CHAPTER II.

MAN'S PHYSICAL NATURE.

How does the foregoing theory stand related to the origin of man's physical nature? Does it furnish a satisfactory answer to the question, Whence came the human body? Is this garment of the soul the result of an evolution from less complex organisms?

The theory, however successful elsewhere, is a conspicuous failure when it assays the task of explaining man's origin. To affirm that the human family, a new species, has been developed by the transmutation of previously existing species, is an infelicitous mode of expression, it being difficult to assign any reason why the term species should be employed: if the hypothesis be true, it is apparently impossible to determine when the manifestation of the old specific form ceased and that of the new began. Why say, "Man's progenitor was some species of monkey," if the latter by insensible gradations glided into the former? This destroys the idea of species. If the changes pertain to individuals, they cannot be considered as proving the mutation of species.

Admitting that by care in the selection of individuals, a few more feathers can be developed in the tail of a pigeon, as Darwin succeeded in producing, does this prove that man owes his origin to some lower organism? Conceding that the lion has been slightly improved during the last two or three thousand years by the survival

of the fittest or by the inherent power of species, does it follow that the first man was the son of an ape? Admitting that mackerel have become larger and better adapted to wage warfare with their enemies, does this furnish any evidence that the moneron was the primeval parent of the human family? Does it even prove that mackerel were evolved from an inferior organism? or that they will eventually evolve a new and improved organic form?

If species are mutable, why do we fail in discovering evidences that changes have taken place during the period covered by history? The bee has been industriously engaged in extracting sweetness from flowers since the days of Aristotle. The ant, ever since Solomon recommended its example to the sluggard, has been practicing building, and hoarding provisions against a time of need. There is no evidence that either has acquired a single new organ, or has more perfectly developed organs previously possessed in rudimentary form, or has unfolded new instincts from potential germs. Egypt, in its mummies as well as in its paintings, has preserved for us a museum of natural history whose specimens were collected thirty centuries ago; and yet in no respect do they differ from species now existing.

We are asked to believe that the ape-tribe developed new organs, highly intellectual faculties, and even moral perceptions; and yet, though man has been striving after new powers for thousands of years, there is no evidence that he has acquired new faculties, or developed new organs; not one single channel has been opened, no new perception has been gained, not one of the five senses has become more extended in its range; nay, even the simial family has lost the power of improvement, having remained stationary for the last thirty centuries. Add

to this the fact that there is abundant evidence that all organisms have remained substantially the same since the earliest historical period, and it seems incredible that the gorilla should be the ancestor of the human family.

It is assumed that the ape-family, and every species of plants and animals, possesses an innate tendency to improve; this is sometimes pronounced "spontaneous,' sometimes it is called "an accidental variability." The existence of the law has not been proved, however, but assumed. Are we not justified in asserting,―The existence of such a law should be established before sweeping deductions are made therefrom; at least stronger arguments should be presented than those which connect themselves with Natural Selection, which, for all that appears to the contrary, may be nothing more than an agency which accumulates and preserves slight increments of improvement, but is poweriess in producing them, leaving the problem of favorable variations unsolved. Hypothesis, unless it harmonizes with the facts and furnishes a consistent and reasonable explanation, ought not to be regarded as having attained to the dignity of a theory.

For anything that has been satisfactorily shown, these improvements may be due to reversion, that is, the regain, of lost characters. The struggle for existence, which is pronounced severe, may cause degeneration. Under domestication, or under more favorable conditions in nature, there may be a recovery of lost qualities. This explains the facts as well as Darwinism explains them, perhaps better; and it destroys the basis of the assumption that improvement may continue indefinitely. A limit exists. Darwin admits that characters which have been lost may lie in the organism for thousands of gener

ations with their powers of redevelopment undiminished, and that under favoring circumstances there is a gradual and constant improvement, an approach towards the lost type.* It would seem, therefore, that neither improvement nor the preceding degeneration is necessarily due either to selection or to an innate tendency. Advance may result from the presence of conditions favorable to improvement; degeneration, from the absence of such conditions. Darwin concedes that the latter has taken place on a very extended scale, having invaded every known species. He seems even to have concluded that all improvements may be results of reversion.

Nor is evidence wanting that reversion is a law similar to well known laws. There is in nature the power of reparation, even to the extent of reproducing a lost member. A crystal, when one of its edges has been broken off, if placed in a solution similar to that in which it was first formed, will reproduce its lost edge, repairing its integrity. Until the edge is reproduced there is an imperfect equilibrium of forces. Would it be correct to say, The improvement of the crystal is limitless?

Since this progressive development is a virtual destruction of species, as Darwin's theory of pangenesis is a destruction of individuals, it seems easier to accept the Scriptural account, which, however distasteful, is apparently environed with fewer difficulties.

It is contended, however, that long periods are a necessary factor in these transmutations, the difficulties being diminished or removed by the assumption of an indefinite period through which improvements have been accumulating. How four hundred millions of years could

*Origin of Species, pp. 160-161. He affirms on page 161, "It must generally be left doubtful what cases are reversions to a formerly existing character, and what are new and analogous variations."

aid in removing the difficulty is not easy to see. If it has not been proved that within the historical era any species has passed beyond the barriers which separate it from allied species, there is assuredly little evidence that the mere lapse of centuries would effect any marvelous transformations. Moreover, there is a strong probability (quite as strong as the presumption that species are mutable) that the earth has not been adapted to animal life for millions of years-probably not even for a million, a period far too brief, evolutionists would think, for the changes which have occurred.

In order to account for the phenomena, the theory in question is under the necessity of attributing an almost prescient intelligence to the ape-family; for how else shall we explain the development of human organs during their incipient stages? And even the highest intelligence conceivable seems inadequate to account for changes which, during their progress, and until the transformation was nearly or quite complete, must have been positively detrimental. During the entire period that the fore-feet of the gorilla were developing into hands, he must have been less perfectly fitted to his previous mode of life, and as yet but ill adapted to even the lowest savage-life. In like manner, it is nearly impossible to conceive that he should have possessed intelligence sufficient to perceive the advantages ultimately to arise from assuming a more erect position; and unless he foresaw these advantages, and in fact deliberately decided on present self-denial for the sake of advantages to his posterity, we are forced to adopt some other explanation quite as unreasonable, chance or an innate power unconsciously evincing superior intelligence. Mr. Darwin, perhaps from long experience, seems able to conjure up a personal principle under the term, "Nature," which is