The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-09-01
HaGCkGI
on last Words
on Evolution
CHAPTER u.
THE STRUGGLE OVER OUR GEN,
EALoGIcAL TREE.
our Ape-ReIatIves and the Vertebrate
Stem.
CONTINUED from previous issue.)


The character Of Virchow's speech
at Munich is best seen in the delight
with which it was at once received by
the reactionary and clerical papers,
and the profound concern Of all Liber-
al journals, either in the political or
the religious sense. When Darwin
read the English translation Of the
speech he-generally so gentle In his
judgment wrote: "Virchow's conducs
is shameful, and hope he will some
day feel the shame" In 1878, | made
a full reply to It in my Free Science
and Free Teaching, in which collect
ed the most important press opinions
on the matters
From this very decided turn at Mu-
Mich until his death, twenty-five years
afterwards, Virchow was an indefatig-
able and very influential opponent OF
evolution. In his annual appearance
at congresses he has always contest
ed it, and has obstinately chung to his
statement that ut is quite certain
that man does not descend from the
ape or any other animal" To the ques.
ton: Whence does he come, then"
he had no answer, and retired to the
resigned position of the AgnoStic,
which was common before DarwinS
time: ''We do not know how life
arose, and how the various species
came into the world" His son-in-law,
Professor Rabl, has tried to draw at
ception, and has declared that even
in later years Virchow often recognize
ed the truth of evolution in private
conversation. This only makes it the
more regrettable that he always said
the contrary in public. The fact re-
mains that ever since, the opponents
of evolution, especially the reaction
aries and clericals, have appealed to
the authority of Virchow.
The wholly reactionary system that
this led to has been well described by
Robert Drill (1902) in his "Virchow as
Reactionary." How little qualified
the great pathologist was to appre-
ciate the scientific based OF the pithe-
cold theory IS clear from the absurd
statement he made in the openir
speech of the Vienna Congress of p
thropologists, in 1894, that man mi
Just as well be claimed to desc
from sheep or an elephant as fri
an ape. Any competent zoologist ca
co. P,.ov,, thfs 4ba littia ly1ou,lod1o Va,
chow had of systematic zoology an,
comparative anatomy. However, h,
retained his authority as president O.
the German Anthropological Society
which remained impervious to Oar
winian ideas. Even such vigorou
controversialists as Carl Vogt, anG
such scientific partisans of the
ape-man of Neanderthal as Schaaf-
hansen could make no impression.
Virchow's authority was equally
great for twenty years in the
Berlin press, both liberal and consery-
alive. The Kreutzzeitung and the
Evangelische Kirchenzeitung were de.
lighted that "the learned progressist
was conservative in the best sense Of
the word as regards evolution" The
ultra-montane Germania rejoiced that
the powerful representative of rure
science had, with a few strokes OF
his cudgel, reduced to impotence" the
absurd ape-theory and it's chief pro
tagonist, Ernst Haeckel. The Ma
aional-zeitung could not sufficiently
thank the free-thinking popular leader
or having lifted from US forever the
oppressive mountain of the theory of
imian descent. The editor OF the
yolks-Zeitung, Bernstein, who has
lone so much for the spread Of knowl-
edge in his excellent popular manuals
Of science, obstinately refused to ad-
NIT articles that ventured to support
the erroneous ape-theory "refuted" BY
Virchow.
1t would take up too much space to
attempt to give even a general survey
Of the remarkable and enormous lit
erature of the subject that has ac-
cumulated in the last three decades
In the shape of thousands OF learned
treatises and popular articles. The
greater part of these works have been
written under the influence OF conven.
tional religious prejudice, and with
out the necessary acquaintance with
the subject, that can only be obtained
by thoro training in biology. The
most curious feature of them Is that
most OF the authors restrict their
genealogical interest to the most man
like apes, and do not deal with their
origin, or with the deeper roots Of our
common ancestral tree. They do not
see the wood for the trees. Yet II is
far easier and safer to penetrate the
great mysteries of our animal origin,
II we look at the subject from the
higher standpoint of vertebrate phylo-
geny and go deeper into the earlier
records OF the evolutionary history OF
the vertebrates.
ITO be continued.)