Page images

A Demonstration of the Origin of Species by Natural



NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES (afterwards taken as Proved Facts).


STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE, ISMS, pp 29, 265; (“Origin

the deaths equalling the of Species,” p. 75, 5th Ed.)

births on the average, p. 30; TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVI

(“Origin of Species,” chap. DUALS STATIONARY, pp. 30,


or Natural Selection; mean. or general likeness with ing simply, that on the individual differences of pa- }

whole those die who are rents and offspring, pp.

least fitted to maintain their 266, 287-291, 308; (“ Origin existence; (“Origin of Speof Species,” chap. I., II., V.) cies," chap. IV.)


to keep them in harmony with the Changed Condi.

tions; and as the changes SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

of conditions are permaCHANGE OF EXTERNAL CON

nent changes, in the sense DITIONS, universal and un

of not reverting back to ceasing. - See “ Lyell's

identical previous condiPrinciples of Geology."

tions, the changes of organic forms must be in the same sense permanent, and thus originate SPECIES.




Among the most advanced students of man, there exists a wide difference of opinion on some of the most vital questions respecting his nature and origin. Anthropologists are now, indeed, pretty well agreed that man is not a recent introduction into the earth. All who have studied the question, now admit that his antiquity is very great; and that, though we have to some extent ascertained the minimum of time during which he must have existed, we have made no approximation towards determining that far greater period during which he may have, and probably has existed. We can with tolerable certainty affirm that man must have inhabited the earth a thousand centuries ago, but we cannot assert that he positively did not exist, or that there is any good evidence against his having existed, for a period of ten thousand centuries. We know positively, that he was contemporaneous with many now extinct animals, and has survived changes of the earth's surface fifty or a hundred times greater than any that have occurred during the historical period; but we cannot place any definite limit to the number

of species he may have outlived, or to the amount of terrestrial change he may have witnessed.

Wide differences of opinion as to Man's Origin. But while on this question of man's antiquity there is a very general agreement,—and all are waiting eagerly for fresh evidence to clear up those points which all admit to be full of doubt,-on other, and not less obscure and difficult questions, a considerable amount of dogmatism is exhibited ; doctrines are put forward as established truths, no doubt or hesitation is admitted, and it seems to be supposed that no further evidence is required, or that any new facts can modify our convictions. This is especially the case when we inquire,-Are the various forms under which man now exists primitive, or derived from pre-existing forms ; in other words, is man of one or many species ? To this question we immiediately obtain distinct answers diametrically opposed to each other : the one party positively maintaining, that man is a species and is essentially one—that all differences are but local and temporary variations, produced by the different physical and moral conditions by which he is surrounded; the other party maintaining with equal confidence, that man is a genus of many species, each of which is practically unchangeable, and has ever been as distinct, or even more distinct, than we now behold them. This difference of opinion is somewhat remarkable, when we consider that both parties aru well acquainted with the subject; both use the same vast accumulation of facts ; both reject those early traditions of mankind which profess to give an account of his origin; and both declare that they are seeking fearlessly after truth alone ; yet each will persist in looking only at the portion of truth on his own side of the question, and at the error which · is mingled with his opponent's doctrine. It is my wish to show how the two opposing views can be combined, so as to eliminate the error and retain the truth in each, and it is by means of Mr. Darwin's celebrated theory of “ Natural Selection” that I hope to do this, and thus to harmonise the conflicting theories of modern anthropologists.

Let us first see what each party has to say for itself. In favour of the unity of mankind it is argued, that there are no races without transitions to others; that every race exhibits within itself variations of colour, of hair, of feature, and of form, to such a degree as to bridge over, to a large extent, the gap that separates it from other races. It is asserted that no race is homogeneous; that there is a tendency to vary; that climate, food, and habits produce, and render permanent, physical peculiarities, which, though slight in the limited periods allowed to our observation, would, in the long ages during which the human race has existed, have sufficed to produce all the differences that now appear. It is further asserted that the advocates of the opposite theory do not agree among themselves ; that some would make three, some five, some fifty or a hundred and fifty species of man; some would have had each species created in pairs, while others require nations to have at once sprung into existence, and that there is no stability or consistency in any doctrine but that of one primitive stock.

The advocates of the original diversity of man, on the other hand, have much to say for themselves. They argue that proofs of change in man have never been brought forward except to the most trifling amount, while evidence of his permanence meets us everywhere. The Portuguese and Spaniards, settled for two or three centuries in South America, retain their chief physical, mental, and moral characteristics ; the Dutch boers at the Cape, and the descendants of the early Dutch settlers in the Moluccas, have not lost the features or the colour of the Germanic races; the Jews, scattered over the world in the most diverse climates, retain the same characteristic lineaments everywhere; the Egyptian sculptures and paintings

show us that, for at least 4000 or 5000 years, the j strongly contrasted features of the Negro and the

Semitic races have remained altogether unchanged ; while more recent discoveries prove, that the moundbuilders of the Mississippi valley, and the dwellers on Brazilian mountains, had, even in the very infancy of the human race, some traces of the same peculiar and characteristic type of cranial formation that now distinguishes them.

If we endeavour to decide impartially on the merits of this difficult controversy, judging solely by the evidence that each party has brought forward, it certainly

« EelmineJätka »