cabbage and spinach; that kelp-weed and tangle burgeoned into oaks and willows; and that slack, rope-weed, and green-raw, shot up into mangel-wurzel, rye-grass and clover." 1 And all this-in Mr. Darwin's opinion"does not seem incredible." There must have been-we have his word for it-"a series of forms graduating insensibly from some apelike creature to man as he now exists." 2 How to derive the "ape-like creature" himself? By a similar process :-" a series of forms graduating insensibly" from a tadpole to a monkey. The Ape is the immediate, but the Ascidian is the remote progenitor of the genus Homo. And these Ascidians, which "resemble tadpoles in shape, and swim by means of a vibratile tail, which they shake off when they quit the larva state and assume the sessile condition," "have been recently placed, by some naturalists, among the Vermes or worms." As to the ape-like creature,— "Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant 1 "Footprints of the Creator," p. 226. of the old world." And again :-"The early progenitors of man were no doubt well covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles. The males were provided with great canine teeth, which served them as formidable weapons." Then as to the Ape's descent from his Ascidian ancestor :— "The most ancient progenitors in the Kingdom of the Vertebrata at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals, resembling the larvæ of existing Ascidians. These animals probably gave rise to a group of fishes, as lowly organized as the Lancelet ; and from these the Ganoids and other fishes like the Lepidosiren, must have been developed. From such fish a very small advance would carry us on to the amphibians. Birds and reptiles were once intimately connected together, and the Monotremata now, in a slight degree, connect mammals with reptiles. But no one can at present say by what line of descent the three higher and 1 "Descent of Man," vol. ii. p. 389. related classes, namely, mammals, birds, and reptiles, were derived from either of the two lower vertebrate classes, namely amphibians and fishes. In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental animals. We may thus ascend to the Lemurida; and the interval is not wide from these to the Simiadæ. The Simiadæ then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded. If a single link in this chain had never existed, what he now is. man would not have been Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognize our parentage, nor need we feel ashamed of it."1 "If a single link in this chain had never existed"! Why, even as Mr. Darwin has imagined it, it is not a chain at all. There is no continuity of concatenation. Even its very first link has to be imagined. And even when it has been imagined it is found to consist-not really, not demonstrably, but 1 "Descent of Man," vol. i. pp. 212, 213. P only-" apparently" "of a group of marine animals." Of this group we have no other view than a mere "glance," " an obscure glance." But this first link, even when on the strength of an obscure glance it has been pronounced "apparent," is still not even apparently" connected with any other. The connection required by the hypothesis-very far indeed from being "apparent"-is "probable" only. "These animals probably gave rise to a group of fishes," "and from these the Ganoids and other fishes must have been developed." But why."must have been?" there is no sort of necessity except that which is due to the exigencies of the theory. "From such fish a very small advance would carry us on to the amphibians." Possibly but this very small advance is not to be had. Mr. Darwin's argument is made by himself to depend on the strength of his "chain"; and the strength of his chain is precisely that of its weakest link. But before all questions of strength there must be the prior fact of existence. Chains are made not by an aggregation of detached links, but by their continuity of concatenation. "A very small advance,”possibly but to advance at all without the aid of the missing link, is to abandon the pretence of a chain. Yet this is precisely Mr. Darwin's chosen mode of progression. "In the class of mammals," he tells us, "the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental animals." In this theory of Ascensive Development "the steps" are every thing. But where are they? Their discovery is hopeless, their demonstration is impossible; no matter they "are not difficult to conceive"! "We may thus ascend to the Lemurida." "Thus" by steps which cannot be found; steps on which no one ever stood; but still, steps which Mr. Darwin finds it "not difficult to conceive." And then: "from these to the Simiada" "the interval is not wide." So be it but however it be, it is nothing to the purpose. That which is to the purpose is not the width, but the fact of "the interval." And this fact of "the interval" is attested by Mr. Darwin himself. And with this "interval” before him, and these aerial "steps," and these appearances which are apparent" only to "an obscure glance," Mr. Darwin can so far overlook the obvious and actual, in his zeal for the ideal and imaginary, as to say-" If a single link in this chain had never existed!" |