DUNEDIN PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY.

Evening Star, Issue 12842, 18 June 1906, Page 1

DUNEDIN PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY.

At the meeting of the above society last night in the Trades Hall_Mr G. A. Rawson delivered a short lecture on ' The Blood Relationship of Man and Apes,' based on the recent startling discoveries of Uhlenhuth, described by him in tho April number of the

' Monthly Review.' In the course of an interesting address Mr Rawson traced step by step the various stages of the process employed by Uhlenhuth in his investigations. The blood relationship of various animals, which tho theory of Evolution has already said were more or less closely related to one another, was shown to be proved beyond all doubt. And it was further shown that the experiments made had also proved tho blood relationship of man and apes indisputably. The immense support this discovery gave to the theory of Evolution, and especially to the Darwinian hypothesis of man's descent from the lower form, was emphasised by the lecturer. Mr Rawson ventured to predict that the non-Evolutionist would have a hard " nut to crack" if he attempted any explanation of these startling facts other than that offered by the theory of Evolution. The zoological classification of tho apes and man was also dealt with, and it was shown that the degrees of relationship, according to the accepted system of classification, were confirmed by the close and distant aflinities which tho blood' tests gave. Tho immense vahio of these discoveries in criminal cases was dealt with, and it was shown how it is now impossible for a murderer to escape from justice by saying that certain bloodstains are other than what thev arc suspected of being. Uhlenhuth could" tell to whin animal a certain blood-stain belonged with absolute certainty, even in the case of animals of closely allied species. Human blood could also be distinguished from an ape's blood. Tho whole process of identification was, described, and the tests employed by Uhlenhuth had never failed to produce the desired result. Tho lecturer terminated a valuable and instructive paper by reminding his hearers that tho truth of the great theory of Evolution had never been proved absolutely, according to the strict canons of logic. From its naturo it was incapable of such proof, and there were other fundamental problems of this world which, for the same reason, were also incapablo of strict logical proof, but wr accepted what wo considered to bo the truth in regard to them on a balance of the evidence in their favor. There was an overwhelming balance nf evidence in favor «f Evolution', which might tie called strong presumptive proof, and it was pointed out th:i-o the theory found its support not only in direct observation of the phenomena of Nature, but in the difficulty of forming auy eatisfactory alternative hypothesis. It was not enough for a man simply to say that he did not believe in the principle of Evolution. One had a right to ask him to give a more satisfactory explanation of the facts of Nature on some other hypothesis than that of the doctrine of Evolution which he rejected. This was a perfectly legitimate request, and if ho could not give a better or an equally good explanation on other lines, then logically ho admitted by his failure to do so that the theory he opposed offered a bettejp explanation of the facts th.-i.-i anv other theory he could bring to his aid. An interesting discussion followed, and the lecturer replied to numerous questions and criticisms.