, 1889-03-28

arches origi nally exist exactly the same in
man, In dogs. in fowls and IN tortoises as
we'll as in other vertebrate ami mails
Finally while comparing the
embryos on plates Q aud 3 we must not
fail TO give attention to the human tail,
An organ which in the original condition
man shares with all other vertebrate ami.
mails. Now man in the first months Of
development possesses u real tail, as well
as mis- nearest kindred, the tailless apes
(orang outang, cbimpauzee, gorilla) and
vertebrate animals in general.
In this intimate onnection Of ontogeny
and philogeny, see one of the most i'm.
portant and irrefuta table proofs OF the theory
OF descent. No one can explain these
phenomena unless he has recourse to the
laws Of inheritance and adaptation. BY
these alone are they explicable.
The rudimentary little tail of man is an
irrefutable proof Of the fact that he is de.
scended from tailed ancestors"
suppose that no one will charge me af.
ter this quotation with exaRReratinR the
position of modern evolutionists. Prof.
Hackel intenos for one thing in these
plates to show that the embryo man at
certain stage of development has gils like
a fish, or at least gill arches. In one of
these cuts he represents the embryo as
having six openings or Sits across the
throat and In front OF the head aud neck.
In the next stage he shows but four. Here
Ia reduction at one bound OF one-third
the number of Rill.arches, which 10 fatty
in the face of his and Darwin's careful and
emphatic statements that transformations
or mutations never occur by ''sudClen
leaps" Darwin says: Natural selection
acts only by taking advantage of slight
successive variations; she can never take a
great and sudden leap, but must advance
by short and sure though slow steps.
As natural selection acts solely by
accumulating slight successive favorable
variations, it can produce no great and
sudden notifications. Origin of Spe-
cies. PIP. 1856 and 4l3.) Now if this ch anpe
from six to four 10 Il few days is not a sud.
den ana great leap. what can bep They
constantly remind US in their books that
many ages we're necessary to change one
species to another. but here this foremost
aud boldest evolutionist shows us by his
plates that great change occurs in few
days, or weeks at most. The most serious
blupder that this industrious naturalist has
made. however, is this: He has. unfortu.
nately for his cause. placed his gill larches
In the human EN- bryo in the wrong place.
In the embryo fish they are ON the side of
the head and neck. but in the embryo
man, as shown by his plates, they
neck. In the fish plate there is no change
in the number of the gill arches as in the
human. This Is an important fact. How
did the gill arches from the previous an
cestor sweep around from the side of the
head to the trout Now the simple expla.
nation of these supposed gills in the human
embryo is that there has been either an
egreQious blunder or deliberate fraud.
There are no eills in the human embryo.
These openings that the microscope reveals
are the initial mouth, tongue. jaw bones,
nose and eyes. The additional openings
we're simple wrinkles or folds of the neck,
where tbs head reclines on the breast of
fetus. These gill arches of Prof, Hackel
differentiate into the bones of the tongue,
jaws. mouth. etc. will prove this by
putting the professor on the stand. Hear
him Evolution of Man, vol. l., p 404):
'rhe fest pair of gill arches differentiste
into the rudiments of the upper and lower
jaws. The gill openings disappear by
concrescence. From the gall arches de-.
velop the jaws, the tongue bone aud the
bones (ossicles) of the ear.
Will the professor be 80 kind ss to in
form us how the fish gets its nasal OPEN
lngs, mouth and jaw bones from the gill
arches on the side OF the headP Now you
can see possible one of the many reasons
why the Creator put these openings or
sits in front in the human embryo, in
stead of the side of the head, viz, to fool
such empiricists as Prof. Hackel. who
would rather find seeming semblance
looking to his theory than any solid fact
that would be against him. Who ever
heard of the gill arches of a fish sweeping
around the quarter of a circle from side to
front, as he makes those of the mbryo
child do? The eubject of human embryo.
ogy is an infinitely more difficult theme to
demonstrate, in the very nature of the
case. than that of piscatorial embryology,
and every cautious and conscientious In
vestigator would have been more careful
what he published for demonstrativa
fact than this gentleman has been.
Why has not this indefatigable stu
ient OF natural history taken his
as he could have done-why
hoes he not do it now and observe the de.
yeopment of the young fish from the sim
Pile egg to complete development of the
embryo, and settle this gill question for
veEP He can see every change that oc-
,urs every twenty-four hours and draw |
lis plates in accordance with the facts and |
,erify them to the satisfaction of every |
eeker after truth. This he has not done |
,r if he has done it, he has never given |
he real facts to the world In all of Prof. |
other plates the human embryo |
With gilis ia the only case where the nua-
Der OF organic parts shown in the earlier |
stages, such as legs, arms, fingers, toes,
ins. claws, hoofs, eyes, ears. etc, de. |
,rease in number as development proceeds.
now come to the little human tail"
argument of Prof. Hackel upon which so
much is staked to prove the descent of
nan from the ape. 1t is a very little
ALL and much smaller argument to
prove it. His assumptions on this point |
nave already keen quoted. According to
A "a nd ri Yhvoinlooista Tho and rs kha tar