{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2628/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2628","id":"gutenberg_2628","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2628","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: History - Other","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution","Paleontology","Science"],"text":"Produced by D. R. Thompson\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RISE AND PROGRESS OF PALAEONTOLOGY\n\nTHIS IS ESSAY #2 FROM \"SCIENCE AND HEBREW TRADITION\"\n\nBy Thomas Henry Huxley\n\n\n\nThat application of the sciences of biology and geology, which is\ncommonly known as palaeontology, took its origin in the mind of the\nfirst person who, finding something like a shell, or a bone, naturally\nimbedded in gravel or rock, indulged in speculations upon the nature\nof this thing which he had dug out--this \"fossil\"--and upon the causes\nwhich had brought it into such a position. In this rudimentary form, a\nhigh antiquity may safely be ascribed to palaeontology, inasmuch as we\nknow that, 500 years before the Christian era, the philosophic doctrines\nof Xenophanes were influenced by his observations upon the fossil\nremains exposed in the quarries of Syracuse. From this time forth not\nonly the philosophers, but the poets, the historians, the geographers\nof antiquity occasionally refer to fossils; and, after the revival of\nlearning, lively controversies arose respecting their real nature.\nBut hardly more than two centuries have elapsed since this fundamental\nproblem was first exhaustively treated; it was only in the last century\nthat the archaeological value of fossils--their importance, I mean, as\nrecords of the history of the earth--was fully recognised; the first\nadequate investigation of the fossil remains of any large group of\nvertebrated animals is to be found in Cuvier's \"Recherches sur les\nOssemens Fossiles,\" completed in 1822; and, so modern is stratigraphical\npalaeontology, that its founder, William Smith, lived to receive the\njust recognition of his services by the award of the first Wollaston\nMedal in 1831.\n\nBut, although palaeontology is a comparatively youthful scientific\nspeciality, the mass of materials with which it has to deal is already\nprodigious. In the last fifty years the number of known fossil remains\nof invertebrated animals has been trebled or quadrupled. The work of\ninterpretation of vertebrate fossils, the foundations of which were\nso solidly laid by Cuvier, was carried on, with wonderful vigour and\nsuccess, by Agassiz in Switzerland, by Von Meyer in Germany, and\nlast, but not least, by Owen in this country, while, in later years, a\nmultitude of workers have laboured in the same field. In many groups of\nthe animal kingdom the number of fossil forms already known is as great\nas that of the existing species. In some cases it is much greater; and\nthere are entire orders of animals of the existence of which we should\nknow nothing except for the evidence afforded by fossil remains. With\nall this it may be safely assumed that, at the present moment, we are\nnot acquainted with a tittle of the fossils which will sooner or later\nbe discovered. If we may judge by the profusion yielded within the last\nfew years by the Tertiary formations of North America, there seems to be\nno limit to the multitude of mammalian remains to be expected from that\ncontinent; and analogy leads us to expect similar riches in Eastern\nAsia, whenever the Tertiary formations of that region are as carefully\nexplored. Again, we have, as yet, almost everything to learn respecting\nthe terrestrial population of the Mesozoic epoch; and it seems as if\nthe Western territories of the United States were about to prove as\ninstructive in regard to this point as they have in respect of tertiary\nlife. My friend Professor Marsh informs me that, within two years,\nremains of more than 160 distinct individuals of mammals, belonging to\ntwenty species and nine genera, have been found in a space not larger\nthan the floor of a good-sized room; while beds of the same age have\nyielded 300 reptiles, varying in size from a length of 60 feet or 80\nfeet to the dimensions of a rabbit.\n\nThe task which I have set myself to-night is to endeavour to lay before\nyou, as briefly as possible, a sketch of the successive steps by\nwhich our present knowledge of the facts of palaeontology and of those\nconclusions from them which are indisputable, has been attained; and I\nbeg leave to remind you, at the outset, that in attempting to sketch\nthe progress of a branch of knowledge to which innumerable labours\nhave contributed, my business is rather with generalisations than with\ndetails. It is my object to mark the epochs of palaeontology, not to\nrecount all the events of its history.\n\nThat which I just now called the fundamental problem of palaeontology,\nthe question which has to be settled before any other can be profitably\ndiscussed, is this, What is the nature of fossils? Are they, as the\nhealthy common sense of the ancient Greeks appears to have led them to\nassume without hesitation, the remains of animals and plants? Or are\nthey, as was so generally maintained in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and\nseventeenth centuries, mere figured stones, portions of mineral matter\nwhich have assumed the forms of leaves and shells and bones, just as\nthose portions of mineral matter which we call crystals take on the form\nof regular geometrical solids? Or, again, are they, as others thought,\nthe products of the germs of animals and of the seeds of plants which\nhave lost their way, as it were, in the bowels of the earth, and have\nachieved only an imperfect and abortive development? It is easy to sneer\nat our ancestors for being disposed to reject the first in favour of one\nor other of the last two hypotheses; but it is much more profitable to\ntry to discover why they, who were really not one whit less sensible\npersons than our excellent selves, should have been led to entertain\nviews which strike us as absurd, The belief in what is erroneously\ncalled spontaneous generation, that is to say, in the development\nof living matter out of mineral matter, apart from the agency of\npre-existing living matter, as an ordinary occurrence at the present\nday--which is still held by some of us, was universally accepted as an\nobvious truth by them. They could point to the arborescent forms\nassumed by hoar-frost and by sundry metallic minerals as evidence of the\nexistence in nature of a \"plastic force\" competent to enable inorganic\nmatter to assume the form of organised bodies. Then, as every one who is\nfamiliar with fossils knows, they present innumerable gradations, from\nshells and bones which exactly resemble the recent objects, to masses of\nmere stone which, however accurately they repeat the outward form of the\norganic body, have nothing else in common with it; and, thence, to mere\ntraces and faint impressions in the continuous substance of the rock.\nWhat we now know to be the results of the chemical changes which take\nplace in the course of fossilisation, by which mineral is substituted\nfor organic substance, might, in the absence of such knowledge, be\nfairly interpreted as the expression of a process of development in the\nopposite direction--from the mineral to the organic. Moreover, in an age\nwhen it would have seemed the most absurd of paradoxes to suggest that\nthe general level of the sea is constant, while that of the solid land\nfluctuates up and down through thousands of feet in a secular ground\nswell, it may well have appeared far less hazardous to conceive that\nfossils are sports of nature than to accept the necessary alternative,\nthat all the inland regions and highlands, in the rocks of which marine\nshells had been found, had once been covered by the ocean. It is not so\nsurprising, therefore, as it may at first seem, that although such men\nas Leonardo da Vinci and Bernard Palissy took just views of the nature\nof fossils, the opinion of the majority of their contemporaries set\nstrongly the other way; nor even that error maintained itself long after\nthe scientific grounds of the true interpretation of fossils had been\nstated, in a manner that left nothing to be desired, in the latter half\nof the seventeenth century. The person who rendered this good service\nto palaeontology was Nicolas Steno, professor of anatomy in Florence,\nthough a Dane by birth. Collectors of fossils at that day were familiar\nwith certain bodies termed \"glossopetrae,\" and speculation was rife as\nto their nature. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Fabio\nColonna had tried to convince his colleagues of the famous Accademia dei\nLincei that the glossopetrae were merely fossil sharks' teeth, but his\narguments made no impression. Fifty years later, Steno re-opened the\nquestion, and, by dissecting the head of a shark and pointing out the\nvery exact correspondence of its teeth with the glossopetrae, left no\nrational doubt as to the origin of the latter. Thus far, the work of\nSteno went little further than that of Colonna, but it fortunately\noccurred to him to think out the whole subject of the interpretation of\nfossils, and the result of his meditations was the publication, in 1669,\nof a little treatise with the very quaint title of \"De Solido intra\nSolidum naturaliter contento.\" The general course of Steno's argument\nmay be stated in a few words. Fossils are solid bodies which, by some\nnatural process, have come to be contained within other solid bodies,\nnamely, the rocks in which they are embedded; and the fundamental\nproblem of palaeontology, stated generally, is this: \"Given a body\nendowed with a certain shape and produced in accordance with natural\nlaws, to find in that body itself the evidence of the place and manner\nof its production.\" [1] The only way of solving this problem is by the\napplication of the axiom that \"like effects imply like causes,\" or as\nSteno puts it, in reference to this particular case, that \"bodies which\nare altogether similar have been produced in the same way.\" [2] Hence,\nsince the glossopetrae are altogether similar to sharks' teeth, they\nmust have been produced by sharklike fishes; and since many fossil\nshells correspond, down to the minutest details of structure, with the\nshells of existing marine or freshwater animals, they must have been\nproduced by similar animals; and the like reasoning is applied by\nSteno to the fossil bones of vertebrated animals, whether aquatic\nor terrestrial. To the obvious objection that many fossils are not\naltogether similar to their living analogues, differing in substance\nwhile agreeing in form, or being mere hollows or impressions, the\nsurfaces of which are figured in the same way as those of animal or\nvegetable organisms, Steno replies by pointing out the changes which\ntake place in organic remains embedded in the earth, and how their solid\nsubstance may be dissolved away entirely, or replaced by mineral matter,\nuntil nothing is left of the original but a cast, an impression, or\na mere trace of its contours. The principles of investigation thus\nexcellently stated and illustrated by Steno in 1669, are those\nwhich have, consciously or unconsciously, guided the researches of\npalaeontologists ever since. Even that feat of palaeontology which has\nso powerfully impressed the popular imagination, the reconstruction of\nan extinct animal from a tooth or a bone, is based upon the simplest\nimaginable application of the logic of Steno. A moment's consideration\nwill show, in fact, that Steno's conclusion that the glossopetrae are\nsharks' teeth implies the reconstruction of an animal from its tooth. It\nis equivalent to the assertion that the animal of which the glossopetrae\nare relics had the form and organisation of a shark; that it had\na skull, a vertebral column, and limbs similar to those which are\ncharacteristic of this group of fishes; that its heart, gills, and\nintestines presented the peculiarities which those of all sharks\nexhibit; nay, even that any hard parts which its integument contained\nwere of a totally different character from the scales of ordinary\nfishes. These conclusions are as certain as any based upon probable\nreasonings can be. And they are so, simply because a very large\nexperience justifies us in believing that teeth of this particular form\nand structure are invariably associated with the peculiar organisation\nof sharks, and are never found in connection with other organisms. Why\nthis should be we are not at present in a position even to imagine; we\nmust take the fact as an empirical law of animal morphology, the reason\nof which may possibly be one day found in the history of the evolution\nof the shark tribe, but for which it is hopeless to seek for an\nexplanation in ordinary physiological reasonings. Every one practically\nacquainted with palaeontology is aware that it is not every tooth, nor\nevery bone, which enables us to form a judgment of the character of the\nanimal to which it belonged; and that it is possible to possess many\nteeth, and even a large portion of the skeleton of an extinct animal,\nand yet be unable to reconstruct its skull or its limbs. It is only\nwhen the tooth or bone presents peculiarities, which we know by previous\nexperience to be characteristic of a certain group, that we can safely\npredict that the fossil belonged to an animal of the same group. Any one\nwho finds a cow's grinder may be perfectly sure that it belonged to an\nanimal which had two complete toes on each foot and ruminated; any one\nwho finds a horse's grinder may be as sure that it had one complete\ntoe on each foot and did not ruminate; but if ruminants and horses\nwere extinct animals of which nothing but the grinders had ever been\ndiscovered, no amount of physiological reasoning could have enabled\nus to reconstruct either animal, still less to have divined the\nwide differences between the two. Cuvier, in the \"Discours sur les\nRevolutions de la Surface du Globe,\" strangely credits himself, and has\never since been credited by others, with the invention of a new method\nof palaeontological research. But if you will turn to the \"Recherches\nsur les Ossemens Fossiles\" and watch Cuvier, not speculating, but\nworking, you will find that his method is neither more nor less than\nthat of Steno. If he was able to make his famous prophecy from the jaw\nwhich lay upon the surface of a block of stone to the pelvis of the same\nanimal which lay hidden in it, it was not because either he, or any\none else, knew, or knows, why a certain form of jaw is, as a rule,\nconstantly accompanied by the presence of marsupial bones, but simply\nbecause experience has shown that these two structures are co-ordinated.\n\n\nThe settlement of the nature of fossils led at once to the next advance\nof palaeontology, viz. its application to the deciphering of the history\nof the earth. When it was admitted that fossils are remains of animals\nand plants, it followed that, in so far as they resemble terrestrial, or\nfreshwater, animals and plants, they are evidences of the existence of\nland, or fresh water; and, in so far as they resemble marine organisms,\nthey are evidences of the existence of the sea at the time at which\nthey were parts of actually living animals and plants. Moreover, in\nthe absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be admitted that the\nterrestrial or the marine organisms implied the existence of land or\nsea at the place in which they were found while they were yet living.\nIn fact, such conclusions were immediately drawn by everybody, from\nthe time of Xenophanes downwards, who believed that fossils were really\norganic remains. Steno discusses their value as evidence of repeated\nalteration of marine and terrestrial conditions upon the soil of Tuscany\nin a manner worthy of a modern geologist. The speculations of De Maillet\nin the beginning of the eighteenth century turn upon fossils; and Buffon\nfollows him very closely in those two remarkable works, the \"Theorie\nde la Terre\" and the \"Epoques de la Nature\" with which he commenced and\nended his career as a naturalist.\n\nThe opening sentences of the \"Epoques de la Nature\" show us how\nfully Buffon recognised the analogy of geological with archaeological\ninquiries. \"As in civil history we consult deeds, seek for coins, or\ndecipher antique inscriptions in order to determine the epochs of human\nrevolutions and fix the date of moral events; so, in natural history,\nwe must search the archives of the world, recover old monuments from the\nbowels of the earth, collect their fragmentary remains, and gather into\none body of evidence all the signs of physical change which may enable\nus to look back upon the different ages of nature. It is our only\nmeans of fixing some points in the immensity of space, and of setting a\ncertain number of waymarks along the eternal path of time.\"\n\nBuffon enumerates five classes of these monuments of the past history of\nthe earth, and they are all facts of palaeontology. In the first place,\nhe says, shells and other marine productions are found all over the\nsurface and in the interior of the dry land; and all calcareous rocks\nare made up of their remains. Secondly, a great many of these shells\nwhich are found in Europe are not now to be met with in the adjacent\nseas; and, in the slates and other deep-seated deposits, there are\nremains of fishes and of plants of which no species now exist in our\nlatitudes, and which are either extinct, or exist only in more northern\nclimates. Thirdly, in Siberia and in other northern regions of\nEurope and of Asia, bones and teeth of elephants, rhinoceroses, and\nhippopotamuses occur in such numbers that these animals must once have\nlived and multiplied in those regions, although at the present day they\nare confined to southern climates. The deposits in which these remains\nare found are superficial, while those which contain shells and other\nmarine remains lie much deeper. Fourthly, tusks and bones of elephants\nand hippopotamuses are found not only in the northern regions of the old\nworld, but also in those of the new world, although, at present, neither\nelephants nor hippopotamuses occur in America. Fifthly, in the middle of\nthe continents, in regions most remote from the sea, we find an infinite\nnumber of shells, of which the most part belong to animals of those\nkinds which still exist in southern seas, but of which many others have\nno living analogues; so that these species appear to be lost, destroyed\nby some unknown cause. It is needless to inquire how far these\nstatements are strictly accurate; they are sufficiently so to justify\nBuffon's conclusions that the dry land was once beneath the sea; that\nthe formation of the fossiliferous rocks must have occupied a vastly\ngreater lapse of time than that traditionally ascribed to the age of\nthe earth; that fossil remains indicate different climatal conditions\nto have obtained in former times, and especially that the polar regions\nwere once warmer; that many species of animals and plants have become\nextinct; and that geological change has had something to do with\ngeographical distribution.\n\nBut these propositions almost constitute the frame-work of\npalaeontology. In order to complete it but one addition was needed, and\nthat was made, in the last years of the eighteenth century, by William\nSmith, whose work comes so near our own times that many living men may\nhave been personally acquainted with him. This modest land-surveyor,\nwhose business took him into many parts of England, profited by the\npeculiarly favourable conditions offered by the arrangement of our\nsecondary strata to make a careful examination and comparison of their\nfossil contents at different points of the large area over which they\nextend. The result of his accurate and widely-extended observations\nwas to establish the important truth that each stratum contains certain\nfossils which are peculiar to it; and that the order in which the\nstrata, characterised by these fossils, are super-imposed one upon the\nother is always the same. This most important generalisation was\nrapidly verified and extended to all parts of the world accessible to\ngeologists; and now it rests upon such an immense mass of observations\nas to be one of the best established truths of natural science. To the\ngeologist the discovery was of infinite importance as it enabled him to\nidentify rocks of the same relative age, however their continuity might\nbe interrupted or their composition altered. But to the biologist it\nhad a still deeper meaning, for it demonstrated that, throughout the\nprodigious duration of time registered by the fossiliferous rocks, the\nliving population of the earth had undergone continual changes, not\nmerely by the extinction of a certain number of the species which had at\nfirst existed, but by the continual generation of new species, and the\nno less constant extinction of old ones.\n\nThus the broad outlines of palaeontology, in so far as it is the common\nproperty of both the geologist and the biologist, were marked out at\nthe close of the last century. In tracing its subsequent progress I must\nconfine myself to the province of biology, and, indeed, to the\ninfluence of palaeontology upon zoological morphology. And I accept\nthis limitation the more willingly as the no less important topic of\nthe bearing of geology and of palaeontology upon distribution has been\nluminously treated in the address of the President of the Geographical\nSection. [3]\n\nThe succession of the species of animals and plants in time being\nestablished, the first question which the zoologist or the botanist had\nto ask himself was, What is the relation of these successive species\none to another? And it is a curious circumstance that the most important\nevent in the history of palaeontology which immediately succeeded\nWilliam Smith's generalisation was a discovery which, could it have been\nrightly appreciated at the time, would have gone far towards suggesting\nthe answer, which was in fact delayed for more than half a century. I\nrefer to Cuvier's investigation of the mammalian fossils yielded by\nthe quarries in the older tertiary rocks of Montmartre, among the chief\nresults of which was the bringing to light of two genera of extinct\nhoofed quadrupeds, the _Anoplotherium_ and the _Palaeotherium._ The rich\nmaterials at Cuvier's disposition enabled him to obtain a full\nknowledge of the osteology and of the dentition of these two forms, and\nconsequently to compare their structure critically with that of existing\nhoofed animals. The effect of this comparison was to prove that the\n_Anoplotherium,_ though it presented many points of resemblance with the\npigs on the one hand and with the ruminants on the other, differed from\nboth to such an extent that it could find a place in neither group. In\nfact, it held, in some respects, an intermediate position, tending to\nbridge over the interval between these two groups, which in the existing\nfauna are so distinct. In the same way, the _Palaeotherium_ tended to\nconnect forms so different as the tapir, the rhinoceros, and the horse.\nSubsequent investigations have brought to light a variety of facts of\nthe same order, the most curious and striking of which are those\nwhich prove the existence, in the mesozoic epoch, of a series of forms\nintermediate between birds and reptiles--two classes of vertebrate\nanimals which at present appear to be more widely separated than any\nothers. Yet the interval between them is completely filled, in the\nmesozoic fauna, by birds which have reptilian characters, on the one\nside, and reptiles which have ornithic characters, on the other. So\nagain, while the group of fishes, termed ganoids, is, at the present\ntime, so distinct from that of the dipnoi, or mudfishes, that they have\nbeen reckoned as distinct orders, the Devonian strata present us with\nforms of which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they are\ndipnoi or whether they are ganoids.\n\nAgassiz's long and elaborate researches upon fossil fishes, published\nbetween 1833 and 1842, led him to suggest the existence of another kind\nof relation between ancient and modern forms of life. He observed that\nthe oldest fishes present many characters which recall the embryonic\nconditions of existing fishes; and that, not only among fishes, but in\nseveral groups of the invertebrata which have a long palaeontological\nhistory, the latest forms are more modified, more specialised, than the\nearlier. The fact that the dentition of the older tertiary ungulate\nand carnivorous mammals is always complete, noticed by Professor Owen,\nillustrated the same generalisation.\n\nAnother no less suggestive observation was made by Mr. Darwin, whose\npersonal investigations during the voyage of the _Beagle_ led him\nto remark upon the singular fact, that the fauna, which immediately\nprecedes that at present existing in any geographical province of\ndistribution, presents the same peculiarities as its successor. Thus, in\nSouth America and in Australia, the later tertiary or quaternary fossils\nshow that the fauna which immediately preceded that of the present day\nwas, in the one case, as much characterised by edentates and, in the\nother, by marsupials as it is now, although the species of the older are\nlargely different from those of the newer fauna.\n\nHowever clearly these indications might point in one direction, the\nquestion of the exact relation of the successive forms of animal and\nvegetable life could be satisfactorily settled only in one way; namely,\nby comparing, stage by stage, the series of forms presented by one and\nthe same type throughout a long space of time. Within the last few years\nthis has been done fully in the case of the horse, less completely\nin the case of the other principal types of the ungulata and of the\ncarnivora; and all these investigations tend to one general result,\nnamely, that, in any given series, the successive members of that series\npresent a gradually increasing specialisation of structure. That is to\nsay, if any such mammal at present existing has specially modified and\nreduced limbs or dentition and complicated brain, its predecessors in\ntime show less and less modification and reduction in limbs and teeth\nand a less highly developed brain. The labours of Gaudry, Marsh, and\nCope furnish abundant illustrations of this law from the marvellous\nfossil wealth of Pikermi and the vast uninterrupted series of tertiary\nrocks in the territories of North America.\n\nI will now sum up the results of this sketch of the rise and progress\nof palaeontology. The whole fabric of palaeontology is based upon two\npropositions: the first is, that fossils are the remains of animals and\nplants; and the second is, that the stratified rocks in which they\nare found are sedimentary deposits; and each of these propositions is\nfounded upon the same axiom, that like effects imply like causes. If\nthere is any cause competent to produce a fossil stem, or shell, or\nbone, except a living being, then palaeontology has no foundation; if\nthe stratification of the rocks is not the effect of such causes as\nat present produce stratification, we have no means of judging of the\nduration of past time, or of the order in which the forms of life have\nsucceeded one another. But if these two propositions are granted,\nthere is no escape, as it appears to me, from three very important\nconclusions. The first is that living matter has existed upon the earth\nfor a vast length of time, certainly for millions of years. The second\nis that, during this lapse of time, the forms of living matter have\nundergone repeated changes, the effect of which has been that the animal\nand vegetable population, at any period of the earth's history, contains\ncertain species which did not exist at some antecedent period, and\nothers which ceased to exist at some subsequent period. The third is\nthat, in the case of many groups of mammals and some of reptiles,\nin which one type can be followed through a considerable extent of\ngeological time, the series of different forms by which the type is\nrepresented, at successive intervals of this time, is exactly such as it\nwould be, if they had been produced by the gradual modification of the\nearliest forms of the series. These are facts of the history of the\nearth guaranteed by as good evidence as any facts in civil history.\n\nHitherto I have kept carefully clear of all the hypotheses to which men\nhave at various times endeavoured to fit the facts of palaeontology, or\nby which they have endeavoured to connect as many of these facts as they\nhappened to be acquainted with. I do not think it would be a profitable\nemployment of our time to discuss conceptions which doubtless have had\ntheir justification and even their use, but which are now obviously\nincompatible with the well-ascertained truths of palaeontology. At\npresent these truths leave room for only two hypotheses. The first is\nthat, in the course of the history of the earth, innumerable species\nof animals and plants have come into existence, independently of\none another, innumerable times. This, of course, implies either that\nspontaneous generation on the most astounding scale, and of animals\nsuch as horses and elephants, has been going on, as a natural process,\nthrough all the time recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; or it\nnecessitates the belief in innumerable acts of creation repeated\ninnumerable times. The other hypothesis is, that the successive species\nof animals and plants have arisen, the later by the gradual modification\nof the earlier. This is the hypothesis of evolution; and the\npalaeontological discoveries of the last decade are so completely in\naccordance with the requirements of this hypothesis that, if it had not\nexisted, the palaeontologist would have had to invent it.\n\nI have always had a certain horror of presuming to set a limit upon the\npossibilities of things. Therefore I will not venture to say that it is\nimpossible that the multitudinous species of animals and plants may have\nbeen produced, one separately from the other, by spontaneous generation;\nnor that it is impossible that they should have been independently\noriginated by an endless succession of miraculous creative acts. But\nI must confess that both these hypotheses strike me as so astoundingly\nimprobable, so devoid of a shred of either scientific or traditional\nsupport, that even if there were no other evidence than that of\npalaeontology in its favour, I should feel compelled to adopt the\nhypothesis of evolution. Happily, the future of palaeontology is\nindependent of all hypothetical considerations. Fifty years hence,\nwhoever undertakes to record the progress of palaeontology will note the\npresent time as the epoch in which the law of succession of the forms of\nthe higher animals was determined by the observation of palaeontological\nfacts. He will point out that, just as Steno and as Cuvier were enabled\nfrom their knowledge of the empirical laws of co-existence of the parts\nof animals to conclude from a part to the whole, so the knowledge of the\nlaw of succession of forms empowered their successors to conclude, from\none or two terms of such a succession, to the whole series; and thus\nto divine the existence of forms of life, of which, perhaps, no trace\nremains, at epochs of inconceivable remoteness in the past.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _De Solidoiintra Solidum,_ p.5--\"Dato corpore certa figura\npraedito et juxta leges naturae producto, in ipso corpore argumenta\ninvenire locum et modum productionis detegentia.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"Corpora sibi invicem omnino similia simili etiam modo\nproducta sunt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: Sir J. D. Hooker.]","title":"The Rise and Progress of Palaeontology: Essay #2 from \"Science and Hebrew Tradition\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5239}