expansion of which threw off the outer coating of the body in fragments. These gases ought to be expected to expand with a force and speed equal to those caused by the explosion of gunpowder. This has not, I think, been estimated as equalling one mile per second.

Such a movement would, therefore, be slow, compared with the velocity of the meteor itself. Hence, while the hissing sound caused by the latter might move with the rapidity of electricity, that caused by the explosion would travel only with the speed of such sounds as we are familiar with, and would therefore reach a person one hundred and eighty miles distant in fifteen minutes.

HUXLEY, DARWIN AND TYNDALL;

OR, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

By Hon. T. L. CLINGMAN.

[Published in the WASHINGTON CHRONICLE, January 31st, 1875.]

So much attention has of late been given to the views of such men of science as Darwin, Huxley, and others, with respect to the origin of life and the production and development of animal and vegetable species, that I am tempted to present to you a paper on this subject. Without claiming more scientific knowledge than any gentleman who reads and reflects may possess, I propose to offer objections to the views of that school of philosophers.

To avoid prolixity I shall abstain from the use of such scientific terms as would require explanation to render them intelligible to many readers, and endeavor simply to state in plain language the propositions of that school, so as to present their views fairly and justly.

Their doctrine may be stated in general terms as embodying the hypothesis that the various species of animals now living were not called into existence by special acts of a creative power, but owe their being and present condition to a slow and gradual development from earlier and inferior animals. It is maintained that all existing species came either from one, or at most a few inferior creatures called monads or primordial forms, and that, by a succession of evolutions or changes in them, all animals exist as we now perceive them. In this mode man himself is supposed to have come from a lower animal, probably of the ape species.

I regard this hypothesis as improbable in itself, without a single fact to support it, and without one plausible argument in its favor.

Let us first consider the theory of "natural selection" or the "survival of the fittest," which is assumed to have been the chief instrumentality that has effected the successive changes that have brought

an animal, originally inferior to the oyster, up to man as he now appears.

By natural selection we are to understand a theory of this kind. The fact is stated that young animals at their birth differ in their constitutions, some of them being larger and stronger than others. During their struggles for existence these having most bodily vigor will survive, while the feeble will succumb to the difficulties with which they are surrounded. As the more vigorous only survive, they transmit to their offspring healthy and strong constitutions. This process being repeated from time to time will not only make the whole species more vigorous than it originally was, but it will acquire new and superior qualities, and will finally seem to have become a different and higher race of animals. This process will be continued, each time producing, by successive evolutions, superior beings, until finally man is formed, his last progenitor having most probably been a species of ape like the ourang-outang or gorilla. The first part of this statement, viz: that among animals those having at birth the most vigorous constitutions survive while the feeble perish, has not the merit of novelty. The fact did not escape the observation of even the most ignorant savages, among whom it is sometimes the custom to expose to death infants so feeble that they would not probably survive and become vigorous adults. Though this practice does not prevail among civilized people, yet one may hear a nurse say that such a new-born infant is so feeble that it will be very difficult "to raise it." Farmers understand this so well that when, in a litter of young pigs, one under size is seen, it is assumed that he will not be able to contend with the others for his food, and it is decided that he must be put in a pen and fed on slops, so that he may, in due time, be killed as a shoat.

All stock raisers recognize this principle, and select their sows and brood mares of good size and fine developments. Unquestionably larger and better animals are thus obtained, but while their size is increased, the improvement does not extend beyond certain limits, which seem invariable for each species. Though the hog can be greatly increased in size, he never becomes as large as the bullock or horse, nor can the horse be gotten up to the bulk of the elephant. There is in fact no evidence of any permanent addition even to the size of the species, much less of any change in its organization. When the stimulating cause ceases the animal seems to revert to its former condition.

Though the Arab and Tartar wild horses have, by good feeding in Europe, been greatly increased in size, yet when left to take care of themselves on the plains of Mexico or South America, they become the smaller mustang, and on the banks of Eastern North Carolina dwindle into the little "marsh pony." In like manner the hog, left to run wild in the mountain forests, is reduced to a small, hardy animal. Even with respect to the human race, which is not subject to changes of food, tall parents often have children shorter than themselves, nor have we any evidence that the process of "evolution or natural selection" has ever produced human beings an hundred or even twenty feet high, as it should have done upon this hypothesis. It seems,

rather, that the changes of which each species is capable, are confined within certain limits easily observed, within which these species seem to vibrate like the pendulum of a clock.

But, even if the fact were otherwise, it would not support the theory of the evolutionists, unless it could also be shown that animals would not only increase in size, but that they could likewise be developed into some other species. It is necessary that the sow should not only become very large, but that she should also produce a cow or a lion, or the mare give birth to a dromedary or an elephant, to lend support to their views.

Great stress is laid on the fact, however, that surrounding conditions do, in certain cases, diminish or influence the development of some animals. It is stated that if a tadpole be kept in cold water-he will, for a long period, perhaps an indefinite one, remain simply a tadpole, and not be developed into a frog. This fact, however, is, by no means, a singular one. Every old woman, who raises poultry, knows that if an egg be kept cold it will not hatch, or, to use a scientific phrase, be developed into a chicken. In like manner, all farmers know that if a cold spell of weather comes on immediately after their corn or cotton has been planted, it does not come up. While this result may be looked for in all cases, there is another analogy between them which is even more unfortunate for the evolutionist. When warm weather causes the seed to germinate, the plant will invariably follow in its form and qualities that from which the seed came. In like manner whenever the egg is hatched the product is a chicken, and never a goose or a rabbit; so, however long the tadpole may be detained in cold. water, when he does develop he becomes always a frog. What the advocate of evolution by natural selection needs to show is, that under these conditions the tadpole should become a fish, a lizard, or a mouse. If he could point to such a result as this he would then have one fact to support his hypothesis.

It is said, however, that if we go back to the earliest germs of life, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish those in the eggs of certain birds from such as are found in the eggs of a serpent. But the essential fact remains that, however much alike in appearance they may be, each germ, when developed, invariably produces an animal like that from which it came. This fact makes the case still stronger against the evolutionist; for if it were true that these germs of different animals were in material, form and quality in all respects precisely alike, the great fact that they invariably produce different animals, tends to prove that the form of any particular species is not determined by matter alone, but that the mysterious substance or quality which is designated as vitality, is something independent of the mere identity and form of matter.

When such objections are presented the evolutionists insist that mere negative evidence is insufficient and ought not to be relied on. Though it may be true that negative evidence is inconclusive in some cases, yet in other instances it is as satisfactory and convincing as any positive evidence can be. Suppose an individual were to affirm that a bar of iron, if made red hot, would be converted into gold, I might reply

that I had seen iron frequently thus heated without its being so changed; that, in fact, all iron was thus heated while being manufactured, and that it never had been in a single instance converted into gold. Is there a man acquainted with metals who would not be just as thoroughly satisfied by such negative evidence that the iron would not become gold that as it would not by being thus heated cease to be acted on by the force of gravity, and remain if left without support stationary in the air? In like manner does any one doubt but that the offspring of a sow would be pigs, and not puppies or lambs?

To

But the evolutionist replies that though these things appear to be true, yet we cannot know what an indefinite period of time might have accomplished; that we cannot decide what millions of years or of ages might effect by means of the "plastic forces of nature." this surmise, however, the answer is that physical science, that science which deals with material things, proposes to rest on observed facts, and not on mere suppositions, like those of the school-men of the middle ages. Its professors are often designated as positive philosophers, and pride themselves on following facts to whatever conclusions they may lead. How, then, can a hypothesis be maintained which not only has no fact to support it, but to which every known fact bearing on the case is directly hostile? If we may assume a thing to be true merely because it cannot be proved that at some time in the past, or at some place in the world, it might not have existed, then why doubt the reality of Sinbad's voyages, or the wonders of Aladdin's lamp?

It is urged, however, that at least different species may have originated in a common ancestor, and gradually diverged like the branches of a tree. The case is referred to in which from the same stock pigeons of different colors and forms have been produced. Unfortunately, however, for the evolutionist, the birds thus produced are invariably pigeons, and never hawks, ducks, or animals of any other species. If in one case it could be shown, for example, that a sweet-potato when planted had given rise to a sweet-potato-vine from its centre, while from its north end a young oak had sprouted, and from its south a pumpkin-vine had shot out, then there would be a striking fact for the evolutionist. It may be said that it is unreasonable to expect so great a change at a single bound, and that a long period should be imagined to effect such a result, but in the absence of all evidence, upon what basis can such an opinion rest?

These changes are supposed, by the advocates of the "natural selec tion" hypothesis, to have been produced among animals by their having been placed in situations sometimes in which they felt the want of the particular change. When suffering from cold, one animal would feel the want of hair, and to gratify its longings hair would grow on it. Another, to enable it to reach the leaves above it, by continually stretching its neck upward, and by wishing for it to be longer, would have it gradually extended, and in time become a giraffe, instead of remaining a deer or a camel. The ape, though he had never seen a man, as no man had yet existed, wished, nevertheless, to become one, and, by wishing very energetically, had his fore

paws converted into hands, his hinder ones changed into the flat feet of a man, his brain enlarged to three times its former size, and hist spine made erect.

One of the most earnest and ingenious of the advocates of the evolution theory, however, Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, finds a serious stumbling block in his way when he considers the changes which the ape underwent while being converted into a man. His hind foot lost its prehensile faculty by becoming like that of a man, and was, therefore, much less useful to him in climbing among the trees, while he did not for a long time at least know how to turn his hands to a good account. The great difficulty, however, which Mr. Wallace encountered was that he could not understand why the ape wished to get rid of the hair on his back when he became a man. All men are destitute of hair along the spine, while savages especially seem to desire to have it on their backs. The ape had it most abundantly on his back, and it would seem ought to have greatly rejoiced in it as a protection against the rain. Most animals, as Mr. Wallace observes, though they have little hair on their bellies, possess it in abundance on their backs, while along the spine especially it is thickest, sometimes taking the form of bristles. Mr. Wallace further states that savages seem especially to suffer from cold on their backs, and, therefore, when they can obtain even a small piece of skin they invariably place it over their shoulders. Some of them, as the Fuegians, are even smart enough to have the skin so tied on that they are able to shift it from side to side, according to the direction of the wind, to protect them from it. As, therefore, the hair was manifestly advantageous to the ape in his original condition, and was equally so to him after he became a savage, why in the world did he wish to get rid of it? And as savages feel the want of it so much, why did not "natural selection" give it back to them again? After casting about for some satisfactory answer, with little success, Mr. Wallace fears it will become necessary to seek for some other principle in addition to "natural selection." Ludicrous as this whole passage appears, one is not less amused with that narrowness of vision, which prevents him from seeing obstacles not less formidable to every part of his hypothesis.

It is also true, however, that while he is not staggered at all by the proposition that the ape, by wishing it, could have his brain expanded from a capacity of thirty-four inches at the utmost up to a bulk of more than a hundred inches, or above three times its original size, yet he cannot understand why the ape should have wished for a moral sense. He cannot perceive any reason why the animal should have desired the possession of conscientious feelings or a sense of right and wrong. In fact, such emotions, instead of being of advantage, would seem rather to have been an incumbrance to him while engaged in such predatory enterprises as our modern apes appear to take delight in. To this view also the objection exists that no organic change seems to have been produced in any animal by its feeling a desire for such a change. As yet it has not been stated that any one of the maimed soldiers that one meets has had his limb restored to him, though from their resorting to artificial helps there is little doubt but that