Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-09-07
DARwINrsM DENIED.
No Transformation Of Species In the AMI
NAL, Mineral or Vegetable Kingdoms.

mali 1uneraA or se$ctaote hiusooms.
From the Churchman.
In We course Of anthropology in the Museum
Of Natural History Of Paris NJ. A. de Quatre-
FACES has boldly denied the primary postulate
OF Darwinism, which Is the possibility Of the
transformation of species. According TO the
Darwinists the horse has been evolved from the
hipparion and that from the antediluvisn pa
laeotherium. Man, too, has been evolved from
an unknown anihropoid ape and that from
some lower form Of the quadrumana. In every
such case Transformation Of one species into
another is supposed to be the result Of a series
Of gradual variations. or course no instance
Of the Transformation Of species has been OBJ
served NJ. de Qustrefages asserts that it is
impossible. The subject is interesting. We
shall endeavor briefly to outline the argument
NJ. de Qustrefages observes that there 10 Q
certain analogy between organic and inorganic
species In this, that each has permanent spe-
clnc character, physiological in organic species
and chemical in inorganic species, which is i'm
mutable, and at the same time a morphology,
which Is almost infinitely variable. In the one
class heredity and in the other chemical COM
position may produce endless variations OF
form; but there is nothing in nature to suggest
the possibility of the transmutation Of specific
character.
Examining the minerals there are found to
be twelve distinct forms of the diamond or
crystailzed carbon, twenty-four of quartz,
thirty-three of the carbonate Of baryta, seventy
nine OF the sulphate Of lime
In this enumeration only conspicuous yaria-
tions are noticed II lesser varieties were TO
De reckoned M. de Bournon has described
nearly eight hundred varieties of the carbonate
OF lime alone. But in every one of the eight
hundred the specific substance is the same;
that is, 1t invariably contains exactly the same
DrOn0rtlOu acid nd Of t.,
other words, the form Of species has varied,
while the species itself remains immutable
In the organic world NJ. de Quatrefages finds
the same law of morphological variation cock
listing with the immutability of species. Acct
dental notifications he describes as varieties;
varieties which have become hereditary he
calls races. A thousand races Of the vine are
now known to exist; 500 races of wheat have
been catalogued; Darwin says there are 500
races OF pigeons, all derived from the common
rock dove; on a recent occasion 200 races of
dogs were brought together at one exhibition.
But Is there one single instance of veritable
change OF species? NJ. de Quatrefages energet-
ically answers that there is none animal
and vegetable species are the organic equiva-
Tents of neurological species Like the latter
they have their proper and peculiar nature.
They are elements Of the organized world, as
the others are elements of the inorganic world.
There is the point which is forgotten or denied
by the Darwinists. They will not see the re-
auty OF specles-that speclhc autonomy which
exists in the presence OF all neurological
notifications
NJ. de Quatrefages concludes with an earnest
ness worthy Of his subject: There is a radical
difference between species and hereditary varie-
ties OF race. Races of the same species can unite
to the remotest degree, and their fecundity is
In no way impaired. The species cannot unite;
or, In the few instances in which they do, the
offspring is sterile. There is no physiological
bar between the most diverse races of the same
species; there is a barrier between species which
appear to be most closely allied, and il il is
overpassed in a few rare instances il asserts its
presence in very few generations. In every
organic species there is something which isolates
it from all others and which preserves its iden-
tity In spite of every variation. That some
thing survives under every modification of
form. Transformation of species is as i'm
possible in the organic as in the inorganic
world"
NJ. de Quatrefages may wen call halt on the
unscientitic speculation which has so proudly
plumed itself under the name Of scientific
Imagination" Unless the distinction between
race and species can be set aside-and the bur-
den of proof rests on the Darwinists-then Oar.
winism is not the probable hypothesis it has
been supposed to be. On the contrary, the
Darwinian notion of the Transformation OF
species is as idle and unscientifc a fancy az
the alchemist'E dream of the Transformation
of matals