The fables of the creation of nature and man by various fantastic and ridiculous means, which have, for thousands of years, found favour with the unthinking multitudes inhabiting the earth, and which even now are, one or other, firmly believed by the large majority of both the Eastern and Western populations, must, ere long, gradually give way to the truer and grander theory of Evolution, resulting from the study of the natural sciences. Priests, monks, and other interested people, backed up by the enormous wealth which has accumulated to the various religious creeds during the past centuries of darkness, ignorance, and gross credulity, will, no doubt, oppose all their tremendous forces against the new philosophy, thus, for a while, delaying the inevitable result. But this condition of things cannot last long. Education is doing, and will continue to do, its work, until, at length, falsehood and slavery will give place to truth and liberty.

In order to discover the origin of man, it is necessary to carry the mind back to a very remote period, and observe the mode of development of our planetary system; for, according to the theory of Evolution, there were no starting points for particular forms in nature, the whole universe consisting of one continuous unfolding of phenomena.

The modern theory of the mode of development of our earth, as also of all other planets and suns, is the one known as the “Nebular Hypothesis,” which is the prelude to the great theory of Evolution, and which teaches us that the earth, the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the heavenly host are the effects or results of the condensation of a nebulous vapour, which took place many millions of years ago, after having been diffused for an incalculable period of time throughout the illimitable expanse of space. The cause of this nebulous vapour, or attenuated matter, is unknown to us, and will probably ever remain enshrouded in the profound mystery which at present envelopes it. Beyond this limit all is mere speculation or hypothesis; and the Agnostic philosopher and the man of science, humbly acknowledging their complete inability to solve this mighty problem of ultimate causation, are content to leave further speculation in this direction to metaphysicians and poets.

During many long ages this process of condensation of the nebulous vapour steadily continued, being controlled by the laws of gravitation and transformation, until, at length, a number of rotating spherical nebular masses were formed, in a state of high heat from the shock of their recently-united atoms, which spheres gradually cooled by radiation, consequently contracting and becoming possessed of a more rapid rotary motion, giving off from their equatorial regions large rings of vapour, which, in their turn, condensed and, under the influence of the same two laws, formed separate spheres for themselves. This is the mode by which our planetary system was formed, as taught by Laplace and accepted by the scientists of to-day.

The earth, then, in common with other planets, may be said to have passed from the condition of a gaseous to a highly-heated fluid mass, and to have gradually become plastic, and moulded by revolution on its own axis to its present shape—i.e., an oblate spheroid, or globe, flatter at the poles than at the equator, with a polar diameter about twenty-six miles shorter than the equatorial diameter. This is the shape that all plastic bodies which rotate on their axes must assume, as we are clearly taught by mathematics.

Assuming, then, that the earth was in a state of incandescence when it began to take a definite form, we shall at once see that the denser materials composing it would gravitate towards the centre, forming a semi-plastic mass surrounded by an envelope of gases and watery vapour. The gases would be quickly disposed of in various chemical combinations, and the watery vapour would be condensed and deposited in depressions on the surface of the central mass as soon as it had become cooled sufficiently. The outer crust of this central, semi-solid mass was soon converted, under the intense heat, into a hard, granite-like rock, which was continually subject to sudden upheavals, resulting partly from the violent escape of gases, and partly from water passing through fissures on the surface to the heated interior and giving rise to steam of great expansive power. In this manner great inequalities of the surface were, no doubt, produced, whose rugged edges, after the lapse of a vast period of time, were gradually softened down by the subsequent action upon them of air and water. This first rock formation is termed by geologists the Plutonic (from Pluto, monarch of hell), on account of its being the result of intense heat, and not, as is the case with all other rock formations, laid down in layers by water. Whether the Plutonic rock forms a solid centre to our earth is matter of uncertainty; but all are agreed that the internal heat of our planet, whether caused by the friction of the particles of a solid substance or by a molten fluid, is still, even in these later times, intense. In boring through the earth’s crust, the average increase in temperature for every fifty feet of descent, after the first hundred feet from the surface, is one degree Fahr., which would give us, at a depth of 125 miles, sufficient heat to melt most of the rocks. This intense internal heat has generated, in times long gone by, enormous forces, by which rocks of all ages have been raised and depressed, twisted and distorted, broken and forced out of position, and forcibly compressed, so as to eventually cause most important changes of surface level.

The next class of rock-formation is totally different from the Plutonic, or unstratified series, in that it is the result of the wear and tear of the surface when acted upon by air and water, and is laid down, in the first instance, by water, as sediment. Water, in the forms of seas, rivers, rain, and ice, has been the chief agent in the arrangement of all the stratified rocks, the determination of the earth’s contour, the direction of valleys, and, in fact, the regulation of the whole physical geography of the visible portion of the earth. With the help of this mighty agent, so soon as the earth had become sufficiently cool to permit condensation to take place in its vapoury envelope, the ceaseless wear and tear of the Plutonic—and, subsequently, of all other—rocks, which has accumulated so vast a mass of material, commenced. Large volumes of water were gradually deposited, without intermission, until permanent seas and rivers had become established, and the new process of stratification, which was henceforth destined to shape the crust of the earth and to provide the conditions of life, commenced to operate. This action is taking place daily in rivers and seas, as we may observe at any time. On the tops of mountains the same action is in operation, though under different conditions, snow and ice splitting fragments from the rocks to be borne away as grit into the valleys by impetuous torrents and deposited in other places. Within the Polar circles ice on a grander scale is levelling down the land; glaciers, covering thousands of square miles, are slowly sliding down the valleys, grinding their surfaces still deeper—forming sands, clays, and gravels, and forcing these down to the sea-shore; and icebergs, many miles in circumference, are carried by currents along coasts and against cliffs like huge ploughs, completely altering the face of the rocks beneath. This wear and tear results in the formation of immense quantities of detritus, which is deposited in layers at the bottom of seas and rivers, and consolidated by pressure, being frequently assisted by lime, iron, or silica as a cement. The coarser-textured rock has been laid down in rapidly-moving, shallow water; and the finer-textured in still, deep water. Thus, through many long ages—probably millions of years—the surface of the earth underwent continual change from the constant deposition of stratified rock, each layer of which completely buried beneath it the various life forms of the previous period, which circumstance enables us to ascribe to the various members of the animal and vegetable kingdoms particular geological periods; for fossilised remains of animals and vegetables have been unearthed in the different layers of the stratified rocks, conclusively proving their existence on the earth at those periods.

In the Plutonic or unstratified rock-formation period there was, of course, no life upon the earth, the conditions necessary for such development not being present; but in the very earliest of the stratified formations we find evidence of the dawn of marine life, both vegetable and animal. Geologists have divided the stratified rock into three chief divisions, the PalÆozoic (ancient life), or Primary; the Mesozoic (middle life), or Secondary; and the Kainozoic (latest life), or Tertiary. Each of these, again, has been subdivided into smaller sections, according to the particular kind of deposit met with, the particular places where the best examples are to be found, or the particular life-forms existing. The Primary, the depth of which is unknown, is subdivided into seven periods—viz.:—

Laurentian, consisting of highly metamorphosed (that is, changed in appearance from the original stratified rock character, owing to its proximity to the molten Plutonic rock) limestone, containing fossil remains of the Foraminifera, some of the first living organisms.

Huronian, consisting of less highly metamorphosed sandstone, limestone, etc., and containing fossil remains of lowly-organised molluscs (soft-bodied organisms).

Cambrian, consisting of slates, sandstones, and conglomerates, and containing fossil remains of sponges, sea-weeds, star-fishes, sea-lilies, lowly shell-fish, marine worms, and the first land plants.

Silurian, consisting of slates, limestones, etc., and containing fossil remains of corals, chambered spiral shell-fish, crabs, sea-worms, and bony plates and scales of a low form of fish.

Devonian, consisting of old red sandstone, shales, and coralline limestone, and containing fossil land plants, fishes, belonging to shark, ray, and sturgeon families, and first fossil insect.

Carboniferous, consisting of mountain limestone, coal, sandstone, ironstone, clays, etc., and containing fossil scorpions, beetles, and amphibians.

Permian, consisting of new red sandstone, marls, magnesian limestones, etc., and containing fossils of true reptiles.

The Secondary division is subdivided into three periods, viz.:—

Triassic, consisting of sandstone, limestone, and clays, and containing fossils of gigantic reptiles and first mammals (small marsupials).

Jurassic, or OÖlitic, consisting of limestones, coral rags, clays, and marls, and containing fossils of bird-reptiles and several species of marsupials.

Cretaceous, consisting of clays, sands, soft limestone, and lignites, and containing fossils of new bird-reptiles.

The Tertiary division is subdivided into four periods—viz.:—

Eocene (dawn of recent life), consisting of sandstone, limestone, sands, clays, marls, coral rags, and lignites, and containing fossil equine forms, birds, reptiles, bats, and marsupials.

Meiocene (less recent life), consisting of arctic coal, limestone, sands, clays, and lignites, and containing fossil apes and marsupials.

Pleiocene (more recent life), the white and red crags of Britain, containing fossil apes, bears, and hyenas.

Pleistocene (most recent life), consisting of glacial accumulations of all kinds of earths, and containing fossil remains of apes and men, and implements of stone, bone, and horn, and later still of remains of lake-dwellings, shell-mounds, etc.

These different layers of stratified rocks have not always kept their proper positions with regard to each other in the order they were originally laid down; but, owing to volcanic eruption, have frequently intruded upon each other, so that, at first sight, it would sometimes appear as though the regular order of deposition had not been adhered to; but that this is not so has been made apparent by careful investigation over large areas. The depth of the Secondary and Tertiary is from twenty to twenty-five miles. We see, therefore, that the first life-forms made their appearance as marine organisms in the Laurentian, or first stratified rock period; but whether the animal or the vegetable form first appeared, or whether both were developed from one primordial organism, it is impossible at present to say. In each successive layer of rock we meet with fossil remains of animal and vegetable life, which steadily develop into more highly organised forms, through the different periods, until, at last, they assume the exquisite phases we now behold around us. The vegetable kingdom was the first to exist upon the land, the first land-plant being found in the fossil state in the Cambrian layer, at the same time that marine animal life was assuming the forms of worms, shell-fish, and star-fishes. In the Silurian period the first vertebrate animals made their appearance in the form of lowly-organised fishes, from which, in the Carboniferous age, developed amphibious creatures, the first breathing animals, living both in and out of water, and the progenitors of the large kingdom of land animals, including man.

Now, if we take the pedigree of man, as arranged by Darwin and Haeckel, and compare it with this geological tree, we shall see how perfectly the sister sciences of Paleontology and Biology corroborate each other. The first form of life, says Haeckel, was the Moneron, a structureless albuminous atom of bioplasm, not even possessing the structure of a mere cell. We place this, which belongs to the primitive order Protozoa, in the Laurentian period, where we are told by geologists that fossil foraminifera have been found. This promordial organism gradually developed into single nucleated cells, called AmoebÆ, and these again into masses of nucleated cells, called SynamoebÆ. These simple and multiple cell organisms we place in the next period, Huronian, in the strata of which geologists tell us have been found fossil remains of lowly organised molluscs, or soft-bodied animals. Ciliata are the next forms of life, which consist of SynamoebÆ, covered with vibratile cilia. These gradually developed a mouth, becoming Gastroeada, and afterwards Turbellaria, a low form of worm (Vermes), with a mouth and alimentary canal; and are placed in the Cambrian period, in which stratum have been found remains of this kind of life. The ascent continues through the transition stage of Scolecida to Himatega, or sack-worms, with their rudimentary spinal cords; from which gradually evolved Acrania, or the first vertebrate animals, without skulls, brains, central heart, jaws, or limbs; but with a true vertebral cord. This peculiar little animal was a lancet-shaped marine worm, akin to the lancelet or amphioxus of to-day. From these developed Monorrhini, or vertebrate hybrid worms and fishes, with skull, brain, and central heart, but no sympathetic system, jaws, or limbs, and with a single nasal cavity (lampreys). These three forms are placed in the Silurian period, in which stratum have been found fossilised bony plates and scales of fishes and Annelides, or sea-worms.

The next forms of life to be developed, from the Monorrhini, were the Selachii (Amphirrhini), or true fishes, of the shark family, with two nasal cavities, swim-bladder, two pairs of fins, and jaws. From these evolved the Ganoidei, and thence all osseous fishes; and Dipnoi (mud fish), or hybrid fishes and amphibians, with both gills and lungs. These little animals live during winter in water, when they breathe air dissolved in water through their gills; and during the summer in mud, when they breathe with their lungs. Both these are placed in the Devonian period, in which have been found fossil sharks, etc. The next forms are Sozobranchii, or amphibians with persistent gills, from which evolved Urodela, or amphibians with transitory gills, but persistent tails, and legs; allied to the salamander. These are placed in the Carboniferous period, in which have been found fossilised amphibians. We next get Protamnia, or hybrid salamanders and lizards (frogs and toads), with no gills or tails, but possessing an amnion and cloaca. These represent the parent forms of the three great higher branches of vertebrates—Reptilia, Aves (which evolved from reptiles), and Mammalia, and are placed in the Permian period, in which have been found fossilised amphibians and true reptiles. Monotremata (Promammalia) are the next forms developed in our pedigree, the parent forms of the class Mammalia; with cloaca, amnion, and marsupial bones; which are placed in the Triassic period; and from which evolved Marsupialia, mammals with amnion and marsupial bones, but no cloaca; allied to the kangaroo and opossum of to-day. This species we place in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. From Marsupialia developed the large kingdom of Placentalia, which lose the marsupial bones and cloaca, and acquire a placenta, and which we divide into three main branches, according to the particular placental formation. The first division we call Villiplacentalia (tufty placenta), from which evolved Edentata (sloth, ant-eaters, and tertiary monsters), Cetacea (marine placental mammals, such as whale, dolphin, porpoise, and sea-cow), and Ungulata (horse, cow, pig, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus). The second division we term Zenoplacentalia (ring-like placenta), the earliest forms of which were Carnaria, or flesh-eaters, from which came Carnivora, or land beasts of prey (cats, dogs, bears, etc.), and Pinnipedia, or marine beasts of prey (seal and walrus). The third division we name Discoplacentalia (discoid placenta); and here we find, as the first development, the ProsimiÆ, or tailed lemurs, quadrupeds with claws, and having the appearance of hybrid cats and monkeys. All these are placed in the Eocene period, in which stratum geologists have found fossilised placentals.

From the discoplacental-mammal ProsimiÆ evolved the following species—viz., ProsimiÆ of Madagascar (lemurs of to-day), with four feet and claws; Cheiroptera (bats); Rodentia (squirrels, mice, porcupines, hares); Insectivora (moles, shrew-mice, and hedgehogs); and SimiÆ, or quadruped monkeys, with two feet, two hands, nails, and tails. We divide SimiÆ into two classes, the Platyrrhini, or New World apes, with thirty-six teeth, tails, no cheek-pouches or callosities, and nasal cavities pointing outwards and divided by a thick septum (from which came the American howlers, weepers, capuchins, and squirrel-monkeys); and the Catarrhini (Menocerca), or Old World apes, with thirty-two teeth (like man), tails, cheek-pouches, callosities, and nasal cavities pointing downwards and divided by a thin septum (like man). These are placed in the Meiocene period, in which have been discovered the first fossil apes. From the Catarrhini developed the tailed baboons and macaques, with thirty-two teeth, cheek-pouches, and callosities; and the AnthropoidÆ, with thirty-two teeth, but no tails, cheek-pouches, or callosities. These were evolved during the Pleiocene period. From the anthropoid (man-like) apes we get three distinct divisions—viz., the gibbon and orang families, with no tails or cheek-pouches, walking partly on hind legs, and wandering in companies in India; the chimpanzee and gorilla families of Africa, with no tails or cheek-pouches, no articulate speech, walking on hind legs only, living in companies in caves, and carrying their babes in their arms; and Alali, or ape-like men, commonly called the “missing links,” who were probably developed, during the Pleiocene period, in Lemuria, a submerged continent which formerly occupied the position of the Indian Ocean; or in the districts of the Nile and Ganges.

These primitive ape-like men were the connecting links between men and the apes, and are divided into two main branches—viz., woolly-haired Alali, who migrated from Lemuria, west and south; and straight-haired Alali, who migrated from Lemuria, north, east, and south. Both these branches had skulls of the same character as those of the chimpanzee and gorilla—that is, they were dolichocephalic (long-headed) prognathous (prominent jaws), and also, like their ape brethren, were troglodytes, or cave-dwellers. From the woolly-haired Alali evolved the Papuans of New Guinea and Tasmania, and the Hottentots of Africa, whose descendants of to-day are but little removed in brain development from the higher apes. They are dolichocephalic prognathous savages, with black, hairy skins, long arms, and short, thin legs, with ill-developed calves; are semi-erect, walk on hind legs, and have no true articulate speech. A higher development of the woolly-haired Alali is the Negro, and higher still the Caffre, both of whom are dolichocephalic prognathous savages, with black, semi-hairy skins, and imperfect articulation. From the straight-haired Alali are derived the Australian natives and the large family of Malays or Polynesians. The Australians migrated south, and were dolichocephalic prognathous savages, with smooth, dirty brown skins, and straight black hair. The lowest tribes of the present day have no true articulate speech. The Polynesians migrated north and east, and were dolichocephalic prognathous troglodytes (as the gorilla and chimpanzee), with clear, smooth brown skins, and true articulate speech. This branch split up into two large families, the Mongolian or Turanian, and the Caucasian or Iranian. The former covered Northern and Eastern Asia, Polynesia, and America, and were originally brachycephalic (broad-headed) prognathous men. They subdivided into two distinct species, the Mongols of China, Japan, Lapland, Finland, and Hungary, who are brachycephalic, but not prognathous, with smooth, brownish yellow skin, and straight black hair; and the Mongols of America, who are mesocephalic (round-headed), but not prognathous, with smooth red skins and straight black hair. The Caucasian family covered Western Asia and most of Europe, being mesocephalic prognathous troglodytes (afterwards agriculturalists) with smooth dark skins and long straight hair; and subdivided into two branches, the Semitic, of Arabia and Syria, and the Aryan or Indo-European; both of whom are mesocephalic, but not prognathous.

It is true that, so far, no fossil remains of Alali have been found, with the exception of the Neanderthal skull; but it is equally true that they may soon be discovered. It is only comparatively recently that the other species have been found fossilised; and it must be recollected that only a very small portion of the earth’s crust has yet been explored, and that not the most likely for finding. No attempts have been yet made to unearth the life-remains in the neighbourhood of the Indian Ocean, where it is believed man first evolved from his ape-like ancestors. It does not, however, seem to me to be essentially necessary that the “missing link” be found in order to substantiate the Evolution theory. There is so little difference between the higher anthropoid apes and man, compared with the enormous differences observed between the earlier forms of life and the ape species, that the sequence and continuity appear now conclusively settled to any reasonable observer. Comparative anatomists and embryologists both declare in favour of the theory of development of Darwin and Haeckel. It is a fact beyond dispute that every human being commences his individual existence as a tiny piece of structureless bioplasm, from which condition he passes through the Amoeba stage to the Synamoeba, and thence in regular order through each successive stage of development marked in the genealogy given above, becoming worm, fish, and mammal in turn, and finally being born into the world as a member of the human family. Each of these lower forms also passes through all the species preceding it in precisely the same manner. This is one of the strongest arguments in favour of Evolution. It is said that the power of speech possessed by man opposes a strong barrier to the theory; but it has been shown clearly that other animals besides man can use articulate sounds, which convey meanings to each other. Monkeys certainly understand each other’s chattering, and it is highly probable that birds also understand each other’s cries. It is true that the sounds made by animals are chiefly monosyllabic; but philologists now tell us that the languages spoken by primitive races of men are compounded of quite simple elements, perfectly within the grasp of an ape’s voice. Travellers, whose veracity and ability cannot be impugned, have described long conferences held by monkeys, where one individual addressed the assembly at great length, fixing the attention of all upon himself, and quelling every disturbance by a loud and harsh cry, which was at once recognised and obeyed by the multitude. Is it credible that this should be purposeless? Is it not actually the exercise of speech?

Is it not possible—nay, even extremely probable—that, under the irresistible pressure of civilised man, his immediate precursor may have become extinct? All the human races that now tend to bridge the interval between the highest man and the highest ape are fast becoming extinct under this very pressure. The gulf widens, and will widen. The Caribs and Tasmanians have passed away, while the Australians, New Zealanders, aboriginal Americans, Eskimo, and others, are fast following in their wake, and this all in a comparatively short space of time. There is undoubtedly now a far greater physical and mental interval between the Hottentot woman and such men as Gladstone and Darwin than between the Hottentot and an ape. It is a fact beyond dispute that man was not in such a high state of development ages gone by as at present. The earliest traces of man exhibit him to us in the PalÆolithic, or old stone, age, as wild and living in caves, using only the rudest stone implements with which to battle with the ferocious monsters around him. His jaw was then prognathous, like the ape, and his body large and powerful.

In the limestone caverns of France have been discovered the fossil remains of men who inhabited caves and belonged to the PalÆolithic, or early Pleistocene, period. Together with these troglodytes, or cave-dwellers, were rough, unpolished stone implements and weapons, denoting a low state of civilisation. Other caves, in later strata, give us lighter stone weapons, of better finish, and occasionally horn dart-points, such as would be used for catching smaller game. Numbers of skin-scrapers also were found, suggesting the idea that the people used the hides of animals for clothing, instead of going naked, as their ancestors. The hairy character of the body would be probably giving place to a finer, smoother, and more delicate outer skin, which would necessitate clothing of some kind. Still later we find implements altogether of flint, lancet-shaped, admirably-proportioned, and of three sizes, adapted for arrow, javeline, and lance points respectively, and designed to be fitted to wooden and bone shafts. After these appear arrows and darts of deer’s horn and bone, and stone and flint tools, which were used for making these arrows. We also find such implements as bone awls and needles for piercing and sewing skins, arrow-heads furnished with barbs on each side, and harpoons barbed on one side only.

Now was man’s intellect fairly on the swing; but still he was, as yet, only in the PalÆolithic period, for not one polished implement nor fragment of pottery is found in their stations. They were surrounded by ferocious carnivora, which sometimes fell victims to their weapons. The mammoth still tenanted the valleys, and the reindeer was the common article of food. They were hunters, possessed of the rudest modes of existence, and with but little of what is now called civilisation.

In Britain the troglodyte man was contemporary with the mammoth, rhinoceros, lion, and hyena, none of which existed in the later Pleistocene era; but there have been no perfect skeletons found here like those in France. Human bones, however, have been discovered in various deposits, together with the skeletons of long-extinct animals. The best British human fossil is the portion of an upper jaw containing four teeth, from Kent’s Cavern. Hermetically sealed in stalagmite, deposited on the floor of the cavern by water dropping from the roof, this jaw lay below the remains of extinct mammals; while beneath all were bone and stone implements of human workmanship, equally firmly fixed in a natural limestone cement. Geology fixes the date of this troglodyte at the early Pleistocene period, and it is beyond doubt that man existed at this remote period, or even earlier, in Europe, for the human remains found in France clearly testify to the fact; and even in America his antiquity must be very great indeed, for a human skull was found in the delta of the Mississippi beneath four different layers of forest growth, which must have formed part of a living human being 50,000 years since. The celebrated Neanderthal skull, of which so much has been heard, certainly belongs to the mammoth age, if not earlier; and, if it represent a race, and not merely an individual, that race would lie in a position intermediate between the lowest man and the highest ape. It may only represent a man of peculiar formation, as we often see men in the present day deformed or of eccentric build; and, therefore, we cannot look upon it positively as the “missing link.” One other similar find, however, would for ever settle the question, and proclaim to the world that the “missing link” was, at last, found. In capacity, the cranium is human, while the superciliary arches and the brow are distinctly ape-like. Professor Huxley sums up his examination of this skull with the remark that “the Neanderthal skull is, of human remains, that which presents the most marked and definite characters of a lower type.”

Following the PalÆolithic era, or rude stone age, is the Neolithic, or new stone, age; and now we find man using polished weapons, making pottery, using fire to warm himself with, and developing social manners. Instead of living in caves, he lived in lake dwellings, with others of his species, and gradually developed agricultural tastes. This metamorphosis, we know from the fossil remains found deposited in various strata, occupied a long period of time, probably thousands of years; and even then we are left thousands of years before the historical era, which followed the bronze and iron ages. Compare these men with those who lived in the Grecian and Egyptian eras, and again compare these latter with ourselves, and the record is one of trial and failure through long ages, and of experiment crowned at last by attainment. Has not the invention of the steam-engine alone been a means of extending man’s dominion in a marvellous manner? Think what has been achieved through electricity! There has, undoubtedly, been a continued struggle from barbarism to civilisation, and the little we know of the early history of man tells us that he lived the life of a wild beast, leaving no impression on the earth save one of the victims of his well-aimed stone or flint-pointed spear.

So much for the “missing link.” There is one other point to be settled before we have completed the sequence of evolution, which commences with the condensation of the nebulous vapour and terminates with the development of man; and that is the question of how life originated. We have found that the first dawn of life was in the form of a simple speck of bioplasm, void of any structure; and that this primordial germ, which we call a Moneron, was developed in the earliest period of deposition of stratified rock at the bottom of the sea, and is now being constantly developed as of old. Now, if the theory of evolution be not mere talk, this primordial germ must have been spontaneously evolved from inanimate matter, for the theory allows of no break, being a gradual unfolding of phenomena. We are told that there is no experience in nature of such a development. Perhaps so; but that is no argument against it. There is no experience in nature of any special creation either; so why fly to this alternative, which is the only one presented to us, instead of adopting the theory which agrees so harmoniously with the whole evolutionary process? Why make this abrupt break in the chain of sequence? Does it not annihilate completely the whole theory of evolution? It is not more wonderful that life should be evolved from inanimate nature than that man should be evolved from a structureless bioplasm. The continuity of evolution once broken, why may it not be broken again and again?

If we are to accept the theory of evolution, we are bound to admit that animate was evolved from inanimate matter. And the difficulty of this admission is not, after all, so great as appears at first sight; for who is to say whether such a condition really exists as inanimate matter? It is a fact that every particle of matter in nature is in a state of active motion; every molecule and atom is constantly active. And why is this not life as much as the animal or vegetable, though in a modified degree of development? Evolution, if it mean anything, should admit this; and I will show you that it does not admit it only, but absolutely declares that it is so. In the first place, it must be recollected that Balfour Stewart, and all other physical and chemical scientists, declare that every thing in nature is composed of molecules and atoms. The molecules are the smallest quantities into which any individual body or substance can be divided without losing its individuality. For instance, table-salt, or chloride of sodium, can be divided and subdivided, until you get to the limit of subdivision, which is a molecule composed of chlorine and sodium in chemical combination. Further subdivision annihilates its individuality as salt, and leaves us with the two elementary chemical atoms, chlorine and sodium, existing independently of each other. These atoms are incapable of further subdivision. In the same manner, the whole matter of the universe may be subdivided into molecules, which consist of atoms of some two or more of about sixty-seven chemical elements in various combinations. These atoms are the smallest separate particles of masses of matter, and are separated from each other by what is termed hypothetical ether—that is, the fluid ether we believe to be pervading every portion of space. Each atom possesses an inherent sum of force, or energy. The well-established and universally-admitted theory of chemical affinity teaches us that these atoms are capable of attracting and repelling each other, and, therefore, also teaches us, by implication, that they are possessed with definite inclinations, follow these sensations or impulses, and have also the will and ability to move to and from one another. This we are clearly taught by chemistry. Thus every atom in the universe possesses sensation and will, pleasure and displeasure, desire and loathing, attraction and repulsion; and its mass is, moreover, indestructible and unchangeable, and its energy eternal, as we are again taught by the theory of conservation of energy and matter. These sentient atoms of universal matter, whose aggregate energy is the great animating spirit of the universe, have the power of uniting together in various chemical combinations to form molecules, or chemical unities, developing fresh properties in the process, and forming the lowest conceivable division of compound material substances, some atoms uniting to build up crystals and other inorganic masses, and others to develop the various organic or life forms. The atoms of the ultimate molecules of both organic and inorganic bodies are identically the same. It depends entirely upon what particular combination of atoms takes place whether an organic or inorganic form is developed. The primordial life-form we have found to be simple homogeneous plasm, consisting of molecules, each of which is composed of atoms of five elements—carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and sulphur, differing not one iota from the molecules of inorganic bodies, except that it acquires the special power of reproduction, by virtue of the peculiar combination of its atoms, which power is wanting in the inorganic world, whose molecules are composed of similar atoms, but in different combinations. This is the only difference between the organic, or life, world, and the inorganic, or lifeless, world—life being, as compared with unlife, but the power of reproduction. As examples of this, we may take crystals, the most perfect development of inorganic nature, and the moneron, the least perfect development of organic nature; and the difference between them is almost nil, certainly less than between the parents and offspring in many life-forms. The crystal molecules are composed of elementary chemical atoms, as are the moneron molecules; but the former grow by particles being deposited on particles externally, while the latter grow by particles penetrating from without, or being absorbed into the interior and becoming assimilated by the plasm, fresh molecules being evolved in the process, this special power of reproduction being generated by the peculiar combination of the atoms. This argument appears to me to be logically and scientifically sound, and disposes altogether of the notion of a break of continuity between the living and the unliving worlds, which is such a formidable difficulty to many minds. The plasm thus formed by the aggregation of life molecules gradually differentiates into protoplasm and nucleus, which together form a simple cell; and this cell partakes, by heredity, of the nature and properties of its parent form, and also, by adaptation to different circumstances surrounding its existence, acquires fresh properties, which, together with the inherited properties, it transmits to its progeny, thus evolving a still more complex form, inheriting the acquired and inherited properties of its parent, and again acquiring fresh properties; and so on, ad infinitum, through the various life-forms we know have been developed in the pedigree of man and animals, through AmoebÆ, SynamoebÆ, etc., as in the genealogy given above.

In the course of the development of different life-forms heredity—which, in plain English, is unconscious memory generated in the first life-form and transmitted through all the different species—is the sole factor in the preservation of the parent properties; while adaptation to surrounding conditions and circumstances, natural selection in the struggle for existence, and sexual selection in the struggle of the males for females are the principal factors in the differentiation of species.

Having traced man’s pedigree according to the Evolution theory, from primitive nebulous matter to his present commanding position, and found him possessed with reason and the power of controlling and regulating the forces of nature, our next inquiry is naturally for what purpose is he here and what will become of him eventually. Here we come to the most difficult problem of all ages, which has baffled learned men of all nationalities, and which will probably never be satisfactorily solved. Intimately connected with it is the almost as difficult problem, How was the universe caused at all? There are eminent scientific men who think they can conclusively show that the universe existed from eternity; others as positively assert that it must have been caused by a power outside and independent of itself; while others are equally convinced that it was self-created. But when we examine their arguments we find ourselves unable logically to accept any of their conclusions.

The Atheist declares that the universe has existed from eternity, not having been produced by any other agency, and, therefore, without any beginning; which necessarily implies the conception of infinite past time—an effort of which the human mind is quite incapable. The Pantheist declares that the universe evolved out of potential existence into actual existence by virtue of some inherent necessity; which is as unthinkable as the previous one, for potential existence must be either something, in which case it would be actual existence, or nothing, which it could not possibly be. But admitting, for the sake of argument, the possibility of potential existence as nothing, still we should have to account for its origin, which would involve us in an infinity of still more remote potentialities. The Theistic theory of creation by external agency implies either formation of matter out of nothing, which is inconceivable, or out of pre-existing materials, which leaves us under the necessity of showing the origin of the pre-existing elements, and, like the preceding theory, would involve us in an infinity of remote pre-existences. It also involves the existence of a potentiality outside matter, which must either be caused, which involves a prior cause, or uncaused, in which case it must be either finite or infinite. If it be finite, it must be limited, and, consequently, there must exist something outside its limits, which destroys the notion of its being a first cause. Therefore, it must be infinite. Also, as first cause, it must be independent; for dependency would imply a more remote cause. The first cause must, therefore, be both infinite and absolute, which is an absurdity; for a cause can only exist in relation to its effect, and therefore cannot be absolute; and the fact of its being infinite deprives us of the only means of escape from the difficulty, by showing the impossibility of its being first of all absolute and afterwards cause; for the infinite cannot become what it once was not.

Thus, then, we are driven to the conclusion that logic shows the Theistic conception of the origin of nature, equally as much as the Pantheistic and the Atheistic, to be utterly impossible; but it must be admitted that if, instead of matter, we substitute time and space in our consideration of this most important matter, the Atheistic theory more nearly approaches the conceivable than either of the other two; for by no mental effort can we conceive the formation of time and space either by external agency or inherent necessity. It is absolutely impossible for us to conceive the idea of the non-existence of either time or space.

Because the human mind cannot conceive the possibility of nature being produced by external agency, it does not follow that we are bound to admit the impossibility of the existence of an intelligence controlling nature’s laws; for it is quite possible that such an existence may be, though our finite minds cannot comprehend it. The Agnostic philosopher, although he cannot logically demonstrate the existence of the Divine Being, yet declares that, inasmuch as this universe consists of existing phenomena, it is absolutely necessary that there should be some cause adequate for the production of the effects manifested. By this process of reasoning he arrives at the conclusion that there exists a something controlling nature, which is utterly incomprehensible—an ultimate reality, of which force and matter are alike merely the phenomenal manifestations. This ultimate reality, moreover, is intelligent.

We cannot recall the wonders of the evolutionary development of the universe without at once seeing that there is purpose at the bottom of all, and that chance is no factor in the process. We cannot believe that man is but a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Reason tells us clearly that we are here for a well-ordained purpose; but what that purpose is we cannot tell. The old notion that our destiny is to prepare ourselves here, to live again in our bodily forms, play harps, and sing halleluyah to all eternity, I regard as mere moonshine. Such a fate would be to me far worse than annihilation. But that we have a future destiny of some sort I have no doubt. We know we must die, and that when we die our bodily functions, including brain functions, will cease to be performed. Are we, then, annihilated? The answer of scientists is decisively “Yes, so far as we are concerned as sentient individual beings.” Science teaches us that the three things which make up consciousness, or man’s mental side, are thought, emotion, and volition; that they are inseparably bound up with the brain and the nervous system, whose functions they are; and that when the brain dies these functions cease. This is undeniable. Therefore, if there is any future existence, it is not one of consciousness. The power of muscular movement is arrested at death, and, therefore, we must admit that the power of thought, emotion, and volition ceases at death. Why should the appearance be deceptive in one case and not in the other? It is not the case of a separate entity in the body, but of a distinct function—an effect which ceases with its proper cause. It is absolutely certain, from the teaching of science, that the consciousness grows as the brain and body grow, varies according to the standard of health in the brain, and declines as the general vigour of the brain declines; and, therefore, we can but admit that it dies with the brain. We also learn from Embryology that consciousness evolved by slow degrees from unconsciousness, and that once there was no thought in any of us. Even if science were to admit that man’s consciousness continued after death, it would be equally rational to admit that animals also had a future consciousness; for it is quite clear we have slowly evolved from the lowest germ of animal life. Man’s very attributes are found in a lower degree in animals, and yet it is the possession of his lofty attributes which he says entitles him to conscious immortality. The intellectual qualities in animals differ from those in man only in degree, while in the possession of some of the highest moral attributes—such as courage, fidelity, patience, self-sacrifice, and affection—some of the lower animals, as the dog, the horse, and the ant, far surpass him. Even among human beings themselves these higher qualities, mental and moral, exist in all degrees, from their almost total absence in the savage up to the mental and moral splendour of a Buddha, a Socrates, a Disraeli, or a Gladstone. Are all these lower animals, savage men, and intellectual and moral geniuses, to have individual conscious immortality? If, as some say, man only and not animals are immortal, then the question naturally arises, When and how came man so? If he was always immortal, so were animals. If he became immortal later on, he must either have slowly acquired the gift, or it must have been suddenly conferred upon him. In either case there must have been a particular moment when he became immortal. Can we conceive of such a thing as the species being mortal one moment and immortal the next? The question of how he became immortal is still more difficult, as the question why, or for what merit, is wholly unanswerable. Then, again, science teaches us that animal life, of whatever form, will vanish from the earth long before the inevitable decay of the planet itself. Geologists tell us that, in obedience to a general law, all species have their term of living. They appear, and after a time disappear. How absurd, then, to raise a question as to the conscious individual immortality of the countless myriads of a species that shall itself have utterly vanished without leaving a trace!

Are we, then, annihilated at death? Yes, as conscious individuals. We are bound to admit the force of all the arguments brought forward by science against the theory of a future conscious existence; but these arguments in no way affect the great problem of the “ego,” or “self,” which exists in all of us, irrespective of consciousness, memory, or other brain function. A man may be unconscious, and yet live; therefore consciousness is not necessary to life. When we ask ourselves whether we shall be annihilated at death, we should first of all have a clear definition of the word “we” before we reply. What are we? What am I? I am not consciousness, which is but a function of one of my organs, the brain, and which merely enables me to know myself. Then what am I? I cannot conceive that I am anything but the energy or life-power developed by the aggregation of my life-particles, which causes the various organs of my body to perform their functions, as cerebrating, etc. The primordial germ of my body was a simple bioplasm, consisting of a combination of life-molecules, composed of energetic atoms. From these molecules evolved fresh molecules, which, under the laws of heredity and variation, acquired new properties; until, at last, a complex organism became developed, possessing far higher powers than those belonging to the primordial germ. As the development of species continued, higher forces became manifested; until, at last, the condition of man was reached, and a life-power developed of a much higher order than any previously known. This life-power, or human energy, is the “ego,” the “self,” the cause of the bodily functions, and is eternal. Kant declared there was a world unknown, independent of our conscious phenomenal world; and this we must admit to be true, for we have already granted the existence of an unknown cause, of which force and matter are merely the phenomenal manifestations. It is this outer world of unknown and invisible energy that the scientist finds himself unable to deal with. The death of the body is simply the cessation of cohesion, or dissolution of partnership, between the ultimate atoms of the plasm life-molecules, by which dissolution the property called life ceases, and the atoms of the body assume their original condition, again containing their original sum of force. But what becomes of the huge force developed during the lifetime of the bodily organism? Does that vanish and become a thing of naught? My opinion is that this human force, which is the outcome of the complex union of the ultimate atoms of the plasm life-molecules, and which is but a phenomenal manifestation of the great incomprehensible cause of all phenomena, will, at the death of the body, be re-absorbed into the great animating spirit of the universe, and partake of the nature and properties of the Unknown. This is but my opinion, from which many may differ. I merely offer it as an opinion, and in no way shut my eyes to the great fact that man’s destiny is a riddle as yet unsolved. We may safely leave the matter to be dealt with according to the wisdom of that unknown cause of all things, resting quite assured that we shall be far better disposed of than we could possibly dispose of ourselves, even if we had the power. We must bow the head in a truly scientific spirit, and reply to the great question, “I cannot tell.”

“To be or not to be? that is the question,” says the immortal Shakespeare; after which he sums up the whole argument in two short lines:—

PRINTED BY WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON.

[Pg 57]
[Pg 58]

GENEALOGY OF MAN

[Pg 60]
[Pg 61]
[Pg 62]

SECTION OF EARTH’S CRUST
Showing the different Geological Strata and Biological Ascent

TERTIARY PERIOD IN EUROPE.

[Pg 64]
[Pg 65]
[Pg 66]

[Pg 68]
[Pg 69]
[Pg 70]

[Pg 72]
[Pg 73]
[Pg 74]

[Pg 76]
[Pg 77]
[Pg 78]

[Pg 80]
[Pg 81]