AFTER ITS KIND--- THE BOOK #2

 AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name (1958)

Chapter III 

Wanted:  A Greater Than Darwin

ON the basis of the foregoing "proofs" the evolutionist says that evolution is a fact. As to the satisfactory nature of those "proofs" the reader is asked to judge for himself.

While bearing in mind the questionableness of this fact of the past and present evolution of plants and animals, the reader is now invited to a consideration of the various attempts that have been made to explain how this supposed evolution has and does occur.

If, as is claimed, all present forms of plants and animals with their marvelous complexity of physical structure have developed out of a simple, primitive one-celled ancestor, something must have caused it. How a feather came to be, how a hand, how an eye, how a wing-—-these are things the creationist wants and has a right to know before he, as a sensible person, should be expected to give up his faith in the creation account of the first chapter of Genesis. What has caused the development which the evolutionist says has gone on? How did species arise? How did change and variation take place?

For over a hundred years evolutionists have been busy thinking up an answer to the above fair and very vital question. All the greatest minds among them have been bent to the task, for they have truthfully felt they could never expect evolution as a theory to satisfy thinking people better than the creation doctrine until a satisfactory answer to this question had been given. Merely to say it happened, but to be silent as to how it happened, that hands, eyes, wings, came into existence without a Creator, this in itself would be a confession of defeat.

In answer to this question several famous explanations have been given. For a time one or two of these explanations were considered satisfactory by many evolutionists. Later, however, they had to be abandoned and new explanations sought. Today, as the reader will see after the reasons are presented, no evolutionist has any explanation of the problem to offer which is able to satisfy even those eager to be satisfied. All any evolutionist can do at the present time is to sit back and hope that some one of his fellow evolutionists will soon think of something.

It is well worth while for the reader to know the attempts which have been made to explain how the continual evolutionary change that is supposed to have gone on has taken place. It will impress upon him the magnitude of the task which those who would establish the evolution theory in place of the doctrine of creation have before them, and will convince the creationist that he has the only possible explanation of the origin of the present world of plants and animals that clear thinking persons can accept.

THE ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION OF LAMARCK

The first attempt to explain the workings of the evolution process was made a hundred and fifty years ago by a French evolutionist named Lamarck. Observing the every-day fact that if a man uses his arm vigorously for a time, as a blacksmith does, the arm becomes larger, and if he does not use his arm, but sits physically idle in an office as does a clerk, his arm becomes smaller, Lamarck thought he had found a solution of the problem. He said.74 "The remote ancestors of present day forms were always being induced by the conditions in which they lived to use certain parts of their bodies more than others. Those parts that were used became larger. Those parts not used became smaller. The effects of the use or disuse of these parts were passed on to the offspring. They were slightly different from their parents. In turn the offspring themselves—were caused by conditions in their environment to use one part

74 This and the following are not exact quotations. They are intended merely to give the idea of what he said.

more and another part less. The results in them of this use or disuse of parts were still further passed on. Thus changes in the offspring, imparted to them by the varied use or disuse of parts by the parents, were steadily accumulated through the centuries, and by their accumulation living  were continually undergoing a process of transformation.''

To make this explanation of a difficult problem clear, a few concrete examples had best be taken out of Lamarck's book. Taking the case of the giraffe with its long neck, Lamarck explains it in the following manner: remote ancestors of the giraffe had short necks like the horse or cow. Along came a drought and dried up all the vegetation on the ground.  Leaves  remained on the trees, however. For these leaves the short-necked ancestors reached and in doing so stretched their necks. Then they had offspring and the offspring showed in themselves the effects of their parents' stretching. The necks of the off-spring were imperceptibly longer than their parents. The offspring grew up. Along came another drought which dried up the grass on the ground but left the leaves on the trees. For these leaves the ancestors stretched their necks.  When  their  young were  born  they  showed, the effects of their parents' stretching. Their necks were still longer. And so on. By the steady accumulation through thousands of years of the effects upon the neck of stretching for leaves the present long neck of the giraffe came into being.

Another of Lamarck's illustrations was that of the long   legged birds which love to stand in the water, for example; the flamingo. "How did that bird get such long legs?" we ask. Thus answered Lamarck: "Its ancestors had short legs, By continual effort throughout thousands of years to walk into the water and get food out of it without wetting its feathers the ancestors' short legs became logger and longer until they became what they are today.'? Of course, it is also assumed, as the legs grew longer the neck, was continually stretched so the bird could reach bottom with its mouth.

75 How they got their short necks is not explained

However ridiculous these explanations may seem to us, Lamarck must be admired for making the attempt, something that evolutionists today, though they talk loudly about the "fact" of evolution, do not seem inclined to do. Foolish as these explanations are, let us critically examine them in the, light of facts and, common  sense.

We have a right to ask, "Why do not other animals besides giraffes have long necks, acquired in the same way? Did no other animals live in drought-ridden areas? Did they move out of drought-ridden areas to better pasture lands? If so, why did not the giraffe's ancestors move out also, which is what wild animals usually do in such cases? How did it happen that between droughts, when the feeding was good on the ground, the necks of the ancestors did not again begin to shrink? The giraffe today lives in the open plains and feeds upon grass. Why, if all was as simple as Lamarck supposed, has not the giraffe evolved back into a creature that can eat comfortably, without having to spread its legs?"

Concerning the flamingo the question arises. "If getting fish-dinners was so awkward for the dainty short-legged ancestors of that tall bird, how did it happen that they did not become tired of such disagreeable meals long before any appreciable length in their legs was arrived at? Or, if their craving for small fish could not be gotten rid of through evolution, why did the ancestors not become ducks, as other birds, according to the theory, must—have done, and learn to swim ?"  

Creationists ought to thank Lamarck for calling attention to such definite problems as these, which are only a few of countless other difficulties. Supporters of the evolutionary theory do not like to face things of this sort directly. They prefer to talk in general terms. They are accustomed now to laugh at Lamarck's explanation, call his illustrations crude, and disclaim any responsibility for them. Nevertheless the long neck and long legs are there waiting to be explained satisfactorily on any other basis except creation, and the creationist should demand a satisfactory explanation before he believes in evolution.

Besides such difficulties as the above there is one other serious flaw in Lamarck's attempted explanation. In the discussion of his concrete cases nothing was said about his supposition that the stretching of the parent giraffe's neck would affect the offspring, making its neck slightly longer. In other words nothing was said about the assumption that changes of body in parents, however slight, are transmitted to their offspring—for example, that big muscles gained by a parent through exercise are passed on as bigger muscles to their children, or, that the neck-stretching of an ancestor giraffe would produce by inheritance a longer neck in its offspring. As a matter of fact these are false assumptions.

It is popularly believed that if a person were to have his nose pulled and fastened over to one side of his face throughout life, the child of that person would inherit a nose bent at least slightly to the same side. Actual observation, however, has never yet revealed any authentic proof of the inheritance of this or any other acquired character. Soldiers who have lost legs or arms in war do not have legless or armless children. Many cases of the inheritance of acquired characters have been reported, but careful investigation has always revealed an error somewhere. It was once reported, for example, that over in Rutenberg, Germany, a cat whose tail had been cut off had given birth to a litter of bobtailed young. Here was a definite example of the inheritance of a mutilation. But further investigation revealed that the father was a bob-tailed Manx cat.

By actual observation we know that a blacksmith may by use get a big arm. But his son will have to develop his own muscle or he will not have it. Parents may learn ten languages, but their children will have to begin with the A B C or be ignorant.

If acquired characters were inherited there are many cases where the fact would have had an excellent chance to establish itself. It is well-known that the old Chinese bound the feet of their female children for many generations. Yet the feet of Chinese women, if permitted to grow, were perfectly normal. The Jews have been circumcizing their boys for 4,000 years with no effect discernible in the modern Jewish offspring. How acquired characters are not inherited is well illustrated in the fact that cutting the hair for many generations has not made barbershops a whit less necessary.

It was an evolutionist, Weismann, who was advocating Darwin's theory against Lamarck's, who gave the deathblow to Lamarck's explanation. Weismann appealed to his fellow evolutionists common sense. He pointed out how for many generations the tails of certain breeds of sheep and the combs of fighting cocks have been cut off with no effect upon the tails and combs of the sheep and cocks which descended from them. He himself cut off the tails of mice for nineteen generations and then gave it up. The tails of the last were as long as the first.

Weismann, however, performed a greater service to true science and to the cause of the Bible than merely cutting off the tails of mice. Convinced by experiment that acquired characters are not inherited, he began a study of living organisms which resulted in an important and vital discovery. He learned that there are, two kinds of cells that go to make up the mass of any individual (1) body cells, and (2) germ cells. He noticed further that very early in the development of the embryo, even as early as the eight- and sixteen-cell stages in some animals, when the creature is the size of a pin-head, the germ cells are set aside. Set aside, they never change. They retain all through life the original character of the egg-cell; and they go to make up the reproductive cells of the adult. Out of these germ cells come all future generations. Weismann observed, however, that the body cells, which go to make up the eyes, hands, feet, change their character. He also observed that the germ cells are totally independent of the body cells and are not affected by changes in the body. The cutting off of a finger has no effect whatever on the germ cells out of which the next generation comes. As a result of Weismann's work, men have learned that the direct line of descent from generation to generation is not a descent from adult to adult but from germ cell to germ cell. As the Bible indicates, life is in the "seed" and the seed does not change.

The physiological explanation by Weismann of the fact of the non-inheritance of acquired characters is today universally accepted. It explains why a crooked nose, or a shaved head, or a cut-off leg does not and cannot result in crooked-nosed and bald-headed and one-legged children. It shows why evolution could not have come about in the fashion Lamarck imagined.

Inheritance of acquired characters is absolutely vital to Lamarck's explanation of the how of evolution. In fact, Herbert Spencer, one of the most prominent exponents of evolution in the nineteenth century, said, "Either there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no evolution."76 According to prominent evolutionists themselves, then, there has been no evolution, for, as Prof. Lock of Cambridge University said, "It is generally agreed among them that acquired characters are not inherited." 77. Speaking of the inheritance of acquired characters, Prof. Kellogg of Stanford University said it "unfortunately does not seem to happen." 78 Prof. Conklin of Princeton University went so far as to say that "The inheritance of acquired characters is inconceivable." 79

Considerably before the present day Lamarck's courageous attempt to solve the problem began to be abandoned. Charles Darwin, who had an explanation of his own to offer, said, in the middle of the last century, "Heaven forfend me from Lamarck's nonsense," 80 and his coworker Wallace added, "The hypothesis of Lamarck has been repeatedly and easily refuted." 81 At present the abandonment of Lamarck's explanation is practically complete. Prof. Morgan of Columbia University wrote, "Today the theory has few followers among trained investigators, though it still has a popular vogue that is wide and vociferous." 82 Prof. Kellogg said "The plausible and fascinating explanation of Lamarck, based on the assumed inheritance by offspring of changes acquired by the parents during the development and lifetime is found to be insecurely based.  Acquired characters,  in the Lamarckian sense, are not inherited. Hence, new species do not come that way." 83

76 The Contemporary Review, March, 1893. 

77 Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, page 115. 

78 Evolution the Way of Man, page 97. 

79 Heredity and Environment, page 240.

80 Quoted from Lock, Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, page 115.

81 Ibid., page 115.

82 Critique of the Theory of Evolution, page 25.

THE ATTEMPTED EXPLANATION OF DARWIN

The second endeavor to supply the dire need of a satisfactory explanation of the non-miraculous origin of the vast hosts of living organisms from a single speck of protoplasm was made by Charles Darwin and offered to the world in the Origin of Species.

This famous but now abandoned explanation had as its basis in nature two facts: (1) the variations among living things and (2) the struggle for existence.

Darwin noticed that not all offspring of a given parent are alike. They vary, though it be but slightly in size, shape, and color. If one should examine carefully each one of the thousands of fish that are spawned each year by a single set of parents, it would be found that no two are exactly alike in every respect. Darwin further noticed that there is going on continually among all living things, man included, a terrible struggle for existence. Among the millions of fish that are born each year in the streams and lakes of the world only a few, comparatively, ever reach maturity. In one way or another they are lost during the struggle. What is true in the fish world is true in every sphere of life.

On the basis of the above facts in nature Darwin offered the following theory as to the origin of species. "From the beginning of life upon the earth the struggle for existence has been going on. In the midst of that struggle, accidental variation has always been taking place. No two forms have ever been exactly alike. Some of the differences have been bad or a handicap in the warfare of nature. Others have been good or advantageous in that struggle Consequently, there was always a tendency on the part of nature to destroy the bad variations and preserve the good. It was this continual selection on nature's part of different forms that brought about the changes which produced the present animal and plant life."

In order to see how natural selection was supposed to

83 World's Work, March, 1926.

work in actual practice, an illustration may be taken. The giraffe will again suffice. The problem for the evolutionist to solve is. "How did the long neck of the giraffe come into being ?" 84 Granting the existence of a neck to start with, this would be the Darwinian explanation: "The ancient ancestors of the giraffe were short-necked. A severe drought arose in the land where they lived. This brought on a struggle for existence. The vegetation on the ground dried up. Leaves only remained to be eaten and they were on the trees. To get them they had to be reached after. The giraffe's ancient ancestors reached after them. When the lower leaves were gone only the upper remained. But not all those ancestors were alike. Some had slightly longer necks, and those that had them lived, while the others died. The drought passed. Presently another came along. Again the vegetation died upon the ground and finally leaves remained only on the higher branches, These only the longest-necked ancestors could reach. They did, however, and lived, while their less fortunate brothers and sisters perished. Again and again the drought appeared, for how many centuries, no one knows. It all happened, however, so as to accomplish the result of producing a neck in the giraffe species as much as six feet long."

Charles Danwin threw stones at Lamarck, saying, "Heaven forfend me from Lamarck's nonsense." It is an old adage that those who live in glass houses should not do such things. Surety Danwin's speculation is as laughable as Lamarck's.

"Natural selection" or "the survival of the fittest" made a great stir among those eager to get away from the philosophy of existence embodied in the doctrine of special creation. So great was the stir that the terms "evolution" and "Darwinism" came to be used synonymously. The enthusiasm that was engendered by it, however, did not last, and gradually this speculation also began to be abandoned. Today it is not accepted as satisfactory by any evolutionist of prominence in the world.

84 The reader will readily be able to call to mind organs far more difficult to account for than the giraffe's neck, e.g., the heart, lungs, eyes, etc

Opponents of Darwinism have enumerated many objections, to this once widely accepted theory. 85 It will be critically examined here from two points of view, from either of which its untenableness will be seen:

(a) Darwin's theory begs the question entirely. It assumes that which is expected to be shown, namely, how new species, new parts and organs of plants and animals came into existence. Evolution means producing new things, not only new in individuals, but eyes, wings, fingers, beaks. Danwin's theory, however, merely assumes that these things were in existence and the better of them selected for survival and the poorer for extinction. For example, if two apples are on a plate, a man can select one and eat it. In so doing he leaves the other apple. This selection, however, does not explain how either apple came to be in existence. They were there before the man started to eat. Similarly, two evolving creatures may have been in existence long ago, one having parts of the body which made it more fit to survive than the other. Nature selected the more fit to survive and the less fit to perish, as Darwin said. But we have not yet had explained to us by Darwin how those parts of the body came to be. This is what we want to know. The views of a few keen-thinking men on this destructive weakness in Danvin's theory may be noted. Prof. Lock of Cambridge University says. ''Selection, whether natural or artificial, can have no power in creating anything new." 86 Hugo de Vries said. "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." 87 Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, and a student of evolutionary problems, said, "Natural selection does not and cannot produce new species and varieties. On the contrary its sole function is to prevent evolution." 88 Prof. Coulter of the University of Chicago says, "The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is

85 For a full enumeration of the impossibilities of Darwinism the reader is directed to the book of C. C. Coe, Nature versus Natural Selection.

86 Variation and Heredity, page 40.

87 Species and Varieties, pages 825-6.

88 World's Work, Dec. 1913, page 177.

that it cannot originate characters; it only selects among characters already existing." 89

(b) Darwin said, "Natural selection acts only by the preservation and, accumulation of small inherited modifications." 90 "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 91 On Darwin's own basis, therefore, if it is possible to call to mind any structure of any creature which could not be imagined to have come into existence slowly and gradually through thousands or millions of years by the accumulation of tiny changes, Darwin's theory would have to be abandoned by any im-predudiced person. Such structures are numerous, and a brief list of them will now be presented. Among them are some that would need to have been possessed in perfection from the very start or the possessors of them would have perished. To have possessed them in a third or a half developed condition would have resulted in the complete extinction of the evolving individuals.

1. The wings of bats and birds. The theory of evolution supposes that all the creatures which fly, such as bats and birds, are the result of an evolution of animals that once ran upon the ground. Birds are said to be an evolution from the reptiles. Bats are said to be an evolution from some mammalian forms of the type of the mouse. The wings of, bats and the wings of birds are said to be the results of the evolution of the front feet of ancient ground-running reptilian or mammalian creatures. The Darwinian explanation of how this came about is that front feet changed slowly and gradually into wings in both birds and bats, because each modification wing-ward was helping in the struggle for existence. It may well be asked, however, if the contrary was not the exact case. When the change was slowly taking place during the thousands of years that it must have taken, and the wings were only half made, how did the evolving creature manage—to survive? As the toes of the bat were slowly lengthening—

89 Fundamentals of Plant Breeding, page 34.

90 Origin of Species, 5th ed., page 110.

91 Ibid., page 277.

and a thin membrane was being stretched between them, and the process was a third, or a half, or two-thirds complete, at which stages the creatures had neither feet for running nor wings for flying, but were left to flounder about in a helpless fashion, can it be conceived that they were enabled to survive in the terrible struggle for existence 

Fig. 27. Imaginary course of evolution of the bat. The Darwinian theory of evolution is that the bat has evolved through a period of several millions of years by slow, imperceptible changes from the mouse or some other ground-running creature. It must, therefore, have passed through millions of intermediate stages. It is inconceivable that the evolving creatures could have lived while in any of the intermediate stages numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, for the fore-limbs were then neither feet to run with, nor wings to fly with, but useless appendages which would have made it impossible for the possessors of them either to procure food or to escape from the thousands of enemies which surrounded them. The above applies with   equal   force   to   birds,   whose   wings,   theoretically,   evolved   from   the   front   feet of  reptiles.

which Darwin accepted as a fact? The answer is negative. Rather would the entire species have perished long before the wings had become complete. 92 There is no

92 It is noteworthy that no fossils of creatures representing this vast gradual change from four-footed animals to winged creatures are found anywhere in the fossiliferous deposits. The immense numbers of necessary intermediate forms are conspicuous for their absence.

satisfactory explanation of the origin of wings except that of special creation. Reason agrees that "God created-— every winged fowl" and did so "after its kind." 93

2. The spinnerettes of spiders. In the rear body-part of spiders is a group of specialized organs which the insect uses to make the gossamer web on which its very existence depends. The structure of the organs is truly marvelous. Inside the body are numerous cavities or glands which are full of liquid silk. The glands are like bulbs which can be pressed by the surrounding muscles and the liquid silk squeezed out. When expelled, the liquid passes out through hundreds of exceedingly tiny holes. Coming into contact with the air the liquid dries and threads microscopically thin are produced. These threads are then seized by several hundreds of spool-like organs and spun into a silk cord as fine and delicate or as thick and strong as is required. With the cord thus produced the spider makes his web and with it catches his prey. Of what conceivable value, however, could such a set of marvelous organs be in the struggle for existence in the initial stages of their development? Until they were complete enough to produce the delicate web they could only have been a dangerous nuisance to the possessor. On the basis of special creation. however, no difficulty is offered to a reasoning mind.

3. Mammary glands. There is a group of animals classed by students of biology as "mammals" because of the presence in them of mammary glands or breasts by which the infant offspring in the early part of their young lives are fed with milk. Upon these glands the young of all mammals are utterly dependent for their existence. However, upon the Darwinian basis that these organs came into existence slowly through almost countless years by the accumulation of tiny changes in animal organisms. One may well wonder how the new born offspring managed to live during those times. If the delicate offspring lived on other food besides milk, which is difficult to imagine, what caused the mammary glands to develop? If the glands developed because the offspring sought for food in the region of the mother's breast, how did the offspring survive

93 Gen. 1:21

before food was to be had.? Problems such as these are not answered by any theory of a survival of the fittest in a struggle for existence. They are answered by the theory of creation.

4. Reproductive organs. Living things are generally divided into two sexes, male, and female. In both sexes, whether plants or animals, the reproductive structures are perfect complements of one another. It may be asked: How on the basis of a gradual evolution, was reproduction able to take place while as yet these complementary sexual structures were a third or a half made? The egg-cells within the females of bi-sexual plants and animals have in them certain forms which call for similar forms in the sperm-cells of males of the same kind. Again it may be asked: How on the basis of a slow evolution of these egg and sperm-cells was reproduction ever enabled to take place when the evolution was only a third or a half  complete?

5. Instinct. It is the instinct of every newly born offspring of mammalian parents to suck as soon as it is born. In no mammalian species is that instinct lacking. It need not, nor can it, be taught. The offspring sucks naturally, otherwise it would perish and the species cease to exist. On the basis of evolution by slow and gradual change it is impossible to see how mammalian species did exist, for with the sucking instinct only partially developed the offspring must promptly have perished. The instinct must have been put into those animals possessing them fully made by a Creator.

To all clear-thinking men and women there can be no satisfactory explanation of the origin of wings, reproductive organs, instincts, and a thousand other physical—and psychical structures except that they were given to creatures fully made in the beginning.

Darwinism, once considered so satisfactory an explanation of the origin of all the physical structures which plants and animals possess, is no longer accepted by the vast majority of evolutionists. Besides those considerations presented here numerous others have led to its rejection. That it is rejected today is apparent from the following quotations by prominent evolutionists: 

"Darwin's explanation of organic evolution is now held to be an inadequate explanation." 94 "I have never been satisfied that Darwin's explanation is the rightful one." 95 "A new generation has grown up that knows not Darwin." 96 "He [Darwin] has been shorn of his selection theories as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks." 97 "Darwin speaks no more with philosophical authority." 98 "Similarly, the more widely accepted and apparently vigorously logical explanation of Darwin, based on the assumption of a life or death determining value of actually occurring many small variations in the struggle for existence, is also seen to be more logical than real." 99

But though Darwinism, or natural selection, has had to be abandoned as a satisfactory explanation of evolution, it must not be denied that natural selection has played and does still play a large part in adjusting natural species already existing to the physical world. The earth has undergone marked changes since species were first created, and species have had to adapt themselves to new environments. In His wisdom the Creator made ample provision for species to adapt themselves to these changed conditions. He provided species with a great capacity to vary, and thus offered the material which nature might select and fit into these changed conditions, except where the changed environment required a power of variation greater than that with which the species were endowed. But, however much selecting nature may have done in the past, its selecting has never been able to originate anything. Natural selection can be only a mechanism for the elimination of what already exists.

94 Prof. Coulter of the University of Chicago in School Science Series, page 16.

95 Prof. Scott of the University of Princeton in The Theory of
Evolution, page 25.

96 Dr. Scott, President of the Botany Section of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, in Nature, Sept. 29, 1921.

97 John Burroughs, famous naturalist, in the Atlantic Monthly, August, 1920.

98  Prof.  Bateson,  President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in Nature, August 20, 1914. 

99 Vernon Kellogg in World's Work, March, 1926.

THE  ATTEMPTED  EXPLANATION  OF  DE  VRIES

The last great speculation as to the cause of evolution was offered about the year 1900 by Hugo de Vries. According to the two previous attempts evolution was said to have come about very gradually, by little, infinitely minute additions, so slowly and gradually as to be un-noticeable. In the attempt to be considered now we have something entirely new and different.

De Vries was a botanist. While experimenting in his garden with a plant called Oenothera (primrose) he found that from it came forms such as he had never seen before. These he called "new species." They appeared unexpectedly among the offspring. As a result he offered the following explanation of how living things evolved. "New species" he said, "rose suddenly, spontaneously, by steps, by jumps. They jumped out among the offspring." His speculation was called, therefore, the "mutation" theory.

This theory, while it aroused great hopes among evolutionists for a few years, soon went the way of its fellows, when it was learned that the "new" species of plants which de Vries thought he had seen produced in his garden were discovered to be but one of the many varieties of forms which the Oenothera is privileged by the Creator to have. In an address at Toronto to the assembled scientists of America, Prof. William Bateson said, "Twenty years ago de Vries made what looked like a promising attempt to supply this (evidence of new species appearing among natural offspring) as far as Oenothera is concerned . . . but in application to that phenomenon the theory of mutation falls. We see novel forms appearing, but they are no new species of Oenothera. For that which comes out is no new creation." 100

The abandonment of the speculation of de Vries as to the how of evolution was acknowledged by Prof. Jeffrey of Harvard Umversity in the following words, "The mutation theory of de Vries may now be relegated to the limbo of discarded hypotheses." 101  (Appendix II.)

Today no evolutionist has anything to offer to account

100 Science, Jan. 20, 1922. 

101 Science, April 3, 1914.

for the evolutionary process which is said to have taken place. "When students of other sciences" said Bateson, "ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to agnosticism" and "That essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin of species remains utterly mysterious," and "We cannot here and now explain how species arose." 102 "Old explanations of evolution do not explain it" acknowledged Prof. Kellogg.103 "These things are an illustration of the bankruptcy of the present theory of evolution" wrote Prof. Holmes of the University of California.104

One wonders how long the evolution theory is going to last without that essential bit of the theory which tells how and why such marvelous things as a butterfly, a trout, a robin, a lamb, a man were produced purely by forces of nature working naturally, such marvelous things as the Christian believes required supernatural power and wisdom, definite creative acts, for their production. The theory of evolution is at present lacking an explanation of how organs and species were produced. Unless someone comes soon to its rescue how long can the theory hold? Meanwhile, it is being held by evolutionists, in the words of Bateson, as an act of faith, while they wait for another greater than Lamarck, or Darwin, or de Vries. The difficulties to be faced in old problems and in new problems are so great that the final question will have to be not "how did it happen," but "did it ever happen at all."

SUMMARY

The theory of evolution should not be accepted in place of the doctrine of creation until evolutionists have answered the question, "How were forms produced by the operation of purely natural laws?"

Lamarck's explanation of how present forms evolved non-miraculously is not acceptable, and is not accepted by

102 Science, Jan., 1922.

103 World's Work, March, 1926

104 Science, Sept. 3, 1915.

evolutionists today. The chief reason is that acquired characters are not inherited.

Darwin's explanation is not acceptable, and is not accepted today by evolutionists as a complete explanation because (1) selection can only take away. It cannot produce. (2) There are many organs of living things which would have been not only not a help to an evolving creature, but would have been a destructive hindrance in the great struggle for existence if possessed in an imperfect state.

De Vries' explanation is not acceptable, and is not accepted by evolutionists today because what de Vries thought were new species were found to be nothing but unknown varieties within old species.

Evolutionists today have no explanation of how living forms evolved.

……………….

IN  CANADA  AT  LEAST [PROBABLY OTHER COUNTRIES  ALSO]  EVOLUTION  IS  PUT  FORTH  AS  A  FACT.  THE  CBC [CANADIAN  BROADCASTING  CORPORATION]  ON  TV  AND  RADIO,  HAS  A  FELLOW  CALLED  BOB  MACDONALD.  WHEN  HE  SPEAKS,  HE  SPEAKS  IN  THE  MIND-SET  THAT  EVOLUTION  IS  A  FACT.  IT  IS  TAUGHT  IN  CANADA  THAT  LIFE  BEGAN  IN  THE  SEA,  THAT  SOMEHOW [FROM  ANOTHER  METIOR  OR  FROM  WHATEVER  ON  EARTH]  CERTAIN  CHEMICALS  MIXED,  AND  BINGO,  THE  FIRST  LIVING  CELL  WAS  SOMEHOW  CREATED,  LIFE  STARTED.  THEN  OVER  MILLIONS  OF  BILLIONS  OF  YEARS,  MICROSCOPIC  LIFE, THEN  TINY  TINY  LIFE  YOU  COULD  SEE  CAME,  THEN  A  LITTLE  LARGER  LIFE…. AND  SO  ON  TO  CREATURES  OF  THE  SEA,  WHO  EVENTUALLY  CAME  ON  LAND.  THEY  OVER  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS  BECAME  SOME  OF  THE  LAND  CREATURE  LIKE  THE  DINOSAUR  WORLD.  SOME  IT  IS  CLAIMED  WENT  BACK  INTO  THE  SEA,  DE-EVOLUTIONIZED  TO  FORM  MORE  DEA  CREATURES  OF  TODAY.  SOME  ON  LAND  SLOWLY  FORMED  WINGS  AND  BECAME  THE  FLYING  BIRDS.

THE  LONG  AND  SHORT  OF  IT  ALL  -  ACTUALLY  THE  LONG…..EVOLUTION  SLOWLY  BECAME  US  AND  THE  WORLD  WE  HAVE  TODAY.

SOME  WOULD  LIKE  TO  ADD  "MUTATIONS"  ALONG  THE  WAY  TO  TREY  AND  GET  AROUND  A  DESIGN  CREATOR.

HUMMMM… SO  WE  HAVE  THE  CATERPILLAR,  WE'LL  SAY  IT  EVOLVED  TO  SUCH.  NOW  THE  CATERPILLAR  SEEMS  TO  BE  QUITE  HAPPY  MUNCHING  ON  LEAVES.  LOTS  OF  FOOD  IT  HAS.  WHY  BOTHER  SAYING  TO  ITSELF,  "I  THINK  I'D  LIKE  TO  BE  A  FLYING  CREATURE  LIKE  SOME  I SEE."  SO  IT  MUTATES  TO  A  HANGING  SACK,  BUT  FORGETS  TO  FIGURE  THE  NEXT  STAGE…… IT  DIES  AND  NO  BUTTERFLY.  THEN  OKAY  WE'LL  SAY  IT  GETS  THE  NEXT  TAGE,  AND  IN  ITS  SACK  IT  BASICALLY  DISSOLVES  ITSELF,  BUT  HAS  NOT  FIGURED  WHAT  TO  DO  WITH  ITS  DISSOLVE.  NO  BUTTERFLY.  OKAY  WE'LL  SAY  IT  FIGURES  TO  MAKE  A  NEW  BODY,  EYES,  ANTENNAS;  BUT  HAS  NOT  FIGURES  HOW  TO  MAKE  WINGS.  NO  BUTTERFLY!  AND  THERE  ARE  MANY  MORE  THINGS  TO  FIGURE  TO  BE  A  FULL  LIVING,  FUNCTIONING  BUTTERFLY.

UNLESS  THIS  CATERPILLAR  CAN  FIGURE  IT  ALL  OUT  AND  EXECUTE  IT  ALL  OUT,  THERE  IS  NO  BUTTERFLY.  AND  WHY  WOULD  ONE  BUTTERFLY  DECIDE  TO  DO  A  MIGRATION  EACH  YEAR,  SOME  OVER  THOUSANDS  OF  MILES  TO  MEXICO [THE  MONARK-BUTTERFLY];  WHY  BOTHER  TO  EVOLVE  SUCH  A  THING;  WHY  NOT  JUST  LIVE  AND  REPRODUCE  AND  DIE,  IN  THE  AREA  YOU  ARE  BORN,  LIKE  OTHER  BUTTERFLIES?  I  GUESS  SOME  EVOLUTIONISTS  COULD  ANSWER,  "WELL  EVOLUTION  DOES  SOME  PRETTY  STUPID  THINGS  AT  TIMES."  YA  JUST  AS  STUPID  AS  THE  MIND  OF  THOSE  WHO  BELIEVE  IN  EVOLUTION.

TO  SAY  THE  CATERPILLAR  FIGURED  IT  OUT  IN  ONE  MASSIVE  "MUTATION"  IS  STRETCHING  THE  MIND  FROM  HERE  TO  THE  MOON  -  IT  IS  REALLY  LAUGHABLE.

AND  IF  MAN  HAS  BEEN  ON  EARTH  LIKE  SOME  SAY,  40  OR  50  THOUSAND  YEARS  OR  MUCH  MORE,  WHY  ARE  WE  NOT  STILL  SEEING  SLOW  EVOLUTION  AND/OR  MUTATIONS  HAPPENING  ALL  AROUND  US?  WHY  DO  WE  NOT  SEE  SOME  LAND  ANIMALS  STILL  TRYING  TO  SLOWLY  DEVELOP  WINGS?  OR  SOME  INSECT  TURNING  ITSELF  INTO  ANOTHER  COMPLETELY  DIFFERENT  SPECIES,  LIKE  THE  CATERPILLAR  TO  THE  BUTTERFLY?

IF  MAN  BEING  HERE  FOR  A  MILLION  YEARS  OR  SO,  HAS  MANAGED  TO  CHANGE  INTO  3  OR  4  DIFFERENT  COLORS  OF  SKIN,  WHY  HASN'T  MAN  EVOLVED  4  ARMS  AND  HANDS [THINK  WHAT  YOU  COULD  DO  WITH  4  OF  EACH];  WHY  DID  WE  NOT  MUTATE  INTO  HAVING  4  LEGS,  OR  4  EYES?  HOW  ABOUT  MUTATING  INTO  HAVING  6  EYES,  2  ON  THE  FRONT,  2  ON  THE  SIDE,  AND  2  ON  THE  BACK  OF  THE  HEAD.  

I  MEAN  IF  NATURE  JUST  KEEPS  MOVING  AND  MUTATING,  AS  IT  DID  IN  THE  BEGINNING  SO  WE  ARE  TOLD,  WHY  BOTHER  STOPPING?

WHY  DOES  NOT  SOME  MICROSCOPIC  STUFF  NOT  FORM  INTO  LITTLE  CREATURES  STILL,  IF  IT  ONCE  DID  TO  BRING  CREATURES  INTO  THIS  WORLD.

WHY  DO  WE  NOT  SEE  ALL  OF  THIS  EVOLUTION,  BE  IT  VERY  SLOWLY  FORMING,  OR  MUTATION  FORMING  INTO  NEW  SPECIES,  ALL  AROUND  US.  WHY  DO  WE  NOT  SEE  IT  BY  THE  THOUSANDS  IN  THE  STRATA  OF  THE  EARTH,  AS  IT  DEVELOPED,  FAILED,  OR  WAS  BURIED  BY  SOME  CATASTROPHE  LIKE  WE  SEE  THE  DINOSAURS  WERE  BURIED.  SURELY  THERE  WOULD  OVER  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS  BEEN  BURIALS  AND  SO  FOSSILS  OF  HALF  THIS  OR  QUARTER  THAT,  WITH  MANY  CREATURES  AS  THEY  SLOWLY  WERE  TRANSFORMING  THEMSELVES,  BUT  GOT  BURIED  BY  SOME  MUD  SLIDE  OR  WHATEVER.

THE  MORE  WE  DISCOVER  ABOUT  EVEN  THE  BASIC  BUILDING  BLOCKS  OF  LIFE,  THE  MORE  WE  DISCOVER  THEIR  MASTERFUL  INTRICATE   DESIGN.

EVOLUTION  IS  THE  SILLIEST,  DUMBEST,  CRAZIEST  IDEA  MAN  HAS  EVER  DEVISED;  BUT  THEN  PEOPLE  WILL  THINK  SUCH  MADNESS,  SIMPLY  BECAUSE  TO  ADMIT  THERE  IS  A  GOD,  MEANS  THEY  WOULD  HAVE  TO  ADMIT  HE  COULD  TELL  US  HOW  WE  SHOULD  BE  LIVING;  THAT  HE  WOULD  THEN  HAVE  THE  POWER  TO  GIVE  US  AND  PRESERVE  HIS  WORD  FOR  US,  THAT  TELLS  US  RIGHT  FROM  WRONG,  AND  WE  MUST  BE  WILLING  TO  HAVE  OUR  MIND-SET  TO  FOLLOW  HIS  INSTRUCTIONS,  TO  OBTAIN  MERCY  AND  GRACE  AND  ETERNAL  LIFE.  FOR  WITH  SUCH  A  GOD  WE  WOULD  THEN  HAVE  TO  ADMIT  HE  CAN  GIVE  US  LIFE  ETERNAL.

Keith Hunt

AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name  (1958)

Chapter IV 

Mendelism: The Last Word on Evolution

AFTER ITS KIND, the first word on evolution, and forever decreeing- its impossibility, was spoken by God at creation and given to men as a revelation through the Book. In the laws of Mendel, as they are called—in honor of the man who first discovered them, we have what is entitled to he called the last word on evolution. The latest results of modern biological research, Mendel's Laws, agree exactly with what was written by Moses three thousand years ago - and they also elucidate it. 105

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk who lived about the middle of the last century. He was a biologist of note.

While experimenting with garden peas he made a—discovery. He learned that peas do not vary in heredity in any such a slip-shod, haphazard fashion as was supposed by Darwin, Lamarck, and others, but according to definite, orderly laws which he recognized and formulated. Enthusiastic over his discovery, he wrote a paper on the subject and read it before the Natural History Society of Brunn, Austria, in 1866. At that time scientific men were all absorbed with Darwin's theory of evolution by slow, gradual, minute additions, and such information concerning the heredity of plants and animals as Mendel had discovered did not fit in well with Darwin's teachings. Mendel's discovery therefore, was ignored completely, and it lay buried and unknown for thirty-five years. Not until the year 1900 was it brought to light when it was rediscovered independently by de Vries and Correns.

105 Instead of speaking of the "laws of Mendel" or "Mendelism" biologists now speak of the "principles of genetics" to which Mendel's discovery led, but we have chosen to retain the original expressions, "laws of Mendel" and "Mendelism."

The principles and laws of heredity discovered by Mendel, when they became thoroughly known, completely changed the old ideas of scientists in regard to heredity. They revolutionized the notion of evolution which was popular in Darwin's day. Bateson, the famous British biologist  and  student  of  Mendelian  heredity,   said  that

Fig. 28.  Gregor   Mendel.   Mendel   is   an   answer   to   those   evolutionists   who say theologians have no scientific ability and can know nothing about evolution.

Darwin would never have written the Origin of Species if he had known Mendel's work. Not only this, but Mendel's discoveries went far to destroy the faith of biologists in evolution itself. "It comes to pass that some biologists of the greatest authority in the study of Mendelian principles of heredity are led to the expression of ideas which would almost take us back to creationism." 106 These words were spoken at Harvard University in 1916 by Prof. Caullery of the Chair of Evolution of the University of Paris.

From the beginning a pronounced dislike for Mendel's laws was apparent on the part of evolutionists. Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin's close friend and co-worker, said, "On the general relation of Mendelism to evolution, I have come to a very definite conclusion. That is, that it is really antagonistic to evolution."107 The evolutionist Caullery, quoted above, said, "The data of Mendelism embarrass us very considerably." 108 Professor Scott of Princeton, another evolutionist, has said, "Interesting and profoundly important as are the results of Mendelian investigation, it must be admitted that they have rendered but little assistance in making the evolution process more intelligent, but instead of removing difficulties have rather increased them." 109 Bateson revealed the situation when he said, "I notice that certain writers, who conceive themselves to be doing a service to Darwinism, take occasion to say that they expected as much (of Mendelism) and that from the first they disliked the whole thing." 110

The blow that the evolution idea has received from the discovery of Mendel's laws is well presented in the words of E. W. McBride, Prof, of Zoology in the Imperial College of Sciences, England. "I well remember the enthusiasm with which the Mendelian theory was received when it was first introduced to the scientific world in the early days of this century. We thought at last the key to evolution had been discovered. But as our knowledge of the facts grew, the difficulty of using Mendelian phenomena to  explain evolution became apparent,  and this

106  Smithsonian Institute Report, 1916, page 343. The eminent Frenchman, Dr. Doumergue, in an article in Foi et Vie on the status of the theory of evolution in France, says that Prof. Caullery now (1925) "refuses to teach evolution, finding it of little interest."

107 Letters and Reminiscences, page 340.

108 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1916, page 333. 

109 Theory of Evolution, page 163. 

110 Nature, May 10, 1924.

early hope sickened and died. The way that Mendel cut was seen to lead into a cul-de-sac  (blind alley)." 111

So important is the bearing of Mendel's discovery upon the Biblical account of creation that an effort will now be made to give by illustration some indication of what Mendelism  is.   For  complete  information  the  reader  is

111 Science Progress, Jan., 1925

referred to one of the many books written especially on the subject.

There is a common breed of chickens called the Anda-lusian. The breed occurs in three colors: black, white and a mixture of black and white feathers called blue. (Fig. 29.) When a black Andalusian fowl is crossed with a white Andalusian all the chicks produced are blue.112 The blue chicks, when they mature and are bred among themselves,  do not produce all blue offspring. They produce three kinds of chicks in a definite, invariable proportion: twenty-five per cent black, fifty per cent blue, and twenty-five per cent white. The black chicks, when crossed together, produce black offspring. The white chicks produce white offspring. The blue, however, when crossed among themselves, produce the same definite proportion as before: twenty-five per cent black, twenty-five per cent white, and fifty per cent blue. This law of heredity has been revealing itself as long as the ancient stock of domestic fowls called the Andalusian has been used in poultry work. 

There is a plant called the four-o'clock from its habit of blooming only in the late afternoon. (Fig. 31.) The flowers of this plant are deep red, pure white, and pink-Red, crossed with red, produces red. White, crossed with white, produces white. But red crossed with white produces pink. The whole generation of offspring produced by red and white mating are pink. When, however, pink is crossed with pink, pink flowers are not the only flowers that result. Red and white blossoms also appear, and always in the proportion of one red, two pink, one white. These second-generation red flowers produce red when mated with red; these second-generation white flowers produce white when mated with white; but the second-generation pink produce, when mated with pink, pink, red and white flowers, and always in the ratio of red 25: white 25: pink 50. This process is capable of continuing on, indefinitely.

112 This is the "Andalusian"  desired by poultry fanciers. It is

not a pure breed but a hybrid. It cannot be made to breed true.

still another illustration may be taken to illustrate the feature of Mendel's Law called dominance. In the cases thus far cited the hybrid, i.e., the product of the cross between two pure breeds, has been different from either parents.113 The Andalusian, for example, which is produced by mating of a black fowl and a white, one, is a black showing some white in the feathers. It is a black, but the dominance of the black over the white is not complete. The same may be said of the Four-o'clock: Inmost species, however, one factor dominates over another completely in the hybrid. Such is the case in the guinea-pig. (Fig. 30.) If a black or colored guinea-pig is mated with a white or uncolored guinea-pig, the first generation of offspring will be all black or colored. The factor for white is present in the hybrid but it does not appear. Here the color dominates over the lack of color, causing The hybrids to look exactly like the pure parent. They are, however impure varieties, which produce, when mated with one another, one pure black, two impure blacks, and one pure white. The pure black will produce only black offspring. The pure white will produce only white offspring. The impure black will produce one pure black, two impure blacks, and one pure white.

From the above illustrations it is seen that species, e.g., the guinea-pig, contain certain "somethings" that travel down from offspring to offspring as units. The black color of hair and the white color of hair are the product of two distinct "somethings" which pass from generation to generation as if they were poured in at the top, and after appearing regularly along the way, come out at the end still intact. These "somethings" are called genes. Each natural species contains considerable numbers of—these genes, which affect all parts of the organism and determine the color, size, shape which each part must assume. In dogs, for example, there are certain genes which have to do with the hair, making it long or short, rough or smooth, curly or straight, white or colored, plain or spotted as the

113 Instead of "hybrid," the original designation after the discovery of Mendelism for the product of a cross between varieties, biologists now use the term "heterozygote," which means merely "impure breeding" or "mongrel." The word "hybrid" refers property to such crosses between distinct species as mules.

case may be.114 These genes are definite, fixed in number and indestructible. They can combine in one generation in one way and produce a certain type of offspring. Then they, can separate and combine again in another way in another generation and produce still another type of offspring. (Fig. 35, 36, 37.) They can, however, produce no greater number of different types than there are genes that can be combined. What these genes are and, how this separating and recombining of them again in each

Fig. 35. The formation of new varieties within species according to Mendel's Law. As many different varieties can be formed as there are genes in the species which can be combined in different ways. In the above illustration a male and a female guinea-pig differ in respect to two pairs of contrasting character. The male has genes which produce short and colored hair. The female has genes which cause long and uncolored hair. Only the dominant genes show in the first generation of offspring, wherefore all are colored and short-haired. In the second generation four varieties appear. They are the result of various combinations of the four genes contained in the grandparents. Two of these four varieties are new in the sense that they are formed by new combinations of old genes. Nothing new in the evolutionary sense, however, has been added. The proportion of the varieties will be  9:3:3:1

114 A brief sample list of alternating pairs of characters in different natural species is here given. In peas: tall vs. dwarf. In wheat: beardless head vs. bearded head. In nettles: much-serrated leaves vs. little-serrated leaves. In cotton: colored lint vs. white lint. In carnations: double flower vs. single flower. In chickens: feathered leg vs. clean leg. In cats: short vs. "Angora" hair. In dogs: harlequin spotted vs. plain color. In cattle: polled (hornless) vs. horned. In horses: trotting gait vs. pacing gait. The first in the pairs - is the dominant.

Fig. 36. The formation of new varieties within species according to Mendel's Law when three pairs of alternating characters are involved. In the above illustration the male has the three dominant genes: shortness, color, and roughness of hair. The female has the three recessive genes: length, no-color, and smoothness of hair. All or a part of the dominant genes could as well be in the female and the recessive genes in the male. In any case the first generation of offspring would all reveal only the dominant characters. In the second generation eight different varieties appear, the result of that many combinations of the genes contained in the grand-parents. Still nothing new in the evolutionary sense is added. The proportion of the varieties will always  be  27:9:9:9:3:3:3:1.

species takes place is now well understood and the descriptions of them constitute what are known as Mendel's Laws. Certain general conclusions which bear upon the matter of the evolution or non-evolution of species in the light of Menders discoveries should be stated:

(1). Only those physical characteristics which are due to factors (genes) are inherited. Variations in plants and animals are of two types: (1a) those which are due to the influence of the environment, such as bleached hair and a tanned skin, and (1b) those which are due to the existence of genes. The first types mentioned are not inherited. The second are temporary, lasting only for the life of the individual, and are not passed on to the offspring. The second (genie) types are inherited, and are the only ones therefore of any importance in the matter of evolution. Darwin ignorantly recognized no distinction in the types of variations in living organisms in his argument for evolution.

(2) Wide and numerous inheritable variations are latent in natural species. The Creator has given to living oganisms, especially to the higher forms of life, a large number of the things called genes. The number He has given to the different species varies, but it is known that in most species, even in those of small importance in the eyes of men, there are known to be very many. In the tiny fruit-fly, Drosophik, for example, well over five hundred definite characteristics, known to be the productions of genes, have been discovered. The largest number of genes in any species, and consequently the greatest possibility of manifesting physical differences, is found, doubtless, in man.

(NOW THE GENO FOR MAN  HAS  BEEN  DISCOVERED  AND  IT  WAS  A  SURPRISE - 30,000 [THIRTY THOUSAND]  ONLY; THE FRUIT FLY HAS ABOIUT AS MANY; BUT A FRUIT FLY WILL NEVER EVOLVE OR MUTATE INTO A HUMAN - Keith Hunt)

(3) No visible variation outside the combination of existing genes can occur. As a musician may combine the notes of his instrument in many different ways into the making of many different harmonies, so nature, by making different combinations of the factors existing in natural species, may produce many varieties in the species. Yet, just as the number of possible harmonies which the musician can make on his instrument is limited by the number of notes the instrument has, so the number of possible varieties which nature can produce in species is limited by the number of genes in them which can be combined.

By new combinations of old materials new forms may arise, many of them such as have never been in existence previously. A certain evolution, if one would care to call it so, takes place. Such evolution, however, occurs within a closed system, and does not destroy, but merely enlarges the Biblical concept of the creation of fixed types. 

(4) No genuinely new, inheritable characteristic ever appears in species. Whatever appears was already contained in its ancestors in the form of hidden genes.

(IT'S  LIKE  I  ONCE  HAD  A  GUITAR  STUDENT  WHO  HAD  PARENTS  WHO  WERE  NOT  OVER  5' 4" TALL, BUT  THE  BROTHER  OF  MY  STUDENT  AT  AGE  16,  WAS  ALREADY  6' 8"  TALL - THE STAR BASKETBALL  PLAYER  ON  HIS  TEAM  -  Keith Hunt)

In order for evolution to take place, new forms must come into existence. This is a sine qua non of evolution. These new forms must be new not in any relative sense, but in a real sense. They must be of the nature of new creations. Organs or organisms must come into existence which had no existence before. Since the rediscovery of Mendel's work attention has been fastened upon the apparently new forms which have been known to arise spontaneously in recent times in numerous species of plants and animals, e.g., sweet peas, poppies, wheat, corn, cattle, flies, moths and others. These "mutations" as they are called, have been said by evolutionists to be genuinely new creations, the materials with which the evolution process, builds. De Vries, for example, considered the apparently new forms of the primrose, Oenothera, which appeared more or less regularly in his garden in Holland to be such new creations.

But mutations are not new things or new creations. Mutations are nothing but the revelation of the different effects of genes, or the revelation of the effects of different states of the same gene (some genes can have only one effect while other genes can have several and variable effects) which have been in existence in species as long as the species themselves have been in existence. As well call mutant forms "new" as call fish that appear periodically on the surface of the sea or of a lake "new" merely because they can not be seen at all times. For, variations in species which were thought to be new when they first appeared have later been seen to arise many times elsewhere, and variations which have been seen for awhile, and then have disappeared and seem to have become lost for good have unexpectedly come back again.

Fig. 37. Varieties of fruit-flies produced according to Mendel's Law from grand-parents containing four pairs of alternating genes. The pairs are (1) long wing vs. so-called "vestigial" wing. (2) bar-eye vs. round eye. (3) small (normal) body vs. "giant" body (body twice the normal size), (4) gray (sooty) color vs. black (ebony) color. The vestigial wing here pictured is capable of expanding when the air gets warm.

There are now known to be many different types or causes of mutations and most of the types are fully understood—so much so that whereas evolutionists (like de Vries) were at one time greatly excited when they saw a strange form arising, because they thought they were seeing evolution  going  on,   have  now  calmed down to almost complete silence. One of the simplest types, of mutation is illustrated in Fig. 38. Other types are illustrated and explained in the appendix called MUTATION at the end of this book.

(5) The seat of all heredity is in the germ or "seed." The conclusion which Weismann came to in his search for the reason acquired characters are not inherited, namely, that the basis of all heredity is in the germ, has been  reached by  students  of  Mendelism  in an  entirely different way. The seed of each kind is in itself, says the Bible, as if in the seed were to be contained the machinery upon which the eternal unchangeableness of species was to rest. All genes are passed on within the "seed." or germ, in what are called the chromosomes. Under powerful microscopes these genes can be seen inside the chromosomes, arranged somewhat like beads on a string (Fig. 60.) An unconscious tribute to the statement in Genesis that the "seed is in itself" is found in the presidential address of Bateson as President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in which Mendelism was his theme, when he said. "Descent used to be described in terms of blood. Truer notions of genetic physiology are given by the Hebrew expression 'seed.' If we say he is, 'of the seed of Abraham' we feel something of the permanence and indestructibility of that germ which can ran be divided and scattered among the nations, but remains recognizable in type and characteristic after 4,000 years." 115

GENERAL

Mendelian research has thrown remarkable light on certain problems at one time puzzling to the creationist. The "blind-fish" argument for evolution has been evaporated.  Until  recent times  it was  said by  evolutionists

115 Nature, August 20, 1914.

Fig. 38. Evolution means producing new forms. The above illustration shows how "new" forms may be nothing but old forms which, concealed for many generations, are revealed by an accidental mating. In actual practice a single combed fowl crossed with a rose combed fowl would produce rose combed chicks. The single combed characteristic has disappeared in the offspring. One of these rose combed offspring crossed with a pure rose combed bird would produce only rose combed fowl. After as many generations as the breeder might desire, during all of which the single combed feature would be hid, he could mate one of the rose combed offspring with a pea combed fowl. The products would be walnut combed. Two of these mated would produce offspring one of every sixteen of which would be a single combed bird.

that the blind fish of certain caves became blind because of the evolutional influence of their environment. Their once perfect eyes evolved into sightlessness, it was said, because the creatures had been confined for so many countless generations in the darkness. Here, it seemed, the evolutionist had a definite example of the inheritance of an acquired character. While carrying on experimentation in search of knowledge of Mendelian principles, Prof. Morgan of Columbia discovered among the fruit-flies which he had produced in glass milk-bottles in the sunlight "blind" flies. (See Fig. 56.) They appeared in definite Mendelian proportions, they crossed back readily with parent forms, and could again and again be reproduced in the same fashion as at first, and thus demonstrated that they were merely one of the many varieties in which this species of fruit-fly can appear. Morgan therefore concluded, and all students of heredity have accepted his conclusion, that "eyeless" fish did not become eyeless because they had lived so long in caves, but that they were produced by their parents outside of caves and drifted or swam into them accidentally, and there, in a suitable, protected environment, continued to live. Morgan says, "Formerly we were taught that eyeless animals arose in caves. But they may arise in glass milk-bottles by a change in a single factor." 116 And Prof. Castle of Harvard, another prominent student of heredity, has said, "As regards the vision of cave animals, the Lamarckians hold that the eyes have degenerated because no longer used, whereas the selectionist holds that the animals which have taken to living in caves have been driven to this course."

Light has been thrown upon the whole problem of animal distribution and adaptation-—or what may be called "a true evolution." After …. each species began to "mutate" and new forms began to arise. Among the cattle varieties were produced having short hair, such as is found in the Zebu of India or the Red Africander. Such a coat being better adapted to a hot climate, these varieties migrated to warm, equatorial regions. Other varieties were produced having long, warm coverings of hair, such as the

116 Critique of the Theory of Evolution, page 67.

West Highlander and Galloway, or the prehistoric wild ox of northern Europe called the "auroch." These varieties migrated northward. Natural selection, working—upon Mendelian or "genie" variations, produced all the evolution there is. Such evolution is strictly in accordance with what is taught in all Scripture.

An interesting side-light is cast by Mendelism upon the geographical distribution of mankind. The different shades and colors of the human skin, as well as all other features of his body, are now known to be due to factor that follow Mendel's Laws. The presence of the dark-skinned members of our race in the hot climates is not, therefore, to be explained on the evolutionary basis of inheritance of acquired characters, as due to the effects through many generations of burning sunlight upon the skin, but as due to the fact that…. dark-skinned specimens of humanity drifted south into the lands of the burning sun, while light-skinned variations of humanity drifted north into climates more suitable for them. Africans are not dark because they came to Africa. They came to Africa because they were dark. "The darkest races of mankind are those which live where the sunlight is strongest and the skies-clear; the fairest races live where the sun's rays are less intense and the skies are often overcast. This signifies to the Lamarckian that the effects of the sun's rays on the human skin are inherited; but to the selectionist it means only that men vary in depth of pigmentation and that each race has migrated to the climate which it is best fitted to endure." 117

(MAYBE  PARTLY  TRUE  BUT  NOT  FULLY  SO.  THE  ESKIMOS  WENT  WAY  NORTH,  AND  DID  NOT  DEVELOP  A  HAIRY  BODY  TO  EVOLVE  INTO  LIVING  WITH  THE  BITTER  COLD;  THEY  JUST  DRESSED  IN  THE  FUR-SKINS  OF  ANIMALS.  GOD  PLACED  THE  RACES  OF  PEOPLE  WHERE  HE  WANTED  THEM.  THE  WHITE  MAN  LIVES  QUITE  WELL  IN  THE  HEAT  AND  SUN  OF  AUSTRALIA,  AND  IF  NOT  PROTECTED  BY  CLOTHES  AND  A  HAT,  WILL  GET  SUN-TANNED;  BUT  MANY  AUSTRALIANS  ARE  QUITE  WHITE,  AS  THEY  DELIBERATELY  DO  NOT  SUN-TAN - Keith Hunt)

Knowledge of Mendelian laws of heredity was made use of to prove the non-inheritance of acquired characters. As was pointed out a few pages back, when two white guinea-pigs are crossed the offspring are all white, but when a white and a pure black are mated the progeny are all black, since black dominates white. Prof. Castle operated surgically upon a white guinea-pig "so as" to "remove that part of the inner reproductive organs called the ovaries and put in their places the ovaries from a black guinea-pig.

117 Castle,. Genetics and Eugenics, page 40.—It is significant that "Ham," the name of one of the sons of Noah who was the progenitor of the negroes, means "black" or "dark."

When the white guinea-pig with the ovaries from the black animal was perfectly well, it was mated to another white guinea-pig. The question was: will the offspring be white, as from a cross, of two white animals, or will they be black, as from a black and white? Will the eggs in the ovaries from the black animal be affected by their residence

Fig. 3 9. Illustraticn of Castle's experiment. No. 1 represents an ordinary white guinea-pig. No. 2 represents a white guinea-pig whose ovaries have been removed by operation and the ovaries of a black guinea-pig grafted into their places. No. 3 represents the black offspring which came from the crossing of No. 1 and No. 2. See   discussion  in   the   text.

in a white animal so as to cause a black offspring, if such is born, to be lighter colored? The offspring-were all pure black, showing that the germ-plasm and the embryo in development were not affected by their environment. It is doubtful if any evidence can more clearly show the unchangeable nature of the germ or "seed," and how therefore species must bring forth "after their kind."

SUMMARY

Mendel's discovery has done great damage to the theory of evolution. 

Mendelism says: After its kind.

The chief facts bearing on evolution Mendel brought to light are (1) descent from generation to generation is orderly rather than disorderly. (2) variation takes place within natural species as a result of different combinations of materials already contained in the species, (3) nothing new is ever added. "New" forms are merely old forms come to light.

Certain old, important evidences of evolution have been destroyed.

Light is cast on the nature of the pairs…., and the repopulation of the earth with many varieties of animals from a comparatively few forms … is made clear and simple.

………………..

DO  WE  SEE,  HAVE  WE  EVER  SEEN,  SAY  A  HORSE  MUTATE  INTO  SOME  ENTIRELY  DIFFERENT  ANIMAL;  THE  SAME  CAN  BE  SAID  FOR  THE  DOG,  THE  CAT,  THE  MOUSE,  THE  RABBIT,  THE  COW,  AND  ETC.

ANOTHER  IRON  CLAD  LAW [SO  WHO  PUT  IT  THERE]  IS  THAT  A  HORSE  NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  A  COW;  A  JIRAF  NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  AN  ELEPHANT;  A  DOG  NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  A  CAT;  A  GOAT  NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  A  SHEEP;  A  HIPPOPOTAMUS   NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  A  RHINOCEROS,  A  BEATLE  NEVER  TRIES  TO  BREED  TO  A  SPIDER;  AND  SO  FORTH.

THERE  ARE  MANY  LAWS  IN  NATURE.  WHO  PUT  THEM  THERE?  JUST  BLIND  CHANCE?    I  DO  NOT  THINK  SO.   THERE  ARE  WAY  TOO  MANY  LAWS  IN  THE  UNIVERSE  TO  SAY  IT  ALL  HAPPENED  BY  CHANCE.

DESIGN  AND  LAWS  REQUIRE  A  DESIGNER  AND  LAW-MAKER.

Keith Hunt

AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name (1958)

Bridging the Gap

NO logical, consistent evolutionist will permit in his scheme of evolution any interference from an outside source. Evolution, according to him, is a natural process devoid of all that is supernatural and miraculous. To call in the help of the God-idea in order to get over difficult places in the evolutionary explanation of the present world, e.g., to account for the origin of matter, the origin of life, is declared to be "unscientific'' and the policy rebuked as that of the "obscurantist"a term of derision or depreciation often applied to creationists. The supernatural cannot be admitted in one spot and logically excluded in another. The only consistent evolutionary position, and the only one worthy of intellectual respect is that of the evolutionist Huxley, who would not let God in anywhere, because, said he, "If you let God in one place you may as well let Him in all along the line."

It is, therefore, the statement of consistent evolutionists that man is entirely the product of evolution; that the regular, fixed, natural operations of matter which have produced the lower animals in their physical and psychic make-ups have also produced man, body and soul.

It is a lamentable policy on the part of creationists not to oppose the theory of evolution in the matter of plants and lower animals, but retreat before the attack until the evolution of man is reached and then turn and do battle. Such a policy is thoroughly inconsistent, since the same arguments which will prove the evolution of the lower plants and animals will also, if they are valid, prove the evolution

*The interested reader will find this chapter greatly supplemented in the author's book Before Abraham (Augsburg, 1948).

in man. One type of logic can not be accepted in one place but denied in another. Since, in the previous pages, the author has shown that the proofs and arguments for the evolution of the lower animals are not valid, he might well call a halt to this discussion. Nevertheless a few additional facts dealing particularly with the theory of human evolution may wisely be added.

THE EFFORT TO FILL IN THE PHYSICAL GAP BETWEEN MEN AND ANIMALS

Charles Darwin said that the evolutionary process produced two kinds of monkeys-—-the Old World apes and the New World apes, and from the former man evolved. He especially designated the gorilla as man's most immediate ancestor among the brutes. In other words, according to Darwin, man came from a present-day monkey and ape form. Today however this is much denied. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History and one of the leading American evolutionists, contended that man did not come from any ape, living or ancient, but that both men and apes branched off from a common spot on the evolutionary tree further down the stem.

The reason for this modern version of the theory, separating man from any living ape-form, is, partly, the fact that it is impossible to decide which of all the apes to select as man's ancestor. 118 The gorilla may be most like man in some respects, but it cannot be chosen as the ancestral form, because man's skull is smooth on top while the male gorilla's has a high bony crest in the shape of a chicken's comb. (Fig. 40.) Man has 12 pairs of ribs. The gorilla has 13. The gibbon cannot be chosen. It has a stomach most like man's stomach, also 12 pairs of ribs, but its arms, reaching down below the ankles, tell another story. The chimpanzee has short arms, but it has 13 pairs of ribs. The orang has a brain closest to man's for shape (highest in the forehead region) but the foot of the orang has a thumb instead of a big toe. All apes have this last feature in their anatomy, giving them the appearance of

118 The following comparisons are found in Mivart's Man and Apes.

being equipped with four hands. The baboon's spine is most like man's spine, but in all other respects the baboon is widely isolated. The most human-like heads among the apes are found among some of the smallest, long-tailed South American monkeys. Mivart says, "It is manifest that man, the apes and half-apes, cannot be arranged in a single ascending series of which man is the culmination." 119

Fig.   40.   A  gorilla  in  its  natural  walking position.  Inset,   Gorilla  skull.

"It should be borne in mind that it is to no one kind of ape that man has any special or exclusive affinity, and that the resemblance between him and lower forms is shared in not very unequal proportions by different species." 120

Though man is not today said to be descended from

119 Man and Apes, page 173.

120  Ibid., page 193.

any living ape form, he is nevertheless said to be an evolution from some creature of the remote past which was ape-like in all its physical and mental characteristics. It may as well be called a monkey and the hair-splitting be done with.

On the basis of a slow evolutionary process from the amoeba to man there should be millions of connecting links all along the way. They should exist between apes and man. As Prof. W. B. Scott of Princeton says, "After all, what we want most is not the missing link, hut whole chains which show clearly the descent of man." 121 This chain is admittedly lacking. While such as are alive today, are found, and many fossils of man, forms that represent states between them are not found. Evolutionists deny this, of course. They say fossils connecting men and apes have been discovered and they point to a large number of bones of considerable antiquity which they say proves their point. The most publicized of those will now be considered. It is impossible to speak of all the "proofs" of human evolution the evolutionists offer, since new missing-links  keep  popping up  all the time. What is characteristic of the earliest and best known "proofs" now to be discussed, may be regarded as characteristic of all, even the very latest.

(l) Pithecanthropus Erectus, the "Ape-Man of Tava" (Fig. 41.) This so-called intermediate form is said to have lived approximately 500,000  122 years ago and represented the first step of the brute in man's direction.

The following account is based on an article in the Smithsonian Institute Report for 1913. 123 In September 1891, a man named Dubois, while digging for fossils in the bank of a river in Java, discovered a molar tooth. The following month he found the top part of a skull about three feet away from the place where, a month, before, he found the above mentioned tooth. A year later, in August, 1892, he found a thigh bone about fifty—feet from the spot where he found the tooth and skull top.

121 New York Times, Dec. 27, 1925.

122  One "authority" says a million years, another something else.
These and all similar estimates mean nothing.

123 Ancient Remains of Man, by Dr. Alex Hrdlicka, page 495.

Fig. 41. Models of so-called "missing-links," based on bone fragments which have been found: (A) the Ape-Man of Java (B) the Piltdown Man (C) the Heidelberg Man (D) the Neanderthal Man. It should be clearly understood that these clay models are purely imaginary. They were moulded by Prof. J. H. McGregor under the direction of Prof. H. F. Osborn. (Courtesy American Museum   of  Natural   History.)

(YES  REMEMBER  ALL  THAT  GOES  ON  THE  SCULL,  TENDONS,  MUSCLES,  SKIN  FAT  ETC.  ARE  MADE  UP  BY  MAN.  YOU  COULD  TAKE  THE  SAME  SCULL  AND  GIVE  IT  TO  10  PEOPLE  AND  ASK  THEM  TO  ADD  WHAT  IS  ADDED  TO  EVERY  SCULL  ON  EARTH  TODAY,  AND  THEY  WILL  COME  UP  WITH  10  DIFFERENT  LOOKING  PEOPLE.  AND  IF  YOU  ADD  FAT  WEIGHT,  SOME  COULD  BE  VERY  DIFFERENT  INDEED.  THINK  OF  SOMEONE  YOU  MAY  KNOW  WHO  WAS  THIN,  THEN  GOT  FAT,  OR  VERY  FAT;  THINK  THE  OPPOSITE,  A  FAT  FACE  THAT  BECAME  VERY  THIN;  YOU  SHOULD  NOW  GET  WHAT  I'M  SAYING  -  Keith Hunt)

In the following month, October, 1892, he found another molar tooth. These four bones, found in a region where the remains of many animal species were abundant, are the basis of the so-called ape-man of Java. (Fig. 42.)

Three years later Dubois brought the bones to Europe and laid them before the Third International Congress of Zoologists at Leiden, Germany. After he had made his report. Dr. Rudolph Virchovw, the foremost anatomist of his day, criticized Dubois report with the remark that, found as they were so far apart, there was no certainty that the bones all belonged to the same creature. Other scientists gathered at the, convention examined the bones and could come to no agreement about them.124

Immediately thereafter Dubois carried the bones to his home in Holland and locked them in a closet, where they were kept, concealed from the gaze of men, for years. Thus spoke Dr. Alex Hrdlicka, in 1913, about this closeting of this "evidence" of man's evolution'. 124a "It would surely seem proper and desirable that specimens, of such value to science should be freely accessible to well qualified investigators and that accurate casts be made available to scientific institutions, particularly after 20 years have elapsed since the discovery of the original. Regrettably, however, all that has thus far been furnished to the scientific world is a cast of the skull-cap, the commercial replicas of which yield measurements different from those reported taken of the original, and several not thoroughly satisfactory illustrations; no reproductions can be had of the femur or the teeth, and not only the study but even a view of the originals are denied to scientific men." If, as Dubois claimed, these bones were truly authentic evidence of man's evolution, it was indeed strange that they were kept in the darkness rather than in the light. Pr.of. W. H. Ballou, another evolutionist, in the North American Review of April,  1922,  openly  questioned  Dubois'   honesty  in  the

124 To learn how widely the evolutionists differ in their interpretations regarding this and the other "missing-links" mentioned in these pages, the reader is referred to an article, "Controversy Over Missing Links" by G. S. Miller in Smithsonian Institute Report, 1928, pages 413-465.

124a Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 497.

matter on account of his refusal to place the evidence where all men can see it. He said, "All we know about Pithecanthropus is what Dubois, the finder of the remains, gave out; who then sealed up the fossil and has hidden it for thirty years! We do not even know whether he told the truth about the remains or not, and are doubtful because

Fig. 42. Fragments of the missing-link "Pithecanthropus." They consist of a skullcap, a femur, and two teeth. The skull-cap and the femur were found 50 feet apart. The teeth were found several yards from the skull. There is no certainty that any of the bones belonged to the same creature. Yet with these fragments as a basis, a creature of clay, half ape, half man in appearance, is constructed and offered to the unsuspecting public as a sure evidence of man's evolution from the brute. Note the high forehead compared to that of Lafayette in Fig. 48.   (Collected from Smithsonian  Institute Report,   1913.)

of his refusals to let anatomists have an opportunity to verify or disprove him."

Then at last, in 1923, under the pressure of scientific opinion, Dubois handed over his finds for critical examination. By this time he had carefully cleaned out the "inside" of the skull and made plaster-casts of its interior. It had been filled with solid earth when it was shown the only time at Leyden in 1895. Hrdlicka, then head of the Smithsonian Institute, after examining the skull said that it "revealed a remarkable brain of unexpectedly human like confirmation.'''125 The femur, Hrdlicka also said, was human, publishing; an exact comparison of it with the femur of a person who had died recently.126 Thus what had for many  years been brazenly used by evolutionists as a proof of man's evolution was found to be not a proof at all. Dubois had gone to Java as a young doctor embued with the theory of evolution. He told his friends that he was wrong to bring back with him the missing-link. 126a

Eoanthropus Dawsoni, the "Dawn-Man-of-Dawson." Fig. 41B.) The second discovered form that is said to fill the gap between man and the brute is the so-called Pilt-down Man, named after the man, Dawson who had the doubtful honor of having found it.

The manner of the discovery is worth relating in detail for the purpose of showing the amount of certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be connected with this further "proof" of man's evolution from the ape. Sometime about the year 1908 Dawson got from workmen digging in a shallow gravel pit at Piltdown, England, who had been requested to watch for fossils, a small fragment of a skull of some kind. Some years later (this is as Dawson reported it himself),127 while visiting the same spot, Dawson picked up two more small parts of a skull, making three parts in all. Another year later, making the discovery extend through a period of three years by this time, half, or less than half of a jaw-bone of some man or animal was discovered. Dawson says that, guiding himself by a tree close by he concluded that the jaw-bone was found in the same spot as the skull fragments already mentioned. On the same occasion Dawson's friend, Woodward, found another tiny fragment of a skull. The year following the discovery of the half-jaw a priest named Teilhard found a tooth. In the same gravel were also found

125  Skeletal Remains of Early Man, 1930, page 45.

126  Ibid., page 62.

126a See the statements of Sir Arthur Keith in his Antiquity of Man regarding Dubois' early enthusiastic attitude. 

127 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 502.

bones of the elephant, hippopotamus, beaver, horse, and deer. All the bones thus discovered, when collected together, constitute the remains of the Piltdown Man and are said to be evidence of man's evolution from the apes. (Fig. 43)

Dawson and Woodward, before the discovery was quite complete (the single tooth not having yet been found),

Fig. 43.  Bone  fragments  which   are   the  basis  of  the  Piltdown  Man:   1,   2, 3,   6,  skull   fragments;   4,   jaw  fragment;   5,   tooth;   7,   flint.    (The   Hall   of   the   Age   of  Man  Guide Leaflet  No.  52,  American Museum  of Natural History.)

made a reconstruction with plaster of Paris of the skull of the missing link as they conceived it to be. (Fig. 45.) Motivated by the hope that they had in their possession a transition form between men and apes, they made a plaster model of a head—half man, half ape—giving to the head the size they thought such an intermediate creature should have had, that is about 1070 cubic centimeters brain capacity. Into this plaster head-cast they pressed the skull fragments as they supposed them to be related to one another. Into the jaw, which had been moulded into what was considered the proper chinless shape, they forced the half-jaw that had been found. They later gave the tooth a place next to the lower jaw.

However, all was not well. Sir Arthur Keith, the head of the English Royal College of Surgeons, himself an evolutionist, took issue with Dawson and Woodward as to the manner in which their reconstruction of the skull with much plaster of Paris had been accomplished. Keith figured the skull should be larger than they had made it. About  1500 cubic centimeters brain capacity instead of

Fig. 44. Rear views of two reconstructions of the "Piltdown Man." The dark parts are the recovered bones. In fitting the bone-fragments together a storm of controversy raged between Dr. Smith Woodward, joint finder of the bones, and Sir Arthur Keith, both evolutionists. Woodward said the fragments should be arranged as seen at the left and that the brain capacity, therefore, was 1070 c. c. Keith said the fragments should be fitted together as seen at the right and the brain capacity was, therefore, 1500 c. c. These two rear views are copied from drawings by Keith and Woodward themselves appearing in Nature for Oct. 16,  1913.

1070 was his idea. Thereupon began an argument between the two. Keith on the one hand and Woodward on the other, which was carried on for months in the magazine Nature, as to the proper size of the skull. The fragments were arranged and re-arranged according to the whims of the contestants: No final agreement was reached.

In 1925 Keith wrote a new book on human evolution 128 in which he returned to the matter of the size of the Piltdown

128 The Antiquity of Man. Lippincott, London, 1925.

reconstruction and published elaborate diagrams and gave extended reasons why the reconstruction should be even bigger than he had contended for back in 1913, and declared, "Except for the thickness of the skull bones, the head is shaped and balanced as in us. In its general confirmation it does not differ materially from human skulls of modern type" 129

Nor was all well among evolutionists with the single tooth and the jaw. By Woodward and Smith the tooth found by Father Teilhard the fourth year was assigned to the lower jaw of the right side. However, when the "evidence"

Fig. 45. Front and side views of the restored head of the "Piltdown Man." This restoration was made by Dawson and Woodward. It does not show the tooth because the tooth had not been found before the restoration was made. When the tooth was found Dawson and Woodward assigned it to the lower jaw of the right side where arrow A points. By other "authorities" the tooth is assigned to the upper left jaw where arrow B points. The white parts seen in the above view are made of plaster of Paris. The dark parts are the recovered bones. The right side (hidden from view) has only the smallest fragment of bone. The remains are bulked   together   on   the   left   side.    (Smithsonian   Institute   Report,   1913.)

reached America, the tooth was assigned to a place in the upper left jaw by Osborn, Miller, Anderson and others. In America, therefore, this tooth resides in the plaster of Paris models in the upper left jaw. In Europe it resides today in the lower right jaw. The worst, however, happened to the half-jaw discovered the third year. It was emphatically declared by scientists of the highest standing

129 The Antiquity of Man, page 565.

130 not to belong with the skull fragments at all and to be that of a chimpanzee.130a

A quotation from a well-known scientist will suffice to show the utter lack of scientific knowledge in the claims of evolutionists that in the Piltdown bone fragments there is a discovery of a genuine missing link. Prof. MacCurdy of Yale says,131 All the cranial (head) fragments, including the nasal bones, are human and belong evidently to one individual. They are, however, so incomplete as to leave room for a difference of opinion especially in regard to the capacity of the brain case. From the start there were not lacking those who hesitated to accept the cranium arid mandible (jaw) as belonging to the same individual." 

Homo Heidelbergensis, the "Man of Heidelberg." (Fig. 41C.) This man is said to have lived some 250,000 years ago. Publications dispensed by the American Museum of Natural History reveal this ancient mythical worthy with a slain boar thrown upon his back. Here, at last, the truth seeker expects to find a considerable amount of real evidence as a basis of it all. What, however, does he find? Merely a jaw-bone discovered in 1907 by two workmen in a sand-pit near Mauer, Germany. (Fig. 46.) The jaw bone is uncommon on account of its rounding chin, but its shape can be duplicated among living human beings. (Fig. 47.) Its counter-partpart occurs quite often among Negroes. Its teeth are distinctively human. The well known evolutionary anthropologist, Hrdlicka, says, "The teeth of the Mauer (i.e., Heidelberg) jaw are perfectly preserved and . . . they are unquestionably human teeth. They force the conclusion that their possessor . . . had already stepped over the line above which the being would be termed human.'" 132

Homo Neanderthalensis, the "Neanderthal  Man." Fig. 41D.)  The remains of this human being were discovered

130  Sir Ray Lankester, Prof, of Zoology and Anatonry, University of London; Prof. Marcellin Boule, of the French Museum of Natural History; Prof. G. G. MacCurdy of Yale University; Prof. David Waterston, Prof, of Anatomy, University of London.

130a But see the human-like reconstruction shown in the author's Before Abraham.

131  Science, Feb. IS, 1916.

132  Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 551.

in 1856 in a cave in western Germany by two laborers. They were carelessly dug up by the workmen so that many parts were lost. Only the skull (Fig. 48) and several parts of the skeleton were saved. At once a division arose in regard to the skull—some observers regarding it as modern-human and some (the more rabid evolutionists)

Fig. 46.  The Heidelburg Jaw.  Judging  from  its  size it belonged to a man of  the stature of Goliath.    (Smithsonian  Institute  Report,   1913.)

regarding it as belonging to an unknown and primitive type of early man. The author has discussed the matter fully in his book Before Abraham, to which the interested reader is referred. Here it may be said that there are thousands of men living with skulls just as ape-like in every respect as the Neanderthal skull, which has a brain capacity of about 1330 cubic centimeters—that of the average male European.

Since 1856, when the bones of the first "Neanderthal man" were discovered, a very large number of remains of other men have been unearthed in caves and ancient burial grounds of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Out of these have been selected for evolutionary propaganda purposes the remains of several, those especially that have low human characteristics. These have been described in great detail and put in museums for exhibition. Among the most important are the Men of Spy, the Man of Krapina, the Man of Jersey, the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Man, the LaGuina Man, the Mousterian Man, the Peking Man, and

Fig. 47. Profile  view  of  Marquis  de  Pinedo,   famous  Italian   aviator.   Observe   that the   same   rounding,   receding   shape   of   chin   is   found   in   this   brilliant   man   as   is found  in   the  Heidelberg  Jaw.   According   to  evolutionary  methods  Pinedo's  jaw,   if  found  in some  ancient deposit,  would furnish  good proof of evolution. (Wide  World Photo)

the Rhodesian Man. They are all classed together as the Neanderthal race.

(AS  STATED  BEFORE  TAKE  A  LOOK  AT  PEOPLE  YOU  MEET  ON  THE  STREET,  IN  THE  SHOPPING  MALLS,  IN  THE THEATRE  HOUSE,  IN  SPORTING  EVENTS;  SEE  ALL  THE  SHAPES  OF  SCULLS;  SEE  WHAT  FLESH  IS  ON  THEM,  MUCH,  LITTLE,  AND  THINK  WHAT  IF  THEY  HAD  MORE  OR  LESS  FLESH  ON  THEIR  FACES;  WHAT  IF  THEY  HAD  MORE  FAT  LIPS  OR  THIN  LIPS;  THINK  ABOUT  SKIN  TEXTURE,  ROUGH,  SMOOTH,  PITTED,  HEAVY  LINES;  THEN  THINK  HOW  THEY  WOULD  LOOK.  YA  NOT  SO  GOOD  FOR  SOME,  AND  VERY  GOOD  FOR  OTHERS  -  Keith Hunt)

However, these men are all distinctly human. (See Fig. 48-50.) In brain capacity some far exceed the average American. The capacity of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull, for example, is estimated at 1,600 c.c. These men buried their dead. They used flint implements as did the American Indian of recent times. Some of the remains of this Neanderthal race show the effects of fire and wounds. The conclusion concerning it is, therefore, well summed

Fig. 48. Left—Marquis de Lafayette, Revolutionary War hero. Center—Skull of the Man of Spy No. 1. a member of the supposed missing-link race the Neanderthals, with profile of Lafayette superimposed. This skull might have belonged to Lafayette. Right—The   original   Neanderthal   skull.    (Drawing   of   Lafayette   from  Library  of Congress.  Skulls  from  Smithsonian  Institute  Report. 1913.) (YES  INDEED  SOME  SCULLS  OF  MEN  FROM  DIFFERENT  PARTS  OF  HISTORY  OF  THE  LAST  2,000  YEARS,  TAKE  AWAY  THEIR  FLESH  AND  PUT  A  KIND  OF  MONKEY  FLESH  ON  THAT  SCULL;  AND  BINGO…. YOU  HAVE  A  COMPLETELY  DIFFERENT  CREATURE  -  SOME  WOULD  CALL  A  MISSING  LINK - Keith Hunt)

up by the evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith 133 who said, "In size of brain Neanderthal was not a low form. His skill as a flint artisan shows that his abilities were not those of a low order. He had fire at his command. He buried his dead. He had a distinct and highly evolved form of culture. Neanderthal was certainty not a dawn form of humanity."

5. The Cro-Magnon Man. Only briefly need this man be mentioned.  He is  distinctly human.  Concerning him Osborn has said,134 The Cro-Magnons were people like

Fig. 49. Left. The La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull and jaw, which belonged to one of the so-called Neanderthal race. His brain capacity was 1600-1620 c. c, which is greater than that of the average European of today. All doubts as to his true humanity are removed by the fact that his remains were carefully buried in a rectangular grave in a cave in southern France. "Very plainly a regular burial," says Hrdlicka. Right. Skull of the Man of Spy No. 2, found buried with Man of Spy No. 1 (See Fig. 48). These skulls show that men varied in olden days as they  do  today.   (Smithsonian  Institute  Report,   1913.)

(YES  ONCE  MORE  TAKE  A  LOOK  AT  DIFFERENT  SCULL  FACES  WHEN  OUT  IN  PUBLIC;  SOME  RANGE  IN  DIFFERENCE  QUITE  NOTICEABLY  -  THEN  ADD  DIFFERENT  FLESH,  THIN,  BULKY,  COURSE,  SMOOTH,  THICK  OR  THIN  LIPS  AND  ETC.  AND  THE  POINT  THE  AUTHOR   IS  MAKING  HOLD  TRUE  TODAY,  AS  IT  HAS  FOR  THOUSANDS  OF  YEARS  -  Keith Hunt)

ourselves in point of evolution, and the characters of the head and cranium reflect their moral and spiritual potentiality. This was a race of warriors, of hunters, of painters and sculptors by far superior to any of their predecessors. The method adopted by those who are attempting to fill in the gap between man and brute from the evidence of human fossil remains should be clearly understood. Human beings vary in appearance because of racial peculiarities,

133  Antiquity of Man, page 159.

134  Revised 1923  Guide Leaflet, No.  52. American Museum of
Natural History,

customs, diseases. Sex and age, not readily determmed in fossil remains, determine to a great extent the size of the skull. Certain uncivilized tribes have had a custom of flattening the head of the child in its early years. Imbecility is a cause of abnormally large, abnormally small, or otherwise abnormally shaped skulls. The heads of pigmies, true men, are much smaller than the average human skull, being about 900 c.c. Some men have high foreheads. Some men have low and slanting foreheads. Yet the latter

Fig. 50. Front and side views of two human beings whose skulls would make good proofs of human evolution if they were, found in some ancient burial ground. Observe the low,  slanting brow of the white man  at the  top,  and  the Neanderthal character of forehead—heavy supra-orbital arch of the negro at  the   bottom    (see arrow). A big supra-orbital bone merely means that there is a large sinus within. It is these types of human skulls which, when discovered by evolutionists, are used for propaganda purposes, while remains of equal age, but having more noble brows, are "placed to one side" and forgotten. Even better examples of this sort can be found among intelligent Americans.

may have as great intelligence as the former.135 If therefore a man were seeking, as some are, for evidences of the evolution of man from the ape, it would not be difficult for him to find it among acknowledged human remains, by searching among the graveyards of men, rejecting those skulls with high, intelligent-looking foreheads, selecting those shaped so as to serve their purpose, and assigning to them the respective remote ages which their degree of

Fig. 51. Left—Skull of the Cro-Magnon Man, after the restoration by Prof. Rutot of Brussels. Right—Profile of Charles Darwin. The importance of this comparison is to show that 30,000 years ago, which is when the evolutionists say the Cro-Magnons entered Europe and drove out the Neanderthals, men were living with higher foreheads than those possessed by many brilliant men of modern times (see Lafayette, Fig. 49), higher and nobler even than that of the "intellectual giant," Charles Darwin.

ape-likeness permits. This is the actual method adopted by evolutionists. Out of the graveyards of Europe, when men of Europe were in a state of barbarism similar to that of our American Indian a hundred and fifty years ago, have been unearthed a very considerable number of human remains. Those mentioned in works of evolutionists, such as Osborn's Men of the Old Stone Age, or Hrdlicka's

135 The evolutionist, Hrdlicka, himself a man with a low forehead, insisted that concrete evidence showed that height of forehead is no index to intelligence—men with low brows having just as high I.Q. on the average as those with high foreheads. See Smithsonian Institute Report, 1933, pages 406-07.

Skeletal Remains of Early Man, are only a few, carefully selected, of the whole number of remains discovered, remains which, as far as there is any evidence to the contrary, all belonged to men of the same age, i.e., the glacial period. These ancient remains are not all alike. They differ from one another as human skeletons differ today. Referring to the period when the Neanderthal man lived, Hrdlicka speaks of the "great variability in the skeletal remains of

Fig. 52.  Chinook (Flat-head) Indians, after Catlin.  The  practice of flattening   the human skull is of high antiquity. Low foreheads in ancient human remains   may have been caused by artificial means or disease.

this time." 136 Those ancient human remains, therefore, that more closely fulfill the requirements of a link between man and his supposed ape-ancestors have been taken, measured, reconstructed, replicaed, and placed in glass cases for exhibition. Those that have not fulfilled the requirements have been "temporarily placed to one side." That this is in fact the actual "scientific" method, by which the gap between man and the brute has been narrowed is evident from the following words  of  Osborn:

136 New York Times, Nov. 9, 1927.

"Many finds which have failed to satisfy the demands of science (i. e., evolutionary science) on one or more of the points of geological position, associated animal remains, associated implements of human manufacture, and morphological form (i. e., shape) have been temporarily placed to one side, to await the possibility of future discoveries throwing some light on their position." 137 The same laying aside of unfavorable human remains of the same age with those selected is also apparent from the statement of Hrdlicka.138  "In addition to the more important skeletal remains of early man dealt with in the preceding pages, there exist a considerable number of specimens which, because of their isolated or defective nature, are of less value (for evolutionary purposes) to science, or which have not as yet been properly studied and determined, or which, finally, retain some elements of uncertainty as to their true position in human chronology. And besides these there is a large additional series of skeletal remains . . . which, while ancient, are nevertheless relatively near to man of the present date."

There is no sure way by which certain of those ancient human bones can be assigned to men who were "relatively near to man of the present date" while other ancient bones are assigned to men who were relatively far from man of the present date, except within very narrow limits. There is nothing in the places where the remains are found to make this possible. Few ancient burial places bear unmistakable marks of being either older or younger than others. There is nothing in the condition of the bones themselves. The fact that some bones are mineralized more than others is no criterion, for human bones buried in moist places are known to become heavily mineralized in a very few 3 years. The flints and stone implements accompanying some human remains offer no basis of determination, for while George Washington was using silver knives and forks for eating, and using fire-arms in war in one part of the American continent, there were

137 Taken by Prof. George McCready Price from a card in a show-case in the American Museum of Natural History, 1922. See New Geology, by Price, page 704.

138 Smithsonian Institute Report, 1913, page 548.

Indians, true men, who were using flints and axes of stone in another part. In Zululand, in Africa, there exist today, overgrown with vines and underbrush, the ruins of once magnificent stone buildings, where now the natives live in grass houses and use spears and bows for weapons. At the present time, while half the world lives on a high plane of civilization, there are men who are living in the "stone age" There is small basis for saying, as the evolutionists

Fig. 53. Art work done by men properly estimated by evolutionists to have lived 20-25,000 years ago. The figures were printed in red, black, and brown, and, because of the almost complete absence of light in the cavern,  the colors are as vivid as if recently applied. How many men of today could  duplicate the work?

Copyright, National  Geograpliical Society.  Reproduced  by special permission.

do, that the Neanderthal race was far older than the Cro-Magnons. The two may, for all the evidence to the contrary, have been practically contemporary. The way in which men like Hrdlicka assign to the recovered skulls and bones their respective places as relatively near or far from the present date is to make the assumption that man has evolved slowly from some ape-form, and then give to those bones that have the more unintelligent aspect the more remote position and those that have the more intelligent aspect the more near position. This, however, is purely arbitrary and foolish.

It may well be granted by the lover of the Scriptures that man has a greater antiquity than the commonly supposed 4000 B.C. It is the conviction of the writer that the genealogies of the Bible form no basis whatever, for fixing the date of the creation of Adam. It is his belief that the genealogies of the Old Testament were meant to teach not lengths but lines of descent. For all the Scriptures testify to the contrary, man may be 50,000 or 100,000 years old. No one knows how old man is.138a

I  AGREE  FULLY  WITH  THE  AUTHOR  HERE:  THE  SO-CALLED  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  BIBLE  IS  NOT  SO  AS  TO  PROVE  MAN  WAS  CREATED  ABOUT  4,000  B.C.  TRYING  TO  PROVE  THAT  FROM  THE  BIBLE  IS  A  FOLLY.  FURTHER  MORE  THE  BIBLE  DOES  NOT  TEACH  GOD  IS  WORKING  ON  A  7,000  YEAR  PLAN;  THAT  ALSO  IS  THE  MISAPPLYING  OF  SCRIPTURE.  THE  PROOF:  IF  MAN  WAS  CREATED  4004,  B.C.  THEN  WE  ARE  INTO  THE  7TH  MILLENNIUM;  THE  PROPHESIED  "AGE  TO  COME"  OF  THE  1,000  YEAR  REIGN  OF  CHRIST  ON  EARTH.  ALL  OF  WHICH  IS  TOTAL  NONSENSE.  SO

BISHOP  USHER  WAS  INCORRECT  IN  TRYING  TO  SAY  THE  BIBLE  CHRONOLOGY  PUTS  THE  CREATION  OF  MAN  AS  4004  B.C.  ONE  MORE  ODEA  OF  MAN  HAS  CRASHED  TO  THE  GROUND.  MAN  HAS  INDEED  BEEN  ON  EARTH  WAY  LONGER  THAT  6,000  YEARS;  HENCE  THE  BOOK  "SECRETS  OF  LOST  RACES"  SHOWS  MAN  HAD  AN  AGE  BEFORE  THE  FLOOD  OF  NOAH  AND  THE  TOWER  OF  BABEL,  WHERE  MANKIND  WAS  VERY  ADVANCED.  MAKE  SURE  YOU  READ  THE  BOOK  "SECRETS  OF  LOST  RACES"  ON  THIS  WEBSITE,  AND  BE  AMAZED  AT  ANCIENT  HISTORY  -  Keith Hunt)

THE EFFORT TO FILL IN THE SPIRITUAL GAP BETWEEN MEN AND ANIMALS

Man has a spiritual nature which distinguishes him widely from the dumb brute. But for the consistent evolutionist to account for the distinction, God is not needed. He is not wanted. He cannot be permitted to enter into the process of evolution without acknowledging the principle of a supernatural creation of distinct species to be correct. Since, therefore, any interference in the evolutionary process from a supernatural Divine source is excluded by logical necessity, it is said by evolutionists that the soul of man, like his body, is the product of purely natural operations of the laws of nature.

That there is a wide gap between men and animals in their mental and moral natures has been recognized even by the heathen from Aristotle to the present time. The savage instinctively recognizes the existence of this difference and feels his superiority over the whole animal creation. This feeling of lordship is due to the presence in man of a spiritual nature created after God's image.

It is recognized by evolutionists that the spiritual gulf between man, the crown of creation, and animals must be filled in without recourse to a supernatural power, or be so narrowed that it can be said that the transition from brute instincts and consciousness to human intellectual and moral powers was easily accomplished by the natural forces producing evolution. In seeking to accomplish this task two schools of evolutionary pschologists have sprung up. One is the school which seeks to humanize the brute, raising him up as high as possible in the sphere of intelligence

138a See chapter on Biblical Chronology in Before Abraham.

and morals. The other is the school which seeks to brutize the human, pulling man down if possible until he meets the highest level to which the animal can be raised. The first of these schools is represented by Romanes, who has written Mental Evolution in the Animal World, the second by McCabe, who has written Evolution of Mind. All such attempts to bridge the gap, however, have been unsuccessful.

The practice of humanizing the brute is one that has gone on among men unconsciously for ages and, until the rise of the modern anti-Biblical philosophy of evolution, was without harm. It consists in doing to animals what every little girl does with her dolls, i. e., reads into them her own mental processes. A dog, for example, that has been soundly whipped for taking food from the table, when it is discovered in the act of doing so again, slinks away with its tail between its legs. Whereupon it is said to be "ashamed." Men shift their own mental and moral processes into the brute, attribute to it the power of reason as well as their own feelings.

Stories of animal intelligence are related by the thousands. Dog stories are fascinating and popular reading. As Prof. Thorndike says, "Human folks, as a matter of fact, are eager to find intelligence in animals. They like to." 139 If a stranger visits a home where is kept a dog which has learned to open the gate by jumping up and bumping the latch with its nose, the stranger's first impulse is to credit the dog with intelligence like his own. "A smart dog, that," he will say. Whereupon the owner, who has observed the long process of irrational jumping, scratching, and howling at the gate, the thwarted random efforts in every direction, the final accidental hitting of the latch and the resultant success, will rather disgustingly grunt, "Uh-uh." An excited little chick, feeding, may peck at a wasp and get stung. Its abstinence from pecking wasps in the future is likely to be attributed to such a logical syllogism as this, "That object has a striking resemblance to the thing that stung me yesterday. Now I don't want to be stung today, therefore I shall leave

139 Animal Intelligence, page 24.

that thing alone." The one who so attributes reasoning-powers to the little creature may not know, however, that chicks are instinctively afraid of wasps when they recognize them as such. To illustrate the marvelous intelligence characteristic of animal species tales are told of long journeys home made by domestic creatures which have been lost. Nothing, however, is said about the countless examples of animal stupidity, of their mechanical and thoughtless lives, of their fundamental bestial natures. "Thousands of cats on thousands of occasions sit helplessly yowling and no one takes thought of it to write to his friend, the professor; but let one claw at the knob of a door supposedly in order to be let out, and straight-way this cat becomes the representative of the cat mind in all books." 140

It is, however, when this humanizing of the brute, this shifting of the human range of thought into the brain of the animal, is done for the purpose of overthrowing the Bible that it must be exposed and opposed. It is impossible to trace any marked gradations of intelligence through the animals to man. The ape is no more essentially intelligent than the cat or dog. Being more physically active and restless than the dog or cat, and having a structure of fore and hind feet that permits him to make a greater variety of physical movements, the monkey can learn to accomplish a greater variety of tricks than the dog or cat. Essentially, however, the ape is no more intelligent. In some respects the ant is superior to either the dog, cat, or ape. No animal, however, has the capacity to reason, by which is meant the capacity to handle abstract ideas. As Prof. F. O. Jenkins says,141 "What dog or ape that warms himself by the fire and has seen wood put onto it time and again ever has sense enough to bring sticks of wood to it himself when he sees it dying out and feels himself getting cold?" To which might be added what dog or ape would ever have sense enough to make a match, or to perform acts based on  algebra or geometry, or have  the  impulse  to  build

140  Thorndike, Animal Intelligence, page 25.

141  Princeton Theological Review, April, 1924. Prof. Jenkins is
the only anti-evolutionist quoted in this book.

temples and bury the dead? The conclusion of Prof. Thorndike,142 after years spent in the study of animal psychology including two years when he had under personal observation three monkeys, is worth notice. It is this, "There is also in the case of the monkey as in that of the other animals positive evidence of the absence of any general function of reasoning" 143

(THE  WRITER  DOES  NOT  KNOW  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  "THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN" [NOT  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT]  THAT  GOES  BACK  TO  GOD  AT  DEATH [ECC. 12:9];  NOR  THE  SPIRIT  IN  THE  BEAST.  SOME  HOWEVER  GOD  HAS  DONE  IT,  CAN  DO  SOME  FORM  OF  REASONING, AS  LIKE  CERTAIN  PARROTS  AND  SOME  OTHER  BIRDS,  ALSO  THE  DOLPHIN,  SOME  HORSES  [NOT  ALL]  HAVE  A  KIND  OF  REASONING  POWER;  BUT  STILL  THERE  IS  A  VAST  DIFFERENCE  FROM   MANKIND.  NO  ANIMAL  IS  EVER  GOING  TO  REASON  BETWEEN  GOOD  AND  EVIL,  OR  EVER  WRITE  AN  ENCYCLOPEDIA,  DELVE  INTO  SCIENCE,  BUILD  STUFF  THAT  CAN  TAKE  THEM  TO  THE  MOON,  AND  ETC.  -  Keith Hunt)

The other method of filling the gap, i. e., brutizing man, is a practice of recent origin. It sprang up with the theory of biological evolution. It consists in citing those instances in which members of the human race have become basely degraded and live in a coarse and rude state of barbarism, claiming that these men have small intellectual and moral powers and represent stages of evolution but little removed from the brute. Often cited as an example of this is that savage tribe of men called the Tasmanians, which became extinct fifty years ago, of whom it is said, they could not count and had practically no language. McCabe, an evolutionist most active in attempting to fill the gap between animal and man, admits that the Tasmanians died out "before exact and searching inquiry was made into their qualities." 144

Having read in an earlier edition of this book about McCabe's views, Rev. H. G. Scholefield of Australia wrote to the author as follows: "As one whose ancestors had something to do with these people, I am in a position to state that it is not true to say that they could not count; they counted in series of tens, and could estimate accurately the number of sheep in a flock. I have carefully examined the plaster cast of the head of Truganini, the last of the Tasmanian blacks, and can understand why Prof. Baldwin Spencer, who knew more about the blacks both in Tasmania and on the mainland of Australia than any other anthropologist, described her as having been a woman of fairly high intelligence. It is just as well that McCabe admitted that the Tasmanians died out before exact and searching inquiry was made into their qualities, for the

142   Prof, of Psychology in Columbia University.

143  Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, page 14.

144   Evolution of Mind, page 265.

recent researches into the habits and culture of the Australian blacks, both in Tasmania and on the mainland, confirm the truth of the following statement by the writer of an article 'Australia' in Chambers Encylopedia: "Nothing is more common, or more condemnable among writers on Australia, than the careless adoption of ill-informed and unobservant descriptions of the 'blackfellow' given by early white settlers. Given a community cut off from the world while still in the hunter stage of civilization, and pent in a country none of whose animals lend themselves to domestication, it is hardly possible to conceive of a way of living more skillfully and intelligently adapted to the environment than is that of the native Australian uninfluenced by the white invasion. McCabe is welcome to any help for his theory he can get by studying the Australian aborigines. Given a like environment, perhaps McCabe would not have risen so high in the scale of civilization as the despised Tasmanian black."

Potentially all men are alike. The children of the lowest salvage tribes existing, when separated from their native environment and brought under the influence of Christian teachers, become men and women of the noblest human type. Beneath the surface of corruption and degradation into which men have sunk, and there is abundant evidence that the progress of all savage tribes has been downward, not upward, there is that in them which inspired the keen observer Shakespeare to say "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! In form, in moving, how express and admirable! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals" 145

In spite of every effort of evolutionists to fill the mental and spiritual gap between man and the brute, this gulf, like the physiological gulf, remains. This fact is acknowledged by so prominent an evolutionist as Vernon Kellogg, who, writing in World's Work for March, 1926, in an article entitled "Some Things Science Doesn't Know," says there are things scientific men cannot explain. They are the origin of life, the causes of evolution, and the cause

145 Hamlet, Act II, Scene II.

of the spiritual gap between man and the brute. The existence of this gulf he admits. He cannot, however, as a thorough-going evolutionist, admit the existence of it to be due to a supernatural, creative act of God, for to do so would open the door for a flood of creative acts between species which could not logically be kept out.

Romanes was the great apostle at the opening of this century of the evolution of the human spirit from animal instincts. His work on the evolution of animal intelligence is a classic among evolutionists of this day and is much read and quoted by them. Few who read his book and are influenced by it, however, are aware of the fact that in the closing days of his life Romanes renounced all he had said and acknowledged his spiritual endowment to be due to a creative act of God. Before Romanes died he returned to a full Christian belief.146

(AS  GOD'S  WORD  SAYS:  "ONLY  THE  FOOL  HAS  SAID  IN  HIS  HEART,  THERE  IS  NO  GOD."  EVEN  DARWIN  WAS  READING  HIS  BIBLE  AND  SAID  TO  THE  WOMAN  LOOKING  AFTER  HIM  ON  HIS  DEATH  BED,  "I  WAS  YOUNG  AND  MY  MIND  WAS  WANDERING;  I  NEVER  EXPECTED  THEY  WOULD  RUN  THE  WAY  THEY  DID  WITH  MY  WRITING."  -  Keith Hunt)

SUMMARY

The "missing-links" are unsatisfactory evidences of human evolution because (1) too much suspicion and uncertainty surrounds them, (2) only those ancient human remains that serve the evolutionary purpose are offered as proofs. Those ancient human remains that work against the theory of evolution are rejected. (3) Those human remains offered as proof of evolution are not essentially different from human skeletons of today.

Consistent evolutionists must explain the origin of the human spirit in the same way they explain the origin of the human body.

The evolutionist seeks to fill the spiritual gap between man and the brute by (1) seeking to raise the brute to the level of man by attributing to the brute human, spiritual powers (the attempt fails because the brute cannot be shown to have those powers), and (2) by seeking to pull man down to the level of the brute by pointing out the brutishness of certain savage tribes. The baseness of low heathen peoples, however, is due to a fall from a higher moral and intellectual plane to a lower one. The basest savages are truly human.

146 See Life and Letters by his wife.

(THERE  IS  A  "SPIRT"  IN  MAN  AND  IN  THE  BEASTS.  THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN  TOGETHER  WITH  A NORMAL  MIND,  GIVE  HIM  INTELLECT,  AND  MAKE  MANKIND  MANKIND;  IT  SETS  THEM  APART  FROM  THE  BEASTS  OF  THE  EARTH.  THIS  IS  A  MYSTERY  THE  MIND  OF  MAN  CANNOT  FULLY  GRASPE,  FOR  THE  BEASTS  ALSO  HAVE  A  "SPIRIT"  THAT  IS  AGAIN  A  MYSTERY,  FOR  SOME  BEASTS  HAVE  MORE  MENTAL  POWER  THAN  OTHERS.  THE  DVD  SET  BY  NOVA  CALLED  "THE  MIND  OF  ANIMALS"  IS  VERY  REVEALING,  QUITE  SURPRISING  AS  TO  WHAT  WE  ARE  FINDING  OUT  ABOUT  SOME  CREATURES.  I'M  A  HORSEMAN,  SO  A  SMALL  EXAMPLE;  MOST  HORSES  [BEING  HEALTHY  AND  "NORMAL"]  WILL  USUALLY  GO  ABOUT  THE  DAYS  WORK  YOU  HAVE  FOR  THEM  WITH  NO  ARGUMENT.  BUT  MY  HORSE  GOLDIE [A  REGISTERED  QUARTER  HORSE]  IS  SOMETIMES  UNIQUE.  ONE  SUMMER  DAY  IN  THE  MIDDLE  OF  THE  CHILDREN'S  HORSE  CAMP,  EATING  HER  SPECIAL  BREAKFAST  I  MIX  FOR  HER;  HEALTHY  AND  NORMAL.  I  SADDLED  HER  UP  FOR  THE  DAYS  EVENTS.  I  TURNED  HER  AROUND  TO  WALK  OUT  OF  THE  SALL;  SHE  REFUSED  TO  CONTINUE;  I  WALKED  BACK  TO  HER  HEAD,  GAVE  IT  A  RUB,  SAID, "WALK" - BUT  SHE  REFUSED  TO  MOVE;  I  DID  IT  ALL  OVER  AGAIN,  BUT  STILL  REFUSED  TO  MOVE.  I  DID  IT  THE  THIRD  TIME;  STILL  WOULD  NOT  MOVE  AN  INCH.  SHE  GOT  IT  IN  HER  HEAD  SHE  DID  NOT  WANT  TO  WORK  THIS  DAY.  I  HAD  TO  SWAT  HER  HARD  ON  THE  RUMP  WITH  THE  CROP….. THEN  SHE  WAS  WILLING  TO  MOVE,  AND  DID  HER  WORK  FOR  THE  DAY  VERY  WELL.  SO  THERE  CAN  BE  "SOMETHING"  IN  THE  MIND  OF  SOME  ANIMALS [THE  NOVA  DVD  SHOWS  YOU  MUCH  MORE] ;  THEY  HAVE  A  "SPIRIT"  AS  DOES  MANKIND;  BUT  THAT  SPIRIT  IS  STILL  DIFFERENT,  WAY  DIFFERENT  THAN  WHAT  MANKIND  HAS;  NO  CREATURE  IS  GOING  TO  EVER  PRODUCE  AN  ENCYCLOPAEDIA,  OR  INVENT  A  WAY  TO  FLY  TO  THE  MOON,  AS  HUMANS  HAVE  DONE  -  Keith Hunt)

Conclusion

In the preceding pages all the standards proofs of evolution have been presented and discussed. It may seem to the reader that these proofs are not so impressive as he has been led to expect from the fact that man, highly educated men are evolutionists, and a suspicion may have arisen that the proofs have not been fairly presented. It is well for the lover of the Bible to know, therefore, what is the real reason why many educated men accept evolution as the explanation of the present world of plants and animals. The reason is not the overwhelming nature of the evidence. Many evolutionists grant the weakness of the theory they put forward. But, disliking the philosophy which underlies the idea of creation, and being unable or unwilling, for moral or intellectual reasons, to accept the fact that there exists a God who might have created living species by definite, supernatural, spontaneous acts, these men rule out creation as a possibility, and, having no other choice, are forced to hold that things came by themselves or evolved, in spite of all the difficulties.

That dislike of the idea of creation is in fact the underlying reason for belief in. Evolution by many leading evolutionists is apparent from the following statements of evolutionists. Prof. Louis T. More of the University of Cincinnati says, "When we examine the causes of our belief [in evolution] we find that, excepting our desire to eliminate special creation and, generally, what we call the miraculous, most of them can be considered only as secondary proofs to confirm a theory already advanced." 147 He also says, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends

147 Dogma of Evolution—lectures delivrered at Princeton University in January, 1925, page 117.

on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" 148 Prof. Bateson, who, on account of his high standing in the scientific world, often angered his fellow evolutionists by his frank confessions of the weaknesses of the theory, said, "The evolution theory finds its support not in direct observation, but in the difficulty of forming an alternate hypothesis." 149 On one notable occasion 150 Bateson, at the close of an address entitled "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts" in which he had made some surprising acknowledgments of the weakness of the theory, showed his contempt for the Biblical idea of creation in these words, "When such confessions are made, the enemies of science [believers in the Bible are not enemies of science, but of science 'falsely so-called'] see their chance. If we cannot declare here and now how species arose, they will obligingly offer us the solutions with which obscurantism is satisfied (i. e., creation). Let us then proclaim in precise and unmistakable language that our faith in evolution remains unshaken. . . . The obscurantist [a term of derision applied to the creationist] has nothing to suggest which is worth a moment's attention." And on still another occasion 151 he said what unavoidably arouses the suspicion that the advocacy by some scientific men of the theory of evolution as against the truth of the Bible has somewhat of a moral basis. While speaking on heredity, but upholding throughout his address the idea of evolution, Bateson said, "Whether we like it or not, extraordinary and far-reaching changes in public opinion are coming to pass. Man is just beginning to know himself for what he is—a rather long-lived animal, with great powers of enjoyment if he does not deliberately forego them. Hitherto superstition and mythical ideas of sin have predominantly controlled these powers. Mysticism will not die out; for   these

148 Dogma of Evolution—lectures delivered at Princeton University in January, 1925, page 304.

149  Materials for the Study of Variation, page 4.

150  An address delivered before the American Association for the
Advancement of Science at Toronto in 1922, Science, Jan. 20, 1922.

151  Presidential address before the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in Australia, 1914. Smithsonian Institute Report, 1915, page 359.

strange fancies knowledge is no cure; but their forms change, and mysticism as a force for the oppression of joy is happily losing its hold on the modern world." 

The reference in this quotation is undoubtedly to the Scriptural record of the fall of man and the teaching of the Bible regarding sin and its punishment.

A word in conclusion on the relation of the theory of evolution to the religion of the Bible might not be considered amiss. Two opposing philosophies meet when the philosophy of evolution and the philosophy of Biblical Christianity come together, and it may be said that no mental gymnastics, however skilful, can ever reconcile the two. They lock horns at every turn.

Biblical Christianity has as its chief cornerstone the existence of a personal, Divine Being, who has in various ways and at sundry times broken into the ordinary course of nature with supernatural manifestations of His power, and who can at any time break in again. This is the sine qua non of orthodox Christianity. The philosophy of evolution, however, has no welcome place for the supernatural. While Divine interference in the process of evolution is required at the present time for a satisfactory explanation of the origin of life and the human soul, and is called in by certain evolutionists to help the theory over hard places, the tendency is to rule out any such outside interference entirety. In the words of the evolutionist, August Weismann, "The conception of an evolution of life upon the earth reaches far beyond the bounds of any single science and influences our whole realm of thought. It means nothing less than the elimination of the miraculous from our knowledge of nature." 152

According to Biblical Christianity the human race began its existence as a single pair created in a state of moral and physical perfection. This state of perfection was lost to the race when the first pair disobeyed the injunctions of the Creator. According to Biblical Christianity evil acts committed by man are the fruits of moral depravity, and whosoever commits them is guilty and punishable by God. In the light of the theory of evolution 

152 Locy, Biology and Its Makers, page 367. 

Fig.54.  Christian  Doctrine:  Man  was  created perfect in  body  and  spirit.  Through sin  man's  original perfection  was  lost  and  man  is  now  a   "fallen"   creature. Salvation is individual,  through repentance  and  faith  in Jesus  Christ.  The consummatior of all earthly affairs is judgment.

Fig.55. Evolutionary Doctrine: Humanity's progress has ever been upward. Physically and spiritually man is at the highest point in human history. There has been no "fall"; consequently there is no need for a redeemer. Since the natural process which evolution is can not produce a supernatural, immortal spirit there is no individual salvation.

however, mankind is today at the highest point in its history. Man is the nearest to moral perfection he has ever been, and is steadily improving. What the orthodox Christian calls sin is, in the light of evolution, mere error or shortcoming due to incompletion in man's make-up. Evolutionary philosophy would change the Bible statement "The soul that sinneth it shall die" to read: "The soul that sinneth is striving for higher life."

Biblical Christianity answers the question which Jesus asked the Pharisees, "If David called him [i. e., the Christ] Lord, how is he his son" by answering that Jesus Christ is the God of David, and his son also, because Jesus Christ is the God-man, Creator and creature united in one mysterious person by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit through a virgin birth. Since, however, nothing so supernatural as a virgin birth is consistently allowed in world affairs by evolutionary philosophy, he who is called Jesus Christ can at best be but a man like unto his brethren, the product of the same evolutionary operation by which they were produced. By the same necessary—-that of excluding supernatural interferences in natural processes—the resurrection and ascension of Jesus is also excluded. Nor can He, by the same token, be the object of God's wrath, self-substituted to bear the guilt and punishment of men, but must be merely an example to the race to lead it on in evolution to a higher hill. In fact, an atoning Savior is not needed in evolutionary doctrine.

According to Biblical Christianity the Bible is a supernatural revelation of God, given to men through human instruments, of things mankind could only vaguely surmise. Were they not revealed. It is a Divine revelation to man of the origin, present condition, and destiny of the human race. Without this Word of God man is left to his own ever-changing speculations for guidance upon the sea of existence. According to the philosophy of evolution the Bible is no more supernatural or inspired than the works of Emerson or Shakespeare. The teachings it contains are merely the conclusions of men of an untutored age concerning things on which the light of modern intelligence had not been shed.

Here is the crux of the whole matter. Is the Bible the word of man or the Word of God? We contend for the latter and say that if the Bible is not inspired, it is truly remarkable that an untutored man like Moses, never having attended a modern university, said to have been scarcely more than a savage, living in an unscientific age, should state a biological principle of heredity so in accord with the latest scientific biological discoveries. "After its kind, whose seed is in itself" is as good an expression of the central principle of Mendel's Laws as can be made. It is no small task to explain satisfactorily why a writer of so remote a day as that in which the writer of the Book of Genesis lived, if he were not inspired from an outside source to do so, should go to the trouble of repeating eight times in half a chapter the biological rule that species were created to reproduce only themselves. Christian believers can rest their case for the inspiration of the Bible and the truth of Christianity on the words of Genesis, "After its kind."

………………..

YES  AS  WE  HAVE  STATED,  THE  HORSE [MANY  VARIETIES  BUT  STILL  A HORSE]  DO  NOT  THINK  OF  BREEDING  TO  A  COW;  THE  DOG  [MANY  VARIETIES]  NEVER  THINKS  TO  BREED  TO  A  CAT;  THE  BIRD [MANY  VARIETIES]  NEVER  THINK  TO  BREED  TO  A  MOUSE;  AND  ON  AND  ON  WE  COULD  GO  WITH  HUNDREDS  MORE  EXAMPLES.  THE  HORSE  NEVER  MUTATES  INTO  A  COW;  A  COW  NEVER  MUTATES  INTO  A  HORSE;  AND  ON  AND  ON  WE  COULD  GO  WITH  THOSE  EXAMPLES.

THOSE  WHO  DO  NOT  WANT  TO  HAVE  GOD  IN  THEIR  KNOWLEDGE,  DO  SO  BECAUSE  THEY  DO  NOT  WANT  TO  HAVE  HIM  TELL  THEM  HOW  TO  LIVE,  WHAT  IS  RIGHT  FROM  WRONG;  AND  THAT  IS  THE  BOTTOM  LINE  FOR  THE  ATHEISTS  AND  AGNOSTICS  AND  THE  EVIL-LUTIONISTS.

TO  BE  CONTINUED  WITH  IN-DEPTH  APPENDIX

AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name (1958)

Appendix I

NATURAL SPECIES

Up until the time of Darwin all men who thought about the matter at all recognized that there were such things as natural spices. The idea came from two sources, from the Scriptures and from observation of nature. The Scriptures taught that all men were descended from Adam and Eve, which gave the concept of mankind as constituting a natural species of the highest order. The Scriptures taught that two of a "kind" (Hebrew MIN, Genesis 1:11, 6:20) entered the ark as seed for a new animal population on the earth after the Deluge, which gave the idea of the existence of natural species among the animals. These simple but enlightening, Scriptural facts were the original source of the majority held opinion that there were natural species. Observation of nature confirmed this view. It was apparent to men that mankind itself was made up of many races and types scattered the world over, yet that all these races were perfectly able to intermarry and bear children, except in a few individual cases. 

Man became to himself therefore, from observation of nature, the best example of a natural species. It was readily apparent also that among the animals there were similar forms which cross-bred naturally with one another and produced fertile progeny. In the cases of dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, poultry this was so. All these formed groups which contained many varieties of individuals, all of which readily and easily crossed with the individuals within their respective groups. In plants the knowledge that there were natural species was not so clearly recognized. The knowledge which the ancients had 800 years before Christ regarding the sexuality of plants had been lost during the Middle Ages, and was not recovered until the latter part of the 17th century. But when the fact that plants as well as animals cross-bred was rediscovered and experimentation in the crossing of plants was carried out, men readily concluded that what was true in the animal kingdom, was true also in the plant world. So up until 1860 the existence of natural species was a conviction of all intelligent men. This is evident from the definitions of species given by men of science of those days. Linnaeus (1707-1778)   said,  "There are as many species as  God created in

Numbers in parentheses refer to  the  sources   of  information listed at the end of the appendix.

the beginning," and this he amplified by saying. "Varieties are plants of the same species." John Ray (1628-1705) defined natural species as "a group of organisms with marked characteristics in common and freely inter-breeding." Baron Cuvier (1761-1832) said, "All the beings belonging to one of these forms [perpetual since the beginning of all things, that is, the Creation], constitute what we call species." De Candolle (1778-1841) defined species as "an assemblage of all the individuals which resemble each other more than they do others, which can by mutual fecundation produce fertile individuals, and which are able to reproduce their like in a manner that they may be supposed by analogy to have descended from a single being or a single pair." Quatrefages (1810-1892) called species "an assemblage of individuals more or less resembling one another, which are descended or may be regarded as being descended from a single pair by the uninterrupted succession of families."

The criterion in the minds of intelligent men before Darwin of what constituted a natural species was the natural ability and willingness to cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Members of groups called species crossed with one another in nature and produced fertile progeny, whereas distinct species did not cross, or if they were induced to do so by man, the progeny manifested greater or lesser degrees of sterility. There were two especially famous botanists before Darwin. One was Kohlreuter, who between the years 1760 and 1766 performed the first series of systematic experiments in plant-crossing carried out in modern times. So thorough and well-recorded was his work that exactly the same results have been secured by those who have repeated his experiments since 1900. The other was Gartner, who is said to have performed between the years 1825 and 1850, experiments in cross-breeding plants "that have not been equalled by any modern worker" (2). These two men, after, their years of investigation, concluded emphatically that natural species composed of inter-breeding varieties exist, and that between distinct natural species some degree of sterility was a universal law of nature.

The view of men before Darwin's day regarding natural species is well stated by the evolutionist, de Vries: "At his (Darwin's) time it was universally assumed that species had been created as such, but that subspecies and varieties had been derived from them according to natural laws (10).

Denial  of  the  Existance  of  Natural  Species.—The believer in the Bible need not hesitate one moment to accept what is and has always been so obvious. Natural species most certainly do exist, and there is no real ground for thinking that they have not been and will not always exist as they are today. The lover of the Bible can expect, however, that not merely the constancy but even the existence of species will be denied or discredited by many evolutionists as a part of their efforts to discredit the Biblical doctrine of special creation.

The first denial of the existence of natural species was made by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species, published 1859. He taught that natural species, while they seem to exist, were but figments of men's imaginations and did not exist in reality. The reason he taught thus was because the blotting out of the idea of natural species was absolutely necessary to the successful propagation of his theory of evolution. This is apparent from the words of his close friend, Alfred Russel Wallace, written fifteen years after the publication of the Origin. "One of the greatest, perhaps we may say the greatest of all difficulties in the way of accepting the theory of evolution as the complete explanation of the origin of species has been the remarkable difference between varieties and species in respect of fertility when crossed. Generally speaking, it may be said that varieties of any species, however different they may be in external appearance, are perfectly fertile when crossed and their mongrel offspring are equally fertile when bred among themselves; while distinct species, on the other hand, however closely they may resemble each other externally, are usually infertile when crossed, and their hybrid offspring absolutely sterile" (17). 

To get rid of the conception of species which was accepted by scientists and others of his day was, therefore, in Darwin's opinion, absolutely necessary. Instead of definite species being in existence, organic life had to be in a state of flux with no specific distinctions whatever. Darwin eagerly sought, therefore, both in the Origin and his later volumes, Plants and Animals under Domestication, to blot out the idea of natural species. And the substance of his argument for doing so was that species do not exist because there is not always the same degree of sterility between them. He said. "Why has the production of hybrids been permitted (by the Creator)? To grant to species the special power of producing hybrids, and then stop their further propagation by different degrees of sterility . . . seems a strange arrangement."

Equal Degrees of Sterility Between Species Not Essential to Their Eistence.—To the question Darwin asks it may well be replied, "Why should the production of hybrids not be permitted?" Because a thing happens to be a "strange arrangement" to Darwin does not mean there is not a very excellent and wonderful reason for just that arrangement. Darwin evidently thought the Lord would have done better if He had consulted him on some matters. Alas! He did not, and therefore we find natural species separated by different degrees of sterility.

This arrangement, however, which we know exists, furnishes a hollow argument for, the non-existence of natural species. For the existence and perpetuation of species some degree of sterility partial or total is of course, necessary. Unless some sterility between species had been caused to exist  interbreeding between the various "kinds" would have taken place in such a way that utter chaos and disoder would now have been the result. But all that was actually necessary, both for the existence and perpetuation of species was that between them there should be a sufficient degree of sterility to keep disorder and chaos out of the world and to keep  natural species   reproducing  "after  their kind." That such a degree  of  sterility  actually  exists  all who have eyes to see can see.

Outward  Appearance  Not a  Sure  Criterion  of  Natural Species.—Doubtless there are many tests which are yet to be discovered by which natural species may be distinguished. One present test is outward form. Members of the same species look alike. Beneath a varying outward appearance the different varieties of a species, have, anunderlying similarity which usually enables men to decide which forms belong to a species and which do not. Outward form, however, while it is of much assistance in determining what is a natural species and what is not, is by itself an insufficient test for the reason that organisms which may look alike outwardly are very often very different germinally (i. e. in the constitution of the gametes or "marrying cells"). For example, there are many varieties of the ass, which are all readily cross fertile with one another. There are also many varieties of the horse, which are all readily cross fertile with one another. One variety of the ass group looks considerably like the Prevalski breed of horse. The Prevalski horse, however, and the ass are so different germinally that the offspring of a cross, the mule, is sterile. It has likewise been discovered that horses have 19 chromosomes in their gametes, while asses have 32 (13). On the other hand, two breeds of horses, a great Clydesdale and a slim racing Thoroughbred look so different that it would be easy to class them as different natural species. Yet they have an identical constitution of gametes. Appearances, therefore, are deceitful. Two moths, one called Euralia Wahlbergi and the other Euralia mima look so different that, on the basis of looks alone they would be classed as different species. Yet they are perfectly fertile when mated (15). On the other hand there are two distinct groups of fertile, interbreeding fruit-flies. Drosophila Melanogaster and Drosophila Simulans. which look much alike when not examined closely. But these can be made to cross only with great difficulty and the hybrids are absolutely sterile (14). There are two barleys, one having six rows, the other having two rows of kernels. These are, therefore, on the basis of appearance likely to be classed as distinct species. These two barleys, however, cross readily and produce offspring according to Mendel's Law. What is called "teosinte." a variety of wild corn found in hot countries like Mexico, is called on the basis of appearance a species distinct from the natural species, corn, of which there are hundreds of interbreeding varieties differing in size, shape, color and other characteristics. But since teosinte and the corn varieties are perfectly interfertile there is no reason for putting teosinte in a natural species by itself. (5). Who would hastily think, merely by looking at them, that "cabbage" forms shown in Figure 2 are so readily interfertile as to constitute one natural species.

Sterility One Important Criterion of Species.—As already  indicated, one of the principal tests of species has to do with the phenomenon of sterility, and with the kind or character of the sterility even more than the degree. Professor D. F. Jones of Yale University says "One criterion that divides living organisms into natural groups is the barrier of sexual incompatibility. There can be no argument about the separate classification of a race that cannot unite with other organisms and produce fertile off-spring" (13)

Complete Sterility Between Species the Rule.—The animal and plant world is made up of thousands of groups of varieties 153 which are perfectly fertile with one another., but which are absolutely sterile toward members of all other groups. Cases, are reported of complete fertility between "distinct" species. This, say Babcock and Clausen, is "a comparatively rare condition" (1). Such reported cases arise from the fact that different varieties within species have been mistaken for distinct species purely on the basis of outward appearance. The general truth is just the opposite. Complete sterility between species is the rule, and any degree of fertility between them is the exception. How did this acknowledged condition come about? Here is a problem over which evolutionists have long pondered for a satisfactory explanation, but in vain.

Darwin in his day, and his followers today, however, make much of those comparatively few cases where the sterility between certain distinct species is not complete but partial. A few typical examples of such cases may be considered, and the reader left to decide for himself whether these cases weaken the idea of the existence of natural species or strengthen it.

Cases of Incomplete Sterility Between Distinct Species. —
There are several hundred varieties of apples which have been
developed  by man,  and  all  these  are  perfectly  interfertile.  Apples will cross with no other species. Attempts have been made to cross the apple with the pear and the quince, but such attempts have  failed  utterly. There  are  many varieties of the species to which cabbage belongs, and these varieties are all so readily fertile with one another that it is hard to keep a cabbage field of one variety pure if it is near the field of another. Cabbages will not cross with the two species which are most similar, to them, turnip and rape. Yet a Russian named Krapechenko (1928) managed to get a cabbage pollen to fertilize a radish ovum (11). From this there came a plant monstrosity which grew and grew in the greenhouse, but was never able to produce a flower.  The germ cells

153 The number of varieties of domestic plant and animal species, is, in general, much greater than that of the species known only in the wild state, which are sometimes represented by but one or two varieties. The reason for this is that in the domesticated species the new varieties which have arisen have been sheltered from destruction by man and used for his benefit, whereas many of the new varieties which have arisen in the natural state have been unable to survive when they appeared. It is extremely probable that most wild species have the same capacity for producing varieties which our domestic species, e. g. horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep,  have  displayed.

of the two distinct species, cabbage and radish, were able to unite, and the different elements in the germ cells were elastic enough to adjust themselves to one another sufficiently well to produce a plant body, but were not able to adjust themselves well enough together to produce such delicate and vital structures as the flowers (see page 171).154 Strawberries and blackberries are species with many varieties of each. Luther Burbank succeeded in making a cross between a strawberry and a blackberry. A peculiar hybrid was produced. At first it grew exactly like a strawberry. Then it changed and grew like a raspberry. "But no seed was formed. The plants were as sterile as mules" (5). After "ten thousand tries" Burbank got a plant from a cross of a petunia with an ornamental nicotiana plant. The hybrid grew peculiarly, first like a nicotiana, and then like a petunia. The hybrid, however, was completely sterile (5). Wheat varieties, of which there are hundreds cannot be readily crossed with anything but wheat. However, this, for example, is reported. A man named Jesenko made several thousands of attempts to pollinate rye flowers with wheat pollen, but in vain. Then he tried to pollinate wheat flowers with rye pollen, and he managed to get seeds at the rate of six for each one thousand attempts. These seeds produced hybrid rye-wheat plants with flowers, but the plants were incapable by themselves of producing offspring. Jesenko continued his experiments by trying to cross the rye-wheat hybrid back with either parent form. When the hybrid was pollinated with wheat pollen three seeds were secured in 1,000 attempts, and when the hybrids were pollinated with rye pollen only one seed was secured in 4,800 attempts (13). What happened to these hybrid progeny will presently be explained.

Animals likewise shed rich light on the difficulties of sterility which arise when distinct species are crossed. Dogs and foxes will not cross at all, nor will the quite similar species, sheep and goats. The horse and the ass will cross, but the product, a mule, is sterile. The reason for the well known sterility of the mule has also been discovered. The germ cells of the horse have 19 chromosomes. The gametes of the ass have 32. In spite of this difference a union of the germ cells takes place and a new and useful individual is formed. But when growth and development of the new individual proceeds to the point where new germ cells are to be formed for reproduction, confusion and disorder take place within the germ cells and the mules are sterile. "When the hybrid mule forms its germ cells, the chromosomes do not pair or balance properly,  and the resulting cells are not able to survive" (16)

154 Cabbages, according to evolutionary theory, are closely related to the turnip and the rape. All three species are supposed to have evolved out of the same branch on the evolutionary tree, and are therefore classed in the same genus (Brassica). Radishes, because they are so different from the cabbage, rape, and turnip, are supposed to have come from a totally different branch of the evolutionary tree. Yet cabbage and radishes will form hybrids, while cabbages and their near relatives, rapes and turnips, will not. Surely here is a "strange arrangement." How would Darwin explain it? Radishes and cabbages each have the same number of chromosomes (9)   while rapes and  turnips do not.

The ass and the an ass-zebra hybrid, is sterile (13). American bison have been crossed with domestic cattle. The cross can occur only when the cattle is the male. The "cattalo," as the hybrid is sometimes called, is very hard to produce. The cross is described as "violent" and "dangerously severe" About two-thirds of the hybrids are born dead. The mothers of the hybrids themselves often die. Of the small number of hybrids that are produced alive very few are males, and these die-early. Only one male "cattalo" is ever known to have reached maturity, and it was as sterile as the mule. Females only usually reach maturity, and not many of these. Most of these females are sterile, but in some cases by crossing them with either domestic or bison bulls a few three-quarter hybrids have been produced. These hybrids are still inclined to be sterile. When the back-crossing of the hybrids with the one or the other parent species is kept up for a few generations, the sterility entirely disappears, as well as the physical characteristics of the other natural species, a phenomenon the importance of which will presently be called to the reader's attention (4).

From the above examples it is apparent that there is some inherent quality in the germ cells of different groups of both plants and animals of distinct species which enables them to unite and function normally and easily with the members of their own group, but which makes them unable to unite and function normally with members of the other groups.

Hybrids Between True Species Unstable Organisms Which Revert to Parent Species.—A highly significant light on the existence and permanence of natural species comes from the consideration of what happens when two distinct species are able to cross and produce, a few offsprings that are partially fertile. What happens is that the hybrids revert to one or the other natural species, and the intermediate forms no longer exist. The progeny of interspecific hybrids split into two groups, and these groups more or less gradually become identical with the original species which produced them, all the hybrids eventually ceasing to be. The split into groups may not come in the exact middle. In some cases the hybrid progeny form one group, like one or the other parent species, and go only in one direction, that is revert to just one or the other parent species. The final result, however, is always the same. The hybrids eventually cease to exist. Professors Babcock and Clausen say, "It has often been observed that the progenies of partially fertile hybrids run back to the parental condition" (1).

Reversion in Rye-Wheat Hybrids.—As an example of the reversion to natural species spoken of above may be taken the case of the cross between rye and wheat. The rye-wheat hybrid produced is a highly sterile plant. It is not able to reproduce itself. The cause of the sterility is the even balance of elements foreign to each other. The  only way any offspring from the rye-wheat hybrids can be produced is by back-crossing them with either rye or wheat, with the result that a limited number of plants are secured. However the hybrid offspring produced by such back-crossing are practically identical with the natural species with which the back-crossing is done. The hybrids crossed with wheat produce plants that are like wheat. The hybrids crossed with rye produce plants that are like rye. These plants, however are not all equally like the parent form with which the back-crossing is done: Some are more so than others. Plants produced by back-crossing the hybrids with rye are strikingly like rye, but some more so than others. Plants produced by back-crossing the hybrids with wheat are strikingly like wheat, only some are more so than others. And, what is important to note, the plants most like the parent species with which the back-crossing is done are most fertile, while the plants least like the parent species with which the back-crossing is done are most sterile. Furthermore the hybrid progeny which are most like wheat are fertile toward wheat and sterile toward rye, and the hybrid progeny most like rye are fertile toward rye and sterile toward wheat. The sterile plants, because of their sterility, die out. The fertile plants, because of their fertility, live on. and each succeeding generation becomes more and more like the species they are closest to. The final result is that the hybrids return to the natural species out of which they sprang  (13).

Reversion in Cattle-Bison Hybrids.—We have already re-ferred to the production of the hybrids between domestic cattle and bison and the difficulties of the cross. The male hybrids are invariably sterile: the females partially fertile. Since no males are fertile, back-crossing must be done with either domestic or bison males. But when this takes place, the hybrids show a great tendency to reversion even after but one cross, while in two back-crosses the reversion is practically complete. Mossom Boyd, a wealthy cattleman who performed long experiments in crossing bison and domestic cattle in hopes of producing a hardier type of beef-cattle for the western ranges, says, "An ordinary observer might mistake the three-quarter buffalo (the product of a cattle-bison hybrid back-crossed with a bison) for a bison; he would scarcely distinguish the one-quarter buffalo (the product of a cattle-bison hybrid back-crossed with a domestic male) from domestic cattle, except for the finer quality of hair. The one-eighth, buffaloes he would not distinguish at all from domestic cattle" (4). It was this instability in cattle-bison hybrids and their tendency to reversion which caused W. F. Hornaday, Director, of the New York Zoological Gardens, to say in 1904, "Interesting as have been the experiments made by Mr. C. J. Jones and others in the cross-breeding of buffaloes (bison) and domestic cattle, it is now quite time that all such experiments should cease. It has been proven conclusively that it is impossible to introduce and maintain a tangible strain of buffalo blood into the mass of western range cattle"(12).

Reversion in Wild Cavy-Guinea Pig Hybrids.—From 1909 to 1914 Frolessor Detletsen of Illinois University carried on a series of experiments in the crossing of the common guinea-pig with a species of wild rodents from Brazil, which illustrates well the phenomena of reversion in species crosses. The wild Brazilian cavy is somewhat like the guinea-pig, but has certain differences in physical characteristics and is only half as large. The two species were crossed with difficulty because of their instinctive aversion for one another, similar to the natural aversion of the two species, cattle and bison. It is certain that the species we are discussing would never mate in nature, so great is their distaste for one another. As in the case of the cattle-bison hybrids, the male hybrids of this cavy-guinea pig cross were sterile. The female hybrids were fertile. A back-cross was made between a female hybrid and a wild cavy. All the offspring of this cross were sterile, so such back-crossing with cavies was discontinued. The hybrids were then crossed with guinea-pig males. The three-quarter male offspring produced by this crossing were still all sterile, the female offspring fertile. These three-quarter hybrid females were again back-crossed with the guinea pigs, and in this generation a few of the male offspring produced were fertile, although most of them were still sterile. The females, of course, were fertile. By continued back-crossing with guinea pigs the male offspring gradually returned to normal fertility. By that time, however, all trace of any physical characteristics of the Brazilian cavy had long disappeared. In fact after only two back-crosses with guinea pigs the hybrids were indistinguishable from normal guinea pigs in size, skeletal shape, and coat colors  (9).

Further interesting light on the instability of interspecific hybrids and their reversion to either species entering into a cross comes from the consideration of what happens when two distinct species are able to cross and produce offspring without recourse to back-crossing with either parent species. Such cases are rare and are known only in plants, but when they occur they furnish more evidence of the fact that hybrids between natural species are not stable organisms and eventually revert to one or the other species in the cross.

Reversion in Rustica and Pantctttata.—As an example of such reversion may be taken the case of the hybrids produced by crossing the two species of ornamental plans technically known as Nicotiana Rustica and N. Naniculata. The experiment about to be described was performed and recorded by Prof. E. M. East of Harvard University. When N. Rustica and N. Paniculata were crossed, almost complete sterility was observed. About one seed was produced where normally there should have been a hundred. These seeds produced plants on which, by careful hand pollination, a few shriveled seeds were formed. Many of these shriveled seeds were sterile, but a few germinated and produced plants. By hard work 246 such second-generation, hybrid plants were secured. But a noteworthy condition among these plants was evident. They were divided into two groups, one group resembling one natural species, the other group the other. One group resembled Rustica. The other closely resembled Paniculata. Plants midway in form between the two—resembling both at once as the original hybrids did—-were missing. They had been eliminated. In his experiments East continued to raise the plants of these two groups, without letting them be crossed back with either parent species. The result was that in subsequent generations the plants of the Paniculata group by their own actions became identical with the original Paniculata species, and became fully fertile again, while the plants of the Rustica group in subsequent generations by their own actions became identical with the Rustica species and became fully fertile again (1).

The example of the reversion to species in the case of the rye-wheat cross given above is described by Jones, and at the close of his description he says, "For this reason it is to be expected that wide crosses (i. e. between distinct species) will tend to revert to either parent" (13). The example of the reversion of the Paniculata-Rustica hybrids is described by Professors Babcock and Clausen (1), and at the close of their description of this reversion to species, together with the account of a similar case of reversion in a cross between the two species, emmer and spelt, they say, "In both the hybrids discussed above, there is an illustration of an observation made repeatedly in species hybridization, namely, that the descendants eventually revert to the parental condition." Elsewhere these men also say regarding the phenomenon of reversion in experiments in which common tobacco plants were crossed with other natural species, "This phenomenon of complete return to the parental condition is all the more striking when different varieties of Tabacum (tobacco) are employed in the original hybridization"  (1).

In 1914 Luther Burbank, an ardent evolutionist, claimed to have succeeded in making a hybrid between the plum and the apricot which he called "plum-cot." He boasted at the time that he had, broken down a supposed Divine law that distinct species should not permanently be hybridized, and claimed that he had in the "plum-cot" created a permanent new form. The present writer has carefully investigated this case and finds that those who are well acquainted with the hybrid say it is now apparently nothing but a plum. In a letter to the Hon. John M. Nelson, Congressman from Wisconsin. John T. Bregger, successor to BURBANK as manager of the "Luther Burbank Experimental Farms," says, "The plum-cot tree looks very much like the plum. The fruit, however is in color like the plum, but has a short fuzz like an apricot. It is inclined to be somewhat acid in flavor, but very juicy and some of them very palatable." In a letter to the present writer Prof. W. H. Chandler, head of the Department of Pomology of the University of California says, "All plum-cots that I have seen seem to me to be merely plums." And in  another letter Professor Guy L. Philp,  Assistant Pomologist at the same university, says, "We have growing on the station grounds five or six so-called plum-cots. Of this number most of the varieties show no character other than the Japanese plum." When, together with these statements, it is realized that this hybrid, because it is a tree and therefore matures slowly, has had the opportunity to pass through but two or three generations at the most, and reversion to species has not had full opportunity to take place, it can be said that the evidence points strongly to the ultimate reversion of this hybrid, if this has not already taken place.

According to the mass of evidence, permanent hybrids between distinct natural specie's do not persist. They are unstable and tend to revert. Cases in plant species of what are perhaps actual cases of stable interspecific hybrids have been reported. These abnormal plants are usually kept in greenhouses where, under protected conditions, they are not subject to the rigors and changes of conditions, to which plants in the open are subjected. It is known that certain species of plants can hybridize only when grown very slowly—that is when the temperature is kept cool and the rate of growth of the plant is retarded. Slow growth gives the contrary elements in the hybrid time to adjust themselves to one another. But under rigorous natural conditions where there are sudden changes in temperature and moisture it is more than likely that the interspecific hybrid could not survive. The only hybrids that are permanent unions between different types are those between varieties within species. These should not properly be called hybrids, since the word hybrid implies a violation of nature.

Intervarietal Sterility Different from Interspecific Sterility—-before leaving the discussion of sterility between species, a word should be said about sterility within species, i. e. between varieties. Sterility sometimes exists between members of the same species. This may be due to individual cases of disease. It may be due to a difference in size, e. g. as between a poodle and a mastiff. Certain plants of the same species, e. g. two varieties of the four-o'clock, can not be crossed when one variety of the species is used as the male, because the pollen tubes of that variety are not long enough or not able to grow fast enough to penetrate down to the ovules of the other, but can be crossed when the other variety is the male (16). These causes of intervarietal sterility, however, are purely mechanical or temporary. They are not due to a difference in the germ cells themselves. The germ cells within a species are identical, having the same number, order, and character of chromosomes, and when whatever obstacles to the union of germ cells of organisms within species there may be are removed, the germ cells readily unite to produce a new plant or animal with normal powers of growth and reproduction. The germ cells of distinct species, however, are fundamentally different, and no amount of human ingenuity can remove that difference, so as to enable the germ cells to unite and function normally in the production of a new in individual and future generations. Herein lies the great difference between species and varieties in respect of sterility. And to this great difference bear witness the statements of Babcock and Clausen, "A different type of sterility is represented in species hybrid. The sterility of species hybrid is in quite a different category from that of the sterility occurring within species" (1).

Obedience to Mendel's Laws Another Important Test of Species—There is another criterion for determining what forms belong to a natural species and what do not. It is a criterion of the very greatest importance and was one totally unknown in the days when Darwin sought to discredit the idea of natural species. The test is based on the facts of Mendelian heredity. It is: Do the generations of offspring of a cross between different forms show strict obedience to Mendel's Laws or not? If they do, the forms are varieties. If they do not, they are distinct species.

As is well known, all the varieties of a species, e.g. all the varieties of the species of fruit-flies, Drosophila Melanogaster, cross-breed readily and follow Mendel's laws of heredity. Within species the various forms are due to certain factory in the germ cells of the members of the species, and these factors segregate and unite according to a definite orderly law. When distinct species are crossed, however, and a few hybrids can be produced which are able to bring forth a few progeny, orderliness disappears and chaos results. The laws of heredity, when two of the same species are crossed and a new individual produced, may be likened to the manner in which a new watch works, which has been made by combining the parts of two watches of exactly the same make. The parts fit perfectly together and work in such harmony that no trouble is experienced. The laws of heredity, when two of different species are crossed, is like the workings of a new watch made by combining the parts of two watches produced by different manufacturers. If the parts can be combined, the watch either will not go at all, or if it goes, does so imperfectly and eventually breaks down. The fault in this illustration, of course, lies in the fact that a watch is made of material which cannot adjust itself when its forms do not fit, whereas a plant or animal is composed of living tissues which are able, within limits, to make adjustments.

The great difference in this respect between varieties and species is described by the well-known evolutionist and student of heredity, Prof. Castle of Harvard, who says, "But in crosses between different species, which do not ordinarily cross under natural conditions, the inheritance is not typically Mendelian, being complicated by blending effect in F 1 (first filial generation), imperfect segregation in F 2 (second filial generation), partial sterility and abnormal sex ratios, things of frequent occurrence in species crosses, as we shall see" (6). 

And of significance in this same connection is the statement by Babcock and Clausen that crosses between distinct species "exhibit phenomena which do not conform, without marked modifications, to the laws which govern variation and heredity within a species" (1). Consequently we find these last mentioned students of heredity giving a definition of species which marks a definite return to the conception of species held by the old creationists before Darwin's day: "A species, whether wild or domesticated, consists of an assemblage of forms which interbreed freely and produce fertile hybrids conforming to Mendel's laws" (1). They add, "In the majority of instances there is no difficulty in grouping individuals into assemblages of this character."

Return to the Old Conception of SPECIES.—Through the influence of Darwin, discredit was cast upon the Biblical conception of natural species held by the old scientists, Ray, DeCan-doll e, Quatrefages and others, and the fact of species was almost entirely ignored in evolutionary discussions. With the rediscovery of Mendelism in 1900, however, the concept of species Darwin had discredited began to come back. In 1913 Batesonf then the leader in the investigation of  Mendelian  principles  of  heredity, said, "With the spread of evolutionary ideas, to speak much of the fixidity of species has become unfashionable, and yet how striking and inscrutable are the manifestations of that fixidity") (3). Again he said, "In the enthusiasm with which evolutionary ideas were received, the specificity of living things was almost forgotten . . . and the scientific world persuaded itself readily that species had, after all, been a mere figment of the human mind. Without presuming to declare what future research only can reveal, I anticipate that, when variation has been properly examined and the several kinds of variability have been successfully distinguished according to their respective natures, the result will render the natural definiteness of species increasingly apparent" (3). 

In 1914 another voice was raised against the practice of ignoring the existence of natural species. Writing in the Journal of Heredity on "The Existence of Natural Species," Dr. O. T. Cook of the Bureau of Plant Breeding, United States Department of Agriculture, said, "That all the plants and animals are organized into species is a fundamental fact of biology … The  species  underlie  all … Of course  these  complexities of specific organization and sexuality are very unwelcome ideas to those who are about to solve the problems of evolution and heredity by simple experimental and statistical methods, but no truly biological investigation can disregard the fundamental fact that organisms exist as species" (7). In a paper read in 1926 at a joint discussion of the Botany and Zoology Sections of the British Association for the Advancement of Science on the theme "The Conception of a Species" we find these statements, "A species is a group of individuals of common descent with certain characteristics in common, which are represented in the nucleus of each cell by constant and characteristic sets of chromosomes. Two thousand eight hundred and forty-five species, including all the Phyla, so far examined, show remarkable constancy in their specific sets of chromosomes." (18).

New Species Not Arising.—Evolutionists talk about the origin of "species"—that is, of the origin of new organisms as a whole. The "origin of species" is considered by them to be their problem. We think their tasks should take another form namely, to account for the non-miraculous origin not of new, fully equipped and completely functioning individuals, but of the various parts that make up the individual, e. g. lungs, heart, eyes, germ-cells. Even so, evolutionists can not account for the origin of new species, for the reason that, although new varieties of natural species are continually being produced by crossing (see Appendix II), none of these new varieties ever is a new species, separatedfrom its parent forms by a wall of sterility. To be a new species, a variety of a natural species would have to be separated from the species in which it arose by a wall of sterility similar to that which now separates natural species from one another. For example, if a new species were ever to arise out of the dog species, a number of puppies would have to be born that would not be able to cross back with other dogs and yet would be able to cross with each other. Such puppies would then be a new species. This is the way evolutionists say evolution has taken place. The trouble for them is that such puppies or varieties in natural species, either of plants or of animals, are not arising. Now and then some enthusiastic evolutionist reports that such offspring have arisen, but further investigation invariably reveals that the report is erroneous. Bateson said in 1922, "The production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from completely fertile parents, which have arisen under critical observation from a single common origin is the event for which we wait. Until this event is witnessed, our knowledge of evolution is incomplete in a vital respect. From time to time a record of such an observation is published, but none has yet survived criticism" (3). 

The writer was much interested in a case which seemed partially to fulfill the requirements which Bateson laid down. It was first reported by Prof. H. H. Plough of Amherst College in 1924. A race of fruit-flies was produced by him whose individuals were more fertile inter se than with the parent stock. It was hoped by Morgan and others that the sterility toward the parent stock which seemed to have begun in these flies would increase until it was complete. Plough announced that investigation of the case was being continued. In 1929, wishing to learn what had happened to the flies, the writer corresponded with Prof. Plough, who replied in part as follows: "I may say that much of the significance which this case appeared to have for the theory of evolution has probably disappeared, for it has become increasingly clear that the particular stock is not infertile with the wild stock, although it is with many mutant combinations. It has obviously changed in this relation in the past four years—i. e. with selection it has itself become more fertile when inbred, and in so doing seems to have lost its intolerance for the wild (i. e. parent stock) and partially for some others. This is the exact reverse of what one would expect from the situation, and quite  destroys  its  value  for the  evolutionary theory." 

Plough's results are typical of all similar cases with other species, and there have been a number which at first looked promising. Returning to England after making the now famous address before the American Association, Bateson found himself attacked by his fellow evolutionists for making statements damaging to the cause of evolution. Bateson, however, did not retreat. He said. "I directed once more the attention of naturalists to the fact that we still await the production of indubitably sterile hybrids from completely fertile parents which have arisen under critical observation from a single origin. So far as our knowledge goes, all the domestic races, for example of dogs, of pigeons, of fowls, among animals; and of cabbage, of peas, of Primula Sinensis and many more plants—when inter-crossed among themselves—never produce this sterility in their mongrels, though the races are often distinct enough to pass for species. But if we begin crossing natural species, even those which on our reckoning must be very closely allied, we constantly find either that they will not cross breed, or that if they can be crossed the results are more or less sterile" (3).

The well-known American evolutionist, Morgan, speaking of Bateson's requirements for proof of the origin of new species, says that he questions the necessity of putting the theory of evolution to the test Bateson called for. Such a test, Morgan thinks, would render the demonstration of the origin of species "well-nigh impossible," since it is very unlikely, he thinks, that such a wall of sterility between varieties could arise all at once. Morgan thinks it best to explain the raising up of this wall of sterility between varieties, so as to separate them into distinct species, as the result of the long separation of these varieties, geographically or otherwise. Foxes and dogs, on Morgan's theory, were once simple varieties of one ancient species, just as the fox-terrier and the poodle are now. But dogs and foxes got separated somehow in the ancient days and stayed separated so long that they became the two distinct species which they are today, completely separated by a wall of sterility. Morgan says, "The interpretation of the sterility between species and the sterility of hybrids that seems to me more probable is very different from that suggested by Bateson. Both phenomena, as I interpret them, are the result of many kinds of difference which have arisen in the two species that have been separated for a long time"  (14).

Morgan's theory of the origin of new species is pure speculation, and is contrary to whatever evidence bearing on that matter there is. Separation has caused no sterility between varieties of natural species in any known case. Varieties of plants and animals brought from Europe to America soon after its discovery are as perfectly fertile with the European forms when brought back and crossed as they could possibly be. Native domestic cattle of India and of Europe, having been separated for thousands of years, are perfectly fertile today when crossed. In the human species Europeans and American Indians and races of the Far East have no greater difficulty in producing normal children when intermarriage takes place than do those people who live in neighboring villages in the same land, although Europeans, Indians and Polynesians have been separated for thousands of years, living all the while in different climates, engaging in different occupations, eating different foods. Morgan doubtless would say that thousands of years are not long enough for sterility to arise. Millions of years are required. This, however, must be recognized as pure speculation, and is of no interest to one who desires concrete proof of the "origin of species" instead of possibilities which rest on faith. Bateson answered Morgan in advance when he said that "even time can not complete that which has not yet begun"  (3).

(ALL  THIS  REMINDS  ME  OF  THE  BOOK  "I  DON'T  HAVE  ENOUGH  FAITH  TO  BE  AN  ATHEIST"  -  Keith Hunt)

Reference has already been made (see page 161) to a cross between a cabbage and a radish, which was said to have produced a hybrid plant which grew and grew, but would not produce flowers or seeds. Such was the case for several years. The hybrid could produce no flowers. It was kept alive only by "vegetative reproduction," that is, by cutting off branches from the plant and rooting them. Finally flowers did appear and produced seeds, and when the seeds were planted they brought forth plants like the hybrid itself, and these plants continued to breed true to form. This the evolutionists called "the creation of new species." But it is not the creation of new species in any real sense, for it is nothing but the making of one out of two, or the combination of old material which already existed to form something else. Furthermore, Krapechenko's radish-cabbage hybrid did not persist but reverted or perished, as all other intergeneric hybrids do in time (21)   (22).

In 1937 a way was discovered by biologists to cause radish-cabbage hybrids, and other similar hybrids from wide crosses, to reproduce themselves and persist temporarily more quickly than was done in the Russian experiment. This is by the use of a chemical called "colocine," which has the power to cause growing plants to double their ordinary chromosome number. Other chemical agents and artificial ways have been found which will accomplish the same thing, though not as well as with colocine (19). In connection with the discovery of the use of colocine it has been learned what is necessary within a sterile, inter-specific hybrid to make it reproduce itself. That is a doubling of the ordinary chromosome number. This is a condition in reproduction which is artificial—since ordinary reproduction (such as between varieties within species) does not require any such doubling of the chromosomes.

Evolutionists have many unsolved problems which they must explain before they can expect men to give up their faith in creation and in Divine revelation, and not the least of these unsolved problems is the reason why, from purely natural causes, there have come to be what so clearly are natural species, i. e. groups of plants and animals composed of varieties freely interbreeding according to Mendel's Laws and separated by walls of various degrees of sterility from other   groups of plants and animals. 

Darwin sought by "natural selection" to account for the non-miraculous origin of the present world of plants and animals, and he sought by "natural selection" to account for the phenomenon of sterility between species. He was unable to do so. He said, "At one time it appeared to me probable that the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids might have been slowly acquired through natural selection of slightly lessened degrees of fertility . . . After mature reflection, it seems to me that this could not have been effected through natural selection" (8). 

No evolutionist has been more successful than Darwin in accounting for the sterility which separates species, and no evolutionist has begun to account for the wonderful phenomena of heredity within species known as Mendel's Laws. When Bateson truthfully said in 1922, "That particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious" (3), it can be seen what a tremendous task lies ahead of those who wish to supplant the doctrine of special creation with the doctrine of evolution. When the evolutionists have explained "the origin and nature of species" their theory will be worthy of consideration by creationists. Until then creationists will cling to the doctrine of the special creation of each separate species or "kind."

LITERATURE CITED

1. Babcock, E. B., and Clausen, R. E., Genetics in Relation to Agriculture, 1927, pages 314; 326; 319; 319-324; 591; 305.

2. Bailey, L. H., and Gilbert, A. W., Plant Breeding, 1917, page 111.

3. Bateson, W., Problems of Genetics, 1913, pages 16, 21; Smithsonian Institute Report, 1915, page 376; Science, Jan. 20, 1922; Nature, July 15, 1922.

4. Boyd, M., Journal of Heredity, Vol.  5,  1914,  pages  189-198.

5. Burbank, L., His Methods and Discoveries, 1914. Vol. 8, page 11; Vol.' 2, pages 63-93; Vol. 4, page 160; Vol. 7, page 63; Vol. 4, page 138; Vol. 2, page 295; Vol. 2, page 275.

6. Castle, W. E., Genetics and Eugenics, 1926, page 199.

7. Cook,  O. T., Journal of Heredity, Vol. 5, 1914, pages 155-8.

8. Darwin, C, Origin of Species, 6th ed., page 292.

9. Detlefsen, J. A., Genetic Studies on Cavy Species Cross, 1914.

10. De Vries, H., Plant and Animal Breeding, 1907, page 1.

11. Gravatt, F. A., Journal of Heredity, Vol. 5, 1914, pages 269-272.

12. Hornaday, W. T., The American Natural History, 1904, page 103.

13. Jones, D. F., Selective Fertilisation, 1928, p. 97; Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement, 1925, pages 112; 385; 382; 384; 386-7; 385.

14. Morgan, T. H.,  The Genetics of Drosophila, 1925, page
Evolution and Genetics, 1925, page 46; 53.

15. Punnett, R., Mendelism, 6th ed., 1922, page 182; 183.

16. Sinnott, E. W., and Dunn, L. C, Principles of Genetics, pages 113-114.

17. Wallace, A. R., Darwinism, 1890, page 152.

18. Hurst, C. C, Report for the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford), 1926, page 356; Science March 18, 1928.

19. Riley, H. P., Genetics and Cytogenetics, 1948.

20. Huxley, Julian, A Modern Synthesis, 1943.

21. Howard, H. W., Journal of Genetics, Vol. 16, 1937.

22. Richharia, R. H., Journal of Genetics, Vol. 39, 1937.

………………..

ONCE  MORE  WE  SEE  ALL  AROUND  US,  WHEN  NATURE  IS  LEFT  ALONE,  WITHOUT  MAN'S  GRUBBY  HANDS  AND  MIND  INTERFERING,  HORSES  DO  NOT  BREED  WITH  COWS,  EVEN  IF  LEFT  IN  THE  SAME  FIELD;  DOGS  DO  NOT  BREED  WITH  CATS;  THE  SNAKE  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  THE  TURTLE;   THE  BEE  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  THE  ANT;  THE  SPIDER  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  COCKROACH;  THE  FLY  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  THE  BEE;  THE  DOLPHIN  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  THE  SHARK;  THE  STINGRAY  DOES  NOT  BREED  WITH  THE  OCTOPUS;  AND  ON  AND  ON  AND  ON  WE  COULD  GO.

AS  THE  BIBLE  SAYS,  "ONLY  THE  FOOL  HAS  SAID  IN  HIS  HEART  THERE  IS  NO  GOD!!"

NATURE  ALL  AROUND  TESTIFIES  TO  THE  GODHEAD  CREATOR;  THE  LAWS  OF  THE  UNIVERSE  TESTIFY  TO  A   CREATOR,  WHO  MADE  EVERYTHING  IN  THE  UNIVERSE,  AND  SET  CERTAIN  LAWS  TO  GOVERN  IT -  THE  BIRTH  OF  STARS,  THE  DEATH  OF  STARS;  THE  LAWS  THAT  BIND  EACH  GALAXY;  AND  ALSO  THIS  INCREDIBLE  AND  PRIVILEGED  PLANET,  THAT  IS  SO  FINALLY  TUNED  FOR  THE  LIFE  UPON  IT.

ONCE  MORE  THOSE  WHO  DENY  THERE  IS  A  GOD,  WANT  TO  DO  SO,  BECAUSE  ADMITTING  HE  IS,  WOULD  MEAN  TO  THEM  "WELL  THAT  GOD  MAY  WELL  THEN  HAVE  AN  INSPIRED  INSTRUCTION  BOOK,  AND  HE  MAY  TELL  US  RIGHT  FROM  WRONG,  SIN  AND  RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND  HOW  WE  SHOULD  LIVE."  AND  GOD  DENIERS  DO  NOT  WANT  TO  BE  TOLD  HOW  THEY  SHOULD  BE  LIVING.

Keith Hunt

AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name (1958)

Appendix II

"MUTATION"

Farmers, gardeners, orchardists, animal-breeders and experimenters have long borne witness to the fact that new forms have arisen in the stocks of plants and animals with which they have dealt. It is by the production of these new varieties that man has steadily improved the plants and domestic animals which he values. These new forms have been secured in two ways, either by the purposeful crossing of different varieties, or by discovering them after they had arisen. Luther Burbank, for example, who gave to the world more new and valuable varieties of plants, perhaps, than any other single individual, secured these new varieties either by deliberate crossing of different types and selecting promising new forms that come from the crosses in the second and subsequent generations, or by going about in his fields and picking out new forms that had arisen without any effort on his part. It is in the second manner that some of the most valuable varieties among our plants have been secured. To illustrate, in 1862 a Pennsylvania farmer named Fultz, who had a field of wheat of the kind known as Lancaster Red, observed a number of plants in the field different from the ordinal Lancaster Red. The seeds of these plants he gathered and planted, and found that they bred true, thus producing an excellent new variety known as Fultz Wheat. Again, in 1854 a Virginia farmer named Boughton discovered in his wheat fields a number of plants different from the ordinary. These, being gathered and planted, were the foundation of the variety of wheat called Tappanhannock Wheat. Other valuable varieties of wheat—Gold Coin, Cavalier, Hopetown and others—are said to have come into existence in the same way (2).

In species of plants and animals beside wheat, new forms or varieties are continually arising in a similar manner. Since the discovery of the laws of heredity known as Mendel's Laws, the heredity of plants and animals has been watched very closely, and new forms have been observed to arise in numerous species. A species which has been very closely studied in connection with

*Numbers in parentheses refer to sources of information listed at the end of the appendix. The word factor is used for gene.

Mendel's Laws is the fruit-fly, Drosophila Melanogaster, under the leadership of Prof. T. H. Morgan of Columbia University, and in this species under human observation considerable numbers of forms different from the normal have arisen. "Mutations," "mutants," "sports," "saltations" are names that are commonly given to these new forms, and they are said by evolutionists to be spontaneous, new additions to the organic world, new "creations," the "materials with which the evolution process builds." These new forms can not be truly new additions to the world of organisms if the Bible record of creation is true, since "on the seventh day God finished the work which He had made," and nothing genuinely new has come into being since. It is the purpose of this discussion, therefore, to show from nature itself that it is not necessary at all to believe that any new form which arises today under human observation or otherwise is truly new, but that it may be and very likely is creation old, having been placed in the species in the creative days and been hidden or latent in the species until somehow it has been revealed to man.

Description of Mutations.—All so-called mutations appear suddenly. Before the observer is aware of their presence they are there. They are changes from what seems to be the normal form of the species, changes affecting one or several different parts of the organism at once. Among the mutations which have appeared at separate times in the normally red eyed fruit-fly, Drosophila, are eyes of over thirty different colors, such as cherry, scarlet, blood, apricot, purple, buff, coral, vermilion, ecru, eosin, mahogany, ivory, rose, pink, white (12). New forms have also arisen in this species by changes not only in color, but in the size and shape of the body, wings, legs, and hairs of the flies! (See Fig. 56.) Once having appeared, all mutations are found to be obedient to Mendel's Laws in the same manner that forms or characters said to be old are. The vast majority of mutations behave in heredity as simple recessives. Of the several hundred mutants which have appeared in the fruit-fly, only about ten behave as dominants. Once having arisen, mutations usually breed perfectly true. In some cases the so-called mutant form goes back again to the normal, wild form from which it sprang. For example, in flies which have been closely watched, red (normal) eyed flies have given rise to white-eyed flies; these white-eyed flies have given rise to eosin (pinkish yellow) eyed flies; these eosin eyed flies have given rise to red (normal) eyed flies; and these red (normal) eyed flies have given rise to white eyed flies (12). One special feature which is supposed to distinguish a "mutation" from a simple variation is that a mutation is a form that appears seldom, while a variation is a form that appears often. This, however, is not a proper distinction, as we shall see. It is significant that a new form is called a mutation as long as the exact manner of its production is not understood. When, however, the Mendelian Law by which a new form arises is discovered and men know that they can themselves produce it

Fig. 56. A few of several hundred "new" forms of the fruit-fly Drosophita Melanogaster, which have arisen since 1910 from the so-called wild type of this species. At the top is a row of heads showing from the side various forms of eyes which have arisen. No. 1 is the normal eye possessed by the wild type fly. Nos. 2-6 are mutant forms, true breeding, called respectively kidney, lobe, bar, ultra-bar, no-eye. Below are drawings of flies showing new mutant types of wings. No. 1 is the form of wing of the wild type fly. Nos. 2-8 are mutant forms called respectively notch, cut, truncate, broad, miniature, club, vestigial. The wild fly has four pairs of chromosomes, and all the "new" forms which have arisen have also four chromosomes. The "new" forms are all fertile with one another and with the parent form, but not fertile with any other species of fly. Note that the mutations are losses rather than gains in structure. All our breeds of domestic animals have doubtless come by "mutation" just as have these new forms of flies.

by breeding, it is no longer called a "mutation" but a variation of old material.

What a Mutation Is According to Evolutionary Doctrine.—A mutation is said by evolutionists to be the spontaneous origination in the germ cells of species of new genes which did not exist before. A mutation in the evolutionary sense is a new creation, something coming out of nothing, or at least something greater coming out of something less.

What a Mutation Is according to the Creation View.-— A mutation is believed by those who uphold the biblical doctrine of creation, to be but the revealing of hidden genes put into species by the Creator in an act of special creation.

Ignorance of the Origin of Truly New Forms by "Mutation" on the part of the Evolutionist.---Those who would have us believe that mutations are something genuinely new added to the world by some mysterious, creative process to be building blocks for evolution can give no explanation whatever of what causes these new forms thus to arise. While it is understood, and may readily be granted, that the changes which produce mutation phenomena  have   their  basis   in   the germ cells of the species, devotees of evolution walk in confessed ignorance of what produces them there. The changes producing mutations are described by Prof Conklin of Princeton as being "sudden transformations in Mendelian factors themselves, comparable to changes in chemical composition," but what brings about these alchemistic-like trans "formations" this evolutionist is unable to say, He can only say, "The cause of new hereditary characters, or rather mutations in genes (factors), is obscurey" (5). Other evolutionists have likewise acknowledged their ignorance of how these new "creations" arise by mutation. Professors Sinnott and Dunn of the University of Connecticut say, "the cause and origin of which (mutations) we do not understand" (14). Professors Babcock and Clausen of the University of California say, "Concerning the causes of mutations nothing is known" (1). Professors Bailey and Gilbert of Cornell University say, "What do new characters come from? The answer to this question would give us the keynote to the whole situation" (2) Professor H. S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins University says, "We do not understand the causes of these changes (mutations): we do not know how they are produced" (9). Professor H. H. Newman of Chicago University says "In bringing this discussion of the causes of heritable variations (mutations) to a close, we find ourselves in a somewhat pessimistic frame of mind. When all is said, it is found that our knowledge of what actually causes mutations is almost nothing. The really great evolutionary discovery of the future will probably be the finding out of the cause or the causes of mutations" (13).

Why Evolutionists Maintain Mutations Are New.—The question naturally arises at this point, "Why then, in view of such acknowledged ignorance, do evolutionists insist that   mutations are realty new creations?" It is best to let one of their number, Professor Gates of London University, answer that question, which he does in his book Mutations and Evolution. He says, "To attempt to explain mutations away by assuming that nothing new has realty appeared is tantamount to a denial of evolution" (7). In other words, if mutations are not the coming into being of something really new there is and has been no evolution. The reason which this evolutionist gives is perfectly sufficient for some people, so prejudiced are they in favour of the evolutionary theory. Needless to say, however, it is not a reason that can satisfy those who do not believe in evolution or are seeking the truth in the matter.

Explanation of Mutations (1) Simple Dominance.—Mutations as the revelations of old, hidden forms through crossing have various simple explanations, and one of the simplest has its basis in the Mendelian Law of dominance. Investigation has disclosed that an old, recessive factor which is introduced into a strain of plants or a breed of animals in the beginning, may be concealed for an indefinite number of generations and be brought to light again whenever two individuals, each containing the recessive factor, are mated. How this can be will now be pointed out.

If an albino guinea pig is mated with a pure-breeding (homozygous) black guinea pig, the white character will disappear in the first generation of offspring, since black is dominant and white is recessive. If a male and female of this first, impure-breeding (heterozygous or hybrid) generation are mated, the albino character will reappear in the second filial generation in the proportion of one albino to three black guinea pigs (Fig 30). Thus, for one generation the white character will be concealed and then again revealed. If, however, one of the first, impure (heterozygous) generation of black guinea pigs is crossed with a pure (homozygous) black guinea pig, all of the offspring will still be black. The albino character will not be able to appear, and thus, for two generations, this visible character will be hid. And as long as a pure-breeding (homozygous) black guinea pig is one of the two engaged in the cross, be it male or female, the white character must continue to be hidden. Not until an impure-breeding (heterozygous) black guinea pig is permitted to mate with another impure black animal can the white character again come forth, when it will do so in the ratio three to one. What has been described here as taking place under the control of men can also take place under the control of nature, and thus a very old form, one introduced into the stock at the very beginning (at creation), can be brought to light as an apparently new thing.

(IT'S  LIKE  THE  EXAMPLE  I  GAVE  ELSEWHERE  TO  A  BROTHER  OF  A  STUDENT  I  WAS  TEACHING.  THE  PARENTS  WERE  SHORT [FATHER  ABOUT  5' 4" - MOTHER ABOUT 5'] - THE  ONE  SON  I  WAS  TEACHING  WAS  ABOUT  5' 4" AT AGE 14;  HIS  BROTHER  AT  AGE  16  WAS  6' 8" TALL.  WHEN  YOU  SAW  THEM  TOGETHER  AS  A  FAMILY,  IT  WAS  HARD  TO  BELIEVE  THEY  WERE  ALL  OF  THE  SAME  BIOLOGICAL  FAMILY - Keith Hunt)

One of the characteristics that causes new forms to be called "mutations" is that they appear at very infrequent intervals. It is easy, however, to understand how it could come about in nature that a recessive character should be enabled to appear extremely seldom. If the reader will turn to Figure 30 and imagine, first, that the number of generations presented there, both of the pure (homozygous) and the impure (heterozygous lines, were increased until a million guinea pigs were in existence; second, would then imagine that every white guinea pig was killed; third, would then imagine that the black guinea pigs surviving, and cross bred among themselves promiscuously, a white guinea-pig could appear among the blacks only when two impure-breeding were left to run wild when two impure-breeding (heterozygous) black animals (i. e.
such as are in the middle column) happened to mate. This, as the reader can see, would, on the basis of chance, all other things being equal as in this case, be very seldom. Such occasional white guinea pigs, when they did appear would then be true "mutations" in character.

The Galloway is a black breed of cattle. Very rarely, however, breeders of Galloway cattle are disappointed to find that a red calf has been born. The reason for this phenomenon is described by Babcock and Clausen as follows, "Since red is a simple recessive to black, and since red animals occurred in a foundation stock of the breeds at no very remote time, their appearance is presumably due to chance mating between two animals which were heterozygous for red and probably traced back through an unbroken line of heterozygous ancestors to the foundation stock of the breed" (1). 

The above mentioned professors have made a calculation that if a breeder started with two black cattle which he had secured by mating a dominant black with a recessive red, and which were therefore both heterozygous for red and black (i. e. having genes for both red and black in their germ-cells), and proceeded out of these two to build up a great herd of black cattle by killing off every red animal that was born, in two hundred generations only one per cent of the black cattle would be heterozygous, having genes for red (1). In a vast herd of black cattle thus produced, say ten thousand head, a red calf might at rare intervals be born. Such a red calf would then have all the ear-marks of a "mutation," provided that no man had ever before seen a red calf and did not know that a red factor had been introduced into the herd in the very beginning. Evolutionists once considered the appearance of off-colored, recessive forms in pure domestic breeds of cattle as genuine mutations. Of late they have been compelled to back down from that position. We quote Sinnott and Dunn, "Occasionally, for instance, a red and a white calf appears in a pure-bred herd of black and white Holstein cattle in which only black and white animals have been recorded for several generations. Cole has found that red in such cases is not a new trait, but one which may have been present in the stock for many generations. Being recessive, the factor for red may be carried but not expressed until the chance mating of two heterozygotes provides the opportunity." (14).

Color mutations of the kind described above are among the most common and most characteristic mutations, and they are occasionally appearing in many wild species. In grey field mice and in wild rats, pure white animals very rarely appear.   In skunks an albino animal has been known to occur once in a long while. The same is true in coyotes. 

How we shall look at these, so-called mutations is the question. Shall we consider them as the appearing of old, concealed factors for white color of coats in those species, or shall we consider them as the evolutionists would have us do, as the coming of something truly new into the world? In view of what is known to be possible in the building up of a herd of cattle, and of what actually takes place in the reappearance of red calves in black breeds, it is more than likely that these so-called mutations in skunks and field mice and coyotes and other species are simply due to the fact that there are in those species comparatively few individuals who are heterozygous (i. e. carrying the factor for white in their germs), and it is only very seldom that two of such heterozygous individuals chance to mate. When they do white animals are produced. It is easy to see why so few of such heterozygous individuals should exist in the species mentioned. For one thing, such white varieties of the species are more conspicuous to their enemies than their fellows of a more dark and sober color, and the white forms, when they have appeared, have not been often able to survive long in the particular environments in which they appeared. They have, therefore, been selected out by nature just as the breeder selects out the red in a herd of black cattle he is building up. Figure 38 illustrates the concealment of the single-comb character (a recessive) for many generations in the manner described above. In this diagram the single-comb character might have been brought out at any point along the line by the mating of two hybrid (heterozygous) rose-comb chickens. The manner in which it is brought out in the diagram merely illustrates a special feature of Mendelian heredity in fowls. See Punnett's Mendelism, 6th ed., page 30.

(IT  HAS  BEEN  KNOWN  AND  RECORDED  TWO  WHITE  PEOPLE  BRINGING  FORTH  A  BLACK  BABY;  THOUGH  OF  COURSE  VERY  RARE.  ALL  OF  THIS  GIVES  TRUTH  TO  THE  OFTEN  FUNNY  STATEMENT  ABOUT  A  CHILD  BEING  VERY  DIFFERENT  FROM  THE  PARENTS - "WELL  MAYBE  THE  MILK  MAN  WAS  IN  ALL  OF  THIS."  -  Keith Hunt)

We have discussed one of the simplest manners in which apparently new forms may arise through cross breeding or hybridization by the use of old material, and doubtless this is one of the most common ways. There are, however, other possible ways in which crossing may bring forth old forms new to man. Mendelian investigation has revealed a great complexity in the laws of heredity discovered by Mendel. 

Many modifications of the fundamental laws first discovered have been revealed. These modifications in no way destroy or weaken the general principles of Mendel's discovery. On the contrary they strengthen those principles. The discussion in this appendix does not pretend to be an exposition of the several modifications of Mendel's Laws, but a number of such modifications will be briefly described in order to give some conception of the many different ways it is possible for very old forms to be concealed in species and then be revealed through chance mating.

Explanations of Mutations (2) Complementary Factors.— Most of the outward characters men see in plants and animals are due to the effect of but one factor acting alone. It may in future be discovered by students of heredity that all visible characters are due to the combined effect of many factors instead of one, which at present seems to be the case. It is already known, however, that some visible characters can arise only when two or more factors are present. Bateson and Punnett found that in sweet peas, for example, there are white sweet peas which, when crossed with some white sweet peas, produced only white flowers, but which, when mated with other white sweet peas produce only purple flowers. Investigation of this phenomenon disclosed that in each of the white sweet peas which, by crossing, produced purple flowers, there were two independent factors. Separately each of these two independent factors produce white flowers. Together they produce only colored flowers. By chance two of the right kind of white flowers were mated by Bateson and Punnett, and that mating brought together the two factors which together produce colored-flowers. The first appearance of those colored sweet peas among white sweet peas was of the exact character of a mutation—the sudden, unexpected appearance of something apparently new. The colored flowers, however, were not truly new, for they were exactly like the wild, purple sweet peas that have been growing in Sicily for centuries (14). (See Fig. 57.)

In the above case two factors coming together are necessary to produce a striking change similar in character to a mutation. 

Cases are known, however, when more than two factors are necessary to produce a new form. Purple corn is an odd type of corn that was being raised by the Indians of America when it was discovered. Purple corn, it has been learned, can not be produced in non-purple strains of corn unless four independent factors are brought together. With any one of these four independent factors missing purple corn is not produced (10).

Let the reader at this point pause and consider what this means in regard to producing very rare, yet very old forms by cross breeding. Let him assume, for example, that in a natural species, e. g. fruit-flies, four factors coming together in one individual would produce a white-eyed fly. In order for the white-eyed form to appear two flies would have to mate, one having two of the necessary factors and the other having two, or one having three of the necessary factors and the other having one. Either way the four necessary factors would be brought together and the white-eyed flies would appear. The event might not be a rare one if many or most of the interbreeding flies carried one, two or three of the necessary factors. If, however, many of the flies carried none of the necessary factors, or only one, it would be a rare event indeed when the four required factors got together. But when they did, lo, a mutation. 

The situation can be partially visualized by reference to the game of cards. Those who are familiar with card games know how seldom four of the same kind all fall together in one hand when four people are playing. When eight are playing it is still more seldom. Yet it sometimes happens. This chance  coming  together  of  certain  cards

Fig.57. Illustration of "mutation" produced by complementary factors. The column of flowers at the left, marked AA, represents one strain of white sweet peas. That at the right, marked BB, represents another strain. The two strains are white because of the presence in them of two genes for whiteness that are distinct from one another but which produce exactly the same effect. Separate from one another these genes produce only white flowers, but when they come together in one individual they have the combined effect of producing colored flowers. Designing the gene for white in the left column as A, and the gene for white in the other column as B, in Mendelian terminology it is said that AA produces   white   flowers;   BB   produces   white   flowers;   AB   produces   colored   flowers.

illustrates the chance getting together of multiple factors necessary for the production of new forms. Four seems to be a large number of factors necessary to produce a specific visible character, yet it is said by Mendelian investigators that cases are known in which some visible characters are produced only when there are as many as seven, twelve, and even more factors present together   (14).

Explanation of Mutations [3] Inhibiting Factors.—Of a somewhat similar nature to the cases cited, though not exactly the same, are those cases in which a visible character which might be called a mutation can appear only when one factor is removed. There are known to be cases when certain old forms latent or hidden in plants and animals are prevented from appearing as long as two independent factors are together, but when, by chance mating, these two independent factors are separated, the forms come out. As an example may be taken the case of the chickens called White Leghorns. White Leghorns produce only white chicks when White Leghorns are bred among themselves. But when a White Leghorn is mated with a White Wyandotte, a few, but a very definite proportion of colored offspring appear in the descendants. Investigation of this hereditary phenomenon has revealed that White Leghorns are white because of the presence of two independent factors acting together. White Leghorns are really colored chickens, having the color prevented from appearing by a factor which is called an "inhibitor." This inhibiting factor does nothing but inhibit or prevent the color factor from showing its effect. When, however, this inhibiting factor gets separated from the color factor, as it does in some of the second filial generation when White Leghorns and White Wyandottes are crossed, the color factor shows its effect and colored chickens are produced (14). (See Fig. 58.) No cases are yet known when a certain visible character in a species is inhibited by more than one inhibiting factor. Such cases may be found to exist. But enough is already known to suggest how a rare and apparently new form, a "mutation," may be for ages concealed in a species and only be revealed when by a chance crossing of two varieties the factor inhibiting the form is removed. The removing of inhibiting factors is one very likely way in which dominant mutations are revealed.

Explanations of Mutations [4] Duplicate Factors.—A number of cases are known where there are several independent factors, each of which separately produces the same effect, and each of which is dominant to one and the same kind of recessive factor. In corn, for example, it has been discovered that there is a factor we will call A, which produces yellow color in the kernels. This factor A is dominant over a recessive factor which makes the kernels white. But it has also been discovered that there is another factor in corn, which we will call B, which also produces   yellow   color   in   the   kernels,   and   this   factor   B   is   also

Fig.58. Illustration of "mutation" produced by inhibiting factors. The column at the left represents a pure breed of White Wyandotte poultry. These chickens are white because of a simple factor for whiteness in them. The column at the right represents a pure breed of White Leghorns. These chickens are white exactly like the Wyandottes but for an entirely different reason. White Leghorns have a factor in them which would make them colored were it not for the fact that there is also in them a factor called an "inhibitor" which prevents the color from showing. All colored breeds of Leghorn, chickens, of which there are several, have not this inhibiting factor which makes White Leghorns white. Whenever a White Wyandotte and a White Leghorn are crossed there is a separation of the inhibiting and the color factors in three out of every sixteen second-generation offspring,  and  the color comes out that number of times.

dominant over a factor which produces white. Here, therefore, we have two independent, dominant factors which produce yellow corn, whether they are both present together or whether only one is present. In this case it makes no difference in the visible effect whether one factor for yellow or both factors produce the color. The yellow is just the same, and the white can not appear. If, now, any corn-plant having the single factor for yellow, A, is crossed with a plant having a white factor, all the offspring will be yellow, and if two of these offspring are then mated the white color will again reappear in one out of every four progeny. The same will be true if a plant with the single factor for yellow, B, is crossed with a plant having a factor for white. The first generation of offspring of this cross likewise will be yellow and two of these offspring, if crossed, will produce but one white out of every four progeny. It sometimes happens in corn that both factors for yellow color of kernels, A and B, are together in one plant. When such a plant is crossed with a plant having factors for white, only yellow-kerneled offspring are produced in the first generation. But, when two of the first generation are mated, white kerneled offspring appear only in the proportion of one out of every sixteen, which would give it the character of a mutation, since one of the characteristics of new forms which causes men to call them mutations is that they appear seldom. 

The reader may learn how this is but a simple outworking of Mendel's Law if he will turn to Figure 35 of this book. There he will find in the second filial generation (bottom row) sixteen guinea pigs in all (9 plus 3 plus 3 plus 1 equals 16). If, now, he will imagine that those are corns instead of guinea pigs, and will substitute in that figure the word "yellow" for the word "short" every place "short" appears, and will substitute the word '"yellow" for the word "colored" every place "colored" appears, and will substitute the word "white" for the words "long" and "uncolored" every place those words appear, he will, by bearing in mind that yellow dominates white, see how simply the proportion fifteen to one arises. It would make no difference whether the two dominant factors for yellow were both in one of the original parents and the two recessive factors for white in the other, or whether one factor for yellow were in each parent and one factor for white in each. In the first and subsequent generations the color results would be the same. The first generation would all be yellow, and the second generation be white once in every sixteen offspring. The significance of the fact that a yellow factor might be in each of the original parents is that the presence of the white factor in the stock would thus be concealed and perhaps unknown, and when it was revealed it would seem to be something new.

In the case described above, there are two independent, dominant factors for the same thing and two independent recessives for the same thing. There is known another case, however, where there are three independent, dominant factors for the same thing and  all  three  dominant to  one  kind  of  recessive  form.   This  is the case of wheat (15). It has been found in wheat that there are three independent factors for red color of seeds, all of which are dominant to the same kind of white factor. In such a case recessive white seeds could appear in the second generation of offspring under certain conditions only in one out of every sixty-four. Figure 36 can be made use of in understanding this result.

Fig. 59. Illustration of "mutation" produced by duplicate factors. Left. The two squares at the top represent two parents (male and female) having three pairs of genes in which three similar dominant genes AAA, dominate three similar recessives, aaa. In the male are all the dominant genes, in the female all the recessives. From a mating of these parents only offspring showing the dominant trait will appear in the first generation. But from an intermating of these offspring an average of one offspring showing the recessive trait will appear in every sixty-four in the second generation. Right. The two squares again represent two parents having in them the same three pairs of genes. But in this case the male has only two of the dominant genes, AA, with one recessive, a, and the female has only two recessive genes, aa, with one dominant, A, the result being that male and female parents look alike. Yet the same results will follow in the first and second generation of offspring as when the original male parent carried all the dominant, and the female all the recessive factors. Since the existence of no recessive trait was to be seen in the original parents, its appearance in one of every sixty-four second generation offspring would seem to be the coming forth of  some new thing.

Such white-seeded plants, when they appeared, would be of the nature of mutations. They would appear unexpectedly and very seldom, and would seem to be new. Yet they would be old, held in concealment by three factors, any one of which alone is able to conceal it.155  (See also Fig. 59.)

155 The case of wheat here described differs from the case of corn described above in that the redness of the wheat seeds differs according to the number of factors present. If one factor for red is present there is a certain depth of redness. If two factors for red are present there is a deeper redness, and if three are present still deeper redness. The principle,   however,   remains   the   same.

No actual cases have yet been discovered in any species where there are more than three factors for the same thing, all dominant to one recessive factor. However, it would not be surprising if such should be discovered. Mendelian students have only begun to scratch the surface of the heredity of each individual plant and animal species. It is not at all unlikely that six, eight, and even ten duplicate factors, such as have been described above, exist in some species, and each of these factors is capable of dominating and concealing one and the same old, recessive form. It has been calculated on the basis of Mendel's Law that if there were four duplicate factors in a species and but one kind of recessive to them all, that recessive could appear but once in 256 times. Figure 37 can be used for the understanding of this result. It has been calculated that if there were five duplicate factors and but one kind of recessive, the recessive could appear but once in 1,024 times; that if there were six duplicate factors and one recessive, that recessive could appear but once in 4,096 times; if seven duplicate factors, once in 16,384 times; if eight, once in 65,536 times; if ten, once in 16,777,216 times. Surely, if a form should arise but once in 16,777,216 individuals, men would think they were justified in saying that a truly new form had arisen. Yet it would not necessarily be new at all. It is well to quote here one of the leading students of Mendelism, who has come to realize that no matter how seldom a variety may appear it is not necessarily new. 

Professor Jones of Yale says, "On account of the great complexity which can easily occur in Mendelian phenomenon, it must be emphasized strongly that the numbers in which new forms appear, however, few they may be, is no proof that they are mutations." (10). Prof. Lotsy, the Dutch botanist, says, "Knowing how difficult it is to show, that a given form is free from recessives, we must disqualify, a priori, all claims of having proved the existence of mutations based on the demonstration that a certain form has thrown recessives no matter in how feeble proportions" (II)

Explanation of Mutations [5] Linkage.—Thus far we have considered mutation phenomena which have had their basis entirely in the actions of the factors (genes) themselves. There is, however, another highly important and very likely cause of mutation phenomena, one which has its basis in the way factors are often combined with one another in heredity. This is called "linkage." It has been discovered that some factors do not behave like free and independent units, each one able to go its own way always, independent of all other factors. Some factors behave as if they were tied or linked together with another factor and are limited in their freedom by what that other factor does. In the fruit-fly, for instance, there is a factor which produces black color in the fty, and another factor which produces "vestigial" shape of wings. These two factors, one for black and the other for "vestigial" wings, always tend to stay together in heredity, so that a fly that is black also usually has vestigial wings  (12). Again, in the same species, there is a factor which produces white eyes, and also a factor which produces yellow body color. These two factors always tend to stay together in heredity, so that a fly with white eyes has also usually a yellow body. Sometimes, however, these factors which are linked together, separate. The tie is broken, and the fly with white eyes is produced without having a yellow body. In the case of some species which have been very closely studied the exact percentage of times when the linkage between certain associated factors is broken, or when there is a "cross-over" as it is called, has been learned. The percentage is very regular and evidently follows a definite law.156

Thus far in our discussion of "linkage" little has been disclosed to the reader which can explain mutations. This, however, will appear when it is realized that sometimes in species factors for certain visible characters are linked with inhibiting or lethal factors. A lethal factor is one whose effect is to prevent the individual into which it comes from being formed, or of killing it immediately when it is formed. In the fruit-fly they are known to be exceedingly numerous. Let the reader at this point consider what opportunity a factor for a certain visible character which was tied up with a lethal factor would ever have of expressing itself. It could never express itself as long as it was linked with the lethal, for the reason that the lethal would prevent the organism from being born. 

As a concrete example let us take the white-eye mutation in fruit-flies. Imagine that the factor which produces white eyes in this species is closely linked with a lethal factor. Like Mary's lamb, wherever that factor for white-eyes goes, the lethal factor is also sure to go. What is the result? Whitened flies never appear, because the lethal that goes with it prevents every whitened fly from being born. When, however, might white-eyed flies appear? Answer—whenever the linkage between the factor for white eyes and the lethal factor connected with it is broken and the factor for white eyes comes into an offspring alone. (Fig. 60.)

We have in this modification of Mendel's Law known as "linkage" and "cross-over," as we have already said, one of the most important, if not the chief of all the possible explanations of the rare appearance of apparently new forms. Some mutations appear more often, some less. A simple and satisfactory explanation is that, as is known to be the case, some of these visible forms are very closely tied up with lethal factors and the linkage between the factors producing those visible forms and the lethal factors is seldom broken. Sometimes, however, the tie is broken. "Crossing over" takes place in a chromosome in the right spot, and the visible form is enabled to appear as a new character. The very great importance of linkage as an explanation of mutations is apparent from the following statements. Conklin says, "If recessive factors are linked with a lethal they can not come to expres-

156 Any late book on  genetics will explain the germinal   mechanism underlying the phenomenon of "linkage" and   "cross-overs."

sion, for recessives appear only when mated with other recessives. But if 'crossing over' should take place in such a way as to break the linkage between the lethal and the recessive factors, the latter would, when homozygous, come to expression as ordinary Mendelian recessives" (5). Jones says, "By a crossing-over a lethal factor may be gotten out of one chromosome, and a few pure-breeding individuals may appear. In this way new types may be brought to light, the occurrence of which is similar in every way to the manner in which many mutations in the organism are found to occur" (10). So important are cross-overs as a means of explaining "mutations" that geneticists have wondered whether "all mutations may not be due to crossing over" (12). It is certainly true that it may offer the explanation of a vast number of them.

Fig. 60. Illustration of a "mutation" produced by a cross-over. Number 1 above stands between a single pair of mated chromosomes, one of which, the black (marked A) came from the father, the other of which, the white (marked B) came from the mother. Each of these chromosomes is passed on to the offspring either whole or with parts interchanged. (See No. 4.) The white circles represent genes or factors, which are located on the chromosomes arranged in a series from one end to the other. A single chromosome may have thousands of these factors, for they are exceedingly small. The white circles marked X and Y are two factors close together. Circle X represents a factor for producing some visible character which man has never seen. That factor was put there by the Creator. Circle Y represents a lethal factor of some other kind, which, by its close association with X, prevents X from visible manifestation as long as chromosome A remains intact. When, however, as may happen in germ-cell formation, X and Y becomes separated by a crossing over (See No. 2, 3, 4) and the factors X and Y go into different germ cells, factor X is able to manifest itself in the individual that it goes into. Thus an apparently new form of the species appears to man,  although the  factor which  produced it was creation old.

(AS  IS  OFTEN  SAID  BY  US  WITH  "DIFFERENT"  WHATEVERS  IN  PEOPLE - BROTHERS,  SISTERS,  AND  SO  FORTH,  "IT'S  IN  THE  GENES"  -  REMEMBER  MY  EXAMPLE  OF  A  SON  6'  8"  AT  AGE  16,  TO  A  DAD ABOUT  5'  4"  AND  AND  A  MOM  ABOUT  5'  -  Keith Hunt)

Explanation of Mutations [6] Physical or Chemical Variations in Gene Structure. The genes (factors) in the chromosomes, being physical things, must have some molecular shape. What the shape of any gene is no one knows. Different genes may have different shapes. But it may be that a gene is of such a shape or of such chemisty that it can be turned over or about in its place in such a way as to lie in different positions at different times, and it may be that each new position produces a different visible effect in the adult organism. A gene may be imagined like a child's toy-block, a thing which may lie on any one of six sides. Each different position, in the case of a gene, may produce a different result. To mention a definite case, there is a series of eleven eye-colors in the fruit-fly, that is to say, there are eleven eye-color changes which have occurred, which seem to be due to changes in a single gene located in one spot in the first chromosome, the spot being called the "white-locus." These color-changes range from deep red to pure white. They are red, coral, blood, cherry, eosin, apricot, ivory, tinge, buff, ecru, white. The appearance of these eleven different eye colors at different times can be explained as due to a single gene which produces different colors in the eye depending on the position in which the gene lies. If this gene is shaped like a polygon having eleven sides, each side being able to produce a different effect as the polygon is turned, we have an analogy that can explain very well the changes in eye color that have occurred in the fruit-fly from changes known to be at the white locus. Something causes the gene there to turn over, and when it does a new color appears. It can readably be seen, however, that the causing of mutations by the turning about of a gene is not adding something new to the world any more than it is adding something new if a toy is turned about in different ways. That the above is another possible explanation of mutations is borne out by the statement of Morgan. "There is also another fact that the study of the mutation process has brought to our attention. The same mutation may occur again and again. A list of these recurrent mutations is given elsewhere. The appearance of the same mutant indicates that we are dealing with a specific and orderly process. Its recurrence recalls Galton's famous analogy of the polygon. Each change corresponds to a new stable position (perhaps in a chemical sense) of the gene. Tempting as is the comparison, we must remember that, as yet, we have almost no evidence as to the real nature of the mutation process" (12).

Something must also be said about the very remarkable production of mutations by the use of X-rays and radium rays. Under the leadership of H. J. Miller of Texas  University fruit-

flies and other species of animals and plants have been subjected to these rays, and mutation phenomena have been produced with a far greater frequency than under normal conditions. Exactly what causes the mutations to occur under these rays is not certainly known. It is known that the rays break up the chromosomes, and this breaking up of the chromosomes may release genes for visible characters from lethal connections. The altering of the genes in the manner described in the preceding paragraph is another thing that may occur. But whatever be the explanation of the effect of X-ray and radium rays, the mutations produced by them are not essentially different from those that occur less frequently under normal conditions. In fruit-flies old mutant forms long familiar are produced under X-raying over and over again. A few new mutant forms have been produced, but these may also occur under natural conditions. Prof. M. Drummond of Glasgow University has said, "Miller has shown that when eggs of normal specimens of Drosophila are subjected to X-ray radiation, they give rise to 'mutations' of the same kind as some of those which turn up in Morgan's cultures." Miller himself has said the same thing.

It is obvious from the foregoing that there is no necessity on the basis of the evidence for saying any mutant form is "new" in the strict sense of that word. Some very prominent authorities among evolutionists see this and admit it. Jones says, "As used, the term mutation is given to heritable variations which occur in such a way that no clear reason for their appearance is known. More and more characters, once considered mutations, are now known to be the results of a normal working of a definite mechanism. All mutations may ultimately be understood as the result of an orderly process"  (10).

What one leading evolutionist has had to say about mutations being truly new additions to the world should be told. This is Dr. J. P. Lotsy, of the University of Leyden (also director of the Holland Government Herbarium, and Secretary of the International Association of Botanists). So convinced was Lotsy that the revealing of hidden forms by crossing and not the origination of genuinely new forms by a mysterious, creative process is the cause of mutation phenomena, that he put his ideas into a book called Evolution by Means, of Hybridisation. One of the chief things Lotsy does in his book is to show that those who argue that mutations are something genuinely new do not show that the conditions are fulfilled which would prove without a doubt that mutations are the production of new things. To establish clearly that a genuinely new form had come into the world by "mutation," Lotsy says that it would be necessary to show without any question that the race or stock out of which an apparently new form came did not contain that form previously in a hidden condition. The analogy Lotsy uses is a good one. He said a man might claim that he had gotten silver out of nickel by a change in the element nickel, and would prove it by showing the silver. His proof, Lotsy said, would be lacking in certainty until the man had first proved that the nickel was pure and absolutely did not contain any silver to begin with. This, Lotsy says, is what those who claim mutations are genuinely new things fail to do. They fail to show that the stocks or races out of which new forms came did not contain them already. He says, "Mendelism could show us that such a mutation (i. e. something new added) had taken place if we were sure—it is the old difficulty again—of the specific purity of the material from which the supposed mutants arose. Does the classic subject of mutation, Oenothera Lamarckiana (Evening Primrose) give us proof of the existence of such mutations? The answer is an unconditional: 'No'" (11). He then goes on to say that getting "mutants" out of the Evening Primrose, on which the theory of evolution by mutation was first based by de Vries, is "comparable to the bringing to light the presence of silver in a lead-ore containing silver." In other words, every mutant form from the Evening Primrose was already present in the species. Lotsy then further states that he can not accept any case of reported mutation as a genuine case because in no such case has it been proved satisfactorily that the stock from which the new form rose 'was pure' to start with. After specifying a certain test for purity which any breed of animals or strain of plants must be able to stand before a new form can truly be said to have arisen from it by mutation, Lotsy says, "As far as I am aware, no pretended case of mutation can stand this test" (11). Perfect purity is an absolute essential in the proof that a genuine mutation has occurred, and in no case where a mutation has occurred has perfect purity beforehand been established.

Old forms being brought out by crossing is the simplest explanation of all mutation phenomena. Evolutionists as a whole, however, refuse to accept it. The reason has already been suggested. Such an explanation is a denial of evolution. 

This is acknowledged by Conklin when he says, "Lotsy maintains that all mutations arise in this way (by crossing). But such an explanation does not account for the existence of the original 'elementary species,' and if they be referred to still earlier crossings it is evident that we only put off the explanation to a more remote period" (5). Of like tenor are the words of Professor Coulter of Chicago University. He says, "Evolution through 'hybridization' is a theory that was suggested by Weismann some decades ago, and has recently been developed and championed by Lotsy . . . While there is little question that natural hybridization takes place and may be a real factor in producing new varieties, at the same time this theory is not satisfactory as a 'complete' explanation of evolution. It seems rather obvious that, although hybridization can multiply variations through crossing forms that are already different from each other, it can never account for the 'original' differences" (6). 

And clearest of all are the words of Castle, "Some refer all multiplicity of varieties to past hybridization of species genetically different, but this is only referring to a more remote period the genetic changes which are involved in the   origin   of   the   hypothetical   species   themselves.   The   genetic changes must have occurred sometime if related species really had a common orgin as we, under the Darwinian theory, suppose" (4) :157 One evolutionist, Gates, complainingly calls the explanation of new forms by crossing a "bogey" (7).

Evolutionists can not prove by science that any mutant form is a genuinely new "creation," nor can believers in the Bible prove that any particular form is creation old. Evolutionists and creationists both must hold their contrary views purely as matters of faith. There are, however, positive indications that mutant forms called by the evolutionists "new additions" to the world are not modern additions by any means.

First, in this connection, is the fact that nearly every mutation, which has been observed to occur in the fruit-fly in Morgan's laboratories has occurred more than once. The mutation called "white-eye" has occurred 25 times; that called "vestigial" (wing) 6 times; that called "eyeless" 2 times; that called "ebony" 10 times; that called "bar-eye" 2 times; that called "pink" (eye) 11 times; that called "vermilion" (eye) 12 times; that called "dachs" (legs) 2 times (12). These are typical examples of the occurrence of all mutations in this species. "The reappearance of the same mutant," says Morgan, "indicates that we are dealing with a specific and orderly process" (12). He also says, "We must remember that the majority of mutants we find are not new, but have probably been rejected many times by natural selection, for some of the same mutants appear over and over again in our cultures. New ones, too, are continually appearing—new in the sense that we have never seen them before. These, too, have no doubt occurred elsewhere" (12). Does not this repeated appearance of exactly the same form in a species indicate that old things are involved rather than that new things are created each time they appear?

Second, in this connection, is the fact that some mutations which have occurred in modern times and are said to be "new" are known to be hundreds of years old. Prof. Lotsy uses as one of his proofs that mutations are not new the case of a variety of petunia with green-rimmed petals which was observed to arise in 1830 in England and arose again in 1914 in his own garden (11). How many times that mutant form arose unnoticed no one knows. One of the most talked-of mutations of so-called new things in animals is the polled or hornless condition in cattle, which is known to be due to a Mendelian factor. This mutation is very often cited as one of the instances of "new" forms arising by mutation. Professor W. M. Goldsmith (8) of Indiana University says, "The present critic (Goldsmith) would prefer not to deceive his readers into believing that new characters are not arising de novofrom unexplainable sources. This sudden appearance in plants and animals of new characters which breed true is called a MUTA-

157 We find this kind of argument all through the evolutionary discussion. Evolution must be true, therefore there are "faults" in nature's arrangements of the geological layers, and "falsifications" in the way nature develops embryos, etc. The theory of evolution is a bald assumption, and natural facts must fit the theory or so  much  the  worse  for  the  facts.

TION and is held by many of the most eminent living scientists to be one of the principal factors which is determining the direction of evolution. Numerous examples of mutation may be found by referring to the index of any recent book dealing with the various problems of Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics. Among the classical examples might be cited the hornless 'Herefords' (1889)." Yet the Greek historian Herodotus (425 B. C), tells us that the cattle of the ancient Scythians were hornless (16). Hence we know the factor for poll or hornlessness was in existence five hundred years before the time of Christ. A fact worth noticing is that the same mutant forms which have appeared in the fruit-flies with which Morgan experimented appeared also in the same, species in the experiments of other men in other parts of the world, although the flies these men have used were not procured from Morgan but were gathered independently in their own localities. The evolutionists explain this condition by saying that the original "creations" of the factors for those mutant forms must have occurred far enough back in the past for the factors to become multiplied and scattered abroad in the germ cells of the species everywhere. How old the factors must be for this to be true we can not say. They must be quite old, to say the least. But is it not a peculiar kind of faith which can believe that factors can be as old as that and yet be sure, as all evolutionists claim to be, that God did not create those factors and put them in the species by an act of special creation as the Scriptures declare?

(YES  AS  TWO  WRITERS  OF  THE  MODERN  BOOK  CALLED  THEIR  BOOK:  "I  DON'T  HAVE  ENOUGH  FAITH  TO  BE  AN  ATHEIST"  -  Keith Hunt)

Modern genetical knowledge gives the following picture of the make-up of the germ or "seed" (to use the Biblical expression), of every "kind" which God created. Each species has a set of chromosomes of a number that is constant (except when such temporal things as non-disjunction and polyploidy occur). These sets of chromosomes are the bearers of the genes, which are in some species exceedingly numerous: The fruit-fly Drosophila Melanogaster, with a set of four chromosomes, is estimated to have five thousand genes. Man, with a set of twenty-four chromosomes, has perhaps 100,000 genes, each one able to affect in some way the size of the human body, the shape of the skull, the texture of skin, slant of eye, color of hair and so on. 

(REMEMBER  THIS  BOOK  WAS  LAST  PUBLISHED  IN  1958.  TODAY  THE  SCIENTISTS  HAVE  PROVED  THE  HUMAN  HAS,  TO  THIER  ASTONISHMENT,  ONLY  30,000  GENES;  BUT  HOW  THOSE  GENES  TOGETHER  WITH  CELL  FORMATION,  FIT  TOGETHER  MAKE  A  HUMAN,  A  HUMAN.  MANY  INSECTS  AND  ANIMALS  MAY  WELL  HAVE  AS  MANY  GENES  AS  THE  HUMAN;  BUT  NOW  SCIENCE  KNOWS  THERE  IS  MUCH  MORE  TO  HOW  GENES,  CELLS,  AND  DNA,  FIT  TOGETHER  TO  MAKE  THE  HUMAN  WAY  ABOVE  ANY  ANIMAL  OR  INSECT  -  Keith Hunt)

The genes were placed in the species by the Creator at creation, together with a definite mechanism or orderly process by which they could at different times reveal their effects. With the information about genes which modern discovery has given, the color of Adam and Eve can be surmised. Judging from what is known of "multiple factors" for color in wheat, corn, flies and other animals, there are also multiple factors for color of skin in man-—-many factors for red, black, yellow, white, and these factors have become grouped together in the various races. If there are, as is, practically certain,, multiple factors for color of skin in man, and if Adam and Eve were mulattos—a shade a mixture of black, white, red, and yellow —it is easy for geneticists to see how their color genes could become grouped and selected by ….influences so as to form the various colors of the races.

To sum the whole matter up we may say that "mutation" is nothing but the revelation of types within species provided for by the Creator in His acts of special creation.

LITERATURE CITED

Babcock,  E. B.,  and  Clausen,  R. E.,  Genetics in Relation to Agriculture, 1927, pages 239, 246, 251.

Bailey, L. H., and Gilbert, A. W., Plant Breeding, 1917, pages 91, 90.

Burbank,   L.,   His  Methods  and Discoveries,   1914,   Vol.   II, page 97.

Castle, W. E., Genetics and Eugenics, 1926, pages 265-266.

Conklin, E.  G., Heredity and Environment,  1925, pages 280, 277, 279.

Coulter, M. E., Outline of Genetics, 1923, page 10.

Gates, R. R., Mutations and Evolution, 1921, pages 22, 74.

Goldsmith, W. W., Evolution and Christianity, 1925, page 61.

Jennings, H. S.,  Creation by Evolution  (Mason),  1928, page 23.

Jones, D. F., Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement, 1925, pages 75; 169-170.

Lotsy, J. P., Evolution by Means of Hybridisation, 1916. pages 38, 31, 38, 55.

Morgan, T. H., The Genetics of Drosophila, 1925, pages 217-239; 28-32; 23-24. Evolution and Genetics, 1925, pages 111-113; Theory of the Gene, 1926, pages 66, 91, 66; Yale Review, April, 1928.

Newmann, H. H., Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, 1921, page 364.

Sinnott, E. W., and Dunn, L. C, Principles of Genetics, 1925, pages 32, 303, 95, 23, 104, 32.

Walker H. E., Genetics, 1922, page 186.

Herodotus, Book IV—29  (Translation by Henry Cary, 1899).

………………..

WOW…THAT  WAS  A  LARGE  ONE  TO  SCAN  AND  EDIT  AND  GET  READY  TO  UPLOAD;  BUT  IT'S  DONE.

WE  AGAIN  HAVE  TO  LAUGH  AT  THE  TEACHING  OF  EVOLUTION.  WE  HAVE  VARIETIES  IN  NEARLY  ALL  SPECIES;  BUT  DOGS  ARE  STILL  DOGS,  CATS  ARE  STILL  CATS,  HORSES  ARE  STILL  HORSES;  AND  ETC.  AND  HORSES  NEVER  THINK  OF  BREEDING  WITH  COWS  AND  SO  ETC.  ON  THAT  AGAIN.

IF  EVOLUTION  IS  AN  EVER  ONGOING  STATE,  AND  THINGS  ARE  SUPPOSED  TO  ADAPT  TO  CLIMATE  AND  WHATEVER,  WHY  HAS  NOT  THE  ESKIMO  ADAPTED  TO  GROWING  LONG  HAIR  OVER  THEIR  BODY  TO  PROTECT  FROM  THE  COLD?

WHY  DID  EVOLUTION  HAVE  THE  MONARCH  BUTTERFLY  FLYING  HUNDREDS  AND  THOUSANDS  OF  MILES  TO  MEXICO  FOR  THE  WINTER?  IF  IT  COULD  LIVE  WHERE  IT  WAS  BORN,  WHY  BOTHER  EVOLVING  TO  GO  TO  MEXICO?  AND  HOW  DID  EVOLUTION  FIGURE  THAT  ONE  OUT;  HOW  TO  TRAVEL  THERE?

WHY  DID  THE  CATERPILLAR  BOTHER  TO  EVOLVE  INTO  A  BUTTERFLY?  IT  COULD  JUST  LIVE  AND  EAT  AWAY  ON  LEAVES  FOR  ITS  LIFETIME.  AND  HOW  DID  EVOLUTION  FIGURE  OUT  IN  ADVANCE  ALL  THE  STAGES  OF  EVOLVING  INTO  A  BUTTERFLY?

TRULY  THE  BIBLE  STATES:  "ONLY  THE  FOOL  HAS  SAID  IN  HIS  HEART  THERE  IS  NO  GOD."

Keith Hunt