The Difficulties of Evolution.

Ladies and Gentlemen,—

In introducing to your notice this evening, the subject of "The Difficulties of Evolution," I trust you will pardon me, if, before I enter upon any definite statement of these difficulties as they appear to my mind to operate against that doctrine, I take up a little of your time in endeavouring to clear the ground.

At the outset I would ask you clearly to discriminate between that inductive, comprehensive, and exhaustive examination of natural phenomena, by either observation or experiment, and the conclusions which justly and necessarily follow thereupon, on the one hand; (which is properly called science or knowledge); and the curious and frequently fanciful theories and speculations of those who conduct such observations or experiments on the other.

We human beings are so constituted, that it is a very rare, if not an impossible thing, for any one man to be endowed with qualities of mind enabling him to grapple successfully with more than a single department of enquiry. The faculties, also, which are called into operation in pursuing distinct lines of scientific or philosophical research, are exceedingly diverse in their character, and rarely, if ever, met with in their highest development in a single individual. A division of labour is just as necessary here, as in other departments of work; the man of science—properly so-called—should be content to follow the safe paths of observation and experiment, including just and necessary deductions and conclusions; handing over his facts, when he requires a theory of the universe, to the philosopher or metaphysician within whose province alone the consideration and detormina- page 4 tion of such a question properly falls. He, and he only, is able to take an impartial view of science as a whole, having his judgment unbiassed by the exigencies or the predilections of any one section. Any man who has reflected at all on the mysteries and difficulties which underlie the—apparently—commonest and simplest things of life, must realise that life itself is too short, even if given to constant study and reflection, to enable even our very greatest men thoroughly to master these mysteries. The man who pursues any one branch of science, particularly experimental science, is specially unfitted to consider difficult, intellectual, or moral problems, by his knowledge of the very certainty which governs all his operations in his own science. He is almost certain to be rash and dogmatic, ready to rush in where angels fear to tread; and altogether the last man in the world whose philosophical theories are at all likely to be sound or true. Yet, what do we find in the present day? It is precisely such men, utterly unfitted by their daily pursuits to enter upon the region of theory and speculation, who have become our most dogmatic theorists, and our wildest speculators in philosophy, and even in religion, Huxley, Tyndall, and Haeckel endeavour to lend weight to their ridiculous speculations in philosophy by the splendour of the name they have so deservedly earned in the fields of natural science. And the worst of it is, that with the great bulk of those who listen to their philosophical prelections, there are not many who can distinguish between the credence which we may safely give them when they open to our admiring gaze the wonders of their respective discoveries in natural science; and the absolute scepticism with which we should receive their crude, and ill-digested attempts to feed us with the pabulum of a materialistic or agnostic philosophy.

There is a constant temptation, too, besetting scientific men to draw conclusions, advance theories and indulge in speculations suggested by the discoveries made by them in small but perhaps well cultivated fields of research, which, on becoming acquainted with the results of the labors of others in different spheres, they themselves are the first to recognise as impossible and absurd.

All men, too, are naturally curious about the deeper mysteries of things. The more ardently any man pursues scientific research, the more certainly is he brought face to page 5 face with mystery—with what I believe to be mystery un-fathomable by human faculties at every step.

If he be a devout man he bows his head, like Faraday or Agassiz, in the presence of that Being "whose ways are past finding out," but if he be, on the other hand, one who does not, or will not, recognise or acknowledge such a Being, he frequently dashes himself, in his pride, helplessly and hopelessly against the limitations which have been laid upon our faculties, and insists upon some form of words with which decently to veil his ignorance—to cheat himself and others into believing that he has fathomed the unfathomable—and so he prates to an admiring world, of Law, of the uniformity of Nature, of forces, of energies, of doctrines of descent, development, evolution, and what not, of functional activities, of corelations, of differentiations, of integrations, of complexities, of heterogeneities, and so forth, which are mere veils for ignorance.

Doctrines are advanced, such, for instance, as evolution, based almost entirely upon the observations relating to a single science, which, if true, necessarily have a direct bearing upon a vast number of other sciences, if not, indeed, upon all branches of science with which those who advance such doctrines have but a partial, if indeed any, acquaintance. The taunt, therefore, we so frequently hear from the mere scientist—"Oh, you are incompetent to pronounce upon or discuss as to the truth or otherwise of such a doctrine as evolution having no practical acquaintance with biology or palaeontology" is so far from being of any force that we might rather say that a man possessing pre-eminently the ability to pursue such branches of science, was probably destitute of the faculties which would make his judgment on such a speculation worth anything.

In treating this evening of "The Difficulties of Evolution," I propose, in the first place, to point out what I conceive to be certain radical and fundamental weaknesses in the very foundations upon which the whole reasoning rests, and, in the second place, I will endeavour to lay before you specific difficulties which lie against the doctrine, drawn from the sciences of geology, palæontology, and biology, and in my next lecture, from the more certain physical experimental sciences, such as chemistry and astronomy, and then consider the doctrine as applied to man, with difficulties from mental and moral science and philology. Before I page 6 enter, however, upon the consideration of these specific difficulties and objections, it is absolutely necessary to define what the doctrine of evolution really is. There are many and various schools of evolutionists, but it will be sufficient for our purpose if we notice three great classes into which the majority may be devided. I will denominate these three schools as—

1.	Deistic and Christian Evolutionists,
2.	Extreme Evolutionists,
3.	Darwinian Evolutionists.

Essentially, evolution, pure and simple, as applied to the organic world of animals and plants, simply means that existing species and all other species before them, have been derived by natural generation and succession from preceding forms, and as almost the whole of existing species differ very widely from those of far back geologic ages, ancient forms have undergone, in the lapse of time, from some cause or causes, wonderful and extensive changes.

The great majority of evolutionists believe that when life was first introduced, or, at any rate, when life first appeared On this planet, it was either in a single simple and lonely organism, or in a few forms, probably of the class "monera," from which all subsequent creatures have been derived.

Some hold a doctrine of evolution quite consistent with Theism, and even to their own minds consistent with revelation and Christianity, such theory being that, whilst all existing forms have been derived by natural generation from pre-existing species, yet the Divine Being foresaw, preordained, and designed all the development by natural law, endowing the first organism or organisms with all the powers and potentialities needful for the complete development of the whole succeeding creation, others going so far as to say that, whilst existing species have been derived from pre-existing forms, yet the change and development is duo to direct, active, present Divine agency. Such a theory as held, for example, by Professor St. George Mivart is certainly quite consistent with a belief in a personal God, and may be, though I confess I see not how it can be, consistent with revelation and Christianity. As, however, many pious persons accept this theory, and also accept revelation and Christianity, we are bound to beleive that they have some way of either satisfactorily reconciling both, or of accepting page 7 both on separate and sufficient evidence, leaving the question of the reconciliation of difficulties to stand over. This latter position, I am free to admit, is, in my opinion, one of considerable strength, and perfect consistency. This class of Evolutionists I distinguish as Deistic and Christian Evolutionists, and as a rule they will be found adopting rather the theories of Mr. Mivart than those of Mr. Darwin as to the causes of the origin of species, although Mr. Darwin himself evidently believes in the creation by the Divine Being, rather than the evolution of the first organism or organisms.

In the course of my remarks on the difficulties of Evolution, it must be borne in mind that this latter class of Evolutionists is not before my mind, and that some at least of the difficulties which I shall urge against the doctrine are applicable with much less force against the Deistic and Christian Evolutionist than against the other two classes.

2 The Extreme Evolutionists—

Those who believe that the whole of the order at present obtaining on the earth and throughout the universe at large in all things, including of course all living as well as all not living things, is simply a result or consequence of the operation of natural laws which we now find reigning everywhere, and which, so far as we can see, do not require the interference or support of any mind, intelligence, or power other than inheres apparently in matter itself.

When we speak of natural law, we mean a certain invariable order which we find obtaining so far as we have yet pushed our inquiries—throughout the whole domain of nature, and by nature we understand the sum of existing things, including intellectual, moral, and intelligent being, but exclusive of the great First Cause or Divine Being, if there be such, who is not a part of nature, but, on the supposition of His existence, is its Cause, Designer, and Ruler. Extreme Evolutionists believe or maintain that the natural laws, or powers, or forces of nature now in operation, have existed without change far back into the past eternity, and are competent, in the course of their natural, mechanical operation—without either interference or direction from a Divine Being—to account for the present order, physical, vital, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, of nature, including, of course, man, and even, we may suppose, if their existence was demonstrated, any other intelligent beings in the universe.

It is noticeable that, in the speculations of this school, the attempt to trace back the harmonious operation of natural law rarely, if ever, reaches further than the "fires of the sun," or at most, the "nebular mist."

Professor Tyndall tells us (Fort. Rev., vol. xviii., pages 596 and 597): "The problem before us is, at all events, capable of definite statement. We have on the one hand strong grounds for concluding that the earth was once a molten mass. We now find it not only swathed by an atmosphere, and covered by a sea, but also crowded with living things. The question is, how were they introduced? The conclusion of science, which recognises unbroken causal connection between the past and present, would undoubtedly be that the molten earth contained within it the elements of life, which grouped themselves into the present forms, as the planet cooled. Were not man's origin implicated we should accept without a murmur the derivation of animal and vegetable life, from what we call inorganic nature. The conclusion of pure intellect points this way, and no other." Again Professor Huxley (Critiques and Addresses, 1873, page 305), speaking of the fundamental position of Evolution, says, "That proposition is, that the whole world living and not living, is the result of the mutual interaction according to definite laws of the forces possessed by the molecules, of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed." Professor Tyndall further tells us that not alone the exquisite and wonderful mechanism of the human body but the human mind itself, emotion, intellect, will, with all their phenomena, all our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our art—Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, Raphael"—were all once to the scientific eye," potential in the fires of the sun." (Scientific Use of the Imagination, page 453.) The imagination is supposed to have received its ultimate satisfaction, and the intellect to have been sufficiently fed when it reaches these points.

It is evidently assumed, that having reduced us to a nebular mist, with its potentialities, the mind will not demand with such persistent importunity the assignation of a "cause" of so apparently simple a phenomenon, as it does "when it contemplates the present order of things, and possibly the suggestion that the nebular mist must, somehow or other, have had some cause, may satisfy a good many minds, and as we cannot possibly imagine what can have page 9 been the cause of a nebular mist, suppose we call it the "Unknowable First Cause," we shall have satisfied all inconvenient questions.

I confess I myself have felt some surprise, that no attempt has yet been made—at least, that I am aware of—to reduce the nebular mist to a simpler and more easily disposed of substance.

A nebular mist, we may imagine, is at least visible to the eye, that is, if there had been an eye to look at it, and in our imagination we can see it with our mind's eye. It would have assisted me much if the suggestion had been made, that the nebular mist, as space is infinite, had, in a far back previous eternity, been resolvable into so finely an attenuated gas, as to be quite impalpable to the keenest sense or even the most powerful imagination, and that still further back—vast unimaginable ages must be postulated—it became finally so utterly attenuated as to vanish altogether. It is one of the most recent discoveries of a certain school, that you can do almost anything if you only allow "sufficient time," and when so many inconvenient difficulties in the way of accepting certain theories are disposed of on the "sufficient time" hypothesis, surely the nebular mist might be resolvable into nothing on the same supposition.

The extreme Evolutionist is usually a Darwinian, but not necessarily. '

3rd. The third class of Evolutionists I will call Darwinian Evolutionists, who account for the origin of species by natural selection or the survival of the fittest.

Until the appearance of this school no consistent theory had been advanced as to the "how" of the origin of species by Evolution, although the doctrine itself was of high antiquity, was advanced in the modern times by Lamark, and adopted by several but not by leading naturalists. It was usually known as the developement theory. Until, however, the publication of Mr. Darwin's "Origin of Species" in 1860, it can scarcely be said to have had standing room in the scientific world of thought.

Mr. Darwin, however, advanced the theory known as natural selection or the survival of the fittest, supported by a supplementary doctrine known as sexual selection, which took the scientific world by storm, and gained the assent of a great number of eminent naturalists. Mr. Darwin's doctrine, however, was not received by several of the oldest, page 10 most experienced, and most eminent naturalists, among whom I may mention—Agassiz, Von Baer, Dawson, and that it has been virtually, although not explicitly abandoned by Mr. Darwin himself, I shall show further on.

The Darwinian doctrine of natural selection may be stated thus:—

1. Every species tends to increase in a geometric ratio, and "as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. (Origin of Species, 6th edition, page 50.

2. It is not improbable that "variations, useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations."—(Ibid. p. 63).,

3. "If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious, would be rigidly destroyed. The preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious I have called natural selection or the survival of the fittest."—(Ibid., p. 63).

Eminent naturalists, who at first were carried away by admiration for Mr. Darwin's genius as a naturalist, and failed on first perusal to see the weakness of his reasoning, have since found the doctrine inconsistent with the undeniable facts of nature, and have repudiated and written against it, among whom I may mention the eminent naturalist, Professor St. George Mivart.

Meantime, all the difficulties which, up till Mr. Darwin's publication of his Origin of Species, kept the doctrine of development from receiving, as I have said, standing room, still obtain, and up till now are unremoved, unexplained, and unrefuted.

New theories of the origin or past history of things, ought, I submit, always to be received with great caution.

One has only to consider the vast number of totally different theories which have been advanced by, say geologists during this century to come to the conclusion that page 11 scientific theories which profess to furnish the true causes and past history of nature, cannot be safely adopted until they have undergone a long and searching examination at the hands of contemporary and succeeding generations of scientific experts.

Mr. Herbert Spencer's essay on Illogical Geology will give the reader a very good idea of what is here meant.

I will now refer to two distinct fundamental weaknesses which affect the whole of the reasoning of the Evolutionist.

It is scarcely necessary to remind you that in coming to the study of any problem, whether scientific or otherwise, it is absolutely necessary that we should recognise and take into due account all the factors or causes which we may deem it likely may affect or govern the result. Nearly all the false conclusions arrived at in science, or indeed inquiry of any kind, may be traced to the want of knowledge, or to the persistent ignoring of some such factor. Now, if for the sake of argument, we suppose it granted that a personal, omnipotent, Divine Being exists whom we are accustomed to call God, has always existed, and will always exist, and that this is at least possible, all sensible men, not entangled in the web of their own foolish sophistry, will freely admit, it follows that given the will he certainly has the power to interfere with the action of natural laws, which are merely the orderly and ordinary methods of operations of this will.

The extreme Evolutionist requires us to believe in the absolute "uniformity of nature," past, present, and future, and "the impossibility of miracles," or indeed of any change or interference with the operation of natural law from the time of the nebulous mist, and I suppose, before, up till the present, and forward to all future time.

Desperate and almost passionate attempts have been made to demonstrate that the belief in this eternal reign of law or of this impossibility of miracle is either a fundamental law of the human mind itself, or at any rate, is so deeply seated there, either as a result of experience, personal or inherited, or from other causes that it cannot, or at least ought not ever to be shaken or dislodged.

Strange, however, to say, the belief in the personal interference of the Divine Being with the operation of natural law, is held tenaciously by the great mass of mankind. Indeed, we might say safely by all mankind, with the exception of those who deny His existence. Every Christian, page 12 for example, believes in the historical facts of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ, which were instances of as distinct interference by supernatural power with the ordinary operations of nature, as it is possible to conceive. It is indeed true (and I think capable of demonstration that it must needs be so) that there is ordinarily a uniformity in all the operations of nature, so that we can certainly and safely rely upon the truth that the same causes give rise invariably to the same effects, but the introduction of the immediate direct action of the Divine Being, does not in any way contravene this truth, and is neither inconceivable in itself, nor improbable if such immediate action is necessary or desirable for given important ends. On the supposition that man is the creature of God, capable of moral activities and responsible to the Divine Being (a supposition which I again say, at least, may be true) it is difficult to see how he could ever attain to any sufficient knowledge of the Divine Being as a personal God to whom he was responsible, unless by such immediate action by God Himself.

That the operation of natural law is universal, and has been so ever since man made his appearance on the earth, with but few instances of direct divine intervention by no means justifies the conclusion that it always has been so in past ages.

If man is to inhabit the earth, it is absolutely necessary that there should be uniformity in nature, otherwise it would be impossible for him to carry on any operation whatever, either physical, mental, or moral, but until intelligent agents are brought upon the scene, uniform action of the Divine power, does not seem to be either necessary or to possess any advantage over other methods of operation.

The uniformity of the past action of Natural law was accepted by a very few persons in England, prior to the appearance of Mr. Darwin's Origin of Species. All, or nearly all naturalists, as well as the ordinary run of mankind, accepting the belief that each species was a separate Divine Creation. The assumption, therefore, of the past uniformity of operation of natural law, which is absolutely necessary to the position, both of the extreme Evolutionist and—at least from the time of the first dawn of life to the Darwinian—is neither justified by the nature of things nor sanctioned by high antiquity, but is a recent baseless and unwarrantable assumption.

Here, at the very root of Evolutionary doctrine, we have a foundation of sand.

Professor Huxley demands "a great deal of evidence" before he recognises the admitted possibility to be anything more substantial, and then proceeds throughout his lectures to ignore it altogether. Before I conclude I purpose showing that Professor Huxley adopts and believes, on no evidence whatever, much more unlikely possibilities, or rather impossibilities, than this, and yet upon his own confession, this factor which he refuses to take into account may exist, and consequently vitiate his whole conclusions.

As it has recently been asserted by local authority, that the Darwinian theory "is now an established doctrine of science," and if I remember rightly, by another, also local authority, that non-acceptors of Evolutionary doctrine, must be relegated to the companionship of the uneducated classes, it may not be without interest if I quote shortly, contemporary opinion on the subject.

Oscar Peschel, the German Anthropologist, in his work on the Races of Man, published 1876, page 15, has the following passage:—"The gist and novelty of Darwin's doctrine consists in the selection just described (that is) We find not only the beautiful, the graceful, the agreeable, but also the repulsive, the terrible, the ridiculous, and the demoniac represented in animals and plants."

"Darwin, in his book on the Descent of Man, has attempted to overcome this difficulty by a new article of belief, namely, in sexual selections: the female animals being supposed to prefer the male which most actively excites the senses. But in butterflies, particularly in the page 14 Spingidae, the lower wings are coloured with peculiar brightness, and are adorned with gaudy eyes; yet, this creature conceals its own decorations when at rest, while all perception of pencilling and colour is precluded by its rapid movements when in flight. Again we find beauties in such members of the animal kingdom as fecundate themselves, and even in the motionless vegetable kingdom. The aspect of an oak during a storm, the mournful appearance of a deodora, the hues of many a coralla, the graceful lines of trailing vines, the fabric of a rose bud, are all capable of affording us æsthetic satisfaction, and yet any idea of the exercise of sexual selection by these objects is absolutely impossible.

"According to the Darwinian theory, the ancestor of modern man must have been a hairy creature, protected from changes of temperature by a furry coat. Yet the loss of this fur could only act prejudicially in the struggle for existence. In the case of birds, the same observation applies to gaudy plumage, which favours the schemes of their enemies, to the boat-like excrescences of their beaks, as well as the trailing tails which hinder flight and incuba tion. Thus it is just the new pith of the Darwinian doctrine, namely, natural selection, which stills remains unaccredited."

It is indeed instructive to note how Mr. Darwin's original statements of his position have been modified, and in fact, we may say, virtually abandoned in his later writings. Minute variations directly beneficial to the organism preserved under the law of natural selection, are alone in the earlier editions of his Origin of Species, referred to as the causes of specific origin. He says; "Natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations, she can never take a leap, but mustadvance by short and slow stages" (5th Ed. Origin of Species p 214.) "Again if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." (p. 208.) Again "I have called this principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection." (6th Ed. p. 40.) We now find him in the Descent of Man (Vol. 1, p. 152, as follows:—

"I now admit, after reading the essay by Nägeli on page 15 plants, and the remarks by various authors, with respect to animals, more especially those recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my Origin of Species, I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest. I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work." A still more remarkable admission is that in which he says of the causes of change in organism. "We can only say they relate much more closely to the constitution of the varying organism than to the nature of the conditions to which it has been subjected. An unexplained residuum of change, perhaps a large one, must be left to the assumed action of those unknown agencies which occasionally induce strongly marked and abrupt deviation of structure, in our domestic productions" (Vol. 1, p, 154.) The most astonishing admission, however, is perhaps the following:—"No doubt, man as well as every other animal, presents structures, which, as far as we can judge with our little knowledge, are not now of any service to him nor have been so during any former period of his existence, either in relation to his general conditions of life, or of one sex to the other. Such structures cannot be accounted for by any form of selection, or by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts. We know, however, that many strange and strongly marked peculiarities of structure occasionally appear in our domesticated productions, and if the unknown causes which produce them were to act more uniformly, they would probably become common to all the indivduals of the species." Of these passages Mr. Mivart remarks: "If this is not an abandonment of natural selection, it would be difficult to find terms more calculated to express it" (Lessons from Nature, p. 286.) Two other notable admissions of Mr. Darwin, and I have done. He says: "Until reading an article in the North British Review, 1867, I did not apprehend how rarely single variations, whether slight or strongly marked, could be perpetuated." (5th Ed. Origin of Species, p. 104.) And lastly, in postscript to the second volume of the Descent of Man, he declares "I have fallen into serious and unfortunate error in relation to the sexual differences of animals, in attempting to explain what seemed to me a singular coincidence in the page 16 late period of life at which the necessary variations have arisen in many cases, and the late period at which sexual selection acts. The explanation given is wholly erroneous, as I have discovered by working out an illustration in figures." It is impossible not to give our highest meed of admiration of Mr. Darwin for his candour in making these remarkable admissions, but it would be idle to attempt to question their significance. I commend them to the thoughtful study of those gentlemen who imagine that the doctrine of Natural selection is an established truth of science.

Professor Virchow, in an address delivered a short time ago, before German pathologists, at Munich, took occasion to expose the unscientific character of Evolutionary doctrine, and in particular the remarkably speculative character of Professor Haeckel's teaching, including his theory of plastidule souls, and other advanced and astonishing theories peculiar to that gentleman. Professor Haeckel immediately published a reply making a terrific onslaught, more, indeed, abusive than scientific, in which, being at white heat, he makes some significant statements and admissions.

Speaking of Berlin, containing, as he tells us, the second university of Germany, he says:—"In no other city of Germany has Evolution in general, as well as Darwinism in particular, been so little valued, so utterly misunderstood, and treated with such sovereign disdain, as in Berlin. Nay, Adolf Bastian, the most zealous of all the Berlin opponents of our doctrines, has insisted on these facts with peculiar satisfaction." (What a depth of infamy must he have reached, in Professor Haeckel's opinion.) He continues:—

"Of all conspicuous naturalists of Berlin only one accepted the doctrine of transmutation from the beginning with sincere warmth and full conviction (Freedom of Science, p. 115). This solitary instance to be found among Berlin naturalists accepting Evolution was, it is noticeable, not a zoologist but a botanist, Alexander Braun."

Carl Ernest Von Baer, whom Mr Haeckel speaks of in one place as "our greatest naturalist," as a "gifted and profound thinker and biologist," as soon as he came out distinctly as utterly denying the modern doctrine of Evolution, is quietly set aside as "no longer capable of mastering this difficult problem;" and we are told insultingly that this dualistic prating of the old man is quite incapable of page 17 shaking the monistic principles of the young and enterprising pioneers of science."

Very young and very enterprising some of them indeed are; and as to pioneering, I am afraid some have pioneered so far that they are likely to be lost themselves, and to find themselves in a strange country without a compass to help them back again. If, his enemies being judges, the greatest of German naturalists, a gifted and profound thinker and biologist, is incapable of mastering the difficult problem of the modern doctrine of Evolution, what chance have the ordinary run, even of educated men, of understanding, much less of intelligently believing it? We leave Mr Haeckel to reply. Abuse and depreciation of their opponents appear to be the weapons most relied upon by many Evolutionists.

Mr Darwin himself tells us, in the introduction to the edition of Descent of Man, 1879, that "at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species, and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. The greater number accept the agency of natural selection; though some urge—whether with justice the future must decide—that I have greatly overrated its importance. Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science many unfortunately are still opposed to Evolution in every form."

Thomas Carlyle says:—"The short, simple, but sublime account of creation given in the first chapter of Genesis is in advance of all theories, for it is God's truth, and as such the only key to the mystery. It ought to satisfy the savans who in any case would never find out any other, although they might dream about it. I have no patience with these gorilla damnifications of humanity."

The celebrated Dr Wyville Thomson of the Challenger expedition states it as the result of an eight years' study of ocean fauna, that the discoveries "refuse to give the least support to the theory which refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided by natural selection."

Professor J. Gwyn Jeffreys says that "he cannot understand how either natural or sexual selection can affect marine invertebrates, which have no occasion to struggle for their existence, and have no distinction of sex."

Enough, I think, has been said to satisfy candid persons that it is inadvisable to limit all knowledge, all intelligence, and even all culture to Evolutionists alone.

The fact of the presence of useless or rudimentary organs in certain creatures—as that of rudimentary mammæ in the males of the mammalia; teeth which never cut through the gums as in unborn calves—has been advanced as an argument in favour of Evolution, and has probably been considered by many one of its strongest points. As we have to-night a good many facts to deal with rather than fanciful speculations into the causes of things, it may be sufficient to dispose of the argument of rudimentary structure by the following quotation from Professor Huxley, who will not be suspected by Evolutionists of having a leaning the wrong way. In his article on Evolution in the 9th edition of the Eycl. Brit., p. 750, he says, speaking of these rudimentary and supposed useless structures:—"It is almost impossible to prove that any structure, however rudimentary, is useless—that is to say, that it plays no part whatever in the economy; and, if it is in the slightest degree useful, there is no reason why, on the hypothesis of direct creation, it should not have been created. Nevertheless, double-edged as is the argument from rudimentary organs, there is probably none which has produced a greater effect in promoting the general acceptance of the theory of Evolution."

I proceed now to consider the more specific difficulties which appear to me to lie against the doctrine of Evolution, and, in order to make my argument intelligible to those of my hearers who may be but imperfectly acquainted with geology, it will be necessary to refer to a few of the leading facts of that science.

The crust of the earth, as you are all aware, has been usually considered to be but of small comparative thickness to the great bulk of the globe, say from forty to one hundred miles thick. It is composed entirely, so far as explored, of four classes of rock:—the volcanic, including lava, scoria, basalt, &c.; the plutonic, including all granites, and certain porphyries. These two may be safely considered as of igneous origin, and they are unstratified. Immediately above the granite are found the metamorphic or stratified crystalline rocks, consisting of the crystalline schists, statuary marble, the fine kinds of roofing slates, &c.

These rocks are stratified, and are named metamorphic as they are usually supposed to have been originally deposited by aqueous agencies, and to have afterwards undergone a radical change, chemically considered, probably by the action of heat and pressure since their deposition.

All these three classes of rocks (with the exception of the Laurentian subdivision of the metamorphic) are destitute of fossils. Lastly, there are the stratified fossiliferous rocks, with which we have chiefly to-night to deal.

These stratified fossiliferous rocks are divided into three great classes—the primary, secondary, and tertiary, with certain recent deposits or strata, designated post-tertiary; the primary being again subdivided into Laurentian, Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian; the secondary into the Trias, Lias, Oolite, and the Cretacious or chalk formation; the tertiary into the eocene, miocene, pliocene, and recent formations. The proportionate thickness of these various formations is shown in diagram No. 1; whilst in diagram No. 2 the relative position of the various strata is shown, but the more recent are exaggerated in scale, and the periods at which the various kinds of plants and animals first came upon the scene are indicated in the two left-hand columns.

The primary fossiliferous rocks are also called the palæozoic, from two Greek words, signifying ancient organic beings. The secondary are also named the mesozoic, signifying the middle organic beings; and the tertiary are also named cainozoic, or recent organic beings.

Lastly, the tertiary, or cainozoic strata—that is, all strata above the chalk—are further subdivided, as regards the age of their fossil remains, into eocene, miocene, and pliocene, which signify respectively the dawn of recent forms, the less recent forms, and the more recent forms.

The present usually accepted theories of geologists with regard to all the stratified rocks, excepting, perhaps, the actual coal beds, about which considerable diversity of opinion exists, is that all the stratified rocks have been deposited by aqueous agencies at the bottom of the ocean or of lakes, the term "sedimentary" being frequently applied to all the stratified rocks, the material forming such sedimentary or stratified rocks having been washed down by the action of rain, frost, ice, rivers, and the ocean from adjacent continents, during vast ages of time, by the operation of the laws now seen to be active in the world, and distributed over the sea-bottom by the action of ocean currents, &c.

I confess that, after study of the facts and theories of the most eminent living geologists, there appear to me to be a vast number of geologic phenomena which the theories at page 20 present advanced and accepted fail altogether to account for, particularly the deposition, for a long series of ages, of strata of a particular mineral, chemical, and even organic character, and then suddenly the change to strata of a totally different character, both, by accepted theories of geologists, formed below water; and also the formation of the coal beds, the origin of which, up to the present time, I have no hesitation in saying, has never been satisfactorily accounted for, each of the various theories advanced making calls upon our credulity of too gigantic a nature to be easily granted. Great masses of the primary and secondary rocks are supposed also to have been formed by the exuviæ of small marine animals, such as the Foraminiferæ, Trilobites, corals, &c.

There are two important points that must be borne in mind.—1st, That although the sedimentary rocks are shown in diagram No. 1 as superimposed one above the other in the order shown, and which may be taken as approximately exhibiting their relative age, yet in nature these rocks, which were originally deposited in a horizontal position, or very nearly so, under water, have been frequently raised by the action of subterranean forces, sometimes to the height of many thousands of feet above the sea level. No further stratified deposit can take place unless they are again, by a subsidence of the earth's crust, brought under water. On the contrary, such strata are liable to denudation and gradual destruction when above sea level, their material going to form new stratified rocks beneath the ocean. Again, whilst some of the strata, such as the old red sandstone and carboniferous formations, extend over very large tracts of the earth's surface, others are to be found in much smaller areas, and sometimes widely separated. It is clear that a continent above water will not show any strata corresponding in age with stratified rocks formed during the same period under adjacent oceans or lakes. It is these elevations of different parts of the earth's surface taking place at different periods of geologic history, which bring within our view the rocks formed at the various periods below the ocean or lakes, and which alone, on the theories of geologists, can perserve fossil forms of the flora and fauna of the corresponding age. You will therefore readily understand that our examination of the stratified rocks, lying on the sides of the various mountain ranges of the earth, enables page 21 the geologist to determine at what particular period of geologic time any particular mountain range was upheaved. It is impossible, in a lecture such as this, to do more than indicate, thus briefly, a few of the leading facts of geologic science, which I do, of course, only for the benefit of any of my hearers who may be ignorant of the subject, and to prevent misapprehension of the bearing of the difficulties I shall refer to further on.

Diagram No. 3 shows the position of certain of the stratified rocks after upheaval. All these strata above the crystalline rocks, and probably including the vast formation termed the Laurentian, abound with fossils of animals or plants, and are believed to constitute a record of contemporary animal and vegetable life. All theories, therefore, which deal with the "origin of organic forms" upon the earth, or with the methods or ways by which the immense variety of such forms which we now find upon the earth, or such forms as we have reason to believe existed in past ages, came first into existence, must, inter alia, and as a matter of prime necessity, be consistent with the testimony of the stone record.

When the present animal creation is examined, it is found that, notwithstanding the almost infinite variety of structure—so great that a person unlearned in such matters would be inclined to think that nearly all creatures were formed on separate and distinct plans—yet there is apparent in every organism a fundamental plan of structure, and that the whole of the animal creation, diverse as it appears to the ordinary onlooker, from the most simply constituted animalcule to the most complex mammal, including man himself, is constructed on one of four distinct fundamental plans of structure. Hence it is possible to divide the whole animal kingdom into four great subkingdoms—the radiates, the mollusks, the articulates, and the vertebrates.

Time will not permit of our going into any account of the marvellous character of these four plans of structure, but I wish you to note and remember that they are each, as it were, poles asunder, and that, whilst the plan of structure of every creature can be shown to belong to one of these four classes, yet there is not the faintest indication, in all the world, of living or fossil creatures of a structure in any way intermediate between any two or more of these plans.

Professor Huxley tells us (Lay Sermons, p. 103):—"So page 22 definitely and precisely marked is the structure of each animal that in the present state of our knowledge there is not the least evidence to prove that a form in the slightest degree transitional between any of the two groups vertebrata, annulosa, mollusca, and cœlenterata, either exists or has existed during that period of the earth's history which is recorded by geologists."

Each of these sub-kingdoms, so diverse from each other, are again subdivided into classes, each of which whilst retaining the character or fundamental plan of structure of the sub-kingdom to which it belongs, manifests certain well marked differences in all its members from those of other classes of the same sub-kingdom. These classes are further divided into orders, families, genera, and species, each and all of which, retaining the special characters of the division above it, manifest distinct differences of structure and function with all the members of its own division. Lastly, the division termed species is divided again into varieties, and finally the variety into individuals. It is curious and interesting to note that the law of likeness and unlikeness, of similarity and dissimilarity, holds good even down to each individual, of even a variety, so that no two creatures or even plants, even of the same species and variety, but differ from each other. You will of course notice that all the points of difference increase with marvellous rapidity as we ascend in the scale of classification. The differences between two individuals of the same variety being very fine, and sometimes almost indistinguishable to the closest observer, whilst on the other hand the likenesses which they have in common may be counted by millions. On the other hand, if we compare two individuals of separate classes, orders, families, genera, and species, but of the same sub-kingdom, we may say their points of likeness are reduced to one, viz., their fundamental plan of structure; and their differences might be counted by millions. As we ascend, therefore, in the scale of comparison from two individuals of the same variety to the individuals of different classes, &c., but the same sub-kingdom, the likenesses diminish and the unlikenesses increase in something much greater than a geometric ratio.

Again, we find existing in nature, provision for carrying on the living creation of animals and plants from one period to another, notwithstanding the law of death which page 23 we see everywhere reigning. This provision is by natural generation. Leaving out of account the other methods of propagation by fission, &c., the male and female animal together combine to produce and leave behind another animal in all essential respects like themselves, and even inheriting individual as well as varietal specific and other likenesses. It is clear, therefore, from this law, that where individuals of different varieties are fertile together, definite varietal differences will tend to disappear, and that where individuals of different species are fertile, definite specific differences' will disappear, and if it were possible for members of different families, orders, and classes, to be fertile with each other, these higher differences would also vanish, and the whole animal kingdom be gradually reduced to a single series of individuals, each differing entirely from the other.

We find, however, that when a certain point of un-likeness between organisms has been attained, nature refuses to sanction the propagation of animals differing any further in structure and function from one another; hence the offspring of varieties only are fertile, whilst the offspring of different species are absolutely sterile. We have here an iron law which has kept separate, and will keep separate, the whole of past and present species for ever. Mr. Darwin clearly sees the absolute necessity of breaking down this barrier between different species, if his hypothesis of the "Origin of Species by Natural Selection" is to be received, and whilst compelled to admit (Origin of Species, 6th Ed. p. 19) that "hardly any cases have been ascertained with certainty of hybrids from two distinct species of animals being perfectly fertile," he a few pages further on apparently quite forgets this crucial fact, and tell us that (Orig. of Sp. 6 Ed., p. 47): "The amount of difference considered necessary to give to any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined." Again (p. 42): "If a variety were to flourish so as to exceed in numbers the parent species, it would then rank as the species, and the species as the variety, or it might come to supplant and exterminate the parent species or both might co-exist, and both rank as independent species."

"From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each page 24 other, and that it docs not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating "forms."

If Mr. Darwin should ever be really puzzled as to whether two forms are merely varieties of the same species, or individuals of different species, I invite him to test the question by the law of the sterility of hybrid offspring, and he will very soon have the matter settled in a manner that admits of no question or exception even according to his own words already quoted.

The sterility of hybrid offspring is the true standard of specific difference.

The universality of this law is not questioned by evolutionists generally, and although one or two instances of exception have been alleged from time to time to have occurred, naturalists, as well as most people of common sense, will rather believe that the observer has failed to estimate aright the amount of unlikeness between the animals, and thus has mistaken a mere variety for a true species, rather than suppose a law established throughout the whole domain of animate nature, to have been inoperative in a single instance. Since writing the foregoing I have just received the work of that eminent geologist and Paleontologist, Proff. Dawson, entitled "The Origin of the World," published last year. He says: "There is also a physiological distinction between species, namely, that the individuals are sterile with one another, whereas this does not apply to varieties, and though Darwin has laboured to break down this distinction by insisting on rare exceptional cases, and suggesting many supposed ways by which varieties of the same species might possibly attain to this kind of distinctness, the difference still remains as a fact in

"nature, though one not readily available in practically distinguishing species." Proff. Dawson also informs us (Earth and Man, 5 Ed. p. 524) "Species of animals are only variable within certain limits and are not transmutable in so far as experience and experiment are concerned. They have their allotropic forms but cannot be changed into one another." This testimony, did time permit, might be multiplied indefinitely. The impossibility, therefore, of developing one species out of another by actual experiment and the absolute sterility of hybrid offspring, may, therefore, be stated as our first difficulty of Evolution, and not- page 25 withstanding all the efforts and sophistry of Evolutionary Naturalists, the great natural barrier remains as rigid and immovable at the present moment, as it has always been considered in former times by preceding generations of naturalists to have been.

The Darwinian theory of Evolution, you will remember, requires us to believe that the existing species of animals and plants have been derived by ordinary generation from pre-existing forms by the slow and gradual change of the different generations of creatures under the supposed laws of natural and sexual selection. If the ancestry of the now existing species can be traced back many thousands and millions of years, we shall, of course, find this slow modification in their forms. Now, what do we find. Agassiz, in his (Structures of Animal Life, p. 49), referring to the Egyptian mummies, says, "Some of these relics, which have come down to us are unquestionably nearly 5,000 years old. They form a very interesting basis by which to ascertain to what extent animals may change under the different circumstances in which they live. The most careful comparison which has been made between the skeletons of animals preserved in mummies and those recently killed in the Valley of the Nile has not shewn the slightest difference between them. We have here, therefore, direct and positive evidence that a period of 5,000 years does not change the appearance, structure, or character, of any living being." Agassiz also goes on to show that the coral reefs of which a large part of the Florida Peninsula is made, and which it would have taken hundreds of thousands of years for these little creatures to build, have been built by creatures of exactly the same species as those now living and going on with their work in the Florida waters.

Again, when we come to question the stone record as far back as the Pliocene strata, we find out of 436 species taken from the Norwich Crag, and the Red and Coraline crags, 89, 60, and 52 per cent, respectively were species identical with those now living. Whilst as far down as the Miocene beds at Antwerp, out of 152 species, 39 per cent, were identified as living species (Sir C. Lyell's Ele. of Geology, page 204 and 232). Not only, however, do we find existing species as low down as the Miocene beds, but we even find them penetrating to the Eocene and down page 26 into the great secondary rocks. (Prof. Huxley Am. Ad. p. 35) says "I have already stated that as we work our way through the Tertiary formation we find many species of animals identical with those which live at the present day, diminishing in numbers it is true, but still existing in a certain proportion, in the oldest of the Tertiary rocks. Furthermore, when we examine the rocks of the Cretaceous epoch, we find the remains of some animals which the closest scrutiny cannot show to be in any important respect different from those which live at the present time."

When we bear in mind the almost inconccivable slowness with which many of these tertiary beds have been formed (see Lyell El. Geo. p. 229) we get some idea of the tenacity with which species now living have adhered to their present form absolutely without change through vast ages of time, and this is the more astonishing when we bear in mind the vast geologic and climatic changes which have occurred during these vast periods.

Again, Professor Huxley (Am. Ad. p. 57) carries us back still further. He says, "I have already referred to the fact that the carboniferous formations in Europe and America contain the remains of scorpions in an admirable state of preservation, and that those scorpions are hardly distinguishable from such as now live," and again, at the bottom of the Silurian series in beds which are by some authorities referred to the Cambrian formation where the signs of life begin to fail us—even there, among the few and scanty animal remains which are discoverable, we find species of mulluscous animals which are so closely allied to existing forms that at one time they were grouped under the same generic name."

Again (page 38) referring to the mesozoic or secondary epoch he says, "There are groups of reptiles such as the ichthyosauria and the plesiosauria, which appear shortly after the commencement of this epoch, and they occur in vast numbers. They disappear with the chalk, and throughout the whole of the great series of mesozoic rocks they present no such modifications as can safely be considered evidence of progressive modification."

Perhaps, however, the most astonishing instance of the persistence of species is to be found in the genus foraminifera Dr. W. B. Carpenter (Article foraminifera, 9th Ed. Cy. Brit., page 27 page, 586), says, "It is interesting, however, to find certain clay beds of the new red sand stone, palæozoic, yielding foraminifera, chiefly of the cristallarian type which can be identified, not only generically, but specifically, and even varietally with forms common in the Italian tertiaries, and still living in the Mediterranean." Therefore, whether we trace back existing species through geologic periods, or take up any extinct species and trace it through vast ages of geologic time, we get the same answer. From the time, the species first appear till the time it vanishes from the scene, it shows no sign of change or modification; it retains the same distinct specific character after the lapse of millions of years, which it did when it made its first appearance in the arena of our planet. This direct testimony of the rocks is absolutely fatal to the fanciful speculations of the Evolutionists.

Having considered now what the evidence of the stone record furnishes with regard to the period during which species continue to inhabit the earth, and that its answer to our question is invariably to tell us that species, when once introduced remain unmodified through vast ages of time, we come now to consider what the same record has to say about the first appearance of the various species which have from time to time inhabited the earth. From top to bottom the reply is clear, unhesitating, and conclusive. That reply is, that all species have at definite times made their appearance on earth suddenly, and in the full perfection of all their varied and remarkable powers and organs. I will quote a few facts in support of this statement.

We will take a few instances at various points of the earth's geologic history. First, as regards the primary, or palæzoic rocks, Professor Williamson (The succession of life on the earth, Manchr. Science Lectures, 1876, p. 77) says, But associated with this cephalaspis there also existed in the later silurian days another fish. And now comes one of the perplexing facts which geological investigation, has brought to light, and which appear unfavourable to the doctrines of development and Evolution. Murchison first showed that in the upper silurian beds there existed the remains of species of shark, and other observers have verified the statement. When we enquire what position the sharks occupy in the scale of fish organisation, we learn that they occupy its summit. There is every reason to suppose that page 28 the particular fossil found in the silurian beds is not only a shark, but that he belongs to one of the highest types of sharks. We have here a seriously awkward fact. Nature has apparently taken a step forward in advance of her time. Between these sharks and the lowest forms of fishes there exists a vast series of fishes such as we see in our markets, but which have apparently no representative in this ancient epoch." In this silurian shark we have therefore a member of the highest sub-kingdom, the vertibrates, and of the very highest order of the whole class of fishes, the shark, and again of all the sharks, the very highest type, in this old fossil of the paleozoic age, thousands of feet down in the primary rocks.

Mr. Herbert Spencer's definition of Evolution is as follows:—"Evolution is a change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity, to a definite coherent heterogeneity through continuous differentiations and integrations." (First Principles, 1862,) and in the 3rd Ed. of the same book, concluding his observations on this topic, he says, "From the remotest past which science can fathom, up to the novelties of yesterday, an essential of Evolution has been the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous."

Now, whatever Evolution may have done for other things, she appears to have reached the absolute limit of her powers as regards fishes as long ago as the silurian period. Whether, therefore, we consider the astonishing earliness of the period at which so wonderfully high a type of animal as a shark came upon the scene, the apparent suddenness of its appearance, there being no ancestral forms at all nearly allied, from which it could have sprung, or the tact that Evolution has absolutely stood still from the silurian to the present age in regard to the great class of vertebrates, fishes, we are alike forced to the conclusion that the facts are altogether inconsistent with Evolutionary doctrines.

Professor Huxley (Am. Ad., p. 41), says, "The great group of lizards which abound in the present world extends through the whole series of formations as far back as the Permian or latest paleozoic epoch. These Permian lizards differ astonishingly little from the lizards which exist at the present day. Comparing the amount of the differences between them and modern lizards, with the prodigious lapse of time between the permian epoch and the present age, it may be said that the amount of change is insigni- page 29 ficant. Now note. But when we carry our researches further back, in time we find no trace of lizards, nor of any true reptile whatever in the whole mass of formations beneath the Permian."

Here, Professor Huxley takes refuge, like Mr. Darwin, when in similar straits, by urging the imperfection of the geological record. That is, we are to believe that although in the Permian and all subsequent rocks we can find hosts of lizards down to the present day, all trace of the immense number of ancestors of very similar form, which they must have had on the Evolution hypothesis through the age which immediately preceded the Permian, has been lost. The rocks refused to receive a single specimen of lizard although receiving myriads of other creatures. Lizards, or any other true reptile, they sternly refused to receive or record as existing then on the earth. Similarly, when we pass from the Permian to the Triassic formation which lies immediately above it, we find sudden and very numerous new species, orders, and even a new class (birds) making their appearance. Professor Dawson describes the change in these words:—Physically, the transition from the Permian to the Trias is easy. In the domxin of life, a great gulf lies between. The geologist, whose mind is filled with the forms of the paleozoic period on rising into the next succeeding bed, feels himself a sort of Rip Van Winkle, who has slept a hundred years and awakes in a new world."

Professor Williamson says, (Succession of Life on the Earth, M. Science Lect., 76-77, page 67), "But we now cross a boundary line, beyond which we find evidence of a great change. I do not mean to say that all the genera we shall meet are wholly new, because such is not the case. On the contrary, there are large numbers of types and patterns that appeared upon the earth in the earliest portions of its history which never passed away again, and which are living to the present time; but whilst this is perfectly true, it is equally so, that at the boundary line we are now crossing, like passing from one hemisphere to another, we leave behind many things that we have become familiar with, and and are brought face to face with new forms of organic life." A vast number of new species genera and even a new class altogether, that of birds, comes upon the scene whilst in the strata which immediately underlies the trias, not a trace is to be found of any forms (although this Permian page 30 formation underlying the Trias is rich in fossil remains of its own fauna), which could be considered as, even in a remote degree, the ancestors of these new species, genera, and class. Immense numbers of gigantic monsters of the reptilian order suddenly appeared, as also gigantic birds. (Professor Williamson, ibid, page 71), says, "In Scotland, the remains of a huge crocodilian creature has been disinterred from beds which are now generally admitted to be of triassic age." In the United States he tells us the footsteps of at least thirty-two species of three-toed bipeds abound, "believed to be those of birds like the ostrich, but some of which must have been four times as large as the ostrich." Professor Dawson refers to the reptiles, birds, and mammals of the Trias, the greater number of which appear for the first time, as follows:—"Gigantic saurians come on the scene, some harmless brousers on plants; others terrible rendors of living flesh, but all remarkable for presenting a higher type of reptile organisation than any now existing, and approaching in some respects to the birds and in others to, the mammalia. (Earth and Man, p. 202.)

Referring to these triassic forms Huxley says (Crit. & ad. p. 213) "The supposition that the Dinosaurian Crocodilian Dicynodontian and Plesiosaurian types were suddenly created at the end of the Permian epoch may be dismissed without further consideration as a monstrous and unwarrantable assumption." Mark, how easily he gets rid of the idea of creation. He then goes on—"The supposition that all these types were rapidly differentiated out of Lacertilia in the time represented by the paleozoic to the Mesozoic formations, appears to me to be hardly more credible, to say nothing of the indications of the existence of Dinosaurian forms in the Permian rocks which have already been obtained." Mr. Huxley, rejecting both these hypotheses takes refuge in a curious and remarkable theory of his own, destitute of a shadow of evidence which may be adduced in support. He says, "For my part I entertain no sort of doubt that the reptiles, birds, and mammals of the trias, are the direct descendants of the reptiles, birds, and mammals which existed in the latter part of the paleozoic epoch, but not in any area of the present dry land, which has been explored by the geologist." Even Mr. Huxley is compelled to admit that this may seem a "bold assertion," and it is both curious and instructive to see that page 31 Mr. Huxley, who dismisses the idea that these forms were suddenly created "as a monstrous and unwarrantable assumption" is himself reduced to account for them by a hypothesis which makes, I submit, very much heavier demands upon our credulity, and that refusing to believe in the creation of anything whatever by a Divine being without direct evidence of the creative act, he is perfectly ready to "entertain no sort of doubt" about matters of which he has not even a shadow of evidence.

We have, therefore, in the triassic formation distinct evidence of the sudden introduction of new species, families, orders, and even of a distinct class, viz:—that of birds.

Hence, as Mr. Darwin tells us (Or. of Spec. 6 Ed. p 413), that natural selection acts, "solely by accumulating slight successive favourable variations; it can produce no great or sudden modification, it can act only by short and slow steps." It cannot, therefore, have produced the vast variety of new organisms which suddenly appear in the Triassic formation. Again, Professor Williamson tells us (Succession of Life on the Earth, page 68) that "in passing from the palaeozoic to the mesozoic strata, from the Permian to the Trias, the family of Encrinites is still represented. All the types of this group which are found so abundant in the palaeozoic beds have disappeared, every one of those numerous species have become extinct. In their place we find a new Encrinite, a true member of the Crinoidal family, and yet altogether different from those whose place it has taken. The question inevitably arises, how and whence has this new Encrinite come. It is very distinct from those of the carboniferous rocks, merely preserving the general plan and pattern according to which they are all constructed. We cannot so connect it with any of the extinct forms as to suggest a probability that it has descended directly from them; it is the isolated known representative of the vast race whose place it has taken."

Ascending to the strata immediately above the Trias, viz., the Lias, Sir C. Lyell (E. of Geol., p. 417) tells us, "The whole series has been divided by zones, characterised by particular ammonites, for while other families of shells pass from one division to another, in numbers varying from about 20 to 50 per cent., these cephalopods are almost always limited to single zones." We have here, throughout, page 32 the whole Liassic formation, the very curious phenomena of separate species of one family appearing constantly quite suddenly, then disappearing as suddenly, and being immediately replaced by totally different species in the zone immediately above, whilst the species of other genera continue to pass through the successive zones unchanged. Referring to this remarkable phenomena, he says, "As no actual unconformity is known from the bottom of the lower to the top of the upper Lias and as there is a marked uniformity in the mineral character of almost all the strata, it is somewhat difficult to account for such partial breaks as have been alluded to in the succession of species, if we reject the hypothesis that the old species were in each case destroyed at the close of the deposition of the rocks containing them, and replaced by the creation of new forms when the succeeding formation began." Still ascending and passing the Lias, we come to the Oolitic strata; what do we find here? Professor Williamson (Succession of Life on the Earth, page 74), says:—"Were I to describe all the forms of animals that occur in this Oolitic age, I should detain you longer than my time will admit, so I must select certain salient ones upon which to dwell. The various types of marine shells now multiply in a very increasing manner, compared with what we found to be the case in the rocks lower down in the geological scale. Not only so, but every individual species that we discover is new and in many cases the large groups of species which we call genera, are equally new."

At the end of the Mesozoic age you are aware that the cretaceous rocks were formed, commonly called chalk, and that immediately above the chalk we enter upon the Oainozoic age, the Tertiary strata. Here again we find an astonishing change takes place in the character of contemporary fossils. The magnitude of that difference you may have some idea of from the following quotation from Sir C. Lyell (El. Geol., page 310):—"The marked discordance in the fossils of the tertiary as compared with the cretaceous formation has long induced geologists to suspect that an indefinite series of ages elapsed between the respective periods of their origin. Measured, indeed, by such a standard, that is to say, by the amount of change in the fauna and flora of the earth, effected in the interval, the time between the Cretaceous and Eocene, may have been as page 33 great as that between the Eocene and recent periods." Some idea of the magnitude of the change may be obtained when we read the following extract from Professor Williamson's (Succession of Life in the Earth, page 86):—"In all probability, if we except some foraminiferous creatures of low organisation, no one species, either of plant or aminal that lived previous to the close of the chalk age, survived that period. Except one doubtful shell, all the species found in the Mesozoic strata became extinct.

Again, page 87, "On crossing from the cretaceous to the tertiary beds even the molluscan forms underwent a sudden change." Again, same page, "The Ichthyosaurus and its companions are now replaced by the crocodile and the serpent. We have numerous turtles." Mammals of new and strange structure appear, resembling closely tapirs and antelopes, as well as carnivorous creatures. We also find for the first time whales. Professor W. adds, "Thus you see that though the giant Ichthyosaurus and other allied acquatic reptiles have disappeared from the sea, other huge marine creatures have taken their place, though of an entirely different class." Professor Dawson thus refers to the change (Earth and Man, page 245):—"If the old Egyptian by quarrying numulitic limestone bore unconscious testimony to the recent origin of man (whose remains are wholly absent from the tertiary deposits); so did the ancient Britons and Gauls when they laid the first rude foundations of future capitals on the banks of the Thames and of the Seine. Both cities lie in basins of Eocene Tertiary, occupying hollows in the chalk." After describing the character of the fossils in these beds, he says, (page 246) "These remains must be drift carcasses from neighbouring shores, and they show, first, the elevation of the old deep sea bottom represented by the chalk, so that part of it became dry land; next, the peopling of that land by tribes of animals and plants unknown to the Mesozoic and lastly, that a warm climate must have existed, enabling England at this time to support many types of animals and plants proper to inter-tropical regions. They show that no sooner was the cretaceous sea dried from off the new land than there were abundance of animals and plants ready to occupy it, and these were not the survivors of the flora and fauna of the Wealden, but a new creation." Sir C. Lyell, who is disposed to adopt Mr. Darwin's theories, page 34 escapes from the pressure of the difficulties of the position by suggesting that the vast masses of missing strata, which he is compelled to suppose must have been formed, but which are nowhere to be found; accumulating, as he himself informs us, through ages as vast as are represented by the whole Cainozoic period, have somehow or other been washed away by ocean currents.

The "suspicions" of geologists are therefore supplemented by suggestions and explanations, of which there is no evidence whatever, and which are altogether incredible. Mr. Huxley tells us that the vast accumulation of strata which, on the Evolution hypothesis, must have been formed between the period of the Permian and the Trias are somewhere, but cannot be found, and Sir C. Lyell says that the similarly vast mass which on the same hypothesis must have accumulated between the chalk and the lower Eocene, has been washed away.

One other instance of the sudden introduction of new forms of life, and I have done with this branch of my subject. Passing from the Eocene we reach the Miocene division of the tertiary strata. Here, as everywhere else, we find the same introduction of entirely new forms. Professor Williamson (Succession of Life on the Earth, page 90) writes as follows: "We must now cross another threshhold and enter upon the Miocene age in which we discover a marvellous outburst of that animal life, living forms of which now constitute so conspicuous a feature in the forests of India and Africa. We have now the mammoth and the mastadon, huge forms of elephants, hippopotamus, rhinocerus, bear, hyæna, monkey, giraffe, camel and deer of numerous forms. I have now said enough to show how marvellous and rapid has been the outburst of new forms of animal life contrasted with its slow development in previous ages. In dealing with the question of Evolution we have carefully to consider the facts which I am now briefly enumerating. Recollect how extremely insignificant the thickness of the deposits that we are speaking of is compared with those of earlier date. The entire series of tertiary beds is only represented by a very thin line in any large section of the stratified rocks drawn to one scale. Yet, as I have already shown, the thickness of a series of deposits constitutes our best standard, imperfect though it be, for measuring the time which these deposits page 35 occupied in the accumulation. Remember then that in the lowest part of the tertiary series we have scarcely any of these mammals. The few found in the beds of the Eocene period are but scanty representatives of the group, but when we turn a corner it appears as if some great magician had waved his wand and in response to the magic summons life of the most varied character, and in forms most dissimilar from what immediately preceded, flash into existence.

"The evolutionist has to explain these unprecedented phenomena, and to ascertain if he can how it is that this development of animal forms has proceeded so slowly through millions of years, and then at a very late period, as if in preparation for man's advent upon the earth, it should suddenly advance with such amazing rapidity."

It is true that Professor Huxley, in his lecture on Evolution at New York, delivered in 1876, has submitted a certain series of forms found throughout the post tertiary and the tertiary strata in America, in which he professes to see the pedigree of our modern horses.

It is the solitary instance in which an Evolutionist, even with a highly cultivated scientific imagination, has attempted to show from actual fossil remains with even a show of possibility, how any genus of animals has been on Evolutionistic principles actually derived. Mr. Huxley even goes the length of submitting these seven different orders of animals, all differing so largely from one another, that a vast multitude of different species, with fine gradations between, must have intervened between each of the series, and which fine gradations are nowhere to be found, as a specimen of what he means by "demonstrative evidence of Evolution."

To give you an idea of the enormous difference between these forms, I need only say that the oldest of the series, orohippus, has four complete toes on the front limb, whilst the form found nearest to it in likeness, the mesohippus has only three. In his drawings, exhibited at New York, as well as in the illustrations accompanying the published edition of his American addresses, the various specimens are shown as all of one size, and he does not tell us that the orohippus was not larger than a fox, nor would I suppose many persons have discovered this fact, had not Professor Dana fortunately enlightened us to that effect in his Manual of Geology, 1875, p. 505. (See J. Cook's Boston Lectures.)

As so much is made of this supposed demonstration of Evolution, I will quote one or two opinions of scientific experts upon it. (Professor Williamson's Suc. of Life on the Earth, p. 100), referring to Mr. Huxley's lectures:—"It will not be enough that the limbs and teeth of these creatures indicate transmutation, but such transmutation must be evidenced by every part of the animal. This demand is especially applicable to the stages which intervene between the hipparion and the horse. If the latter was evolved out of the former during long periods of time, it must have been evolved as a whole, not merely showing the gradual change progressing in some organs, but in every portion of its structure, myriads of individuals must have existed to effect this gradual shading of the one into the other in every part of its body. It is true that in the pliohippus (a form intermediate between the hipparion and the horse) of Professor Marsh, the two lateral metacarpals had not digits, but even between this form and the abortive splint bone of the horse there is yet a wide gap."

It is curious that whilst Mr. Huxley selected the few parts of the structure which he supposed furnished evidence of modification, he is perfectly silent with regard to the other parts of the series of animals he treats of, and it would appear from the foregoing quotation from Professor Williamson, that the other parts of the skeleton are not so convenient for Mr. Huxley's purpose.

As we have amongst us a scientific authority on morphology, I think it would be highly interesting and instructive if he were to take up the parts of these ancient tertiary fossils which Mr. Huxley has not thought it necessary to notice and enlighten us further on the subject.

Joseph Cook, in his Boston lectures, 2nd series, p. 120, referring to Mr. Huxley's lecture, speaks as follows:—"The New York lectures disagree in their conclusions with those of higher geological authorities, equally well or better acquainted with the American facts, and notably with the conclusions of Dana and Verrill. According to these Professors of the University where the relics are preserved, the bones explain in part the variations of one style, but do not account for gaps between groups of animals, and least of all do they account for man." (Dana Manual of Geology, p. 75, 590, and 604.) Fossil links between different groups merely establish the fact that genera are more page 37 numerous than palaeontologists, with less information supposed, but are no proof whatever of that gradually shading off of one species into another which is the cardinal doctrine of the Evolutionists.

Professor Huxley's ideas of demonstrative evidence are not likely, I imagine, to commend themselves to thoughtful or cautious men.

Again, the discovery of fossil remains of such a creature for instance as the archæopteryx, supposed by some to be intermediary between the reptile and the bird, could only be supposed to have any bearing on Evolution by a person altogether ignorant of the subject, and that for several reasons—1st. Professor Owen, unquestionably the highest authority on the subject, is of opinion that it is a true bird, and not intermediate, as was at first imagined, between a bird and reptile. (Sir C. Lyell, Elemt. of Geology, 394.) 2nd. The strata in which the remains were found, viz., the Solenhofen slates lie in the upper oolitic series, which was deposited millions of years after fully developed and true birds, some four times as large as an ostrich, had inhabited the earth. These birds made their apearance in the triassic formation, at the very bottom of the secondary rocks. Professor Huxley, speaking of the creature, says, "Nor do I think it is likely that the transition from the reptile to the bird has been effected by such a form as the archæopteryx." He classes it as a merely "intercalary" type, not representing the actual passage from one group to the other, as distinguished from "linear" types. It is true that Professor Huxley professes to imagine that he can trace the parentage of the bird class through the group of extinct terrestrial reptiles, named orinthoscelida, but as he informs us that "The remains of these animals occur throughout the series of mesozoic formations from the trias to the chalk. (Am. Ad., p. 60) and, as during the whole of that time the earth teemed with fully-developed birds, it is somewhat difficult for ordinary mortals to understand how the bird has been derived on Evolutionist principles from these creatures. It is true that Mr. Huxley tells us that there are indications of their existence even in the later palaeozoic strata, but as again the same high authority in another place, says that, "He entertains no sort of doubt" that inter allii birds existed in the latter part of the palæozoic epoch, it would appear that forms vastly differing from birds, and from which birds page 38 are supposed to be derived, and fully developed birds themselves, have been as nearly cotemporary as we can well conceive. It certainly requires, I think, the reasoning and imaginative faculties apparently peculiar to Evolutionists to enable one to conceive the modus operandi of Evolution in this case.

3. In the last place links between different classes are no proof of that gradual shading off of one species into another, which is exactly the thing the Evolutionists allege has taken place, and which, if their doctrines are true, must have taken place, and been continually and everywhere taking place, yet, of which they have, as yet, furnished no evidence whatever as a thing having taken place in nature.

We have now travelled through the whole of the stratified rocks, from the palæozoic to the cainozoic, primary, secondary, and tertiary, and have found that they all, and at all stages, tell the same story. There is not a trace of species having been derived from one another, but every new species, and sometimes whole genera, families, and orders, suddenly make their appearance. Species once introduced remain unchanged through vast ages of geologic time, and this notwithstanding the tremenduous changes, physical and climatic, which their habitat has undergone during these periods. To bring their theory into accord with the facts disclosed by palæontology, we have seen that the Evolutionist is reduced to most severe straits, and is obliged to make the most "monstrous and unwarrantable assumptions" as to the imperfection of the geological record, such record from top to bottom having steadily refused to receive or preserve a single specimen of those forms intermediate between species, so many millions of which must have lived on the earth through vast ages of time, if that hypothesis be true. To bring the Stone Record into harmony with the doctrine of Evolution not only must we suppose enormous masses of strata to be missing between the great subdivisions of the primary, secondary, and tertiary rocks, but also between every subdivision of these great classes, and particularly is this the case with the tertiary formation, which is comparatively speaking a recent deposit. The difference between the fossils of the Eocene and the Miocene beds is described as you have heard by a celebrated naturalist as so startling that it is as if a magician had waved his wand and life of the most page 39 varied character, and in forms most dissimilar from what immediately preceded, flash into existence. Piles of strata are wanted here just as badly as elsewhere to account for the marvellous change. Alas, they are nowhere to be found.

To the objections or difficulties already advanced I will add other two, numerous illustrations of which will occur to you, but which time will not permit of our enlarging upon.

1. The incredible difference in the rate of differentiations in different branches of the lineal descendants of (on the Evolution hypothesis) a single form; whether looked upon from a morphological or physiological point of view, some existing genera remaining to this day but specks of animated jelly, and others, as the mammalia, exhibiting the most astonishing complexity of structure and function.

2. A similar objection, considered as to relative size of the various forms now existing, different descendants of the same form differing from others in size and weight, in the ratio of at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1, as say one of the smaller animalculæ to a whale.

Here I must draw my remarks to a close. I have thought it better to endeavour, though at considerable length, to lay before you a few of the most prominent difficulties which beset the path of the Evolutionist as we study the evidence furnished to us by palæontology, rather than to travel over a large area less exhaustively. If I have resisted the temptation to multiply the arguments, and to present many more objections than I have actually done, it is not because material did not lie ready to my hand, but rather that to do so would involve me in greater prolixity than I could expect your patience to bear. I do not think I can close this first division of my subject better than by quoting the opinions of two of the most eminent modern palæontologists. Pictet, in his introduction to his traite de palæontologie, says, "It seems to me impossible that we should admit as an explanation of the phenomena of successive faunas the passage of species into one another. The limits of such transitions of species, even supposing that the lapse of a vast period of time may have given them a character of reality much greater than that which the study of existing nature leads us to suppose are still infinitely within those differences which distinguish the two successive faunas. Lastly, we can least of all account by page 40 this theory for the appearance of new types, to explain the introduction of which, we must necessarily in the present state of science, recur to the idea of distinct creations posterior to the first." The latest work on the subject which has appeared from the pen of any man of eminence in the scientific world, is from that of Principal Dawson. From his work on "The Origin of the World," published last year, I quote the following passage:—"Are not all the creatures that inhabit the earth the lineal descendants of creatures of past periods, or may not the whole be parts of one continual succession under the operation of an eternal law of "development? No, answers geology, species are immutable, except within narrow limits, and do not pass into each other in tracing them towards their origin. On the contrary, they appear at once in their most perfect state (the italics are mine) and continue unchanged until they are forced off the stage of existence to give place to other creatures. The origin of species is a mystery, and belongs to no natural law that has yet been established. Thus then stands the case at present. Scripture asserts a beginning and a creation. Science admits these, as far as the objects with which it is conversant extend, and the notions of eternal succession and spontaneous development discountenanced both by theology and science, are obliged to take refuge in those misty regions, where modern philosophical scepticism consorts with the shades of departed heathenism."

In my next lecture I propose to consider difficulties arising from the truths of chemical, astronomical, and philological science, devoting a considerable part to the application of the theory to account for the origin of Man.

[N.B.—Throughout the foregoing lecture I have italicised those parts of the quotations I desire to direct particular attention to. The italics are, of course, my own.]