TRANSITION--SPONTANEOUS GENERATION--VESTIGIAL ORGANS--RECAPITULATION THEORY--MISSING LINKS-- EVOLUTION GENERALLY-- TEETH RECONSTRUCTIONS --PROTOPLASM'S ORIGIN--MISCELLANEOUS.

This appendix consists principally of additional testimony on the various subjects already dealt with in Evolution, Science, and the Bible.

To have included them all in the various chapters, would have tended to overload the subjects treated. They are, however, too good to lose altogether, and so the matter has been met by this appendix.

There are also a few quotations upon matters not specifically dealt with in the text. These are added for the benefit of those who, knowing something of Evolution, may think that we have evaded telling evidences.

They have been omitted for other reasons: certainly not because of their formidable character. No Evolution evidence is formidable; most of it is puerile.

The first section of this appendix will contain reproduced evidences under the heading of:

TRANSITION (alleged change of species)

Professor Kolliker:

"NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS of animals are met with among the organic remains of earlier epochs." Darwiniana, p. 88.

Darwin:

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms." Origin of Species, p. 124.

Sir J. W. Dawson:

"NO CASE IS CERTAINLY KNOWN IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE where any species of animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characters of a new species." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 178.

Sir Charles Bell, University College, London:

"Everything declares the species to have their origin in A DISTINCT CREATION, NOT IN A GRADUAL VARIATION from some original type." Vide Evolution Disproved, p. 75.

Professor Owen:

"NO INSTANCE OF CHANGE OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED BY MAN." Ibid, p. 23.

Professor Agassiz:

"THERE IS NOT A FACT KNOWN TO SCIENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT A SINGLE KIND HAS EVER BEEN TRANSMITTED INTO ANY OTHER." Ibid, p. 74.

De Vries:

"The constancy of species is a demonstrated fact." Vide Bankruptcy of Evolution, p. 71.

Mr. R. H. Kindersley:

"If, then, the Darwinian hypothesis is a true account of the production of species, how comes it to pass that MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES CANNOT PRODUCE FERTILE OFFSPRING, but only those of the same species. This would seem to be rather a safeguard against any variation, but tend powerfully to secure that each created species shall multiply only 'after its kind.' " Vide Evolution or Creation, p. 39.

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

Professor T. H. Huxley:

"With respect to spontaneous generation, while admitting that there is no experimental evidence in its favour, Professor Haeckel denies the possibility of disproving it, and points out that THE assumption THAT IT HAS OCCURRED, IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION." Darwiniana, p. 109.

Professor T. H. Huxley:

Spontaneous variation.

"WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW anything about the cause of phenomena WE CALL IT SPONTANEOUS." Ibid, p. 403.

Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace:

"I submit that in view of the actual facts of growth and organisation . . . and that LIVING PROTOPLASM HAS NEVER BEEN CHEMICALLY PRODUCED, the assertion that life is due to chemical and mechanical processes alone is QUITE UNJUSTIFIED."

"Neither the probability of such an origin, nor even its possibility, has ever been supported by anything which can be termed scientific fact or logical reasoning." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 234.

Dr. Morton:

"Thus it (evolution) being quite impossible, not indeed to prove, but even merely to conceive." Bankruptcy of Evolution, p. 147.

Professor Tyndall:

"SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, OR EVOLUTION, or development ARE ABSURDITIES too monstrous to be entertained by any sane mind." Vide Evolution Disproved, p. 50.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS

These are alleged vestiges of various organs which are at present in the course of disappearing, through disuse and outworn need. The examples given are organs, like the familiar appendix, for which no use is known.

Growing knowledge of the body's functions is gradually reducing the list of so-called vestiges. IT WAS NOT KNOWLEDGE THAT ATTRIBUTED USELESSNESS TO THESE ORGANS BUT IGNORANCE.

Thus you have Sir A. Keith writing like this:

Sir Arthur Keith:

"Evidently in the human ancestry, a third eye-lid had been present, such as can be seen in the eye of a cat, but allusion must be made to a very remarkable vestige of another eye, now completely buried beneath the great mass of our brain."

But later like this:

"It has always been the custom to regard those organs whose function or uses are unknown as useless, rudiment, or vestigial organs. AS OUR KNOWLEDGE of the body HAS INCREASED, THE LIST OF USELESS ORGANS HAS DECREASED." Vide Evolution Criticised, pp. 62, 73.

"Many organs, such as the thyroid gland, the thymus gland, and the pineal gland, formerly classified as rudimentary glands, are FOUND TO BE VERY USEFUL AND NECESSARY." Evolution Disproved, p. 86.

THE RECAPITULATION THEORY

(Embryology)

Professor Sedgwick:

"THE FACTS as we know them, LEND NO SUPPORT to the theory." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 77.

Professor F. W. Gamble:

"The question is one of enormous difficulty, and the confident affirmative of twenty years ago is now rarely heard ... MAN IS AT no TIME A FISH, AN AMPHIBIAN, OR A REPTILE as it is somewhat crudely put." Ibid, p. 80.

Professor E. W. MacBride:

"The recapitulatory interpretation of life history was pursued with such fervour during the latter half of last century that it provoked a reaction, and MANY NATURALISTS NOW SPEAK SLIGHTINGLY OF THIS THEORY." Ibid, p. 80.

Sir Arthur Keith:

"Now that the appearances of the embryo at all ages are known, the general feeling is one of disappointment: THE HUMAN EMBRYO AT no STAGE IS ANTHROPOID IN ITS APPEARANCE." Ibid, p. 82.

Professor Bateson

"We are endeavouring by means of a mass of conflicting evidence to reconstruct the series of Descent, but of the laws which govern such a series we are ignorant . . .

"It will, I think, before long be admitted that in this attempt to extend the general proposition to particular questions of descent THE EMBRYOLOGICAL METHOD HAS FAILED . . .

"It has been established almost entirely BY INFERENCE, and it has been demonstrated by actual observation in scarcely a single instance." Ibid, p. 268.

Professor Sedgwick

"It must therefore be admitted that the one outcome of the progress of embryological and palaeontological research for the last fifty years is negative. The RECAPITULATION THEORY ORIGINATED AS A DEDUCTION, AND AS A DEDUCTION IT still REMAINS." Vide Bankruptcy of Evolution, p. 147.

MISSING LINKS

Charles Darwin:

"Connecting links" (between man and the lower animals) "have not hitherto been discovered." Descent of Man, p. 165.

Professor Virchow

"All the researches undertaken with the aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been without result. There exists no Proanthropus, no monkey-man, and THE 'CONNECTING LINK' REMAINS A PHANTOM." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 74.

Professor Virchow:

"We find a great void which we try to fill with FANTASTIC IMAGININGS, but which furnishes us with NO REAL SPECIMENS." Ibid, p. 140.

Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace:

"WE SEEK IN VAIN FOR EVIDENCE of the kind we desire, and this ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE with such an apparent WEALTH OF MATERIAL is held by many persons to throw doubt on the theory of evolution itself." lbid, p. 184.

Dr. W. Bell Dawson:

"THE WHOLE EARTH HAS BEEN SEARCHED during seventy years since Darwin's day, to find the lowest possible type of skull. Yet it is NOW ADMITTED even by advocates of Evolution that human skulls which are among the earliest known, have AS LARGE BRAIN CAPACITY AS THOSE OF MEN NOW LIVING." Bible, Confirmed by Science, p. 131.

This is confirmed, by Sir Arthur Keith, as recently as this year (1943).

In a letter to the author, writing of the Piltdown man, he says:

"YOU MAY TAKE IT AS CERTAIN that Piltdown man, early in the present geological period, had a BRAIN QUITE AS BIG AS MANY LIVING WOMEN AND MEN."

EVOLUTION GENERALLY

The doctrine of Evolution, as a general whole, is called in question or repudiated in the following quotations from various writers.

Professor Johannes Ranke:

"Whilst a charming picture of the past . . . is being shown us and whilst a fanciful design is being carried out in all directions we are ... in quest of facts not of theories ... THE RESULT IS A WORK MERELY OF THE IMAGINATION." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 120.

Professor W. Branca:

"Palaeontology tells us nothing on the subject--IT KNOWS NO ANCESTORS OF MAN." Ibid, p. 121.

Professor J. Reinke:

"The only statement consistent with her dignity, that science can make, is to say that she KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF MAN." Ibid, p. 121.

Dr. James Orr, Edin. University:

"The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead." Vide Evolution Disproved, p. 75.

Professor W. B. Scott:

"The net result of observation is not favourable to the essentially Darwinian view . . . (a) widespread belief that naturalists have become very doubtful as to the truth of the theory of evolution and are casting about for some more satisfactory substitute." Vide Evolution Criticised, p. 284.

"Personally I have never been satisfied that Darwin's explanation is the rightful one: to one who approaches the problem from the study of fossils, the doctrine of NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO OFFER AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION OF THE OBSERVED facts." Ibid, p. 284.

Professor H. H. Newman:

"Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that THERE IS no ABSOLUTE PROOF OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION." Vide Evolution Disproved, p. 7.

Professor W. Bateson:

"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SCIENTISTS LONGER TO AGREE WITH DARWIN'S THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. No explanation whatever has been offered to account for the fact, that after forty years, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED to verify his genesis of species." Ibid, p. 23.

Professor Beale:

"There is NO EVIDENCE that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process." Ibid. p. 74.

In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, THERE IS NOT, AT THIS TIME, A SHADOW OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE." Ibid, p. 74.

Dr. D. W. Thompson:

"The Darwinian theory is now REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF BIOLOGISTS, AS absurdly INADEQUATE." Ibid, p. 74.

Professor Beale:

"The further I have been able to penetrate into the inner secrets of living nature and the processes of movement and vital structure formation, the more IMPOSSIBLE have I

found it TO ACCEPT, as of general application to the life world, THE DOCTRINES OF DARWIN." Vide Bankruptcy of Evolution, p.100.

Sir J. William Dawson:

"It is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity: it is UTTERLY DESTITUTE OF PROOF." Ibid, p. 102.

Professor Kellogg:

"The fair truth is that Darwinian selection theories...stand today seriously discredited in the biological world." Ibid, p. 104.

Dr. H. F. Osborn:

"Between the appearance of Origin of Species in 1859 and the present time there have been great waves of faith in one explanation and then in another: each of these waves of confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we have reached a stage of very general scepticism." Ibid, p. 104.

Sir Ambrose Fleming:

"Fleischmann says that the gradual and ever increasing production of species assumed by natural selection is purely A PRODUCT OF THE IMAGINATION AND NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY based on correct interpretation of facts." Evolution or Creation, p. 46.

Professor H. F. Osborn:

"We are MORE AT A LOSS THAN EVER BEFORE TO UNDERSTAND THE CAUSES OF EVOLUTION. One after another, the Buffonian, Lamarkian, Darwinian, Weismannian and De Vriesian theories of causation have collapsed." Ibid p. 41.

Dr. W. Bell Dawson:

"Science--is now finding the way of Evolution a tortuous path, with fresh obstacles confronting it at every turn; because the FURTHER KNOWLEDGE which arises from NEW RESEARCHES, instead of confirming the theory, ARE FOUND TO BE AGAINST IT." Bible Confirmed by Science, p. 71.

TEETH RECONSTRUCTIONS

In a child's biology book called Living Things, by Richard Palmer, are reproduced, on page 214, very clear drawings of four stages in the evolution of the horse's foreleg and hoof.

One of the four is our old friend Merychippus, THE HORSE WITH TEETH AND A NAME! Thus are young and trusting minds seduced from the Bible record of Creation.

The tooth "reconstruction" practice is not confined to horse fossils but extends to men, in the presumptuous practice of certain professors. Let the following account speak for itself:

"Dr. H. F. Osborn ... found in Nebraska an imperfect molar tooth. He declared that this tooth belonged to one of the missing links between Man and the Simian stock . . . He named the supposed owner "Hesperopithecus" . . .

"In'Nature,' June, 1922, Dr. Smith-Woodward, Keeper of Geology in the British Natural History Museum, gives his opinion that IT WAS THE TOOTH OF A PLIOCENE BEAR I

"But Professor Elliott-Smith of London University, believing Dr. Osborn to be right, succeeded in getting the Editor of the Illustrated London to print an article upon this "ancestor" of the Human Race, and to have it illustrated by a great two--page picture, presenting to the innocent public of Great Britain pen and ink portraits . . . not only of Hesperopithecus himself but also of Mrs. Hesperopithecus, his wife!" Vide The Bankruptcy of Evolution, p. 140.

PROTOPLASM'S ORIGIN

Baulked of their explanation of protoplasm's planetary origin, some have recklessly suggested that it arrived here by meteoric conveyance!

Meteorites in incalculable numbers travel in a body round the sun. When our earth crosses their path, some of the stragglers are caught up in the earth's gravitational pull. They then fall earthward with amazing velocity, burning with incandescent heat. They are familiar sights in our November night-skies, and are popularly known as "shooting stars."

Only the heaviest, maybe weighing several thousand tons, ever reach the earth. Then it is but a remnant weighing a few pounds. The great majority burn right away long before they reach the earth.

The heat required to dissipate such a mass can be well imagined. What in the meantime would happen to any protoplasm?

Of course the idea of protoplasm even living on a barren inhospitable meteorite with no vegetation is unthinkable enough: but to be followed by such a fiery ride where the heat would not only sterilize but annihilate! Why even the fabled salamander would be incinerated; but there you know the proverb: "a drowning man will clutch at a straw." But what a straw!

MISCELLANEOUS QUOTATIONS