THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 5291, 3 February 1879, Page 3

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

TO THE KDITOIt. Sir, —I feel grateful to your correspondent "Complex" for his kind " explanation" in this morning's issue. Will you permit me to offer a few remarks thereon ? I did not attempt to defend anything Mr Gra.n advanced on the Btibjicl; of Evolution, but dimply, as that gentleman had been charged witu ignorance of the subjoct, and with having made himeelf foolish by his reference to it, I p >inted out that the allegation did not prove tue fact, and that evidence was of more value than mere assertion to a thinking man. The same remark holds good in reply to " Complex 8 explanation or " ths lme which certain atheißte take about Evolution." I would ask "Complex" a few questions,

and require concise answers thereto. What particular kind of jelly does it require to develop into a hen ! Does he possess evidence of the jelly of a hen's egg developing into any other species of bird than that to which its progenitors belonged? Has ever a hen's egg produced a pheasant, or a pheasant's a peacook ? Is the jelly of a duck's egg capable of producing a swan ? Does universal observation not assert the fact that every parent only reproduces of its own kind ? and do not nrosßoa produce mules.?. Ido not assent to the terms of the sentence commencing', " If he believes that an animal can be formed from an egg." I only have evidence that the egg of a certain animal will, under certain londitions, produce an animal of the same ppacies. Why should I believe what in natural history is contrary to observation? It is the same with the acorn. It first required the oak to produce the acorn, and that acorn was simply capable, under certain conditions, of reproducing an acorn-bearer, not an appletree. lam quite open to conviction, but as evidence, so far as nature has been examined, is not in favour of the theory, it would not be rational for me to accept it as demonstrative without evidence. Tnere is no doubt that Evolution as a theory is admirably fitted to stimulate the active to further and more careful observation and research; but it is absurd to dignify it by any other name than a "theory;"— a science it is not, for science is based on what we know, while Evolution is a mere hypothesis. On the 15th August, 1877, Professor Allen Thomson, of Glasgow, and President of the British Association, said, in the course of as address before that body—" The reflection forces itself upon us that we sre just as ignorant of the mode of the first origin of all the compounds of organic elements as we are of that of living matter; and we may be excused if we suspend aU theory and conjecture until we shall be guided to moie reliable hypotheses through the plain track of observation and experiment." Professor Wyville Thomson, of .Edinburgh, who is an authority in this department of science, declares that "the great stumbling-block in the way of our at once accepting the Evolution hypothesis, is that any such passage from one species to another is entirely outside our experience. The horse has evidently been a horse since the eftrliest hieroglyphs were engraved upon Assyrian monuments and tombs, and the same holds for all living creatures. There is not a shadow of evidence of any one species having passed into another duriDg the period of human record or tradition Profound mystery etill involves the birth of new specific forms." Profossi r Virchow, than whom Germany possesses none more erudite in prehistoric research, declares—" We cannot teach, wo cannot pronounce to be a conquest of science, that man descends from an ape, or from any other animal." ' From the oldest evidence which I can procure, from the testimony of the rocks, I get one of my reasonß for refusing to accept the theory of man's origin according to Evolution, for there he appears as a fully developed man. When I obtain facts conveying at least the probability of man's descent from the lower forms of animal life, it will then be time enough for me to begin to " allow that man may have been evolved without an act of special creatioD." But until then I shall "suspend all conjecture." It is not for the opponents of, or disbelievers in, Evolution to show that it is not suited to effect the result claimed for it, but for its advocates to Bhow that it is. Will " Complex" undertake this ?— I am, &c, Simplex. 31st Janua)y