, 1889-03-21

man. wing Of a bat. fin of a porpoise AM
leg of a horse, and innumerable othe
such facts. at once explain themselves OF
the theory OF descent with slow and Sigh
successive notifications.
I'm regard to the members of each grea
kingdom. such as vertebrate articulata
etc.. we have distinct evidence that within
each kingdom all the members are de
scended from q single procenitor. All IN
living forms of life are the lineal descend
ents OF those which lived long before tn
Cambrisn epoch
Prof. Hackel (4ist. Of Creation, vol. !
pages 4S to 75) says: But a truly natura
and consistent view Of organisms can as
sume no supernatural act OF creation to-
I even those simplest original forms. bu
neous generation. From Darwin's view
! OF the nature Of species we arrive therefore
at the natural theory Of development.
THE fundamental idea which must
necessarily lie at the bottom of all natural
theories Of development, Ia that OF u grad,
ual development OF all. even the most per
feet, organisms, out Of single or out Of a
very few quite simple and quite imper.
original beings, which came into existence
not by superna' ural creation, but by the
spontaneous generation or archigony, out
or inorganic matter.
now propose to examine the arRu-
ments and assumptions of the master
spirit OF modern evolution and to show
that their theories are not supported bv
we'll demonstrated facts. Their pretended
facts are largely mere assumptions. In
other words mot proven" They assume
men came from single or few quite
simple and imperfect beings" Now In
the very nature of the case how can they
30 positively assert thisP This according
to their theory of the early condition of
the world and its slow development must
have occurred 10000. 900 of years ago
VINO were there. that are com petent to
testifyp Is Hackel's moneron or Hux ley .
bathy bius the witness they bring on to
the stand? We deny the ASSUMPTION and
demand demonstrative proof. II Professor
Hackel is to be relied on he fnds, these
m.onera. still In existence through
race of beings is quite hundred
millions of years old. and are likely to sur.
vive their posteritv the monkey and us his
llneal descendants. How does this tally with
Mr.. Darwins principal Of "the survival of
the tttest?' In this struggle for exist
ence the monera promises well to win
the day. They ought in accordance with
this ine.spun theory to have been extinct
long ages ago, but they are lively with
es against modern evolution. 1t is clear
case of the Oldest outlivin9 all his vast
posterity! and overthrowing the very
dogma it was intended to establish. One
of the promises | made, some weeks since,
was that | would use the chief weapons of
my adversaries to demolish their theory.
quote again from Prof Hackel Hist
OF Creation, Vol. |, p. p. 1856 and 345):
"Of still greater. nay, the very greatest
Importance to the hypothesis OF spon-
taneous generation are, finally. the exceed
ingly remarkable Monera, those creatures
which we have already so frequently
mentioned, and which are not only the
Of all observed organisms, but
even the simplest of all the imagi-
discovery Of these organisms, which are
of the utmost Importance, the supposition
of a spontaneous generation loses most of
its difficulties. For as all traces of organ
ization--all distinction of heterogeneous
parts-is still wanting in them, and as
all the vital phenomena are performed bv
one aud the same homogeneous and form
less matter, we can easily imagine their
origin by spontaneous generation"
Tine whole body of these most simple
of all organisms-a semi fluid, formless
fact of only a single chemical combination.
Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous
generation was advocated, it failed at
once to obtain adherents on account of the
simplest organism then known. IL is
only since we discovered the exceedingly
im portant monerea with organisms not in
any way built up of distinct organs, but
which consists solely of single
chemical combination and yet grow. nour-
ish aud propagate themselves, that this
great difficulty has been removed, and the
hypothesis Of spontaneous generation has
gained degree Of probability, which en-
titles it to till up the gap existing between
kant's Cosmogony and Lamark's Theory
of Descent.
'Only such homogeneous organisms are
yet not differentiated, and are similar to
the inorganic crystals, in being homoge-
neousy composed Of one single substance.
could arise by spo ntaneous generation and
could become the principal parents of all
other organisms.
''When the moneron moves itself these
are formed on the upper surface of the lit
tie mucous Rlobule. shapeless 6nHer-like
processes, or very fine radiated threads;
these are the so called false feet OF pseu.
dopodia."
desire to give it az my candid opinion
that it would he difficult to find in sci
entific work of this or any other age. so
many contradictions and careless state
ments IN the same number of words. Let
us analyze this remarkable deliverance of
the first evolutionist of our times and see
IT my judgment is correct.
He here tells us that the monera "are
exceedingly remarkable" and that they
are of "the very creates. Importance" to
his hypothesis of spontaneous generation,
and this he is determined you shall not
forget. They are without doubt exceed
ingly remarkable! ''They are the sim
nlpat of all ohaprxe6 nruaniama.N nau