The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1913-06-13

The Evolutionist's Great Blunder.
The philosophers stone mainly in
sisted on by the eyolutionists as being,
or having been, most instrumental in
the conversion cf one specie Of animals
into another specie, is modification, SUI
perinduced by altered modes and con-
ditions Of life. Altered modes and en-
Yironment Of life, they assert, may SO
modify the individuals Of one specie,
that in the course Of time, they will lose
their original specific organic structure
and individuality, and take on those Of
a higher specie. 1t is the peculiar hab-
Its and conditions OF life, according to
the apostles OF development, that de-
termine the essential structure Of specie
organism. But certainly observation,
reason and all known facts about such
things teach us that the peculiar tenn
fperament, requirements and organic
makeup Of an individual or specie de-
termines its special mode Of life. An
environment is mainly passive, the ami
NAL active and naturally seeks that
manner OF life and surroundings for
which, in general makeup, it is espe-
cialIy adapted by nature. The animal
makes its environment, rather than is
made by its environment; and there is
tenacious disposition in every organic
creature to adhere to its parental type.
So much is this true that there is not
one known instance where any altered
natural conditions. or the arts Of man,
has ever succeeded in breaking a specie
line. What conditions OF life could
change fish into a frogY Is it possible
for the fish to live, or even try to live,
life other than its own? And should it
strive to do so, it might in time become
somewhat altered in proportion Of parts,
but il would always be essentially fish.
Or would hog, under any pressure OF
circumstances, try to live the life Of a
dog, running rabbits and foxes9 But
even if it should attempt to do SO for
ten million ages, would that make il a
dogg Its legs might become some more
nimbIe, its scent somewhat more acute,
but it would still be only somewhat
modified hog. with the same old grunt
and squeal. II seems clear that such
questions, when put nakedlys can havei
but one answer. But the credulous and
imaginative apostles Of evolution have
dreams and visions Of a magical past,
when some such changes were really
wrought by the wonderful magician OF
notifications under altered conditions
Of life;n when il could not appear
whether tadpole should develop into
frog or one-eyed cyclops. And yet the
eyolutionist has but little patience with
anything that sniacks Of the strange,
imaginative or miraculous. He has no
patience with divine miracles, but it is
perfectly plausible that nature should
modify an ant into an elephant TIL
nature has done all that theevolutionist
believes she has, il must appear that
nature is stupendous miracle worker
herself. But il Is my conviction that
changed conditions Of life, or any kind
Of natural influences. can only modify
an organism within certain limitations,
but never destroy It's own inherent ma
ture OF individuality, or disconnect it
from its original specie stock-in short
change one specie into another. No
such radical metamorphosis has ever
been known to really occur, and i is
perfectly safe to presume that it never
will be known. Geology gives no limit
81 any internediate specie ever having
existed. And the evoluiiouist's great