Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1884-10-09

|
doctrine of descent with modification, which
so perfectly accords with the facts as he
presents them, cannot be lightly and con-
temptuously dismissed. He regards the
condolences such as must almost compel
belief of the doctrine.
We have thus been particular to present
briefly the views of a number OF biologists,
and while Mr.. Darwin maintains that man
is thedescendant of themonkey, and Huxley
claims kin with the ape, it will be seen
that DR.. Woodrow, while naming the fish
as the first animate being, comes on down
with the reptile, then the mammalian quad
(ruped and then man, and he says "that in
the circumstantial account of the creation of
the first woman there are what seem to me
insurmountable obstacles in the way of
fully applying the doctrine of descent" So
that while the Doctor concludes that man
is the result Of an accident, or rather a long
series of accidents, woman, the greatest
mystery of all creation, did not appear by
the circumlocutory process that distinguish
es man, and doubtless regardingthe circum-
stance as one of no great significance, he
passes over it with the above quoted single
sentence.
The theories of those learned philosophers
and their speculations on the finite and kim
dred subjects, which seem ineXplicable to
great minds, are interesting, if not always
edifying. While DR.. Woodrow has no
difficulty in formulating theory respect
ing the origin Of man, and discourses learn
edly upon the hypothesis which he sets up,
| l,o hot blG
obstacles in the way of fully accounting for
woman. So with Malpighi, who after en-
hausting his egg and chick Theory, and sat-
isfactorily accounting by it for the evolution
of man, when asked by a little boy which
was first the egg or the chicken, gave up the
conundrum in despair.
But DIR. Woodrow is more considerate
than his contemporaries, Darwin and Hulk
lev. While Darwin claims to be descend
ed from monkey, and Huxley claims re-
lationship with the ape tribe in it's broadest
sense, DR.. Woodrow begins with primordi-
al matter and traces man through the sue
cessive stages of fish, reptile and mammalia,
but does not advance an opinion as to which
was first evoluted, man or monkey. From
his hypothesis, however, we now under
stand why some men are supposed to be
'tishy" in their transactions, and for clear
ing away the obscurity attached to this eX-
preston, the Doctors essay has not been
in vain The theories of Darwin and HuX-
ley are so nearly identical that it requires
a fine distinction to draw them without a
difference, and one of these theories will
prove about as acceptable to the general
public as the other. The analogy between
the monkey and the ape is closely traced,
and with the characteristics of the human
race, as developed since the creation Of
Adam, it would be difficult to decide which
of the eminent biologists is correct. Taking
the instincts of the monkey as criterion,
we doubt not but that his defendants in
human form would unfold or develop or
evolve themselves into clever bank cashiers
of the period or successful politicians and
office-seekers; while on the other hand,
Judging from the physiognomy of the ape,
but with no knowledge of his chronological
developments, his descendants, if evolved
with human instincts and attributes, would
be sedate and circumspect in their deport-
ment and succeed admirably as metaphysi-
clans, biologists, anthropologists and scienti-
fic lecturers generally. The ape, as shown
in the pictures, is evidently of a more
thoughtful and reflective turn of mind than
is the monkey, albeit the monkeys quick
wit and nimble fingers would seem to sup
ply lack of reasoning and argumentative
faculty; while the term 'tishy," as generally
used, is broad and comprehensive enough to
apply with equal precision to nearly all the
species genus homo, and had DIR. Woodrow
only been a little more considerate and trac-
ed mans descent direct from the shark, his
theory would have been even more plausi-
BILE. Although to our mind the foundation
is slender upon which to rest hypothesis
of such magnitude, yet man is "hshy' if
that word has any generic significance, and
that he partakes of the general characterls-
tics of the shark none will deny.
But with the question still open as to
whether Darwin's ancestors were monkeys,
or Huxleys remote kindred apes, or wheth-
er, according to DR.. WoodroW's hypothe-
sis, the ancestors Of the human family were
fishes, we find the question of the first wo
man undiscussed The biologists before
quoted seemed not to have given it a pas
sing notice, while DR.. Woodrow considerate-
ly leaves the first woman where he found
her. We have often wondered why biologists
invariably neglect this branch of the ques-
ton, which to us seems the most interesting.
Some one has said that the greatest study
of mankind is man; but to our mind the
study of woman involves the greatest prob
lem. She is the cause of at least one half of
the troubles of this worldand the direct earth
ly source of all its joys and happiness. In
view of this fact, we believe the philosopher
will yet appear who will prove that woman
was first evolved and then man. Unfortu-
nately, only Oriental and sem-barbaric
writer's have, to the present time, ventured
upon this sdelicatesubject. 1t ingenious
conceit of an Arabian philosopher that the
formation of woman was reserved for the
last thing in the grand plan of creation,
because if created before all else was done
she would have hindered the progress Of
subsequent work by constantly suggesting
changes and Improvements and in finding
fault with all; while an ancient Moor
ish legend attributes the creation of wo-
man at the last to the fact that it was the
desire of the Greater to have her compost
ton partake little of all the best things
he had created Either Of these theories is
as substantial as are those Of the learned
authors above referred to, and far less
harmful than their insidous teachings in
the guise of science and religion. AS is
shown by the numberless writers on the
/ oc ri