No fossil remains of the primary mammals have as yet been found, although they lived during the trias period--they possessed a very highly developed jaw. From the primary mammal arose the pouched animals (marsupialia). Numerous representatives of this group still exist: kangaroos, pouched rats and pouched dogs. The marsupial animals developed, very probably, in the mesolithic epoch (during the Jura) out of the cloacal animals; by the division of the cloaca into the r.e.c.t.u.m and the urogenital sinus, by the formation of a nipple on the mammary gland, and the partial suppression of the clavicles.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGS. I and II.--The Ceratodus Forsteri occur in the swamps of Southern Australia. Form transition between fishes and Amphibia.--_Haeckel._]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Represents the Gilled Amphibians (Soyobranchia).

The Axolotl (Siredon pisciforme), after Tegetmeier. The ordinary form with persistent branchiae.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. II.--Proteus Anguinus. Europe.--_Orton._]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. III.--Represents the Tailed Amphibians (Soyura).

Great Water-Newt (Triton cristatus), after _Bell._]

From the marsupialia originated a most interesting small group of semi-apes (prosimiae), for they are the primary forms of genuine apes and consequently of man. They developed out of handed or ape-footed marsupials (pedumana), of rat-like appearance, by the formation of a placenta, the loss of the marsupium and the marsupial bones, and by the higher development of the commissures of the brain. The still-living short-footed semi-ape (brachytarsi), especially the muki, indie and lori, possess possibly a faint resemblance.

Out of the semi-apes developed two cla.s.ses of genuine apes; but as the narrow-nosed or catarrhini cla.s.s are the only ones related to man, the others will not be considered. These narrow-nosed apes originated by the transformation of the jaw, and by the claws on the toes changing into nails. The still-living long-tail nose-apes and holy apes (semnopithecus) probably resembled the oldest ancestors of this group.

The tailed apes by the loss of their tail and some of their hair covering, and by the excessive development of that portion of their brain above the facial portion of the skull, developed into the man-like apes (anthropoides)--such as the gorilla and chimpanzee of Africa, and the orang and gibbon of Asia. The human ancestors of this group existed during the miocene period. From the anthropoides developed the ape-like men (pithecanthropi) during the tertiary period. The speechless primaeval men (alali), then, is the connecting link between the man-like apes and man. The fore-hand of the anthropoides became the human hand, their hinder-hand a foot for walking. They did not possess the articulate human language of words and the higher developments, as consciousness and the formation of ideas must have been very imperfect.

Out of the pithecanthropi men developed genuine man, by the development of the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language of words--the brain also developed higher and higher. This transition took place, probably, at the beginning of the quaternary period, or possibly in the tertiary.

We have now very briefly reviewed the princ.i.p.al outlines of the ancestors of man, showing that man has developed from the little ma.s.s of protoplasm, as have all animals and plants. He therefore was not _spontaneously_ created, but was developed. The question is often asked by simple-minded people, with much delight, Why do we not behold the interesting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee into a man, or conversely of a man by retrogression into an orang?--it only shows that they are not acquainted with the first principles of the Doctrine of Descent. "Not one of the apes," says Schmidt, "can revert to the state of his primordial ancestors, except by retrogression--by which a primordial condition is by no means attained--he cannot divest himself of his acquired characters fixed by heredity, nor can he exceed himself and become man; for man does not stand in the direct line of development from the ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral course from the nearest human progenitors, and man can as little be transformed into a gorilla as a squirrel can be changed into a rat."

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Salamandra Maculata.--_Haeckel_. The Water Newts and Salamanders were the next higher stage after the Proteus and the Axolotl.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Represents Primaeval Amniota (Protamnia). Lizard (Lacerta), after _Orton_.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. II.--Represents Primary Mammals (Promammalia).

AMNIOTA SERIES. Duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus paradoxus).--_Haeckel_.]

"Feeling evidently,"[17] says Haeckel, "rather than understanding, induces most people to combat the theory of their 'descent from apes.'

It is simply because the organism of the ape appears a caricature of man, a distorted likeness of ourselves in a not very attractive form; because the customary aesthetic ideas and self-glorification of man are touched by this in so sensitive a point, that most men shrink from recognizing their descent from apes. It seems much pleasanter to be descended from a more highly developed divine being, and hence, as is well known, human vanity has from the earliest times flattered itself by a.s.suming the original descent of the race from G.o.ds or demi-G.o.ds."

EVOLUTION.

In the last chapter a description was given of the various stages in man's development, from the microscopic monad up. It will be necessary now to describe briefly the various laws which have governed this evolutionary chain from the monad to man. But before proceeding directly to the subject, let us look at the doctrine of evolution as a whole, and trace it first in the formation of the world.

The doctrine of evolution is also called the theory of development--it must not, however, be confused with Darwinism--for they are not exactly synonymous. Darwinism is an attempt to explain the laws or manner of evolution. Strictly speaking, only the theory of selection should be called Darwinism, which was established in 1859. The theory of descent, or trans.m.u.tation theory, or doctrine of filiation, should properly be called Lamarckism, who for the first time worked out the theory of descent as an independent scientific theory of the first order, and as the philosophical foundation of the whole science of biology.

"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest form," says Henry Hartshorne,[18] "the universe as it now exists is a result of 'an immense series of changes,' related to and dependent upon each other as successive steps, or rather growths, const.i.tuting a progress; a.n.a.logous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a growing organism." Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting in a progress from the h.o.m.ogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to special, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered to be traceable in the formation of worlds in s.p.a.ce, in the multiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the globe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts and sciences, and in all changes of human inst.i.tutions and society.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Platypus.--_Haeckel._]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Represents Pouched Animals (Marsupialia).

Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly, Feb., 1876.)]

Let us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No determined opposition by the ma.s.s of people is likely to be manifested to the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even to the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is included--then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this reason that Darwin in his first work on the "Theory of Descent" did not mention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too well the foolish human weakness that existed.

In a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the material universe as "a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least wonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it."

The following is a brief description of the various theories of the world's formation:

_First Theory._--By the first theory the world is supposed to have existed from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this doctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an eternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but all animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley's ill.u.s.tration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far back in time, he would have seen a world "essentially similar, though not perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals which existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like them; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like them; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time you place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and waters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and sporting in them just as he finds now." This theory being perfectly inconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.

_Second Theory._--The second theory considers the universe eternal, but not its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient philosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by fortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have sprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.

_Third Theory._--By this theory the matter and form of the earth is ascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to say that this last theory has for its basis the popular account, generally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say popular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the intention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show the relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an ultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable to comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in fifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It cannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true because it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance, when we remark in popular language "the sun rises," who shall say that though the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all practical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, "The earth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes visible?" The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very imperfect; it had no equivalent to our word "air" or "atmosphere,"

properly speaking, for they knew not the words. "Their nearest approaches," according to J. Pye Smith, "were with words that denoted watery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating around them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke from substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper or a storm." It must also be remembered, "that the Hebrews had no term for the abstract ideas which we express by 'fluid' or 'matter.' If the writer had designed to express the idea, 'In the beginning G.o.d created _matter_,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose" (Phin).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Kangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Represents Semi-Apes (Prosimiae). The Slow Loris, after _Tickel_ and _Alp. Miln-Edwards_. (Natural History, by _Duncan_.)]

It is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called Mosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as undoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view entertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars, represented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: "They regard the Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely infallible, since there is no book written in any human language but must partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of this school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true supernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error of historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and tradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a truly divine revelation."[19]

There is, though, a cla.s.s of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible; that is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume, whom Huxley calls "the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century,"

thus ends one of his essays: "If we take in hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, _Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quant.i.ty or number?_ No. _Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?_ No.

Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." To this Huxley says: "Permit me to enforce this wise advice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important they may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a condition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon the strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one of our highest truths."

The first words in the Mosaic account are:[20] "In the beginning G.o.d created the heaven and the earth."[21] It is seen, then, that the so-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is an absolute beginning, for we find: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d."[22] * * * "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made."[23]

Science points also to a beginning.

Geology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for him there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for the rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the beginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science has to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific foundation--the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable from form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and imperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest particle of matter has come into existence or pa.s.sed away. "A naturalist," says Haeckel, "can no more imagine the coming into existence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he therefore looks upon the existing quant.i.ty of matter in the universe as a given fact." "The creation of matter, if, indeed," says Haeckel,[24]

"it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can therefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little imagine a _first beginning_ of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end."[25] It is evident, then, that the absolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not questions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul says: "By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of G.o.d, so that things which are seen were not made of things which appeared."[26]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. I.--Represents Tailed Apes (Menocerca). Proboscis Monkey (Presbytes larvatus). (Mammalia.)--_Louis Figuier._

The natives of Borneo pretend that these monkeys, or, as sometimes called, Kahan, are men who have retired to the woods to avoid paying taxes; and they entertain the greatest respect for a being who has found such ready means of evading the responsibilities of society.--_Figuier._]

[Ill.u.s.tration: GIBBON. ORANG. CHIMPANZEE. GORILLA. MAN.

FIG. I.--Photographically reduced from diagrams of the natural size (except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn by _Waterhouse Hawkins_, from specimens in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. (_Huxley's_ "Man's Place in Nature.")]

If, therefore, science makes the "history of creation" its highest and most difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with "_the coming into being of the form_ of natural bodies." Let us look for a minute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,[27] Kant's Cosmological Gas Theory: "This wonderful theory," says Haeckel, "harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator." Compare this last statement with the following: "I will, however," says Haeckel,[28] "not deny that Kant's grand cosmogony has some weak points." * * * "A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the cosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe."

Whewell[29] has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without a creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic matter in s.p.a.ce.