, 1889-03-28
ON EVOLUTION.
Heredify and Anatomical Re-
semblaiices.
Synopsis Of Rev. w. S. Turner's
Second Lecture.
A scholarly, Entertaining and Instructive
Discourse from . Reiigio- Scientific
Standpoint.

Following IL u synopsis of the second
lecture of the Evolution" series. deliv-
cred last Tuesday evening at the Baptist
church, this city. by Rev. w. s. Turner.
having as its special topics "Heredity and
Anatomical Resemblance:
In my first lecture, I confined my re-
marks principally to Prof. Hackel's theory
of spontaneous generation. with some brief
notice of Darwin's theory of Latural
selection. now proceed to examine their
strongest arguments for evolution.
Prof. Hackel next undertakes to prove
that man was evolved from some gilied
and vertebrate ancestors as the fish and
ape. This he thinks he proves upques-
tionably from certain embryonic resem-
blances Of anatomical structure that he
processes to have discovered. He devotes
two large volumes mainly to this subject,
showing the Importance he attaches to his
theory of descent.
These gentlemen certainly have q zeal
worthy of more rational theory. This
matter of the resemblance OF anatomical
structure of vertebrate animals is far
fetched and unpbilosophical AS establish.
ing their theory OF descent or evolution OF
man. Prof. Hsckel infers from the fact
that man has a spine, he must of necessity
eies, and as the earliest known vertebrate
is admitted TO be the ganoid or fish, he as.
sumss that our descent 10 through some
line OF fsh ancestry.
But il the eauoid ia the earliest known
vertebrate, whas was its nearest lineal an
cestorp For has theory as we'll as that of
Darwin's requires that the ganoid must
have bad vertebrate ancestor, or else a
specific creation, or else have come into be.
ing by spontaneous generation.
In his Evolution Of Man." Prof. Hack
el quotes from former work of his on
morphology as follows: The history Of
the evolution of organisms consists of two
kindred and closely connected parts--on-
togeny, which is the history of evolution
Of Individual organisms, and philogeny,
which is the history of the evolution Of or"
ganiC tribes. Ontogeny ls brief and
rapid recapitul alton of philogeny, depen-
redity Tor reproduction.) and adaptation
Tor nutrition). The individual organism
reproduces in the rapid and short course of
its own evolution, the most Important os
the changes in form through which its an
cestry, according to laws of heredity and
adaptation have passed, in the slow and
long course OF their archaeological evo-
lution."
Also from History of Creation, volume
page 6. he further explains: This fun
damental law TO which we shall again and
again recur, and ON the recognition of
which depends the thorough understand
ing of the history of evolution, is briefly
expressed in the proposition that the his.
tory Of the germ IL an epitome of the his
tory of descent, or IN other words that
entOgeny Is u reorganization of philoReny;
or. somewhat more explicitly. that the
series of forms through which the indi-
70
gress from the egg cell to its. fully deve.
loped state is brief compressed reproduc.
tiOn of the long series of forms through
which the animal ancestors OF that organ.
ism (or the ancestral forms of ,ts species)
have passed. from the earliest periods of
so-called organic creation down to the
present time"
Translated into common English the
foregoing amounts to about this On.
togeny Is the theory that every living
being has in itself all the characteristics
possessed by all the long lins of different
ancestral species from which 1t is sup
posed to have decended. Philogeny is the
history of the descent as applied to the
tribes or classes of animals or plants to
which these individuals belong. All this |
Is predatory TO Prof. Hackel's coming an
nou0cement OF resem Olances of ance stral
structure proving descent from pre-exist.
ing orders or species
A resemblance of anatomical structure |
in the one single particular of the back. |
bone Is too small basis to prove this i'm
portant matter of descent. IL utterly
fails to satisfy the inductive or scientific |
mathod of this age. It Is. to Say the
n,cst. "a very Improbable hypothesis. Let
II - remembered these anatomical resem-
blsnoes OF vertebrate and tailed animals |
are the chief arguments in support of evo.
luton. What think you of the dogma
thst hss no broader foundation to stand |
On than this vertebrate resemblance and |
probably that OF the supposed gills of
hshf II fesemblances OF anatomical struc
ture are OF such great Importance to estab.
iish this theory, why has it escaped the /
notice OF these savants in structural anat-
omy TO overlook the conspicuous fact that |
almost every animal has head eyes, ears,
nostrils and mouth They ali re ,emble |
each other also greatly in other pirticu-
lars. am perfectly surprised and stun
ned by these accumulated points of resem-
slance! But jestinv aside, the theory
oreaks down oy Its own weakness and
poverty OF facts. Evolutionists seem to |
have an idea that whatever trey advance
will be accepted without question, "but
they lave mistaken the age 10 which they
live" Nothing is taken for granted
no1.
:, Again Messrs. Darwin. Hackel and
HUXLEY enter new field in
search for proof Of evolution On
the delicate field of embroidery.
They go armed with microscopes, bunting
fscts and resemblances Prof. Aackel re-.
CARDS this as the kingdom of bis richest
discoveries and greatest triumphs. / viii
9ive Prof Haokel "gill ana tail srun.
meat." with which Charles Darwin a9rses.
~ their supreme proof of the desc.nt ~