April 1928
T h é K i n g ’ s B u s i n e s s
221
Ought I to go on? There is no need in multiplying possible examples. Instead we will see how the principle has been applied. Some extinct reptiles are noteworthy for their canine like teeth and general resemblances to wolves or dogs. (See “ The Evolution o f the Earth,” Yale University Press, for illustrations.) They are not in any way related to the dog, except as all reptiles are alleged to be related, for it is assumed that the first mammals were small crea tures, living in trees and shrubs and feeding upon insects. For men of science, therefore, to hold up these extinct reptiles as probable close relatives. of mammals, seems inexcusable, yet we find things like these done. Other reptiles were much like rhinoceroses; without being more related to them than to mice. • There were certain fossil fish which in appearance were very fish-like, but had no internal skeletons,, that is, they were not vertebrates, and. in spite of their form they might have been no more related to the fishes than to in sects, even if evolution were true. No R elationship A sserted Birds have warm blood, a four-chambered heart, and a blood-circulating system that in most fundamental re spects is like that of mammals. There are some differences, but that can be expected. In addition, feathers are much like hair, and certain mammals even lay eggs and have a bill like a duck. In spite o f these great resemblances no relationship whatever is asserted between birds and mam mals on account o f those resemblances. Instead of that, birds are said to be more closely related to the reptiles, although the reptiles have a heart which is organized . according to a different system entirely, and th e .whole system o f blood-circulation, in fact, is different, and rep tiles have neither hair nor feathers. The resemblances between the wings of bats and pterodactyls may be superficial and so not valid in suggest ing relationship, but heart form and function, and blood- circulation, is decidedly fundamental in organization and I assert that it is decidedly unscientific, if not dishonest, to ignore fundamental features like that in assuming relationships, and then to go to trivial resemblances, call ing them “ proof” of relationship. I can cite a still more striking illustration. The “ egg” o f an animal, be the animal insect, reptile, bird or beast, is actually “ seed.” That is, .the seeds o f plants are equiva lent to the eggs of animals, whether the animals lay eggs or bring forth their young alive. In both plants and animals which reproduce sexually (certain lower orders of both plants and animals do not reproduce sexually) there are male and female parts which unite and grow in as nearly the same way as is possible considering that one is plant and the other animal. Mendel’s laws o f inherit ance operate in just the same way in both plant and animal. There is as close a resemblance as could possibly be im agined between the sexual reproduction of plants and animals. R esemblances P rove N othing Note that fact well. Then note that in the lines of descent, which evolutionists are almost compelled to adopt, the division between plants and animals must have taken place before sex originated, certainly before it was very far advanced. No actual relationship, therefore, between the sex organization of plants and animals can possibly be asserted by evolutionists, even though they are so much alike.
Here, therefore, in a matter as fundamental as that of sex—and few things in nature could be more funda mental—most striking resemblances exist without a par ticle o f relationship. Now I do not need to say that things like these simply mean that not the slightest bit o f de pendence can be put upon resemblances as indications of relationship, and if that is so the whole principle o f com parisons upon which the theory o f relationship is formed crumbles into dust, or melts away like mist before the morning sun. Resemblances in form mean nothing; re semblances in fundamental organization, like that of heart and blood circulation, mean nothing; resemblances like those o f sex mean nothing. By what right, therefore, does the evolutionist use any resemblances to prove relation ship ? I throw down the challenge to any scientist the world over to tell me. Some other guide altogether than resemblances.must be used, and what other guide there can be I know not, unless it be the ability to maté and bring forth offspring. If we come to examine errors in reasoning that have resulted from this theory that resemblances mean relation ship, we find some amazing conclusions. With all serious ness the beginning of the aorta, or great artery leading from the heart, in the developing germ o f the human species, is said to indicate our descent from the fishes because it has a resemblance o f a kind to the gill slits of a fish. I can hardly imagine a freer use of the imagina tion than that, particularly when the gentlemen exercising such imagination ignore resemblances like those o f the blood-circulating systems o f birds and beasts. It would further seem to me that if heredity were so extremely strong that it would make the gill slits o f a fish persist in the newly developing germ o f a human organism, it would be strong enough to keep a fish from changing into another kind of animal. R esemblance A rgument O verworked Resemblances are overworked in other ways. Frogs are said to be evolved from fishes through the resemblance, such as it is, between tadpoles and fishes. In the alleged Devonian period there were many fishes with their paired fins, set low, and with long tails, like that o f a tadpole, and those tails, fins and a few minor features are alleged to indicate that the earliest amphibians, which supposedly were shaped much like our common water puppy, were descended from some such fish species. There is a decided difference between the fin o f a fish and the leg of a water puppy, between breathing apparatus, heart, sex-organiza tion, and other features o f fishes and amphibians. The fossil record leaves almost as great a gap between fishes and amphibians as there is between certain living species of the two groups, yet trivial resemblances in the fossil record are used to “ prove” relationship, Now, there is no occasion for following this matter out further. I do not care what branch o f evolutionary rea soning one approaches, the very false principle of resem blance being used as an indication of relationship is found to lead the evolutionist astray. He may begin with rats and mice, but he ends in a morass o f absurd speculation, without compass or guide'. The principle breaks down in comparative anatomy; it breaks down in embryology, it breaks down in paleon tology, or in the fossil record. All that is left, to demon strate any actual evolution is the geographical distribu tion o f species. In that the evolutionist is joined by the creationist, who can well take all the evolution that the evolutionist can find there and put it on to the Genesis account and feel pleased with the result.
Made with FlippingBook Online document