EMBRYOLOGY 147 



essentially different; and, therefore, neither embryos 

 nor adults could have had a common ancestor. This, 

 I think, is the correct conclusion from these facts. 



The conclusion which the evolutionist draws is 

 based upon a mere seeming and very transient resem- 

 blance, while the fact that the two embryos are essen- 

 tially unlike is shown by the vast distance apart at 

 which they arrive by development. 



If, therefore, the theory of evolution is true, embry- 

 ology cannot serve to establish its truth. 



Romanes regards it as " the most important of the 

 lines of evidence " to establish the theory. 



I have already given what evolutionists regard as 

 the chief law of embryology in relation to evolution, 

 namely, that the embryo of the individual is a reca- 

 pitulation of the process of evolution of the class 

 to which it belongs. 



If we try to apply this rule to the evolution of man, 

 we will find it extremely defective. His ancestral line 

 might, according to the theory of evolution, have 

 been something like the following: — undifferentiated 

 protoplasm, differentiated protoplasm in the form of 

 plant cells, Protozoa, Mollusks, Worms, Amphioxus, 

 Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Ornithorhinchus, Marsu- 

 pial, Placental Mammal, Lemur, Monkey, Anthropo- 

 morphous Ape, and Man. 



Taking this ancestral line and comparing it to the 

 embryo of man, we would be obliged to strike out all 

 of the line up to Fish, also Amphibian, Ornithorhin- 

 chus, or Monotreme, and Marsupial. 



Why should the whole first half of the history of 

 evolution be not even hinted at in the epitome? and 

 why should the Monotreme and the Marsupial be 

 totally forgotten? while the remembrance of all the 

 others is so jumbled together that we cannot tell 

 whether or not the historian would remember any one 



