The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-12-02
POPULAR APoLoGETIcs.
adapted from the German of the Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev. James
Walcher)
LI.-Ape-Man in a Twinkle.

change of the skeleton and of the mus
Cles, is the simple effect of walking
erect. When the monkeys no longer
found food enough on the trees, they
came to live on the ground and got
used to walking erect. in conse-
quence of that the climbing hand was
transformed into the human foot
and q few other minor changes, and
behold.-man was ready.
Answer: II Dr. Bumueller says in
his "Mensch oder Affe" (Man or Ape):
az Mans foot and the monkeys
foot are the very extremes. The
monkeys foot is not arched like mans
foot; the big toe is not apposable
(can not be placed opposite) to the
other toes like the thumb to the fing-
ers; hence the monkeys foot is a pre-
hensile (grasping) organ; it is COM
parable indeed not anatomically but
phySiologically to the hand. Mans
foot is foot in the strict sense of
the word, on account of it's solid and
immovable structure of bones and
toes and the arching of the sole; the
monkeys foot (physiologically) is
more of hand than a foot on account
of its great movability." (p. 26).
b. "On closer inspection the erect
walking of the monkey is a fiction.
walking of man consists in this that
man can walk on his foot without u.s.
ing his arms as q support or balance;
that the body, the thigh and the shank
Oeg below the knee) are in line and
their longitudinal axis is vertical to
the surface on which he stands.
When man stands, the ligaments of
his knee, which hold together the
thigh and the shank on the side, are
stretched tight and thus give firm
hold to the knee joint"
In the monkey, on the contrary, the
places of attachment of the ligaments
are placed in such q way that the
ligaments are tight when the leg is
bent and loose when it is straight.
Therefore the monkey has firm hold
in his knee when the leg is bent, that
is, if the body and the thigh, and that
and the shank, and that again and the
surface of standing (hand-foot) form
more or less of an angle. That is just
the popularity of the four-footed walk.
On this account the monkey can not
even for a moment walk and stand
erect like man, and we have in this a
very important difference between
man and the monkey" (p. 23-25).
Very interesting is the proof of
Ranke that the brain-capacity is not
an effect of walking erect. That ex-
plodeS the Darwinistic fiction that be-
cause the monkey walked erect Tin
reality it never did it's horizon was
enlarged, in consequence its brain
was more active, and hence became
larger" (p. 1929.
g After DR.. Bumueller has given
nine decisive differences between the
primates (apes and half-apes, lemurs
etc., and man, he concludes: I'm the
whole animal kingdom there will not
be found two orders which can show
so many and at the same time so i'm
portant characteristic differences as
man opposed to the primates. We are
therefore, not only justified, but we
are forced 10 separate man from the
order of the primates." (p. $50
From the purely scientific standpoint
man occupies a place all by himself
(animals having backbone) and al
other animals. Up. 36). (Cf. also No
so, 5, of this series).
y Prof. Gutberlet, great phil
Osopher and theologian, thinks: If g
stupid ape could develop itself into 9
man, then let the intellectual Darwin
lists, so we'll schooled in anatomy
physiology and breeding, try but dis
family to approach that deed of the
ape. Let them develop wings in man
by trials at flying, or at least rudi
mentary wings; let them remove by
breeding such organs which are called
useless or even harmful, e. g., the
harmful vermiform appendix. Accord
ing to the Darwinists the stupid apes
succeeded in getting rid of their tail.
Virchow, once the great champion
of Darwinism in Germany, says: by
breeding one oidium Ca kind of fun
gus, as mildew, etc., out of a fission
fungus (bacterium), Darwinists would
prove more than by setting up evel
so many genealogical trees
n. B. l append again the continue
ton of the article from Our Sunday
Visitor relating TO this matter, the
same as last week.
The following questions were sub
mitted by a student at one of oul
State universities, and Professor Of
n Catholic university answers same
for us.
Continued from last week.
What efficient answer may be made
to the following lines of proof offered
in support of this pet theory:
(a) Honiologies of structure. 15C
anatomical homologies between the
ape and man.
OBJ The presence of vestigial or
gans in higher animals. In man about
100
(c) Facts of embryology. Human
embryos have stages of fish, dog, ape.
like foetus
I'D Fossil remains of extinct ami
mails. Has it really been possible to
trace man back through a series of
fossil remains? Where have fossils
favoring the theory been found ?
What about the fossil of Sussex, Eng