|
Nice Kitty
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
|
Permanence Of The Species
The matter of the permanence of species deserves special consideration. It is admitted on all hands that there is no Evolution in the individual organism?but that the contrary rule holds everywhere. For the individual comes into being suddenly, matures quickly, reproduces, and suddenly ceases to be. The evolutionist, however, claims that it is the species, not , the individual organism, that has come into existence through Evolution. The species, says he, is governed by the "law" of Evolution, though (strange to say) the individuals which compose the species are exempt from it.
There is, however, a serious and obvious flaw in the logic which would distinguish thus between the individual, and the species to which it belongs; for the species cannot exist apart from the individuals composing it, any more than a river can exist apart from its water. The species is merely an abstraction; and there is obviously no way a species can evolve, except by the evolving of all the individuals composing it. Strictly speaking, and for the purposes of a discussion like this, "species" do not exist. What exist in nature are simply innumerable individuals each having its own life. Individuals which have life of the same sort are said to constitute a "species." Therefore, evolutionary changes, if they take place at all, must needs begin and continue in individuals.
It follows that, if there be no inherent tendency in individual organisms to depart from their ancestral types, there could not be any development of new species. If, on the other hand, the immense number of existing species did come into their present state of being through evolutionary changes, effected by resident forces (as distinguished from the act of a Creator from without) then we should find no distinct species of plants and animals, but a very different state of things; for, instead of definite and persistent types, we should have a confusion of nondescript individuals, each in process of becoming something different from what its ancestors were.
Evolution assumes that all things in the organic World are endowed with two opposite and mutually antagonistic tendencies, first a tendency to depart from its ancestral type under the influence of changes in "environment," and second, a tendency to hold tightly all its peculiarities, and to transmit them to its offspring.
These two tendencies could not exist in the same creatures. The former is purely imaginary. It is contrary to all the observed facts of nature. For, so far from there being any tendency on the part of individuals to depart from the ancestral type, and so far from there being any evidence of "resident forces" in them, impelling them to do so, the fact is?always and everywhere?that individual organisms evince a most stubborn tendency to cling to the ancestral type, despite all influences to the contrary.
This important fact can be stated very strongly; for scientific men, like Luther Burbank, have sought by every conceivable means to develop new species. But, notwithstanding some remarkable results in the way of "varieties," it has been found (1) that the barrier of species cannot be crossed, (2) that every "variety" produced artificially, if left to itself for a few generations, reverts to the original type. In a word, what we find in each and all the thousands of species of living creatures is, perfect obedience to the primal law of their being, given to them by their Creator when He said, "Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind * * * and the living creature, after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after his kind; and it was so" (#Ge 1:11, 24). It was "so" then; and beyond all question it is "so" now.
Here we see that Evolution comes into direct collision both with the facts of nature and with the statements of the Word of God.
Development Of "Varieties"
A "species" may embrace many distinct "varieties," and man has indeed been able to produce artificially many varieties of existing species. But it is always necessary to maintain by artificial means the modifications thus produced, else the individuals speedily revert to the original ancestral condition.
Thus, upon consideration of these modifications of type, it is found that, so far from lending any support to the theory of Evolution, they furnish a strong argument against it. For it is essential to that theory that modifications, when of advantage to the possessor, should become fixed in the family, and be carried forward to all succeeding generations. But what we find in actual experience is just the reverse.
Moreover, while varieties without number can be easily produced, it has been found impossible, even in a single instance, to cross the line of species. Thus, we see many varieties of dog. The canine species includes the great shaggy St. Bernard, and the diminutive smooth skinned terrier. But in every case it is a dog, and is recognized by his fellow dogs as such. No amount of breeding, or cross-breeding, could ever make him anything but a dog.
Indeed it is demonstrable that the species are absolutely fixed; and that so far from there being a general tendency on the part of all animate creatures to depart from the ancestral type, there is, on the contrary, found to be an invariable and inexorable law, which absolutely forbids such departure. Since we regard this fact as fatal to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, we will give the explanation of it in the words of a famous evolutionist, Mr. Huxley, who says:
"If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have off-spring of the like kind; and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result; and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring. There is no check. But if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be to each other, and make them breed together, you will find a check.
If you cross two such species, then, although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross, yet if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing (which are what are called hybrids) that is, if you mate a male and a female hybrid, then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all."
We need not inquire the explanation of this, though Mr. Huxley says, "the reason is quite obvious in some cases"; for the fact is admitted on all hands.
Now what, we would ask, is the inference to be drawn from this fact? Certainly it follows that the evolution of one species from another is an impossibility; so that, at this point again, the theory breaks down completely. Indeed we can read as much between the lines of the admission which Mr. Huxley himself is constrained, though with manifest reluctance, to make. He says:
"After much consideration, and assuredly with no bias against Mr. Darwin?s views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by ?species? in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural." And again; "Our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a common stock are fertile with one another, that link will be wanting."
Later on Mr. Huxley definitely rejected the Darwinian theory, as we will point out hereafter.
Reproduction
We have referred in the foregoing pages to the power, inherent in all living creatures, to reproduce their kind. This universal fact, which obviously is essential to the continuance of every species, raises the important question, how did the power of reproduction originate? It is evident that the very first (as well as all subsequent) organisms must have possessed this marvelous power. Whence then did it come? Manifestly it could not have arisen by a gradual process of Evolution; for the very first organisms must have had it in the same perfection as their offspring. Here again the doctrine of Creation appears to great advantage in comparison with the defective theory of Evolution; for, as a prominent part of the inspired description of Creation, are the words: "Grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind" etc. Those words fully account for the power of reproduction possessed by all living creatures.
In concluding under this heading we want to say that it would suffice to put the case for Evolution entirely out of court that there should be found no evidence sufficient in character and amount to establish it. But the case against it is far stronger than that. For even those who give no weight to the testimony of the Bible on this point, have to admit that there are no observable tendencies on the part of any one of the billions of living creatures to depart from the ancestral type, but that, per contra, where variations have been produced artificially, they are but slight in character, and the tendency is invariably to go backward and not forward. This is a strong disproof of Evolution.
|