EMBRYOLOGY 149 



The claim that the history of the embryo is an 

 epitome of the history of the ancestral line, is an 

 assumption, for the evident reason that we do not 

 know what the ancestral line was. We must know 

 what the history itself is before we can assert that 

 this or that is an epitome of that history. 



If we assume evolution as a fact, then we may 

 assert the existence of the epitome, but if we deny 

 that evolution has taken place, then we deny the pos- 

 sibility of an epitome. To assert the existence of the 

 epitome is to assume the fact of evolution, and conse- 

 quently the supposed epitome cannot be proof of the 

 fact of evolution which it assumes. 



Embryology, instead of confirming the truth of evo- 

 lution, stands waiting at the door of evolution for its 

 own confirmation. 



We are told that the embryos of all vertebrates at 

 a certain stage have gill-arches. My answer to this is 

 that the embryo man with gill-arches is just as differ- 

 ent from the embryo fish with gill-arches as is the 

 full-grown man from the full-grown fish. Embryo 

 man with gill-arches is still man, and if we can read 

 the lesson within it, we will find that this embryo 

 man points upward to adult man with all of his mar- 

 velous powers of mind, and not downward to some- 

 thing infinitely below him. The human embryo is 

 produced by human beings only, and whatever may 

 be its microscopic appearance, it is at every stage of 

 its development strictly human. It does not at any 

 time point to the fish as its ancestor, but at every step 

 points to man, as is shown by the final results of 

 development. 



Embryology, as applied to evolution, fails, in that it 

 deals only with the surface of things. It accepts 

 microscopic resemblances as an explanation of the 



