SCIENCE. 



307 



And yet these forces or powers fashion the germ and 

 cause it to be like its predecessors, or modify its charac- 

 ter and cause it to give rise to forms perhaps not before 

 attained. With what shall these forces of the living 

 world, operating so marvellously upon infinitesimal par- 

 ticles of matter, be compared ? The changes have been 

 likened to those which take place in the formation of crys- 

 tals, which can be dissolved and caused to re-form as 

 often as we choose ; to the aggregation of particles of 

 lifeless matter which can be made to separate or aggre- 

 gate as we will ; to machines which are made by us in 

 separate pieces and afterwards put together ; and to many 

 other things between which and living particles there is 

 not the faintest resemblance or the slightest analogy. 

 Uninquiring, unthinking persons have been, and are at 

 this time, misled by crude and false comparisons, and 

 deceived by forced and fancied analogies. The coarse 

 materialism of our day ought long ago to have been dis- 

 missed with scorn as unworthy of the age in which we 

 live, and of the acceptance of any one who would not 

 disgrace himself by helping to force thought back again 

 to the point it had reached more than two thousand years 

 ago. 



No one acquainted with the facts of vital change can 

 doubt that phenomena of the same order as those in op- 

 eration to-day attended the development of primeval 

 forms of life. For not only do we meet with living matter 

 producing the same structures as existed during early 

 periods, but it is probable that some of the living things 

 now growing and multiplying are identical with some 

 that existed in the very dawn of life-history. Unbroken 

 continuity, descent, derivation, in operation through the 

 ages without change in power or property, or alteration 

 in form or composition ; repetition wi'hout gain or exalt- 

 ation ; continuous descent without degradation or improve- 

 ment ; monotonous succession without progression or 

 advancing evolution. Nevertheless, we are expected to 

 accept the dictum that amid these myriads of myriads of 

 similar organisms, here and there one more fortunate or 

 more gifted than the rest — we are not told why, when, or 

 how — became endowed with the marvellous power of 

 endless modification. We are asked to believe that rigid 

 laws uniformly operating with the same consequences, for 

 ages, suddenly changed, and that long-imposed uniform- 

 ity gave place to capability of differentiation. But if we 

 try to realize what, according to the terms of the hypoth- 

 esis must have happened in the living matter, into what 

 a sea of fantastic conjecture do we plunge ! The new or 

 modified powers must have originated in or emanated 

 from particles in the very centre of minute living spher- 

 ules. When we consider the minuteness and insignifi- 

 cance as far as the mere matter is concerned, of the living 

 particles we are referring to, many will, I think, be in- 

 clined to admit that it is at least as probable that new 

 forms of living matter of this infinitesimal minuteness 

 originated anew, as that forces which had been in opera- 

 tion for ages, under inexorable unchanging laws, were 

 entirely and suddenly changed or removed, and replaced 

 or supplemented by additional and very different forces 

 obeying very different laws. 



Moreover, as no direct or positive evidence of a reliable 

 character has yet been obtained in favor of the direct 

 conversion of non-living matter of any kind into a living 

 form, while there is nothing to indicate that the passage 

 from the non-living to the living was effected by gradual 

 change, as has been suggested by some, it is as reasona- 

 ble to assume that several infinitesimal life-forms with 

 very different powers of development sprang at once into 

 life, though the ultimate form to be assumed was post- 

 poned for ages, as that one single living form only was 

 so formed with the power bo:h of endless monotonous 

 repetition, as well as of infinite and never-ceasing capac- 

 ity of variation and change, one or other of these oppo- 

 site attributes being accidentally exercised or capriciously 

 taken advantage of by such of the descendants as were 



assured that they were above all the most fitted to sur- 

 vive. 



Doctrines of evolution are, no doubt, an advance upon 

 the direct mechanical formation of fully formed organ- 

 isms hypothesis; but although some evolutionists have 

 so expressed themselves as to lead us to infer that an 

 idea so absured as the above had been entertained, it 

 need scarcely be said the inference is their own and 

 totally unfounded, suggested by themselves for the satis- 

 faction of ridiculing it and exposing its inferiority to their 

 own hypothesis. No doctrine of evolution yet put for- 

 ward seems to afford any help to those who are familiar 

 with the characters of the living matter of different or- 

 ganisms, as far as these can be elucidated by any means 

 at present known. Evolutionists generally do not take 

 cognizance of the difficulties which are so patent to 

 microscopical observers. Some of them have hardly 

 condescended to notice the living matter, out of which 

 and by which all the forms of life they profess to account 

 for are developed. It is true that it has been suggested 

 that there are structural differences in the apparently 

 similar manner, which structural differences result in the 

 production of such dissimilar beings ; but speculations 

 concerning hypothetical structure are as futile as those 

 which deal with the hypothetical form and properties of 

 the hypothetical inhabitants of Jupiter. 



All living matter is, I repeat, structureless, and it is to 

 the power rather than to the mere matter we must look 

 for the explanation of the marvellous differences in the 

 beings evolved by different kinds. The similarity of 

 various embryos of different animals has often been al- 

 luded to, and it has been said, for example, that at a cer- 

 tain period of development the embryo of man could not 

 be distinguished from that of a dog. That there is a gen- 

 eral rough resemblance is perfectly true, but, on the 

 other hand, any one who examined the minute structure 

 of corresponding tissues and organs, would not find the 

 likeness so great as is supposed, while he would be 

 struck with a great number of points of difference. Not 

 one structure could be found in any part of one embryo 

 which did not exhibit peculiarities by which it could be 

 distinguished. It would, therefore, scientifically be more 

 correct to say that the embryos were not like otie another, 

 than that they were like. But any argument based upon 

 the likeness, if it existed, would noc help the evolutionist, 

 inasmuch as the '■ likeness " is far greater at an earlier 

 stage of existence, before any form or structure whatever 

 has appeared. Every living form comes from an equally 

 structureless material, and the forms near one another 

 in the scale are not more like one another than they are 

 like forms far above or far below them. If, for example, 

 the evolutionist would examine embryonic living matter 

 at a very early period of development, he would discover 

 not only that man and dog were not to be distinguished, 

 but that not one form of living matter could be distin- 

 guished from any other form in nature ; nay, the living 

 matter which might become dog or man could not be 

 identified by any means at our disposal, or distinguished 

 from that which belonged to amoeba or plant, and yet it 

 is put forward as a discovery of recent date that certain 

 properties manifested by the tissues of animals also 

 characterize some of those plants. 



But after all, the assumed likeness is but a likeness in 

 certain general points, and those who wish us to draw 

 certain conclusions from their statements, ought to be 

 asked to point out how it is that every cell, every issue of 

 the embryos they regard as being alike or identical, 

 exhibits peculiarities and individual characteristics of its 

 own as regards elementary arrangement, rapidity of 

 formation, rate of growth, duration of existence, and a 

 number of other points. Again, the statements about 

 the changes occurring during development in the lower 

 animals being represented by identical changes occuring 

 during the earlier periods of development in the higher, 

 are correct only when taken in a very rough and general 



