The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1878-02-19

MOlNhOL OOOlN1
progenitor" Place alongside OF this
the idea of an infinite intelligent design
ing cause But now we come to the
doctrine to which all others are subcr
dinate.
8. Law of Variability, or Disresem-
blance, which means, given ages to af-
feet minute differences, an oyster will
become man The first fallacy Of thel
|variationist is that these minute differ
entiations will tend upward toward the
higher forms of life and to man; where's
as, as Foster remarks, "The variation is
within a circle and not along line. ~
No proof, no illustration, nothing comes
from all geological or subsequent history
indicating change of one species into
another. New species are to be found
at many points in the history, but no an
cestors They tell US that the links con-
meeting new and subsequent species
with the old are missing, but may yet
be found. We will wait and see Mr.
Dawson an eminent geologist and writer
assures us that "after studying about
200 species, and, of some OF these,
many hundreds of specimens, he has ar
rived at the conclusion, that they are
absolutely unchsngedp Story OF The
Earth And Man, PIP 35S, 359
But what of these hridgeless gaps in
geologic history, and the sudden ap.
pearance of new forms of vegetable and
animal life without ancestry? There is
no answer to he.question except crea-
tion by personal cause
Darwin the chiefest variationist pub.
lished 2 vols on "Variation of Animals
And Plants under Domestication." /" The
Scotch loeician lived to sean its pages,
and at once said, "No argument drawn
from changes produced by Domestica
tion can admit of legitimate explana-
tory application to cases in which every
thing must be done by unaided natural
agency By artificial means man NAV
|produce changes which would never
take place spontaneously. And then il
may be urged, aud cannot be contra
dicted, that Domestics.ioE has never
produced new species either. 0splaat
or animal Devel Hypoth d Is
Darwin insists that given sn6icient tins
all the species could be predu sed But
he contradicts himself Speskine OF in
,,heritance he says, "Itis that cause which
Ialone, solar as We positively know, pro
Iduces organisms quite like, or nearly
Hike, each other" Why then docs not
this law hold good forever Thus be
annuls the law of inheritance by the Law
lot variation.
1 Hybritism has nothing in support OF
Variability, for the hybrid is not prolific
Ior centipud1s Transmission is limited
Ito single cross
/ 9 Embryological argument The two
Hast facts relative to Hybfidispi and Do;
.i'ssszs<sssEaass ueiss1ea< !
order in nature. Were il not FOR this
order, no doubt the hypothesis would
meet with friendly illustration hut THE
EMBRYO BEFORE PERFECTED ORGANIZATION
IS ORDAINED EXTINCT, AND WHEN PER.
FEcTED NEVER CHANGES ITS TYPE Who
ever heard Of these two facts being con-
tradicted by nature? Where is the proof
Of this triumphant nonsense: accelera.
ton and retardation? 1t was q miracle
for the whale 10 swallow Jonah, but ere
dulity commensurate with this doctrine
could swallow Jonah and the whale too
The following pertinent remarks We
gather from DR.. Paine:
81 may also recur to the oya of animals
for another explosion of all the develop,
mental doctrines, and of the mutation Of
/ species. The microscope assures us that
from the development of the germiHa
cell, it manifests. according to the spe
cies, an undertaking peculiarity of organ
ization, whatever the variety of the spe
cies; nor can this popularity be in the
least diverted by any artificial influences
, No other proof than this universal and
undertaking plan Of organic life can b.
necessary to demonstrate the fallacy O
every developmental hypothesis. What
ever variety may have been introduced
through long series of modifying eau
ses, the characteristics OF the variety art
incapable of detection by the microscop.
during the development of the ovum
Nothing would astonish the observer
more-whatever his developmental by
pothesis-than to witcess the rudimenta
, ry development Of the ovum of one spe
, cies putting on the characteristics of an
other species, however nearly allied. 81
, closely, indeed, does nature adhere t
. this principle Of uniformity, should on,
species manifest change into anothe
species, it would seriously disturb th
, very foundations of physiology. So i
has been ever since man began to recort
his observations. The entombed animal
: of Egypt of more than 5000 years ag'
differ in no respect from those in ou
: own day; and the seeds obtained from
the sarcophagus produce the same spe
cies as those of our our own times. Al
2 istotle's description of animals 200
. years ago are perfect portraits of the spe
: cies which have come down to u.s.
Physiology Of the Soul and animal In
!. sttnct, p. 200
/. The Effectiveness of the embryologi
}. cal argument is so apparent that som
f evolutionists have abandoned it. Pro-
tCope in his remarks before the Academ
It of Natural Science, Phila, Pa, says:
e "rhe relations exhibited by full
Y grown animals and plants, with trans
e tional or embryonic stages of other AM
}, mails and plants, had attracted the atter
8 ton of anatomists at the time of Lamarl
Some naturalists deduced from this no,
d universally observed phenomena that tn
d lower types of animals were merely RI
r pressed conditions of the higher; o.
s in other words, were embryonic stage
}. become permanent But the resemblane
d does not usually extend to the entire OF
e ganism, and the parallels are so incon
l. plete that this view of the matter ws
IS clearly defective, and did not constitu,
r, an explanation
nj Laraboullet, Agassiz and other embry
,e ologists asserted that no argument fo
" the doctrine OF descent could be draw
!. from such facts.
ISL 10 All the above dif1iculties annea