The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-02-27
AN AsCIDIAN OR A NANp

g the payment OF such molety
3 the county: Alp.
AN AsCiDIAN OR A HAN2
= Br REv. A. {. GEORGE, D. D.
In regard to the origins of sps
3 cies TIVE widely different and uttel
ly antagonistic views have obtain
ed, namely, the hypothesis of spe
, cial creation by. the fat of an az
: originated and all-originating b
+ ing, and the hypothesis Of trsns
, mutation, or the derivation G
!. species from pre-existing forms o
types of existence. But how thi
latter theory, if true, accounts 10
the origin or species, we hav
never been able to discover. I
, may push the difficulty step far
Their back, but it does not remoy,
it: Even Huxley admits that 9TH
transmutation hypothesis is per
feetly consistent either with tn.
conception of special creation
; of the primitive germ, or with tn,
supposition of its having arisen
as a modification of inorganic
matter, by natural causes The
most, therefore, which the mate
rialist gains is the privilege O
making this superstition. If hs
sets aside the doctrine of creation
he may be allowed to conjecture
that the primitive life-germs arose
spontaneously, or as a modifiea
ton of inorganic matter-tE1e in,
organic, by some strange process
becoming organic, and the dead
mass throbbing with life where
there was no life-giving force. 1t
helps nothing toward a solution
to add "by natural causes" for
there are no causes which are I'M
caused; or, in other words, every
cause is an effect till you reach
the First Cause. And yet Huxley
says, "With respect to the origin
of this primitive stock, or stocks,
the doctrine of the origin of spe-
cies is obviously not necessarily
concerned" Indeed! Then pray,
with what is it concerned? If an
existing species has been derived
from a pre-existing species, and if
that pre-eXistent species resulted
from a modification, combination
or transmutation of some preced-
ing ones, is it not fair question,
What constitutes the first link in
the chain? Who impaired the
life force? If there have been
millions of transmutations, must
there not, nevertheless, have been
creation? Does not some thing,
suppose some Gladstone poaCer,
some 6odyI And is anything
gained for materialism by remov-
ing this creative force backward
through ages, and through myri-
ads of transmutations2 Still the
author of matter and being is God.
"All the species of animals"
says Huxley, "are, in Lamark's
view, the result of indirect action
of changes of circumstances upon
those primitive germs, which he
considered to have originally
arisen, by spontaneous generation,
within the waters of the globe"
But if the generation was sponta-
neous, does this account for the
.primitiye germsY Were they
spontaneous" also? Did chaos
spontaneously become the cosmos?
Who can tell what is meant by
"the indirect action of circum-
stances?" How came the original
generation? Is it not astonishing
that men will accept such non
sense, and reject the Scriptural
account of the creation of the
world? AS Professor Agassiz
says, "The world has arisen in
some way or other. How it orig
mated is the great question; and
Darwin's theory, like all other at
tempts to explain tue origin of
life, is thus far merely conjectural."
This is the language of science.
But, perhaps, nothing is more
complete in the paper of Professor
Agassiz in the Atlantic Monthly
on Evolution and Permanence Of
Type" than his answer to the
claim that q direct structural con-
nection between primary types
had been discovered, sin the one
case between mullosks and verte-
brates, in the other between radi-
ates and articulates." A Russian
Investigator of great skill and en-
inence, stated that the Ascidians,
or so-called soft-shelled clans,
showed, in the course of their
growth, a string Of cells cores
ponding to the dorsal cord in YER
tebrates. This was enough. OF
course backbone would be form
ed sometime or other, and the
transmutation would be complete
Professor Agassiz says, "This was
hailed as great discovery by the
friends of the transmutation the
ory. At last the transition point
was found between the higher and
lower animals, and man himseli
was traced back to the Ascidians.
One could hardly open a scientific
journal, or any popular essay on
natural history without meeting
some allusion to the Ascidians as
our ancestors. Not only was il
seized upon by the many amateur
contributors to the literature OF
this subject, but Dara1in hinsey
and his followers, welcomed this
| first direct evidence of structural
affinity between the vertebrates
and the lower animals" But alas
for this beautiful theory, which
not only explained why it is thai
so many men are so molluscous in
their organization, but also de
monstrated the transmutation the
ology and excluded, by fair in
ference, the Almighty from the
universe he has madel The illus
trious embryologist, X. E. Vol
Baer, has shown, and Agassiz en-
dorses his eonclusion-''that thu
actual development of the Ascid
ians has no true homology will
that of the vertebrates; that thu
string of cells in the former-com
, pared to the dorsal cord of tn
latter-does not run along the 6dcj
at all, but is placed on the rentra
side Of the body" Now this i
: simply dreadful. Were ever an,
scientific Investigators and by
pothesis-mongers left in so fearful
a plight? "To say that the frs
vertebrates or their progenitors,
observes Aggassiz, carried thei
backbones in this fashion is abou
as reasonable as to say that the,
r walked on their heads. 1t is re
t versing their whole structure, an,
3 putting their vertebral colum