Feketjaey 21, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



257 



conceive of any animal being actually 

 made ? Did an omnipotent Creator actually 

 take the ' dust of the ground ' and mould it 

 into animal shape and then breathe into its 

 nostrils ' the breath of life.' ' Did infi- 

 nitesimal atoms flash into living tissues.' 

 Certainly no physiologist with a competent 

 knowledge of histology could believe in any 

 such mode of creation! On the other hand, 

 every one that could exercise the necessary 

 skill could follow the evolution of an animal 

 from an undifferentiated protoplasmic mass 

 into a perfect animal. A clutch of eggs 

 could be successively taken from a mother 

 hen or a hatching oven, and day after day 

 the actual evolution of the undifferentiated 

 matter into derivative functional parts could 

 be followed. That which is true of the hen 

 is true of man, only in the latter case it is 

 more difficult to obtain the requisite ma- 

 terial, and greater skill to use it is requisite. 

 Compare the embryos developing in the 

 hen and human eggs and at first no differ- 

 ence except size and environment can be 

 perceived. Compare them in successive 

 stages, and adult animals more or less 

 parallel to some early stages may be found 

 still living or entombed in earlier forma- 

 tions of the earth in fossilized form. 



It was argued that no one had ever seen 

 one species turn into another! But is it not 

 a matter of historical evidence that many 

 breeds of domestic animals have actually 

 been developed by the agency of man and 

 propagate their kind? And how are sucla 

 breeds distinguished from species except by 

 the fact that we know their origin, and that 

 they have come into prominence through 

 selection by man rather than by Nature? 

 Interbreeding is no criterion. 



But it is unnecessary to go into details, 

 and these hints are offered only beeause their 

 bearings on the subject were so generally 

 overlooked by those who opposed evolution. 

 One opponent, so eminent as to be styled 

 the ' Pope ' of a great Protestant Church, 



published a work against evolution, largely 

 based on the contention that the existence 

 of the eye, except through direct creation, 

 was inconceivable! Yet this very evolution 

 of' the eye from simple protoplasm could 

 have been witnessed at any time with little 

 trouble in the hen's egg ! Is evolution 

 through great reaches of time more incon- 

 ceivable than actual evolution capable of 

 daily observation? 



Well and skillfully did Huxley meet the 

 arguments against evolution. Even most 

 of the old naturalists sooner or later recog- 

 nized the force of the arguments for, and the 

 weakness of those against, evolution. Those 

 who did not in time gave up the contest 

 with their lives. The young who later en- 

 tered into the field of investigation have 

 done so as evolutionists. 



It is interesting to recall that the illus- 

 trious American (Prof. Dana) who recently 

 departed so full of years and honors, and of 

 whom you have heard from a former 

 speaker (Major Powell) to-night, at length, 

 in the full maturity of his intellect, accepted 

 unconditionally the doctrine of evolution 

 and dexterously applied it in his last great 

 work. 



III. 



Darwin, in his Origin of Species, had re- 

 frained Irom direct allusion to man in con- 

 nection with evolution and many casual 

 readers were doubtless left in uncertainty 

 as to his ideas on the subject. Naturally, 

 the scientific man recognized that the origin 

 of his kind from a primate stock followed, 

 and believed that Darwin's reticence was 

 probably due to a desire to disturb popular 

 beliefs as little as possible. When we recall 

 what strange views were held respecting 

 man's origin and relations we can under- 

 stand how the unlearned could easily fail to 

 recognize that man must follow in the chain 

 of his fellow creatures. (We preserve crea- 

 ture still as a reminiscence of ancient belief, 



