^86 THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT. 



its application to man is a simple deduction from a 

 general law, gained by the method of induction. As 

 Goethe postulated the inter-maxillary bone in man 

 even before he had seen or proved it, so must the doc- 

 trine of Descent extend to man all its results and more 

 or less plainly demonstrated laws. The deduction is 

 effected by the accumulated observations of compara- 

 tive anatomy, evolutionary history, and palaeontology, 

 checking and confirming one another. Thus, for all 

 who are not satisfied with belief in miracle and sub- 

 jection to the hypothesis of a revelation, nothing remains 

 but the doctrine of Descent. To apply it to man is not 

 more hazardous, but, on the contrary, as inherently neces- 

 sary, as it is for us zoologists to make use of it in judg- 

 ing some polype hitherto unknown, a star-fish or a mouse. 

 This our adversaries deny. Man, they say, has qualities 

 which separate him absolutely from the animal, and, 

 assuming the doctrine of Descent generally, preclude its 

 applicability in this one case. To this assertion, so fre- 

 quently to be heard, we will, in the first instance, oppose 

 a general remark as to the apprehension of human 

 nature. 



It is commonly overlooked that, quite regardless of 

 the validity of the doctrine of Descent or even of its 

 existence, there is a notable inconsistency in the idea of 

 humanity. The philosophy of history has regarded 

 mutability, which is, in fact, capability of progress, as 

 the essence of human nature. But if any sort of in- 

 separable dependence of the mind upon the body be 

 admitted, as is the case with all but an extreme 

 spiritualistic party, the progress of mental power in 

 mankind was inconceivable without some parallel trans- 



