Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-03-21
DIGGING FOR sELr-EvoLUrIoN.
Theories That May Constitute q Good Work
ing Hypothesis but Are Not Vet Proved.

Theories That May Constitute a Good Work
ing Hypothesis but Are Not Vet Proved.
To the Editor Of The Evening Star:
Among the valuable and interesting articles
which appear in your Saturday issues few are
more so than the ESSAYS unsigned. but evil
IDENTITY written with authority upon subjects
connected with natural discovery as il concerns
archaic times. But will the writer permit the
suggestion that in the present stage of that SCI
ence he is inclined to go triie too fast and TO
support the assertions Of a clique which claims
theory as fact-and that is not true science.
In his last article. Ding From Deep Down."
under mention of the invertebrates of the early
Conforming epoch. he writes: The fact lisl
they are the ancestors of mankind. II is
from them that we are all descended. Z.
Beyond them We find our more remote grind
parents in marine worms. This l. a
demonstrated fact" Now. Mr. Editor though
we have been exhorted to believe this very
often IN the past thirty wears il is well once in
awhile TO take stock of our knowledge in
which case we find that there are scientific
men, second TO none. who are by no means cor
WINGED of this fact" and who deny that il has
been demonstrated" beyond doabt. Until II
is so would il not be more candid 20 call il the
best working hypothesis we now have-but still
a hypothesis?
Your essayist proceeds: Originally animal
creation divided itself into two branches the
animal and the vegetable: the plants de-
,ianp away from mental me- ,, ors' MIA
the animals cultivated the powers Of loco
motion. In this way il has come about that
animals have steadily advanced since the time
OF TIE beginning of things until man has been
produced. Readers are aware Mr. Editor
that Darwinism has progressed so ran
Idly since 1857 that by 1883 IL was
dissipated into no less than tweutv-one
subdivisions. each differing from Darwinism
proper; and it appears from one OF the clauses
IN the last foregoing quotation that another
has been added. according TO which the ami
mate creation which we used to be told was one
grand evolution from plotorlasm 20 men. ''di-
vlded itself into two bran, hes" one of which
was not in the direction of the highest prog
fess- IL Is true We should not be surprised at
such statement. for after evolution was found
occasionally to evolve in the wrong direction
as when variation into species was over
powered by reversion TO original stock the
theory was ''eased' so that ii might be claimed
TO act IN either way-forward or backward.
The writer of Ding from Deep Down" con-
t'nues; II he actual projenitors of human kind
was another species lof anthropoid apesl. nj
present extinct. which has not vet been identi-
ned with certainty. Here. then. is
a gap which science is partly able 10 close
by, going backward from the other
end. whole race of ape-lik. men
has been found. +" These people had
skulls of inferior development &c" Does an
thropology teach this unequivocaly. Mr.. Edi-
tor? In Huxley's writings we find that the
oides- human skull known might have been
that OF philosopher and Fxuier's testi-
monv is to the same effect and
dawson lncllnes to the belief that
man appeared with some suddcnness upon
earth. As man, and cannot be absolutely proved
to have been evolved from some other species
OF creature. Would il not be better to note that
theory at present holds to both ideas? Every
one Is aware of the alleged proofs of the i'm
mense antiquity of man; the depth of the strata
IN when implements and bones have been
found; their existence in the glacial period: the
clam OF an unmixed bronze age before the iron
one: the co-eNistence with man. of animals now
extinct. DC. but there is hardly one of these
points which has not been either controyerted
or shown to be doubtful as proof
Your essayist writes: The long-soucht miss
ing link was between this ape-like man and the
anthropoid ape. He will be found some day
science is entirely confident of that" In this
statement. Mr.. Editor. find il implied that
there is now only one missing link and that the
completion of the chain rests upon faith. As
TO the first point. il is a very short time tince
II was admitted that the ape-like animal of
Darwin and Lyell formed one gap. that the
three-toed horse of Huxley was another that
H4ckeTs lemur-like animal was n third:
and among other gaps TO be filled are that ue-
tween dead and living matter. tina; between
vegetable and animal life. that between ami
NAL and moral nature. and on. The first
missing link was to have been fond in Africa
until that continent was crossed and recrossed
with only the false alarm about apes" which
carried torches when they stole fruit at night
The second was to have been discovered in
geological strata. and there while
doing something for the horses
a sofsc b;m nave apparently left the
evolution. for he not only appeared somewhat
suddenly. but with different ancestor in this
country from the one in Europe. The third
missing link proves the craftiness of Hackel
and in this your essayist follows his lead-it
was claimed that there was gap worth men,
tioning. because the link must have been III
an imaginary submerged continent at
the bottom of the Pacific ocean, and
II We doubt il we are overwhelmed
with the very name invented for it-Lemuria.
Science may be entirely confident that all the
missing links will be found and faith is a very
noble emotion of tine mind, but most of So
called science claims that il is knowledge and
that 1t has nothing in common with faith SO
that 1t might have been more frank in your
essayist not to speak so confidently upon this
point.
He continues: "In this manner il has been
ascertained how by evolution the creature man |
as he is today has been produced" Would it |
be too exacting Mr.. Editor. to ask whether all |
this has really been ascertained by the confess |
sion Of missing links assumed TO be covered bv |
water. and which Twill be" dug out when |
oceans dry and man becomes extinct? |
The writer of the essay SAYS: ALREADY il is |
manifest that physically speaking man has |
been going backward for some time mast"
This statement, taken in connection with the |
one already quoted-that ',animals have
steadily advanced indicate that eyolu-
ton evolved in forward direction only till |
man had become monarch of all he SURVEYED
after which it began to evolve him backward |
physically. which may be sound science but is |
inconsistent with the name and claims of eyo- |
luton. |
In conclusion Mr.. Editor. the supporters of |
the hypothesis of evolution include none who |
surpass In knowledge Wallace and yirchow; |
but what is peculiar to those two men is their
admission that that theory isnot vet absolutely |
proved and their cautions to self-evolutionists |
to hasten slowly In making unfounded claims. |
NJ.