CHAPTER VI.

SOPHISMS.

"No stability in the foundation, no continuity in the superstructure"; "a flimsy framework of hypothesis, constructed on imaginary facts." If any one imagines that this is the language of exaggeration or romance, let him turn to the twenty-second chapter of Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation," where he will find a complete and circumstantial history of human ancestry in twenty-two stages of existence, from the unicellular Monera up to the perfect man. The theory of man's ape-descent thus constructed is perfect—but it is in the air. It lacks but one thing to give it relevance: and that one thing is reality. Like the "châteaux en Espagne" of the penniless Count, it exists only in the interested imagination of the pretender.

Du Bois Reymond has incurred the bitter and unappeasable wrath of Haeckel by declaring this genealogical tree (Stammbaum) to be as authentic in the eyes of a naturalist, as are

the pedigrees of the Homeric heroes in those of an historian. And no wonder; for, unauthentic and unreal as they are, they are indispensable. Without them the theory of evolution has no pretence to " continuity." But with their aid, although the continuity which they confer is still in nubibus, the argument is rounded with the completeness of a circle. What are the proofs of man's descent from the ape? The facts of ontogenesis1 and phylogenesis and their correspondence. Where are these facts enumerated? In the twenty-second chapter of Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation." What is the authority for these facts? Chiefly this: that they are necessitated by the exigencies of the theory. But where is the demonstrative evidence, direct or indirect, that any creatures representing these twenty-two imaginary stages ever existed? In the majority of instances there is no such evidence; but they "must have existed," otherwise the theory would be imperfect.

For example, the Monera, according to Haeckel, are our earliest "ancestors;" and of these it is stated, as if it were a plain historical

1 Ontogenesis, the history of individual development. Phylogenesis, the history of genealogical development Biogenesis, the history of life development generally. (Haeckel.)

fact, that "they originated about the beginning of the Laurentian period, by archebiosis or spontaneous generation," from "so-called inorganic compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen." 1 After what has been already said of spontaneous generation, it is almost superfluous to add that this assertion about our earliest "ancestors" is not only destitute, it is also incapable, of proof. And yet the fundamental law (Grundgesetz) of ontogenesis absolutely requires it.

Again. In his Munich Address, Haeckel repeats the trite old tale ("as if it had not been a hundred times blown into the 'infinite azure"") that "the Monera, consisting of protoplasm only, bridge over the deep chasm between. organic and inorganic nature, and show us how the simplest and oldest organisms must have originated from inorganic carbon compounds." Whereas, on the contrary, the simple fact is that the Monera bridge over nothing whatever; nor do they show, in any conceivable way, how life has originated from inorganic compounds. Chemically and dynamically the protoplasm of

1 "Naturliche Schöpfungsgeschichte," p. 578. * Vide sup., p. 50 et seqq., especially p. 59.

"Die Heutige Entwickelungslehre im Verhältnisse zur Gesammtwissenschaft," p. 13.

these apparently simple organisms is just as far removed from inorganic matter as is the protoplasm of the lion or the eagle.

Of another important group of "ancestors," the Gastreada, we are told that it "must have existed in the primordial time, and must have included amongst its members the direct ancestors of man." No one ever saw a single individual of this group; that is a matter of course. It is equally a matter of course that no traces are to be found of its existence. But the "certain proof" of that existence is supposed to be found in the fact that the Amphioxus, at one period of its development, presents a type similar to that of-of what? Of the imaginary Gastræa whose existence had to be proved! Our ancestors, the worms, come next; and, like their predecessors, they "must have existed," because without them we should be at a loss how to derive higher worms, and the articulata generally.

Professor Huxley, summarizing and reviewing this volume of Haeckel's, is careful to express his "entire concurrence with the general tenor and spirit of the work," and his "high estimate of its value." Of the particular por

1 "Naturliche Schöpfungsgeschichte," p. 581.

26 Critiques and Addresses." Macmillan, 1873, p. 319.

tion now under review, he says, "In Professor Haeckel's speculation on Phylogeny, or the genealogy of animal forms, there is much that is profoundly interesting, and his suggestions are always supported by sound knowledge and great ingenuity. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, one feels that he has forced the mind into lines of thought in which it is more profitable to go wrong than to stand still.

"To put his views into a few words, he conceives that all forms of life originally commenced as Monera, or simple particles of protoplasm; and that these Monera originated from not living matter. Some of the Monera acquired tendencies towards the Protistic, others towards the Vegetal, and others towards the Animal modes of life. The last became animal Monera. Some of the animal Monera acquired a nucleus, and became amoeba-like creatures; and out of certain of these, ciliated infusoriumlike animals were developed. These became modified into two stirpes: A, that of the worms; and B, that of the sponges. The latter by progressive modification gave rise to all the Cælenterata; the former to all other animals. But A soon broke up into two principal stirpes, of which one, a, became the root of the Anne

G