New-York tribune., 1872-05-10
DARWINISM.
SECOND LECTURE BY PROF. FISKE OF HAIR
WARD UNIVERSITY.

HYPOTHESIS-WHAT THE kEobMbhANNH VI
SPECIES PRovEs-THE TEACHINGS OF EM-
RRyoIOGY-MFTAPHYsICAL NATURALIsTs IN
"TIGHT CORNER"
Prof John Fiske's lecture on the evoiuion
of nfe given yesterday afternoon and evening ~ uv
Cooper Union, followed appropriately ana WIN .q
interest the preceding lecture on the evou'on VI '
planets His careful presentation of the derNa'ion
theory was heard by his audiences with earnest "'on
ton According TO the doctrine Of special creaon saiu
the lecturer when translated from my'hoioSeh 'nVo
scientific language, the millions OF mooeu'eS Va "0n
the mammal composed all rushed toge'er at gwen
instant from divers points OF the compass anu sroul
themselyes In the form Of adult organism some OF
the,o ARRANGING themselves into complex nerye-hbers
ond ongono cells Others into the contractle tissue OF
,pusces while others concentrated into solid bone and
others again were massed In divers convouted shapes,
ms lungs ntestnes capiares, and secretiDg glands
Such process being unrepresentable In thought 40 the
result OF any agencies like those now known
TO operate in nature, and involving. indeed,
practical denial OF the persistence OF force,
Is had to miraculous nerposton and 1t Is said
10 been the direct interference Of the Deity which
caused portions Of the earh surface to unite together
in such unaccounable way. According TO the doc
trne OF derivation, the more complex plants and AMI
mails are the slowly modified descendants Of less COM
plex plants and animals and these again are the slowly
modified descendants OF those organisms called prosts
which neither vegetable nor animal, but IN theH
lowest forms mere shreds OF JeDy+lKe proto-
plaSm, such as the spontaneous VI
collodal clusters of oxygen. hydrogen, nitrogen and
carbon molecules might well be capable OF originating
The agencies by which this slow process OF Derivation
has been effected agencies such as are daily seen In
operation about us namely individual variation, adap
taton 10 environing circumstances, and hereditary
transmission Of individual peculiarities
II Is evident that the contrast between the two
theories is wholly TO the advantage Of the latter one
Not only is the former discreded by is mythcai pc'
gree, and absurd in itself but involves hypoheucai
assumption as to divine interposition which Is inca
pable OF scientific verfcation. The latter tneoiy
Is not only accredited by its pedigree having
been forced upon the attention OF modern biolo-
,Ssts by the phenomena before them; 1t Is not only
Lighly credible ITSELF since it only alleges that the
g1Owth of complex organism from simple gODuIe oi
protoplasm. which is accomplished In every case OF In
divdual evolution has also been accomplished In the
evolution Of immensely long series OF individuals
eut IL is also purely scientific theory which involves no
hypothetical assumptions which cannot sooner OF later
be subjected 10 a crucial test.
PATHOLOGICAL COMPARISON.
-Four kinds of decisive arguments favor Of the deri
saton theory furnished respectively by the CasSir
cation of plants and animals by their Embryology, by
their Morphology and their Distribution In space ana
time To present in the strongest light the evdentiary
value of the familiar facts which are epomzed In tabu-
lar classfcaOn Of animals and plants, shall have re-
course to an analogous series Of facts In quite distinct
science that of philOoGy. 1t is preemnenty classln
catory science and least far the study Of the
Aryan languages concerned has been carried to such
scientific perfection as regards the accuracy OF
its processes and the certainty OF Its re-
sutsI that we may safely gather our illustrations
from it, The various Aryan " 1ndoEuropean languages
are demonstTably descended from single ancestral
language in the same sense which the various Romano
languages all descended from the vulgar Latin OF the
Western Empire. BY slow dalectic variations in pro-
nunciaOn, and in the use OF synactical devices lor
building mp sentences, these languages have been lmper
tod from primpXal
uut not one OF them is ineligible after careful
study to the speakers of another The minute variations
which have resulted in this manifold unkeness have
been determined by certain phonetic conditions, whch
have thoroughly generaized that phioogsts can
reconstruct extinct words after fashion somewhat
similar TO that in which Prof. Huxley would recon
struct an extinct animal upon seeing one OF its
fossized bones teeth. These Aryan languages
II is impossible to arrange in any linear series which
will truly represent their relations 10 each other In
some respects sanskr nearest the original type in
other respects It is Lithuanian which shows the least
departure other respects 1t is Old Irsh in yet others
II is Latin In view Of this and other kindred difficulties,
phiolOcists have arranged the Aryan family OF
languages into groups and subgroups along lines which
Tamy like the branches, branchet and twlgs OF tree
Starting from the Aryan mother-toDgue. first en-
counter two dvergng lines Of development represented
by pal TALLY reconstructed extinct languages, which we
NAV call the North and South Aryan These again are
differentiated into infinite variety or tongues
In taking general survey Of this family tree
we find that Kindred words in languages down
near the trunk resemble each other strongly, while
kindred words in languages up the twigs have well
nigh lost all traces Of their primitive family likeness
The more modern language is in order OF formation,
the widely does it dverge from the common Aryan
type both In structure and vocabulary OF all the Ayran
languages. sanskrit departs least from the common
type while English which is much the latest In order OF
formation and by far the most highly differentiated and
ntegraed departs the furthest from the common type
THE ARGUMENT FROM CLASSIFICATION
The example here cited from philology cannot, Of
be brought up direct testimony for against
the derivation theory in biology Iremember that when
Mr. Lewes once cited passage from Max Miller with
reference this very question, classmate OF mine had
like TO have burst with merriment: 80 what q silly
IAwesi He thinks that man is descended from a mon
KEY because French derived from Latin But though
I'm this case linguistic parallel Is not available as d.
rect testimony, in biological question its logical value
ia very apparent. What exemplifed in these
linguistic phenomena is The way In which classification
must be framed In all cases where we have
10 express complex genetc relationships-not In
linear series, but in groups ana suD-groups' overgng
from common trunk. comparison OF the different
races OF Aryan men would bring the results
the comparison Of their languages 1t would be lmpos
sbe TO average Hindhs, Greeks. Italians, Russians,
Germans and English, in any linear series we can only
divide and subdivide must always be the case when
we have deal with phenomena due 10 heredtary re
tionship And whenever we find a set Of objects thus
arranged in groups within groups convcrgng at the bot
tom and diverging at the top, have very good prma
nee grounds for asserting hereditary relationship 1t
was great step in advance when Cuyer showed that
there are at distinct types OF animal structure
and that linear series can be framed 10 such
series, the lowest Of vertebrates, the umpteih
gent lancelet would rank above the wonderfully
organized crabs, ants, and butterflies Or. If we at
nulff Inv