The Descent of Man. 173 



liglit itself — when there will be a coiulition of equilibrium, when 

 each individual will have an opportunity of developing every 

 bodily and mental faculty without Interfering with the ecpial 

 opi)ortunity of others. I throw out this suggestion merely as a 

 provocative of thought; I will not pursue the subject farther at 

 the present time. 



Pkofessok Thomas Davidson: — 



I only wish to express my strong agreement with Dr. Drayton. 

 I do not believe that form is any guide, necessarily, to intelligence. 

 The mere fact that the ant, which is so small compared with the ape, 

 stands next in intelligence to us, seems to me to prove that intelli- 

 gence does not at all depend upon structural development. I am 

 very little acquainted with the facts of biology. I was mucli inter- 

 ested, however, a few years ago, in reading an article by Professor 

 Virchow, in which he says there is no proof whatever that man is 

 descended from the ajje. He denied the descent totally. I am 

 only surprised to hear such a man stand up and make this asser- 

 tion in view of the general acceptance of the contrary opinion. I 

 should like to discuss this question of the relation between mental 

 power and physical development. How far are they subordinate, 

 one to tlie other ? All evolution of structure has been the product 

 of amoving force — the "growth force," as Dr. Cope terms it. 

 That is just what Aristotle said : "The man learns tlie thing by 

 doing, and as he does his physical strength increases." So all 

 physical structure is the result of doing. One of the strongest 

 motives to right action arises from a clear insight into this fact, 

 that the human being is what he does; and as heads so in the end 

 will he be. 



Dr. Robekt Ti. Eccles: — 



Professor Cope has referred to tliose animal and vegetable forms 

 which through inaction and lack of variety in environment, become 

 sessile — they cease to grow. Some minds are affected in the same 

 way. That is the trouble with Prof. Virchow — almost the only 

 man eminent in science who can be quoted as anti-evolutionist: 

 he is sessile. We had an eminent man in our own country who 

 was similarly afllicted — Prof. Agassiz. He did not accept evolu- 

 tion: he was sessile. Much of the criticism on the doctrine of 

 evolution this evening has proceeded from a misapprehension of 

 what it actually claims. No living thing is evolved from another 

 thing now living. The apes have had their line of development, 

 and man has had his. The attempt to trace man from the ape as 



