EVOLUTION.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17714, 18 May 1929, Page 8

EVOLUTION.

ftICTURE AT HAMILTON.

BY PROFESSOR HUNTER. A LIVELY DISCUSSION. Both bellovors In evolution and opponents of the theory were present In good force at the Winter Show Hall last evening, when Professor T. A. Hunter lectured on the subject. Tho meeting lasted about three hours, quite half the time being given up to questions and discussion. The lecture was arranged by the Workers’ Educational Association. Mr F. A. de la Mare, who presided, introduced the lecturer as Professor of Philosophy at Wellington, ViceChancellor of the University of New Zealand, and a great worker for the W.E.A. He said no one in the Dominion had fought more for freedom of thought than Professor Hunter. (Applause.) The Professor likened the discovery of evolution to the work of Copernicus, a Pole, who about 500 years ago had upset the Ideas of the day in regard to the world. People at the time had regarded this earth as the centre around which the whole universe revolved. Copernicus had shown that this planet was only a small part of a great system, revolving around our sun, and that there were many other suns much larger than ours. So Charles Darwin had made it appear that man had not such a dominant position in the world as he had imagined. Darwin was not the first to hold that idea. Linnaeus and Lamarck had shown the relation of man to lower animals. But Darwin had gathered such a wealth of facts that people became interested in the idea of evolution. It was natural enough for people to regard these discoveries as blows to man’s prestige. He (Professor Hunter) thought such people were wrong. As Copernicus had opened men’s minds and made the advances of the Renaissance and of modern science possible, so Darwin's discoveries had freed men from a great deal of false tradition, and set them on the Path of Salvation—if they were wise and honest and sympathetic enough to follow that path. The advance made by mankind to date had been largely in controlling the physical forces of nature. Man had been able lo harness the lightning and other forces, and he had changed the face of the world. Such was the work of the nineteenth century. He believed that it was for man during tho present century to develop similarly our social and psychological forces — forces which would lift us to a still higher realm of being. Of one thing they could be sure—that if they were men, they must learn to face the facts, whatever they might be. The Truth never injured any real interest of mankind —real religion, real morality, or anything else. True, we might have to give up some of our dogmas, but nothing vital in religion or morality could he lost thiough facing the fads. While the lecturer believed that the general fact of evolution was now firmly established, there was not general agreement, lie said, as to the factors producing evolution. Darwin had put the emphasis on natural selection, but Weismann and Mendel had shown that there were other factors, perhaps more important. Again, it was generally agreed among scientists that man had not descended from the apes, but that his relation with them, if any, was rather that of cousins a thousand times removed. He sa wno reason, however, why man should be ashamed of having descended from ape-like beings. Pride of Ancestry. “It is a very poor type of human attitude," said Professor Hunter, “to blame a man because of his ancestry. It is contemptible that people should be either praised or blamed because of their ancestry. It is the individual man and his attitude towards the social problems of our day that should merit our praise or blame.” They should not think of evolution as applying to the body alone, but as seen in man’s culture, in his mind, his dwellings, and social life. Finally, they must remember the importance of the lime factor in evolution. We were accustomed to think in terms of our own term of life. Probably manlike beings had been on the earth for 500,000 or even nearly 1,000,000 years. He suggested that the whole process of human history should be imagined as being compressed into 50 years. Then 19 of these years would he required to bring man from the hunting stage to primitive agriculture. .In the last year would come the development of writing, art, the coming of Christianity, and the inventions of steam power, electricity, and so forth.

They had to accept, the fact that man was an animal, said the lecturer. Those who had to deal will abnormal mentalities saw how easy it was for humans to fall back. But man differed greatly from the lower animals in brain capacity. With this had come development of mind. Man had developed also the use of the hands, the power of vision, and the faculty of language, and the ability to conceive free ideas. Whilst it had been shown that apes had a remarkable capacity for solving problems, they had to have the problems actually before their eyes. Man's superiority lay in the fact that he could reckon out beforehand how things would behave—for instance, what strains bridges and reservoirs could stand. If man had not this capacity his civilisation would be in grave danger. Missing Links Found. There, used to lie much talk (said the lecturer) about the missing link. Now we knew that there were many missing links —but they were not missing. We had found them. He recorded the discovery of the Java apeman, the Heidelberg man (1907), the Piltdown man in Sussex, the Rhodesian man (1921), the Neanderthae man (many examples since 1856), and latest the Taungs skull (found near Kimberley), in regard to which there was disagreement as to whether it had belonged to a man-like ape or an ape-like man. Considering the short period during which such relics had been sought, the lecturer thought scientists had had remarkable success. But these were only beginnings and gave promise of more important discoveries in years to come. In viewing the slides, they should remember that, instead of 70 or 80, they could view 70,000 or 80,000 giving evidence or the process of evolution, if time permitted. They should remember also that what scientists looked for in these days was not mathematical proof from certain axioms, but to gather such a wealth of facts as would promote progress and development in knowledge.

Lantern Illustrations. Among the most interesting of the lantern slides shown were those representing the embryo forms of various animals. It was seen that in the earlier pre-natal stages the human was hardly distinguishable from the pig, calf, or rabbit, but in the later stages each began to assume its distinct form So, 100, a baby chimpanzee was shown with an almost human attitude, much more nearly human than that of the older apes of the same species. On the other hand, it was shown that babies had proportionately longer forearms than adults, and in this respect approached somewhat nearer to the ape type. Professor Hunter mentioned that the differentiation in habits and capabilities depended largely on the social environment of the community. For instance, two children in India had wandered from their parents and had been reared by wolves, and they had not developed the faculty, of speech or the erect posture. The pictures showing how the brain had developed in the human to a far greater extent than in even the highest of the other animals were striking. It was through this development that man had been able to bring under his sway beasts of the field which were very much stronger than he. However, in the embryo up to six weeks of age the brain of the human was very little different from that of the lower forms of life. At later stages the human cerebral hemispheres showed remarkable development. Notwithstanding the popular belief to the contrary, said the lecturer, human beings had tails. He showed a picture of a Tamil infant with a tail several inches long. Cultural Evolution. Man’s distinctive feature being the freedom of his hands for the making of things, his development was seen In the improvement of his tools through the ages. At first man was concerned mostly with the making of weapons for the hunt, and for fighting. First he made them of stone, then of bones,; then bronze, then iron, and lastly steel j and all manner of alloys. Advance had been made also in the methods of disposing of the dead. At one time there had been no burial.! Later great precautions had been taken; to ensure that the dead should not return, mounds of heavy stones being piled over their bodies. The. grave-i stone had originally beep, not a monument on which to inscribe eulogies of the dead, but a weight to lie fiat on top of the grave to keep the deceased within bounds. The pyramids and Stonehenge were examples of elaborately ritualistic modes of burial. The development of human habitations was also shown. The first dwell-' ings were rude caves; then came the more carefully hewn caves set in cliffs, where the dwellers had com-, parative security. For security also! other people built their homes onj piles over the waters of the lakes.! Boats were shown to have.been ev’olv-' ed from the rudest dugout coracles. It 1 w-as remarkable what fine canoes had been dug out by the Maoris with only stone axes. Carts had originally had shafts and a body without wheels. 1 Professor Hunter said a'monument: might well be raised to the unknown man who had invented wheels. If wheels were taken away, modern civilisation would hardly survive. The 1 development of pictorial art and sculpture from the rudest beginnings was also portrayed. „ Lastly were shown pictures of apes which had been required to solve all{ manner of mechanical problems in H order to get food. It was remarkable how they saw the necessity of piling boxes on one another, and in some 1 cases assisting one another, In order that one of their number might be able to grasp the food. j A Plea for Toleranoe. i After showing the slides, Professon Hunter said he did not want anyone) to imagine that he had given the; whole evidence for evolution. In the j twentieth century they must look for- j ward. The one thing essential was: that they should develop tolerance, j without which progress was impos-! sible. John Dewey, the American philosopher, had said that liberty of thought and expression was the only way to reconcile tranquillity with progress. They must not rest content with the rights handed down to them by their ancestors. They must continue to demand freedom of expression, and they mus! have men willing to face death, like Bruno. They could not eliminate human nature, hut they should direct it along paths of social advantage rather than social disaster. Wherever they had persecution because of opinions, there the old cave man was making himself felt. They did not want uniformity of life; that was the death-knell of progress. They wanted diversity. Increase of toleration was the surest indication of sound progress. He quoted from Ella WheeleT Wilcox, "The few who dare must speak and speak again to right the wrongs of many.” Questions.

In reply to Dr. W. 11. Pettit, Professor Hunter said evolutionists did not believe that all species were necessarily evolving. Some might have reached the apex of their development; some became extinct. How was it (asked a questioner) that man, if he had evolved from a hairy brute, had got rid of the hair from his body? The lecturer replied that he had not. There was hair almost all over the body, though, fortunately, it had become less noticeabAsked how mankind had developed a moral nature, the Professor said morality had been of very slow growth* and was largely the consequence of living in communities. in the lower animals there were qualities on which morality could be based—for instance, maternal affection. As to the claim that morality was a patter of religious belief, he pointed out tha; there had been moral and immoral individuals in every community, and of all shades of belief. Dr. Pettit quoted Sir Arthur Keith as saying that the human embryo did not at any stage appear like an anthropoid. Professor Hunter replied that this might show that the forms through which man had evolved v.ere different from what they had supposed, but it was no argument against evolution, in which Sir Arthur Keith still believed. Questioned regarding the Biblical storv of creation, the Professor said. “I cannot agree that- the first chapter of Genesis is anything more nan a myth of the primitive people who Cre in Le regard to the question whether man had a spiritual life, he said there were two schools ot philosophy— the idealist and what might be called the dynamic. lr by the “spiritual was meant something distinct from physical, mental and emotional, he did not himself believe it existed. The meeting closed with votes of thanks to the lecturer and the lantern operator, Mr G. Cartwright.