Chapter II: Part 2

Text size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“To die, to sleep. To sleep? perchance to dream—
Aye, there’s the rub.”

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

GENEALOGY OF MAN

Monera (Plasm)
│
Amœbæ (Cells)
│
Synamœbæ (Multiple cell-forms)
│
Ciliata
│
Gastrœada
│
Turbellaria (Vermes)
│
Scolecida
│
Himatega (Sack-worm)
│
Acrania (Vertebrata)
│
Monorrhini
│
Selachii (Pisces)
│
┌──────────────┴─────────┐
│ │
Dipnoi Ganoidei
│ │
Sozobranchii Teleostei
│
Urodela
│
Protamnia
│
┌─────┴────────────────────┐
Reptilia Monotremata (Mammalia)
│ │
┌────────┴───────┐ Marsupialia
Aves Reptilia │
Placentalia

Placentalia
│
┌────────────────────────┼───────────────────────┐
│ │ │
Villiplacentalia Zenoplacentalia Discoplacentalia
│ Carnaria Prosimiæ
│ _______│_____________ │
┌───┴────┬───────┐ |Carnivora Pinnipedia| │
│ │ │ │
Edentata Ungulata Cetacea ┌────────┬──────────┬───┴─────┬──────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ Simiæ Prosimiæ Insectivora Rodentia │
│ (Apes) (Lemurs) │
│ │ Cheiroptera
│ └──────────┬───────────────┐
┌───────┴─────┬──────────┐ │ │
Solidungula Ruminantia Pachydermata Catarrhini Platyrrhini
Menocerca
│
┌─────┴───────────┐
Tailed Baboons Authropoidæ
+ Macaques Man-like Apes
│
┌────────────────┬─────────────┬─────┘
Gibbon and Chimpanzee Alali
Orang Gorilla (Ape-like Men)
│
┌─────────┴───────┐
Woolly-haired Straight-haired
Alali Alali
│ │
┌──────────┬──────────┬───────┤ ┌──────┴───────┐
Papuan Hottentot Negro Caffre Polynesian Australian
or Malay │
│
┌──────────────────────┴─────┐
Caucasian Mongolian
or Iranian or Turanian
│ │
┌─────┴─────┐ ┌───────────┴────┐
Aryan or Semitic Mongols Mongols
Indo-European of China of America

SECTION OF EARTH’S CRUST

Showing the different Geological Strata and Biological Ascent

TERTIARY PERIOD IN EUROPE.

A. AUSTRALIAN (PROGNATHOUS). B. AFRICAN (PROGNATHOUS). C. EUROPEAN (ORTHOGNATHOUS).]

MAN’S ANTIQUITY.

When we reflect on the magnitude of the pre-Christian Alexandrian libraries, as well as the magnificent appointments attaching to and lavish wealth expended upon the ancient University of the capital of the Ptolemies, we seem almost unable to realise the fact that people of education and intellect, until quite lately, believed that all this intellectual and literary magnificence had reached that pitch of excellence in the short space of less than four thousand years. In this period of time it was believed that man had so far risen in intellectual capacity from the absolutely ignorant condition of the first pair as described in Genesis as to have reached that state of mental perfection possessed by the professors in the Alexandrian, Athenian, and Sicilian schools. We can see Professor Euclid pointing out on the blackboard how, the sides of a rectilinear polygon all touching a circle, the area of the polygon is equal to the rectangle contained by the radius of the circle and the semi-perimeter of the polygon; Professor Archimedes would be explaining the theory that, if a force act upon a body, the measure of the force in absolute units is numerically equal to the time-rate of change of momentum and to the space-rate of change of kinetic energy; Professor Eratosthenes would be impressing upon his class the importance of the knowledge of the globular shape of the earth; and Professor Hipparchus would be startling his hearers by stating that he would show them how the failure of the sun to reach the same point in the same time in his annual circuit (according to the old geocentric theory) caused the vernal equinoxial sign to give place to the next zodiacal sign every 2,152 years.

Here was a galaxy of intellectual attainments indeed! With such a picture before our eyes we are calmly asked to believe that so little time as less than four thousand years had been sufficient for the building up of this vast intellectual edifice out of such rude materials as the man and woman of Eden, when the two thousand years following have been productive of so little advancement, notwithstanding the exquisite materials upon which to work that were left for us by the Alexandrian and Athenian sages. We cannot believe so evident an absurdity to-day; and yet it is little more than half a century since the whole of Christendom accepted without any doubt whatever the old traditional statement of the Church that man had only inhabited this earth for rather less than six thousand years.

How is it, then, that we have believed the traditionary story for so long and now reject it as absurd? People have believed the story of the creation according to Genesis partly because it was dangerous to do otherwise and partly because there was no absolute proof to the contrary. In 1774, however, a German of the name of Esper made a discovery which gave the finishing touch to the mortal wound inflicted upon the Christian and Jewish superstitions by the previous adoption of the Copernican system of astronomy; and, just as Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton drove the first half-dozen nails into the coffin of the Bible, so did this discovery of Esper drive into it the first of the last half-dozen, the remaining five to be subsequently added by Darwin, Huxley, Lyell, Spencer, and Carpenter. The discovery made by J. F. Esper consisted of some human bones, mingled with remains of the Northern bear and other species then unknown, which were lying in the famous cavern of Gailenreuth, in Bavaria; and this was soon followed by the discovery, in 1797, by John Frere, at Hoxne, in Suffolk, of a number of flint weapons, mixed up with bones of extinct animals, the whole being embedded in rocks. These and other similar discoveries made some sensation among scientific men, which resulted in the publication, in 1823, of Dr. Buckland’s “Reliquiæ Diluvianæ,” in which the author summed up all the facts then known tending to the establishment of the truth that man co-existed with animals long since extinct. Immediately after this, in 1826, Tournal, of Narbonne, gave to the world an account of some discoveries he had made in a cave in Aude (France), where he had found bones of the bison and reindeer, cut and carved by the hand of man, together with remains of edible shell-fish, which must have been brought there by some one who dwelt there. A few years afterwards De Christol, of Montpellier, discovered human bones and fragments of pottery, mixed with the remains of the Northern bear, hyæna, and rhinoceros, in the caverns of Pondres and Souvignargues. In 1833 Schmerling found in the caverns of Engis and Enghihoul, in Belgium, two human skulls, surrounded by teeth of the rhinoceros, elephant, bear, and hyæna, on some of which were marks of human workmanship, and under which were flint knives and arrow-heads. Two years afterwards Joly, a Montpellier professor, found in the cave of Nabrigas (Lozère) the skull of a cave-bear, having upon it marks made by an arrow, beside which were scattered fragments of pottery bearing the imprints of human fingers. Following upon these discoveries were those made in 1842 by Godwin Austen at Kent’s Cavern, near Torquay, consisting of animal remains and results of man’s handiwork; and those made in 1844, by Lund, in the caves of Brazil, consisting of skeletons of thirty human beings, an ape, various carnivora, rodents, pachyderms, sloths, etc. Kent’s Cavern, in 1847, was again the spot to which all eyes were turned; for there McEnery had found, under a layer of stalagmite, the remains of men and extinct animals. This remarkable discovery was followed, in the same year, by the appearance of a work by Boucher de Perthes, of Abbeville, in which he described the flint tools, etc., found in the excavations made there and in the Somme valley as far as Amiens. In 1857 the celebrated Neanderthal skull was discovered; and in 1858 Prestwich, Falconer, and Pengelly (Englishmen) found more flint implements in the lower strata of the Baumann cave, in the Hartz mountains, at the same time that Gosse _fils_ obtained from the sand-pits of Grenelle various flint implements and bones of the mammoth; while in the following year Fontan discovered in the cave of Massat (Ariége) utensils, human teeth, and bones of the cave-bear, hyæna, and cave-lion. Near Bedford, about the same time, Wyatt found, in the gravel-beds, flints similar to those found at Abbeville, and bones of the mammoth, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, ox, horse, and deer; which discovery was soon followed by that of the celebrated human burial place at Aurignac, by Lartet, in 1860, in which were found human remains, together with bones of the bear, reindeer, bison, hyæna, wolf, mammoth, and rhinoceros, a number of flint and horn implements, and the remaining ashes of fires. The world was at last induced to give some heed to the new cry of man’s extreme antiquity when Boucher de Perthes, of Abbeville, in 1863, discovered at Moulin-Quignon, at a depth of fifteen feet, in a virgin argilo-ferruginous bed belonging to the later Pleiocene or early Pleistocene period, the half of a human lower jaw-bone (which had belonged to an aged person of small stature), covered with an earthy crust, by the side of which lay a flint hatchet, covered with the same kind of crust; and not far from which were also buried, in the same bed, two mammoths’ teeth. After this discovery scientific men generally subscribed to the new theory of the antiquity of man, and all seemed eager to pursue their investigations without delay, the result being that we are now receiving, almost day by day, fresh evidence on the subject, and hope soon to arrive at a tolerably accurate conclusion as to the earliest date of man’s appearance upon earth.

Let us now look more closely at the discoveries made in the various caves referred to above, and also see what advances had been made by geologists in other directions during the same period, as well as what amount of progress has been made during the last twenty years. Dr. Schmerling, the Belgian geologist and comparative anatomist, after exploring the Engis and other caves in the province of Liège, published an illustrated work, giving the results of his investigations, which were highly interesting, and contributed largely to the establishment of the theory of man’s antiquity. In these caves Schmerling found the bones of the cave-bear, hyæna, elephant, and rhinoceros, together with human bones, none of which gave any evidence of having been gnawed, from which circumstance it was inferred that these caves had not been the dwelling-places of wild beasts; and the fact that the bones were scattered about without any order having been observed in their distribution pointed to the conclusion that the caves had not been used as burying-places. Probably, therefore, these remains had been washed into the caves from time to time, and had gradually become covered with deposit, and thus protected and preserved. There were no complete skeletons found; but in the Engis cave were discovered the remains of at least three human beings, the skull of one being embedded by the side of a mammoth’s tooth, and in such a state of disintegration that it fell to pieces on being moved; while the skull of another, an adult, was buried, five feet deep, by the side of a tooth of a rhinoceros, several bones of a horse, and some reindeer bones. Besides the bones, there were also discovered some rude flint implements, a polished bone needle, and other products of man’s industry, all embedded in the same layer as the bones. It follows from these facts that man lived on the banks of the Meuse at the same time as the rhinoceros, mammoth, hyæna, and cave-bear, extinct animals of the Pleiocene and early Pleistocene era.

Not far from these caves are those of the Lesse Valley, in which Dupont discovered, in 1864, three different layers of human and other remains, the lowest of which contained the bones of the mammoth, rhinoceros, and other extinct animals, together with flint instruments of the rudest type, instruments of reindeer horn, and a human lower jaw with a marked resemblance to the lower jaw of the higher apes. Another discovery at some little distance away from these caves was made in 1857 in what is called the Neanderthal Cave, in the valley of the Düssel, between Düsseldorf and Elberfeld, which is important, not so much as an indication of the length of time that man has lived on the earth, as of the close resemblance existing between the skulls of human beings in the early Pleistocene era and the skulls of apes. The discovery consisted of a human skull and a number of human bones, together with the bones of the rhinoceros, which latter were subsequently unearthed. The skull was of such a character as to raise the question of whether it was human or not, the forehead being narrow and very low and the projection of the supra-orbital ridges enormously great. The long bones of the skeleton agreed with those of men of the present day in respect to length, but were of extraordinary thickness, and the ridges for the attachment of muscles were developed in an unusual degree, showing that the individual was possessed of great muscular strength, especially in the thoracic neighbourhood. Drs. Schaafhausen and Fuhlrott pointed out that the depression of the forehead was not due to any artificial pressure, as the whole skull was symmetrical, and that the individual must have been distinguished by an extraordinarily small cerebral development as well as uncommon corporeal strength. Professor Huxley considers this Neanderthal skull to be the most ape-like one he ever beheld, and Busk, a great authority, gives valuable reasons for supposing it to be the skull of an individual occupying a position midway between the man and the gorilla or chimpanzee. Huxley has carefully compared the Engis and Neanderthal skulls, and his remarks upon them are given in their entirety in Lyell’s “Antiquity of Man.” From these remarks we gather that the Engis skull was dolichocephalic in form, extreme length 7.7 inches, extreme breadth not more than 5.25 inches, forehead well arched, superciliary prominences well but not abnormally developed, horizontal circumference 20½ inches, longitudinal arc from nasal spine to occipital protuberance 13¾ inches, transverse arc from one auditory foramen to the other, across the middle of the sagittal suture, 13 inches. The Neanderthal skull is so different from the Engis skull that Huxley says “it [Neanderthal] might well be supposed to belong to a distinct race of mankind.” It is 8 inches in extreme length, 5.75 inches in breadth, and only 3.4 inches from the glabello-occipital line to the vertex; the longitudinal arc is 12 inches, and the transverse arc probably about 10¼ inches, but, owing to incompleteness of temporal bones, this could not be correctly ascertained; the horizontal circumference is 23 inches, which high figure is due to the vast development of the superciliary ridges; and the sagittal suture, notwithstanding the great length of the skull, only 4½ inches. Huxley sums up his examination of the Neanderthal skull in these words: “There can be no doubt that, as Professor Schaafhausen and Mr. Busk have stated, this skull is the most brutal of all known human skulls, resembling those of the apes, not only in the prodigious development of the superciliary prominences and the forward extension of the orbits, but still more in the depressed form of the brain-case, in the straightness of the squamosal suture, and in the complete retreat of the occiput forward and upward from the superior occipital ridges;” and he then proceeds to clearly show that the skull could not have belonged to an idiot. On the whole, the Engis skull more clearly approaches the Caucasian type, while the Neanderthal differs entirely from all known human skulls, being more nearly allied to the chimpanzee than to the human. Both these skulls belonged to individuals who lived in the early Pleistocene era, the Engis being probably the older of the two, and yet the Engis is the most like the modern European skull, which tells us plainly that in those remote times there were existing in Belgium and the surrounding districts two different races of men, one highly advanced in brain evolution and the other in a wretchedly low condition of intellectual development. The Neanderthal skull probably formed part of an individual belonging to the tail-end of a semi-human race, while the Engis skull, in all probability, belonged to an oriental immigrant belonging to a more advanced race. It must be always remembered that scientific men have long since admitted the truth of the theory that the differences in character between the brain of the highest races of men and that of the lowest, though less in degree, are of the same order as those which separate the human from the ape brain, the same rule holding good in regard to the shape of the skull.

The discoveries made in Kent’s Cavern, in the year 1842 and again in 1847, led to a thorough investigation of the series of galleries forming the now celebrated Brixham Caves, near Torquay, and as early as 1859 the labours of the explorers were rewarded by the discovery of a number of flint implements in the cave-earth or loam, _underneath_ the layer of stalagmite, which were the work of men living in Palæolithic times, prior to the existence of the reindeer, whose antlers were found deposited _in_ the layer of stalagmite. Previous to this time, when McEnery, in 1826, examined Kent’s Cavern, he had stated that he had found several teeth of _Ursus cultridens_, a huge carnivore belonging to Tertiary formations, but now extinct; and as this monster was first known in Meiocene deposits in France, but had never been traced in any cavern or fluviatile Pleistocene deposits, although it had occurred in Pleiocene formations, considerable excitement was caused on the score that the flint implements lately found might possibly have belonged to Meiocene, or at latest early Pleiocene men. Further investigations were accordingly commenced for the purpose of solving this problem, the explorations being under the superintendence of Messrs. Vivian and Pengelley; and in 1872 they at last came upon a fine incisor of _Ursus cultridens_ in the uppermost part of the cave-earth, which settled the point as to man’s existence at the same time with the extinct bear in England. The Kent’s Cavern deposits are as follows:—1. Limestone. 2. Black mould, containing articles of mediæval, Romano-British, and pre-Roman date. 3. Stalagmite floor, from 16 to 20 inches thick, containing a human jaw and remains of extinct animals. 4. Black earth, containing charcoal and other evidence of fire, and also bone and flint instruments. 5. Red cave-earth, containing Palæolithic implements and bones and teeth of extinct animals, such as cave-lion, mammoth, rhinoceros, and hyæna, and including the tooth of the _Ursus cultridens_, or _Machairodus latidens_. 6. Second stalagmite floor, from 3 to 12 feet thick, covering bones of bears only. 7. Dark red sandy loam, containing bones of bears, three flint implements, and one flint chip. The fact of the _Ursus cultridens_ being contemporary in England with man is of enormous interest to geologists and anthropologists, for it places the date of Palæolithic man as far back as the Pleiocene age, instead of, as heretofore, in the Pleistocene.

The caves of the Dordogne Valley in south-western France have supplied us with some very good relics of a very remote period. They are situated in rocks of Cretaceous age, and form shelters in which ancient huntsmen used to find dwelling-places, leaving behind them refuse-heaps and instruments of various kinds. In the Vezère Caves, which are included in the Dordogne series, there is one of very ancient date, Le Moustier, in which is a bed of sand having both above and below floors of a similar character, containing charcoal, flint instruments, and other remains. The depth of this sandy bed is about 10 inches, having the appearance of a river deposit; and, although many flint instruments have been found in it of a more ancient date than those unearthed in the other caves, yet no worked bone instruments have been discovered. In another cave, the Langerie, bronze and polished stone objects have been found, together with various kinds of pottery, below which, and under masses of fallen rock, covered with Palæolithic flints and sculptured bones and antlers of reindeer, a human skeleton was discovered lying under a block of stone. In another cave, La Madeleine, was found a mammoth tusk, on which was rudely carved a picture of the animal itself, proving incontestably that cave-men lived here in mammoth times. In the Mentone cave Dr. Rivière, in 1872, suddenly came upon the bones of a human foot, which caused him to make a very careful examination of the deposit, the result being that he unearthed an entire human skeleton at a depth of 20 feet, surrounded by a large number of unpolished flint flakes and scrapers, and a fragment of a skewer, about six inches long. No metal, pottery, or polished flint was found; but bones of extinct mammals were scattered about, thus suggesting a remote Palæolithic antiquity. The skeleton is 5 feet 9 inches high, the skull dolichocephalic, forehead narrow, temple flattened, and facial angle measuring 80 to 85 degrees; the teeth were worn flat by eating hard food, and the long bones are strong and flattened.

No human bones have as yet been discovered in the deposit of the Somme valley, where so many Palæolithic flints have been found; but in the valley of the Seine, at Clichy, Messrs. Bertrand and Reboux found, in 1868, portions of human skeletons in the same beds where Palæolithic implements had been embedded. These bones were found at a depth of seventeen feet, and included a female skull of very inferior type, having enormously thick frontal bone and a low, narrow roof, slanting from before backwards. A very good specimen of human fossil is that known as the “Denise Fossil Man,” comprising the remains of more than one skeleton found in a volcanic breccia near Le Puy-en-Velay, in Central France. These bones have been very carefully examined by the members of the French Scientific Congress, as also the deposit in which they were found, and the opinion arrived at is that the fossils are genuine and their age early Pleistocene. Another most interesting specimen of ancient human remains is the skeleton found buried under four Cypress forests, superimposed one upon the other, in the delta of the Mississippi, near New Orleans, at a depth of sixteen feet. Dr. Dowler ascribes to this skeleton an antiquity of at least 50,000 years, reckoning by the minimum length of time that must have elapsed during the formation of the deposits found and the sinking of the four successive forest beds. In another part of the same delta, near Natchez, a human bone, _os innominatum_, accompanied by bones of the mastodon and megalonyx, was washed out of what is believed to be a still more ancient alluvial deposit. Dr. Dickeson, in whose possession the said bone is now, states that it was buried at a depth of thirty feet, and geologists agree that its date is very early, some maintaining that it is probably of a higher antiquity than any yet discovered.

From these discoveries it is abundantly evident that man existed on the earth contemporaneously with the mastodon and other extinct mammals belonging to the Pleiocene and early Pleistocene eras. There are, however, people who stoutly deny that this can be so—at any rate, as regards Northern and Central Europe—and who rank the discoveries at Moulin Quignon, Engis, Kent’s Cavern, etc., with late Pleistocene remains. They maintain that the beds in which these relics were found could not have been of Pleiocene or early Pleistocene formation, inasmuch as they lie _above_ the till and boulder-clay which form the glacial deposits of the time when Europe was an Arctic region—that is to say, of late Pleistocene times. Therefore, they say, man’s earliest existence in Europe was post-glacial or late Pleistocene. But while the fact of the human remains having been discovered above the boulder-clay appears to point to a post-glacial date, still there is confronting us the perplexing anomaly of the contemporary existence of extinct mammals belonging to a tropical fauna, which, if we accept this theory, involves the necessity of admitting that a tropical climate followed the last glacial epoch—a condition of things that we know never existed at all. The fact is there have been more periods of glaciation than one, each being followed by the deposition of boulder-clays; and between the periods of intense Arctic cold there were intervals of tropical or sub-tropical heat, when mammals belonging to and requiring a tropical climate ventured as far north as the north of England, to become extinct when the period of glaciation supervened. The last glacial period, we know, extended its area of influence as far as the high peaks of Switzerland and Northern Italy, completely overwhelming the whole of Northern Europe as far south as the latitude of 45º, and the whole of North America as far south as the latitude of 40º; since when there has been a gradual diminution of cold until the present temperate climate supervened. Now, if it can be positively ascertained that all the boulder-clays found in England and Northern Europe were deposited during and immediately after this last glacial period, the date of man’s first appearance in those districts, as far as we have as yet any evidence, must be post-glacial; but in such a case it would have been impossible that a tropical fauna and flora could have existed in the same localities, whereas their remains have been abundantly found lying side by side with the remains of Palæolithic man. The conclusion we must draw is that the boulder-clays found below the remains of Palæolithic man could not have been deposited after the last period of glaciation, but must have followed some prior glacial condition, and that man existed in England and Northern Europe contemporaneously with extinct mammalia during inter-glacial or pre-glacial times, when the climate of England was tropical or sub-tropical—that is to say, in middle Pleistocene or late Pleiocene times. If man really existed in England in Pleiocene times, in favour of which view there appears to be strong evidence, he would have been in all probability the companion of the extinct tropical mammalia found deposited in the Cromer Forest beds, and some of which belonged to Meiocene times. This forest was in existence at the close of the Pleiocene era, and stretched from Cromer far away into what is now the German Ocean, uniting Norfolk and Suffolk to Holland and Belgium; but soon after the commencement of the Pleistocene period the North Sea gradually swept over the old continent between Britain on the west and Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands on the east, thus converting the old forest at Cromer into the bed of the ocean, where the stumps of the trees may now be seen embedded in deposit at very low tide. Immediately after the disappearance of this forest the first period of glaciation commenced, from which moment until the close of the glacial periods the alternations in temperature and surface level were frequent and of enormous magnitude, the correct sequence of which changes we have as yet no proper conception.

If we go back to the commencement of the Tertiary great division of the geological periods, we shall find that, at the beginning of the Eocene deposits, the Secondary cretaceous rocks had been upheaved from the bottom of the sea, and had become the dry ground of a large continent, of which the British Islands formed a part; so that Eocene fauna and flora in England had free communication with continental life. The relative positions of land and water during this first Tertiary period were as follows: The great continent spread from North America to Europe, uniting Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Faroes, Shetlands, Orkneys, Ireland, and Britain (except south-east portion), with Scandinavia and Spitzbergen on the north-east, and with France (Brittany) and Spain on the south. There were three seas—the North Sea, which, like a wedge with its point downwards, separated Greenland, Iceland, and Faroes from Spitzbergen and Scandinavia; the South-Eastern Sea, which stretched from the top of Denmark to Boston in Lincolnshire, thence to Lyme Regis in Dorsetshire, and on to Cherbourg, covering the whole of the east and south-east of England; and the Atlantic, which was separated from the North Sea by Iceland, Faroes, and intermediate lands, and from the South-Eastern Sea by the British Islands, Western France, and intermediate lands. These Eocene seas teemed with fish now only found in more Southern latitudes; while the inland lakes and rivers abounded with reptilian life. On the land tropical flora and fauna flourished, among the former being palms, cypresses, and giant cacti, and among the latter, in Lower Eocene times, large numbers of marsupial species, in the Middle Eocene also lion-like carnivora, and in Upper Eocene tapir-like animals, herds of Anchitheres (ancestors of the horse), Hyænodon (ancestors of hyæna), and Lemurs. The Miocene period opened with a lower temperature than that of the Eocene, and with a considerable difference of surface level in Denmark and on the South of England, the land having been upheaved to such an extent as to leave no part of the country under water, uniting Yorkshire with Denmark, and dividing the South-Eastern Sea into two portions, the Northern one stretching from Schleswig as far as a few miles from the present Lincolnshire coast and then back to the present mouth of the Scheldt; and the latter stretching from Boulogne-sur-Mer to Hastings and Portland Bill, and back to Cherbourg. Otherwise the relationship between land and water was much the same as in Eocene times. The climate of the Meiocene period was sub-tropical, and in the lower strata were found placental mammals, but few marsupials; in the middle beds remains of the mastodon, rhinoceros, anthropomorphous apes, sloths, and ant-eaters; and in the upper layers antelopes and gazelles; but no mammalian species in any Meiocene deposit has continued to present times, all having become extinct. When we arrive at the Pleiocene age we have quite a different state of things; the Atlantic and North Seas gradually united together, thus separating Europe from Faroes, Iceland, Greenland, and North America; and on the east of Britain the North Sea slowly descended as far as the present mouth of the Thames, thus separating Britain from Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands; while the two Southern seas disappeared altogether, leaving a huge continent, the borders of which stretched from the present west coast of Norway to Denmark, the Netherlands, across to Essex, central Norfolk (east Norfolk and Suffolk being part of North Sea), and up to the Shetlands, at which point a turn was made south to a few miles west of present west coast of Ireland, and thence southward to a few miles west of present coast of Brittany, in France, thus leaving the British Isles, France, and the rest of Europe as one large continent. To accomplish these enormous changes, a very long time was required, during which the climate was gradually becoming more temperate, being in older Pleiocene times sub-tropical and in newer Pleiocene warm-temperate; while the fauna and flora gradually became less tropical in kind. The older Pleiocene deposits are divided into coralline crag and reg crag, while the newer Pleiocene consist of Norwich crags and Weybourne sands, on a level with which latter was the Cromer forest, submerged by the North Sea during the earlier Pleistocene period.

Previous Next

Comments

Evolution and creationChapter II: Part 2

0%37 min left in chapter