18770 
and the Evolution Hypothesis. 
527 
ditions of the earth’s surface were different in the past from 
what they are now. And yet, concerning the ex a 61 nature 
of these differences, or the degree in which the different sets 
of- conditions would respectively favour the occurrence or 
arrest of an evolution of living matter, Prof. Huxley cannot 
possess even the vaguest knowledge. Pie chooses to assume 
that the unknown condition existing in the past were more 
favourable to Archebiosis than those now in operation. 
This, however, is a mere assumption which may be entirely 
opposed to fadts. It is useless, of course, to argue upon 
such a subject, but still it might fairly be said, in opposition 
to his view of the impotency of present telluric conditions, 
that the abundance of dead organic matter now existing in a 
state of solution would seem to afford a much more easy 
starting-point for life-evolution than could have existed in 
that remote past, when no living matter had previously 
been formed, and consequently when no dead organic mat- 
ter thence derived could have been diffused over the earth’s 
surface. (This is a consideration of great importance ; 
since those who believe that Archebiosis occurs in organic 
solutions at the present day have not yet professed to show 
that it can occur in saline solutions free from traces of 
organic matter.) 
“ Professor Pluxley is, however, very inconsistent, since, in 
spite of his declared expectation of witnessing the evolution 
of living from lifeless matter, if it were given him to look 
beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time, he had said 
scarcely five minutes before, in reference to experimental 
evidence bearing upon t.ie present occurrence of a similar 
process, that ‘ if, in the present state of Science, the alter- 
native is offered us, either germs can stand a greater heat 
than has been supposed, or the molecules of dead matter, 
for no valid or intelligible reason that is assigned, are able 
to re-arrange themselves in living bodies, exactly such as 
can be demonstrated to he frequently produced in another 
way, I cannot understand how choice can be, even for a 
moment, doubtful.’ ” 
The inconsistency pointed out by Dr. Bastian is undoubt- 
edly very apparent. Whether Professors Tyndall and Hux- 
ley accept the law of Archebiosis for the past and rejedt it 
for the present, or, vice versa, they are equally inconsistent. 
Spontaneous generation is either a law of nature, or it is 
not. Imaginary telluric conditions in the ages that pre- 
ceded geologically recorded time could not affedt the ques- 
tion, which must depend on the immutable properties of matter. 
To those who do not believe in the present occurrence of 
