THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 495, 6 October 1882, Page 19

THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

SSJS^Z? " * leCtUFe d "l ivered at Wanganui on Mondaj, 18th >%ffe^ ,k T r °w Bandlence of »H classes of the community, by the Rev. Father Le Menant des Chesnais, F.M •— , , J* dieß and Ge°tlemen,-Self-knowledge is the most interesting Sit inT ?v ° f - aU B £ enceß ; ** i» of this science I wish to '&hro t^\lZ c - enmg ' 1 ' The Greeks called nmn thlf*rXs v K ne Who bebolds and contemplates the things Sp Alt ♦? 6 hlm T be « an <*. of all visible creatures, man is the only •««S !? i ° appreciate the beauty of the universe, and admire its wonderful phenomena. The Latins called him « W,» that is animated clay-because accor(iing to the Scriptures, his body was made SefinL ™. 8 n »c«» e «° f tbG e -; tb * Dr - B6rard ' a physiolS £ ™ « •!• mamm^frous-tnoHodelphie Uviava." But, according ?ntii- 8 definitl ,°. Q ' raan wou^ be only a perfected brute, without definpfm^^ lCl 7S7 S ™ d ™ ss ™?- Aristotle, with greater accuracy, defines man "A rational animal,"-because, by his material body, he bdongs to ammal creation; and by his soul he is rais-d above all ™tt c t f* tare ". and is spiritual, like God. This prince of philosophy th , at J na PnißlntelP niBlntelh .8 en . t ' free ' cn P able of cultivating arts and sciences, and of communicating his thoughts to his fellow-creatures. t£Z r^ U l Pcie P tlht B den y tb is, and will not believe that man nTI, n," lICC ' fß '"t ttl!c(<l species"; they affirm he is only ™£T *. m ° ie PeTfeCt tban others - Hence tbe necessity to examine whether man must be looked upon as a distinct specie^ or rod^ fl a ti C ifffv ' rUte A In hiß cosm °gony Moseo tells us that <,od coated all things and gave them the power to multiply themselves each according to its kind. He declares that God created man to Hisowb image, male and female, and He blessed them, saying • "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and rule over all living creatures." (Gen. i. 27-28.) From these texts it is evident that, according to Moses, God created types., distinct from one another HeeSltlJ ■ ° faCUIt 7. 0f Perpetuating themselves Tndefinitefy! «nd T* ™ a ? ltam * aa %. v f. net y of creatures, forming different species, and be gave to each a distinct nature and form, with the power to H, U oH P - yi i? f Wltho « tan y^ntial alteration-within the limits ef iLTJ^tI, ype ~~ 88 ° (b ? tt ' althoUgh tbeie ma y be varieties in itidividuals of the same species, yet these varieties will never be able to obliterate or change the nature or form of the specific type. This doctrine is most clear but it supposes a divine creation. Scientists, who will not admit of creation, have had therefore to deny it, and substitute another cosmogony to that of Moses- which they pretended to be out of Jarmony with scientific discoveries. At first they denied the unity of the human species, and then all specie were sub-e-C^k'l J^'an Offray de la Met Me was the first to profess S,hf " fW mate " a^ stn ' in his book call d•• L'homme Machine." Cabanis, the friend of Baron D'Holbach, D'Alembert, Diderot. Conm£% T, t?? C ?' I" hls book uß«ppport*u ß«ppport* dn Phytlp.eetdn iiZZI If Lhoi ? me > whlch be pnblibhcd in 1802, a-l Seated the system of spontaneous generation as being more in harmony with reason and science, than the Mos uc d^uia of creation. Mai L! in £'t rrfl 'J' d*n minoj** Indie* avec m Ml,sionmire SnriK ? h.A c " deavouml <". s!l " w all living animals, man included, had the same origia. According to Mailler, all the earth 7^J^ meT i y r der Wa l er ' aud all animalß have be en at fi.st marine TJ^lt* ft 6 8ea ' th ? re arti aDimals that swim at suifacc of fronTfhfV others * emain at the bottom: the birds have emanated £?£, « ? T6T 6r fl ; *W f a ° d mammif e^ have come from the L*!f -i H*f &yi AcA c - fißh> Baye Maille '' " faU U P°* the earth, its gills will be changed into wines and feet, and it will become a bird " How an intelligent man could have advanced gratuitously such exSffi [w*™'/* ™?I c ! han an eom^ehend, yet even Lamark himself in his" Qmndiratwns Qiniralesmr let Corps Organise*:' has SSSfnf 1 - °IBT\1 B T\ aberra , tioQ9 ; CLamark a,lmitted the direct creation of some kind of monad, endowed with life, in the sea. From WrfTT?* 7 ? m f B P° nta ? eoUß generations, during an indefinite iengtn of time, plants and animals came forth ; proceeding gradually ST* tbe ,i, im P erfect to the more perfect state. Lamark was never Sf* I addace an 7 real P ro °f of his system.] The Greeks had the same notion of the species as the Latins. The word " aenos " expressed a collection of beings of the same kind propagated from one SSwfc Tbußtb e Greeks spoke of mankind ,/«£&, antkropon," 2 g f W'. tha ' ?? a u n fomed a dißtinct B P eci^« Kato, the founder of the Academic School, admits of an absolute personal being who created and fashioned the world according to a divine protocol nf thf Lv r 8^ tle x>u W , aS °l tbe Bame °P inioD - Boeti ™. the founder of the Scholastic Philosophy, who lived in the fifth century of the Chnstian era, declares that both Plato and Aristotle understood by SfnT rd^J c8 \aclaß\ aclaB8 ° f b «ng3 distinct from all others, such as T£ ?f I*lo1 * 10 N r Otblng «« ** imagined more clear. Buffon, Linne, and Laurence Jussieu adopt the same opinion, which coincides admirably with the Mosaic account ©f creation. Charles sSE^w 88 ii b °° k °\" Th^. DeßCent Of Man '" and " The Or Vn of Species ; Wallace, m his "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection ; Ernst Hackel, in his « General Morphology'- ; LyellTin StoriS"*? 8 0f p Ge ? 10^;; Huxle y. to bis contributions^ the SST S lieVV> JJ V ' &Z"& Z" 4c " ftdmit of system of spontaneous generation and gradual evolution ; and they strongly entT^ UIU I Jf' m ° nStT^^ c " Bimian " origin of manf "Therein 5m - BayS Mn ?, arwin ' " tbat man is an off-shoot from the old world simian stem." In another place, he says :-« The early sSJKJS- wT 7k 1 "-' D 0 d ° Ubt ' ° DCc covered with hair, both S.Tfl^-' their earawer e pointed and capable of move£S a °d their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles. The foot was then prehensile, and our progenitors, no

system of Laroark. In the Martyrdom of Man he says: The " dots of animated jelly, without any form or figure, swimming unconscioußly in the primeval sea, were the ancestors of man." « Martyrdom of Man, p. 339.] [The great French anatomist, Cuvier is not of the opinion of Mr. Darwin ; he distinctly states that between man's organism and the organism of the highest among the beasts, the distinctions are of such magnitude and importance that the human race cannot be classified with any other order, but must be held to constitute an order by itself. Professor Owen owns the same opinion and many other eminent anatomist whom I couH quote if necessary —See " Primeval Man,"' by the Duke of Argyle, p. 89.1 Mr. Charles Darwin also affirms that man's reas n does not differ in species from the instinct of animals. His words are : " The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is is certainly one of degree, and not of kind." (Charles Darwin "The Descent of Man," p. 105.) Ernst Hackel agrees enti ely with this Darwinistic theory (naturalische schopfungsgeschickte) My answer to these sophisms is very simple. If the doctrine of evolution is true, how is it that the bones of cats, dogs, crocodiles and other animals, and the human skeleton of two, three, and four theusand yeara ago, are exactly the same as those of the present day ? How is it that the descriptions of various Hnimals, fishes, and birds and theauatomy of man, given by Aristotle in the Lyceum of the Penpateticians of Athens, 331 years before Christ, are found as exacr and accur-ite in the nineteenth century as they were in his time? If the specimen he so graphically describes had undergone any change, by comparing his descriptions with tho^e of modern scientists, we should at once be able to discover their discrepancies; yet we can find none. What pio.l* cm the defenders of spontaneous generation and of gradual evolution give us, that man was not from the beginning of the world what he is at present ? How have Darwin, Hackel, Lyell and Huxley been able to ascertain bc-yond the shadow of a doubt that our early progenitors were covered with hair ; that their bodies were provided with a tail ; that both sexes had beards; that they lived in the woods, and climbed up trees— like the chimpanzee of Africa, the gorilla, or the orangoutang, or wild man ot the woods of Borneo anJ Sumatra ? All these affirmations are very extraordinary, and iequire strong and manifest proofs before b.>ing credited. [Dr. Melia says he has consulted some clever comparative anatomists concerning the assertion that the link is i ow found connecting men with animals, and their opinion has been altogether adverse to that statement. The chief ancient remains in Pleistocene, if genuine, are certainly not a low type 1 Darwin and his followers, in order to justify their systems, invoke th» anatomical and psycological likeness between man and simian animal", but they seem ti forget the many essential point 9in which they diflvr from one another. The foot of man, for instance is entirely different from that of the orang-outang, gorilla, or chimpanzee. When man is standing his entire foot rests on the ground • it is arched from the heel to the ball of the toes ; when be is walking the heel touches the ground first. This shows that the feet of man were intended to b ar the weight of the body in an erect position The foot of all the anima's of the monkey tribe has no instep • the heel never touches th.j grou-«l : and the toes are like finders for which reason they are calif. l f.>ur-hamled, or quadrvmana, whilst man is called a two-handei oreatuie, bimana. The resemblance of tbe monkeys to man is only superficial, and it is astonishing the defenders of evolution should never have remarked that both the structure of the limbs as well as the internal organisation can bear no comparison with that of man. The leg of man, for instance forms a straight line with his trunk, showing he was created to stand erect ; in tbe monkeys and all other animals, on the contrary, the legs form aa angle more or less acute with the spine— showing they were made not to stand upright but to walk on all- fours.— When standing upright all other animals feel distressed and uncomfortable • neither can they keep erect for a considerable time ; this position on the contrary, is quite easy and natural to man. The hand of monkeys is the one which most resembles the human hand, yet it is very different. The thumb of monkeys is not strong like the human finger, and the whole anatomy of it shows that the hand of tbe monkeys was given them to climb, and grasp, not to enable them to execute mechanical movements like man. Again, tbe human head differs from that of all other animak in two things : In the monkey and other animals the skull or cranium is behind the face ; in man on the contrary, it is above it. The monkeys have scarcely any forehead, whereas it is well developed in man ; the facial angle of monkeys never exceeds five degrees, while even in negroes it is, at least, twice that number. (To le continued.)