its evolution," and so on. 



In these and many other statements Goette abruptly 

 upsets the whole science, as at present constituted. The 

 Cell Theory and the Protoplasmic Theory are rejected as 

 worthless ; even Comparative Anatomj'- is, according to this 

 writer, of no scientific value ; Phylogeny is no science, and 

 80 on. I have explained the most incredible of Goette's 

 assertions and his most unexampled errors in my work on 

 " The Aims and Methods of the History of Evolution " 

 (Leipsic, 1875) ; in which book I have also criticized the 

 views held by His and Agassiz. Errors of this sort are no 

 longer possible in other sciences. Their occurrence in the 

 History of Evolution is explained partly by the great 



