243 
is a high road from London to Dover, and at the end of the Admiralty 
Pier at Dover it is continued to Kome. No doubt, the Admiralty Pier 
shows an intention of getting to France ; but the road ceases there, and we 
must look for some other means of getting to the Continent. So it is with 
regard to what w r e see in nature, where we find everywhere evidence of chains, 
and then gaps. These things undoubtedly point to unity of purpose, but 
not to unity of origin. Therefore, I think that a paper like this is valuable, 
because it points out one of these gaps, which it certainly lies w r ith the pro- 
pounders of the evolution-theory to get over. It is not sufficient to say there 
is such an immense difference between the lowest savage who makes a rude 
flint tool and the forger of a modern cannon. This, I repeat, is not enough. 
You must show how to get over the gap betwen the animal, however intelli- 
gent, that has not made nor used a tool, and the man, however unintelligent, 
who has. There are plenty of things which equally mark material 
physiological differences. Supposing the doctrine of development to be true, 
there are these curious questions : — How is it conceivable that a simple 
circulation of the blood becomes more and more complex ? How, where you 
have a given and simple form of heart, is it developed into the fourfold 
heart of the upper and superior animals ? It is almost impossible to conceive 
how one can become two, two become three, and three become four. This 
illustration may serve to bring out more forcibly the question as to how a 
non-toolmaking animal can become a tool- making animal. There is no 
sign or trace of any such thing having ever happened. It may be true, as 
Professor Huxley has said, that “ no absolute structural line of demarcation, 
wider than that between the animals which immediately succeed us in the 
scale, can be drawn between the animal world and ourselves.” This may 
be perfectly true, but then the w r ord “ wider ” covers a somewhat wide gap. 
For example, there are the wide gaps that exist between the lower animals 
— gaps almost as great as that which we find between the ape and the man. 
I do not say quite so great, but certainly quite as awkward to get over. 
Therefore, there is a hidden depth of meaning in that one word “ wider,” to 
which I would call the attention of those who are prepared to accept the 
doctrine of evolution. I am not prepared to say that evolution is not con- 
ceivable ; but I do say that there is no known process of nature which can 
carry out the whole process from beginning to end. And even if we could 
conceive evolution, we should still require to know how to get over these 
gaps. If there has been evolution, which I am not prepared to assert or 
to deny, it requires a distinctively creative act to bridge over these gaps, — a 
creative gap as distinct as a fresh creation of new animals. It is these gaps, 
the existence of which are so studiously ignored by those who are popularising 
the doctrine of evolution, that ought always to be kept fully in mind by 
those who really wish to arrive at any sound and scientific conclusion upon 
this matter. (Hear.) 
Mr. T. K. Callard, F.G.S. — About the middle of the paper, reference 
is made to the progress of the anthropoid ape until he reached that stage in 
