HOW MAN WAS EVOLVED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16744, 27 May 1922, Page 3

HOW MAN WAS EVOLVED.

SCIENCE'S FASCINATING PROBLEM.

Attacks on the Darwinian theory continue to crop up at intervals. The latest comes from Dr A. T. Schofield (says the Melbourne “ Age ”), who, addressing the members of the Victoria Institute, said:—“We fear we must at last i>ai*t with our old friend

‘the missing link.' Tending Scientists of the day deny tho existence of our friend anywhere. He is certainly backward in coming forward.” I have just had the pleasure, and a very real one, of discussing these attacks with Sir Ray Lankcrster in his study at Chelsea.

“ I really wonder,” he said, in answer to my first question. “ why papers print such rubbish. It is always written or spoken by people who are in entire ignorance of the whole subject, and who disclose this ignorance by what they say or write.

“ Not long ago I had to deal with a reverend gentleman who calmly informed the world that ‘ Evolution is a fiction of ingenious theorists that no longer seriously correspnds with the facts of nature.*

“ Such a proposition is obviously absurd. Tt is actually stated in so many words that either the ‘ facts of nature * or ‘ evolution,* or both of them, have undergone some change, so that evolution is I no longer * (as he suggests it once was) in correspondence with the facts of nature “What we meant to. sav was that the theory of evolution no longer corresponds with our knowledge of the facts of nature, and that it is contradicted by, or at variance with, these facts as now ascertained. UNASSAILABLE DOCTRINE. “ But neither he nor any of the other controversialists who are continualiy proclaiming that the Darwinian theories have been finally discredited and abandoned by scientific men ever attempts to adduce evidence in support of that assertion. “ They cannot do this because there is no such evidence to be found. The doctrine of organic evolution is so firmly established by solid fact and argument, and has been so long in that position, that those familiar with biological science treat the wild attacks of casual assailants with silent contempt.

“Let us he quite clear,” continued i Sir Rav Lankester, “ as to what we mean when we talk about evolution ” Here he went to a book shelf and took down a volume. “This.” he said. “ is a oopy of j ** The Origin of Species,* presented to me hv Darwin himself. Tf you look at the title page you will there see Darwin’s own definition of his theory. ‘ On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’ “ Scientists before Darwin put forward evolution as a theory. In the 18th century Lord Monbod do suggest- , ed the descent, of man from apes ! and brought upon his head the wrath of Dr Johnson. Lamarck and other philosophers also believed in evolution. SUPPORTING DARWINS THEORY. “ But it was left to Darwin to discover how that evolution was brought about- —namely, by the natural selection of favoured races. “The facts adduced by Darwin are being added to every day— and it is with these facts that people who talk about evolution as an exploded theory are confronted- They seem to he entirely ignorant of the facts", and of Darwin’s argument. “ As to this talk about the ‘ missing link,’ it should be borne in mind that tho wonder is. not that we have so few remains of past animals and species left in the geological strata,

but that wo have any at all. Bones dissolve in time—unless they happen ti have been left in such a position, that water cannot reach thorn. It is only in verv exceptional circumstances that we are able to find them as they were left when the animal to which they belonged died. “ Although we have few bony remains of ancient man, we have countless evidences of his existence in the shape of the weapons and tools he fashioned.”

Here Sir Ray Lankester went to a cabinet and selected from it a number of flint implements, one of which was found under the Norfolk Crag at Wliitlingham, near Norwich, in 1911. That flint,” he said, “ was found in a bed of nodules, the date of the deposit of which we are able to fix approximately. At present there is no reason to doubt that the nodule bed below the Norfolk Crag, resting on tho chalk, is of Pliocene age, and that this flint, found in that stone bed, is not later in age than the Pliocene. though it may be earlier.” And what would you say is the r*f that stone hod? ” I asked. l< At least 000,000 years,” was the reply. And dogs this flint bear marks of human workmanship? ” 1 ndoubtedly. When we examine closely the fractures by means of which this piece nf flint has been shaped, it becomes evident that they have been administered in definite moor, and that «-«ch and all have been directed so n« t • produce the svmmetrical form and peculiar beak-line shape which it now presents Not one of these A i natures can be regarded a- accidental. It i n t posshle to entertain the supposition that the distinct blows resulting in this special shape can have been caused by friction with other flints. 11 But we have other evidence. We have found many flints worked in tho some way. And what is more inter esting still, we have found hundreds of irregular hunks of flint at Whitlingham hearing the marks of heavy blows. This means to indicate that we have here the remnants of ancient workshops in which the big chalk flints were continually being chipped into serviceable shape by the ancient workers, and that the fine, well-made and symmetrical implements were at once •disposed of and carried off for use, whereas the work of f ’prentice hands ’ were left in quantity on the spot where they were made.

PROGRESS IN CHINS. “The fact remains that he have here handiwork performed by man at least 500,000 years ago of such a quality as to show a high state of intelligence. That such intelligence existed at that i emote period is an indication that man must have /existed for a long period before that.” Sir Ray Lankester then produced a case which contained three plaster casts. One was that of the jawbone of the Neanderthal race, another that of a chimpanzee, and the third a cast of the jawbone found at Piltdown. He showed that the chin of the chimpanzee retreats, as does that of the Neanderthal man, whereas the chins of the men of to-day stand out prominently. The jawbone from Piltdown indicated an intermediate form between the Neanderthal man and the great apes. It had the retreating chin common to both, but exaggerated and flattened as in the ape. The teeth had been worn flat like those of the Neanderthal and also of modern man, caused by the right and left grinding action of the jaws which man possesses a t tho present day. The teeth of the chimpanzee showed no trace of this wearing, because that animal can only 3nove its jaws vertically It is interesting to notice that a canine tooth was found near the Piltdown fragment, and apparently belonging to it. which is much bigger than that of either modern or Neanderthal man, but a good deal \smaller than that of a chimpanzee—so that it would not altogether prevent a lateral movement of the jaw and the flattening of the cheek-teeth by wear.—“ Daily Chronicle.”