Evolution Arguments Analyzed

—

Evolution Arguments Analyzed

BY ROBERT C. WEBB

[The fourth of a series of articles written for the Era by the author, on allied subjects. Each article is complete in itself, but students should read the whole series. Editors.]

As already insisted, the so-called "doctrine" of evolution, which is to say, the theory of descent, by which, eggwise, all living things emerge gradually from an assumed simple, one-celled ancestor, according to the process of "cosmic gestation," is properly speaking a conclusion of philosoph cal speculation rather than :

one of scientific demonstration. It is, in fact, essentially philosophy, such as it is, and its tendencies most closely approximate what, in ancient times, was described by the term "hylozoism," which is to say, the assumption that the world in its ultimate material is living, and that all life-forms are its offspring. Thus, allthe phenomena of life, even life itself, considered even as a "mode of energy," are to be explained on the basis of facts existing in, or supposed to exist in, nature. In spite of the fact that this is positively not a demonstrated "datum" of science, and is to be accounted for, as a theory, solely by the inborn tendency of some minds to exaggerate the significance of the familiar and "commonplace" into what philosophers term "materialism," it is argued repeatedly in the writings of such men as Huxley and Haeckel, and thus allowed to be classed as "scientific." For example, Huxley argues that "the fundamental proposition of evolut on" involves that "the whole world, living and not living, :

is the result of the mutual interaction, according to definite laws,

of the forces possessed by the molecules of which the primitive nebulos ty of the universe was composed." : (Genealogy of Animals). To the same effect, Professor Haeckel, with his characteristic zeal and "cock-sureness," does not hesitate to state that "the monera, consisting only of protoplasm (i. e., devoid of the nucleus which characterizes the organic cell), bridge over the deep chasm between organic and inorganic nature, and show how the simplest and oldest organisms must have originated from inorganic carbon compounds." (Heutige Entwickclungslchre, etc.) Of course, no one having the faintest comprehension of the meanings of words could hesitate to class such statements as good examples of "materialistic atheism." It cannot but surprise us, however, to find that even this unsugared and nauseating

: —

26 IMPROVEMENT ERA "bolus" has been swallowed with all apparent relish by numerous professing Christian writers, who have, thereupon, erected the. modern acceptable dogma of "immanent deity," as opposed to the thought of a God in any sense transcendent to, or separate from His creation, and have gravely informed us that the "concepts" of God, as found in the Old Testament, can no longer be accepted. Indeed, one "Christian thinker" recently produced a book of "theological readjustments," in which he did not hesitate to say that the deity considered as separate from creation should be conducted to the confines of the universe, and "politely given his conge," which is to say, courteously banished. Of course, while the idea of the "divine immanence" is an essential doctrine of Christianity, as of all true religious thinking, the fact remains that to deny His transcendence, as our modern "new lights" actually do, means precisely atheism and pantheism. Nor has this sophistical tendency even the virtue of superior comprehensibility it ;

does not, as claimed, make the idea of God any more real, or His presence any more obvious. Such conclusions as the above are bad enough in themselves, because of their logical unsoundness, not to mention the wholly unscientific nature of the thought tendency which bases them, but, even with this concession to absurdity, it would be unnecessary to attack the groundwork of the evolution hypothesis, were it not for the further corollaries of the most unscientific, indefensible and obnoxious description touching human nature, its origin, history, significance and ultimate destiny. And in the miserably sophistical and utterly unscientific fabric of what we may term the "new anthropology," the foolish excesses of the so-called "higher criticism" of the Bible, which is primarily a corollary to the new perverse method of interpreting, or rather of dogmatising about, human history, are only a small part of the total befuddlement of current thinking on vital subjects. We may, however, take cour- — age from Schopenhauer's prophetic words as it proved on the : — then prevalent Hegelian obsess on, which also led to an attempted :

remodeling of all branches of human knowledge

"All this is in accordance with the age and must have its course. In every time some such thing occupies the contemporary public more or less noisily; then it dies off so completely, vanishes so entirely, without leaving a trace behind, that the next generation no longer knows what it was. Truth can bide its time, for it has a long life before it. * * * Truth depends upon no one's favor or disfavor, nor does it ask anyone's leave: it stands upon its own feet, and has Time for its ally; its power is irresistible, its life indestructible." Will in Nature: Introduction.

As already suggested, the evident assumption of our current philosophy is that nature, as the subject of scientific investigation, is the only real revelation of God. Tt is not remarkable, therefore,

:

EVOLUTION ARGUMENTS ANALYZED. 27

to find that its "interpretation" proceeds along the lines already too familiar with all other real or professed revelations. In the "interpretation" of the Bible, for example, as has been familiar from time immemorial, less effort has been expended in careful study to discover at what precise ideas the writers were attempting to argue than in the bald-faced practice of "read:ng-in," by which passages, sentences, phrases, torn from their contexts, and as forms of words, merely, have been used to support notions originated in the brains of the "eisegete" himself, and, with the most doubtful propriety to be attributed in any way to the scriptural writer quoted. Also, in how many cases, both in Biblical and in "heathen" literature has a mere "figure of speech," a trope, or literary embellishment, been taken as a literal statement of fact, and made the basis of great and significant doctrines But the !

Christian and "heathen" literary eisegetes of all ages have their counterparts among the "scientific" apologists, who — just as though human reason had not expanded and matured, in the mean- — time employ precisely similar methods in the interpretation of nature. Thus, the famous "five heads of evidence" familiar in evolutionary books, as embodying "complete proofs" of the evolution hypothesis, are precisely of the same variety of method as the crassest example of Biblical eisegesis. Nor, in considering them, as we now propose to do, is it necessary to reflect so much on the ultimate truth or untruth of the hypothesis in discussion as to decide whether these vaunted "evidences" establish it. Remembering that science can deal only with established and evident fact, or with such hypotheses and theories as are susceptible of demonstration, we may determine, also, whether we have to do in this instance with science or with philosophical speculation, whether, in short, the alleged conclusion is an inevitable corollary of the facts presented to our notice, or whether these same facts are not marshaled for the mere purpose of supporting an a priori assumption, just as passages of scripture have so often been impressed to the support of a gratuitous dogma, in the traditional process of "twisting texts to suit the sects." The five king-arguments for the support of the theory of evolution, understood to imply the derivation of all species of lifeforms by the process, as alleged, of "cosmic gestation," from the simplest possible original form, or forms, are, as follows I. The Argument from Classification, which asserts that the undoubted fact of the resemblances, which lie at the basis of the classification of living things into groups, larger and smaller, — more inclusive and less inclusive, phyla, classes, orders, genera, species and varieties— argue directly to derivative descent, through natural generation, from common types correspondingly remote, and correspondingly more "generalized" in structure, until the basic simplest structure is reached.

28 IMPROVEMENT ERA II. The Argument from Morphology, which claims to demonstrate the same community of origin by the similarity of structures, used for the same, for similar, or for varying purposes, in groups of life-forms, otherwise diverse. Thus, we find the fivefingered hand used for prehension in man and some other animals, appearing as the paddle of the whale, the wing frame of bats and birds, and, slightly modified by the loss of individual digits, etc., as the elastic supporting paws of the carnivora. We are reminded, also, that the skeletons of all vertebrates present complete homologies of structure in the number and positions of the several bones, and that all insects are composed of the same number of body segments. The argument that dissimilar structures, used for similar functions, such as the eyes of vertebrates, insects and molluscs (octopi, nautili, etc.,) is supposed to indicate the same conclusion with similar cogency, indicating independent side-lines of development. III. The Argument from Succession, which claims to demonstrate derivative descent, from lower to higher, from the fact that the life-forms found in the lower rock formations are simpler and lower structurally than those found in the higher, and that the higher forms, such as the mammals and the human species, did not appear, in the form of fossils preserved in the rock deposits, until very recent times geologically speaking. IV. The Argument from Geographical Distribution, which attempts to establish the same conclusions, on the basis of the variant forms to be found in the several quarters of the globe. Thus, certain forms and types of animals are confined to certain definite regions, and are to be found nowhere outside of them, and each continent has its distinctive fauna and flora, which serves to show that the divisions by oceans, etc., have persisted for ages, and that the lines of variation have been independent. This is particularly argued from the distinctive fauna of Australia and New Zealand, which differ very essentially from those of other world regions. V. The Argument from Embryology, which presents several alleged structural resemblances between the embryo of the higher animals and the mature forms of certain "lower" animals,, their presumed ancestors, thus making each individual really a "recapitulation" of his own ancestral, history. It must be remarked that these five "arguments" have been used since the early days of evolution controversy, and that they were framed primarily to controvert the opinions of those writers who denied the fact or possibility of variation under natural conditions of existence. When, however, as at the present time, thoughtful people generally are quite ready to admit that variation is both possible and actual in the state of nature, and demand only facts to demonstrate that it is a process of the widest significance,

:

EVOLUTION ARGUMENTS ANALYZED. 29

the essential inconclusiveness of several of these "arguments" cannot fail to be apparent. In accord with these observations, we shall find that, while the facts relative to geographical distribution may be hostile to the theory that all life-forms were produced by "special creation" in the regions which they inhabit, we still find no compelling evidence in the direction of any theory of a "continuous progressive change" from the simplest types upward, and, in several instances no warrant for believing in any modification of structure along definite lines. In the case of the Australian continent, for example, the distinctive character of its animal life is apparent, and, if judged by many facts, the theory that it has been separated from all other known lands from a very early period may be held to be established. But, as we find, its "antiquated animal forms" — — such as the marsupials and the monotremata have remained "antiquated," in spite of the fact that, dating from the day on which Australia was separated, presumably, from Papua, the Malay Archipelago, and the mainland of Asia, perhaps, such forms have elsewhere disappeared, and have been supplanted by "more highly organized" forms, derived, as we are told, from similarly "antiquated" ancestral stocks. In Australia, however, the "upward process" has been checked, and no further variations — have taken place none, at least, that have established new types of life-forms. Why this is the case we are not informed, but it certainly suggests that such changes as take place through variation are not to be credited to an internal force, or destiny, which gradually conforms the race to some predetermined type, in a manner analogous to the process by which the embryo inevitably matures into the "destined form" determined by its respective parentage. The cases of the marsupalia and monotremata are particularly interesting in this connection, since they are valuable "intercalary forms," anatomically suggestive of "incompleteness" and "transition." It is gratifying, however, that so zealous an advocate of evolution as Prof. Huxley should furnish us with a partial explanation of this very condition. He says in part of the several zoological regions of the ancient and modern worlds

"Now the truth which Mr. Darwin perceived and promulgated as the 'law of the succession of types' is, that in all these provinces, the animals found in Pliocene or later deposits are closely affined to those which now inhabit the same provinces; and that, conversely, the forms characteristic of other provinces are absent. North and South America, perhaps, present one or two exceptions to the last rule, but they are readily susceptible of explanation. Thus, in Australia, the later Tertiary mammals are marsupials (possibly with the exception of the Dog and a Rodent or two, as at present). In AustroColumbia (South America and Mexico) the later Tertiary fauna exhibits numerous and varied forms of Platyrrhine Apes, Rodents, Cats, Dogs, Stags, Edentata and Opossums; but, as at present, no

—

30 IMPROVEMENT ERA Catarrhine Apes, no Lemurs no Insectivora, Oxen, Antelopes, Rhinoceroses, nor Didelphia other than Opossums. And in the widespread Arctogeal province (North America, Europe, etc.), the Pliocene and later mammals belong to the same groups as those which now exist in the province. The law of succession of types, therefore, holds good for the present epoch as compared with its predecessor. * * * "But it is very remarkable that while the Miocene fauna of the Arctogeal province, as a whole, is of the same character as the existing fauna of the same province, as a whole, the component elements of the fauna were differently associated. In the Miocene epoch, North America possessed Elephants, Horses, Rhinoceroses, and a great number and variety of Ruminants and Pigs, which are absent in the present indigenous fauna; Europe had its Apes, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tapirs, Musk-deer, Giraffes, Hyenas, great Cats, Edentates, and Opossum-like Marsupials, which have equally vanished from its present fauna; and in Northern India, the African types of Hippopotamuses, Giraffes, and Elephants were mixed up with what are now the Asiatic types of the latter, and with Camels and Semnopithecine and Pithicine Apes of no less distinctly Asiatic forms." Paleontology and the Doctrine of Evolution.

Huxley traces similar correspondences in the Eocene formations, so far as they were available to him, and concludes that the evidence, on the whole, is distinctly favorable to Evolution, lending itself readily to the theory that present species have descended from past species. This is, however, merely supposing variation — within the limits of types although the "doctrine of colonies," elsewhere mentioned by Huxley, might account for it and gives — no suggestion of the notion that any of the greater groups has ever passed into another, the very point on which we need conclusive evidence, if we are to accept "organic evolution" as an established truth. Although, then, as Huxley states, these evidences present "no sort of difficulty" to evolution explanation, and that there is "nothing * * * to forbid" the theory of ancestral relation, it must be insisted that there is also nothing which compels us to accept it as an inevitable explanation. In other words, although we may allow Huxley the consoling assurance that the facts mentioned may not antagonize the evolution process, they do not establish the theory postulating the process, or even render it more distinctly conclusive. The so-called "arguments" from both classification and morphology lead to precisely similar conclusions. Science tells us simply that all life-forms fall into certain groups, determined by their anatomical resemblances, and, with proper logical consistency, can tell us nothing regarding the supposed origin of these several groups of classification, since this is a matter of inference and argument, in the support of which facts fail through the greater part of its statement. However attractive, therefore, may seem the various inferences on origins and ancestral relationships, they are not properly science, because not conclusively demonstrable. Confining our estimate of the truly scientific

— ;

EVOLUTION ARGUMENTS ANALYZED 31

to what is known and undeniable, we find, in the animal kingdom, for example, that certain general anatomical characteristics are possessed by all its members, and determine their differences from members of the vegetable kingdom, however greatly such characteristics may be confused and uncertain in representatives of the "lower orders" on either side of the line. We know also that each of the nine great phyla of this kingdom is formed on the recognition of a definite general "plan" of structure, found more or less definitely in all its members, and to be seen in representatives of no other phyla whatsoever. Thus, the spinal column is the characteristic mark of all vertebrates the segmental structure, ;

of the arthropoda, or "articulates," etc. Such special organs as the five-fingered hand, teeth, etc., appear as the structural basis of numerous variations of the general "plan" of structure occasionally even being absent, or so profoundly modified as to — appear as quite different structures but they are mere structural elements, not organs for some certain purpose, since they are variously modified to serve different and widely diverse purposes in different connections. Thus, in considering any possible explanation of origins and descent, it is reasonable to ask an explanation of the query as to whether the organ exists before the function is developed, or whether the tendency to develop the function, as found in the ovum, produces or modifies the structure. Such a question is a serious one in, the consideration of any such hypothesis as that of organic evolution since the presence ;

of a given organ, used for widely diverse purposes in several representatives of the vertebrate phylum, suggests strongly that it is merely an element in a broad general plan of structure, which

is taken in special instances as the best available instrument for

the accomplishment of certain given functions, without direct bearing on any question touching ancestry or derivative variation by natural generation. In accordance with this theory, we find that teeth are used for mastication only by the higher vertebrates, most others using them only for seizing and holding the food, rather than for dividing it into fragments convenient for swallowing: some also, like the carnivora, use teeth for weapons of offense, while rodents use them for gnawing hard substances. Nor is the difference between a rodent and another mammal — merely one of tooth-arrangement and size the self-restoring property of the rodent's teeth arguing far greater and deeper variations on the primal "plan." The several various adaptations of the hand have already been noticed, but we find that the characteristic tail is quite as suggestive. Such animals as opossums and some monkeys use it as a true prehensile organ, by which the body may be suspended in the kangaroo it appears as ;

a sort of "third leg," which can support the body in the sitting posture in the whale it appears as an instrument of propulsion ;

;

32 IMPROVEMENT ERA in the beaver it assists in swimming, as well as to afford a natural tool for spreading the materials used in building its dwelling; in the horse it has a good use in switching of troublesome insects in man the small rudiment of a tail (the coccyx) is of use in supporting the weight of the body in the sitting posture in many ;

other animals it seems to have no particular function beyond expressing emotions. The hypothesis of descent furnishes no satisfactory explanation of these variations of function, although proposing various guesses as to the development of special structures. Thus some theorists state that the jaw of the vertebrate is a variation of the "uppermost segment" of an articulated animal, the ribs indicating so many more such segments while ;

the teeth are to be explained as structures similar to the bony spines found on some fishes, for example, which have "grown in." Such theories seem to be mere surmises. On the other hand, when nature develops a function, it evidently takes advantage of some existing structure, characteristic of a phylum "plan." Thus, although the hand is the characteristic prehensile organ, we find an extreme special development of the nose in elephants for the same purpose, while in some ruminants, and other herbivorous animals, the tongue is used for grasping and holding the food to be severed by the teeth. Several scientists, notably Spencer and Owen, have compared the formation of crystals with the development of lifeforms consequently we may adopt the same analogy, although :

aware that it extends only to the evident similarities in two processes of producing definite forms, in which, under stress of favorable environing forces and conditions, amorphous matter assumes definite and predicable forms. For example, in snowflakes, which are crystalline structures formed by the "congelation of the minute globules which constitute the clouds, when the temperature is — below zero," we find a very distinct "generic plan" the "hexa- — gram," or six-pointed star which, whether showing the bare outlines, or having the "rays" highly and ornately elaborated, is invariably present. Nor can it be claimed, with any accuracy or consistency, that, apart from the merest outlines, indicating the general directions along which the crystallizing forces act, the less ornate form, in any given case, exists before the more ornate variant appears in time. Such is evidently the case, since the regularity, as well as the elaborateness of the figure, seems to depend upon physical conditions, such as the degree of temperature, the state of the atmosphere, the rapidity of the crystallizing process, etc. In such conditions the numerous variants of the snowflake plan spring jinto existence without previous progress from simple to complex. But we know absolutely nothing about the conditions in which the first life-forms came into being: consequently, we can offer as an established fact no explanation what-

—

EVOLUTION ARGUMENTS ANALYZED 33

ever of the variations on the several "generic plans" known among them. Such "plans" must have existed, in posse, in the germs and this explains why that a developing germ always follows the characteristics in development of its immediate ancestors. In fact, the whole secret of variation of any degree lies in the influences, whatever they may be, that can modify the germ potentially. The attempt, so frequently made, to explain the origin of life in chemical or electrical action is merely a presumption on our knowl- — edge since no such "actions" are known to science not even in ;

the "saline solutions" that, as we are told, can promote the development of unfertile eggs of sea urchins, and other low orders of animal life this is a sort of artificial "parthenogenesis," not a creation of life.

Have Courage Today

If grabbed by the hand of misfortune some day, And bidden to wander along in that way Where all isn't pleasant and happy and gay, Sit not down to weep and complain; With a smile on your face proceed with the chase; Thoughts kindred to fear from your vision erase, And run to the turn in the lane.

Life's pathway, as mapped, is an up-hill affair; Of pulling and pushing we all have our share; But, 'tis said, "The back the burden can bear," That is, if you know it will; Yet some sit and fret, or clasp hands with regret, And say of their welfare, e'tn God may forget; Thus giving to folly its fill.

True courage from weaklings can never be hurled; They pining and whining eke out of the world. Like a worm-eaten rosebud that never uncurled, But fell from its stem as a whole. The goodness and worth that waited for birth Were buried in graves, though not of this earth. But sepulchres dug in the soul.

O'er yesterday's failures spread courage today, Step mindfully over the stones on your way. God's magnitude keeps us as children at play, Scarce able to walk yet alone; But to smile and to sing is a wonderful thing, And will heal what perchance was yesterday's sting, Till our failures and faults are outgrown. Sarah E. Mittoi