diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-08 05:01:11 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-08 05:01:11 -0800 |
| commit | a91e0ad8b95c3378901692209532213b9cee2517 (patch) | |
| tree | 339231d845617b2680f18aa197915c70fdcffc00 | |
| parent | a1b5575e99eb71ae95bf34ba29cd0dbad0ffbe7e (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043-0.txt (renamed from 42043.txt) | 403 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043-8.txt | 5124 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043-8.zip | bin | 99730 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043-h.zip | bin | 291635 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043-h/42043-h.htm | 429 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 42043.zip | bin | 99711 -> 0 bytes |
6 files changed, 9 insertions, 5947 deletions
@@ -1,37 +1,4 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Illogical Geology - The Weakest Point in The Evolution Theory - -Author: George McCready Price - -Release Date: February 7, 2013 [EBook #42043] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ASCII - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - - - - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - - - - - +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42043 *** TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: @@ -4537,7 +4504,7 @@ God's Two Books BY GEORGE McCREADY PRICE A pamphlet covering that part of the Evolution Theory which deals with -Geology, Archaeology, Darwinism, and ethics. It is especially full on +Geology, Archæology, Darwinism, and ethics. It is especially full on Geology and Darwinism, and presents many facts and arguments on these subjects not found in anything now published. (In preparation). @@ -4562,7 +4529,7 @@ assail these doctrines is to-day called _heresy_. But we have chosen our position deliberately, and shall abide by the consequences. This journal will try to give the most recent discoveries in geology, -biology, physiology and archaeology, and to discuss their bearings on +biology, physiology and archæology, and to discuss their bearings on the Christian religion; and we think that no intelligent person can afford to be without its regular visits. @@ -4759,366 +4726,4 @@ is the original text, the second the passage as currently stands): End of Project Gutenberg's Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - -***** This file should be named 42043.txt or 42043.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/0/4/42043/ - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42043 *** diff --git a/42043-8.txt b/42043-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index b3c8cc1..0000000 --- a/42043-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5124 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Illogical Geology - The Weakest Point in The Evolution Theory - -Author: George McCready Price - -Release Date: February 7, 2013 [EBook #42043] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - - - - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - - - - - - -TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: - -A list of corrections is at the end of the text. Italics are indicated -by _underscores_, bold by =equal signs= and superscripts by '^'. - - - - - _Illogical Geology_ - - _The Weakest Point in_ - - _The Evolution Theory_ - - - [Illustration: Author] - - - BY - - GEORGE McCREADY PRICE - - - EDITOR OF "THE MODERN HERETIC," AND AUTHOR OF "OUTLINES OF - MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN CHRISTIANITY." - - THE MODERN HERETIC COMPANY - 257 S. HILL STREET, LOS ANGELES, CAL. - - - SINGLE COPIES 25^c - 3 COPIES 60c: 10 COPIES $1.75 - - - - -ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY - -THE WEAKEST POINT IN THE EVOLUTION THEORY - - - - -To the Reader. - - -This _Advance Edition_ has been issued by the Publishers in this cheap -form to enable them to get out several thousand copies for critical -review at comparatively small expense. Succeeding editions will be in -regular book form, and will be sold at the usual rates for bound -volumes. - - "It is a singular and a notable fact, that while most other branches - of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of - metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains - imprisoned in '_a priori_' theories."--_Sir Henry Howorth: "The - Glacial Nightmare and the Flood." Preface. VII._ - - - _THE MODERN HERETIC COMPANY_ - 257 S. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - 1906 - - - - - COPYRIGHT 1906 - BY - GEORGE McCREADY PRICE - LOS ANGELES, CAL. - - - - -PART I - - - - -PREFACE - - -This book is not written especially for geologists or other scientists -as such, though it deals with the question which it discusses from a -purely scientific standpoint, and presupposes a good general knowledge -of the rocks and of current theories. It is addressed rather to that -large class of readers to whom geology is only an incident in larger -problems, and who are not quite wholly satisfied with those explanations -of the universe which are now commonly accepted on the testimony of -biological science. I am free to say that my own conviction of the -higher value and surer truth of other data outside of the biological -sciences have always been given formative power in my own private -opinions, and that in this way I have long held that there =must be -something wrong= with the Evolution Theory, and also that there must be -a surer way of gauging the value of that Theory, even from the -scientific standpoint, than the long devious processes connected with -Darwinism and biology. Some years ago, when compelled to investigate the -subject more fully than I had hitherto done, I discovered, somewhat to -my own surprise, the phenomenal weakness of the geological argument. The -results of that investigation have grown into the present work. - -Though mostly critical and analytic, it is not wholly so. But so far as -it is constructive there is one virtue which can rightly be claimed for -it. It is at least an honest effort to study the foundation facts of -geology from the inductive may be standpoint, and whether or not I have -succeeded in this, it is, so far as I know, the only work published in -the English or any other language which does not treat the science of -geology more or less as a cosmogony. - -That such a statement is possible is, I think, my chief justification in -giving it to the public. It would seem as if the twentieth century could -afford at least one book built up from the present, instead of being -postulated from the past. - - GEORGE McCREADY PRICE. - - 257 South Hill Street, - Los Angeles, California, - June, 1906. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - PART I - - I THE ABSTRACT IDEA 11 - II HISTORY OF THE IDEA 14 - III FACT NUMBER ONE 20 - IV FACT NUMBER TWO 24 - V TURNED UPSIDE DOWN 27 - V FACT NUMBER FOUR 31 - VII EXTINCT SPECIES 34 - VIII SKIPPING 42 - - - PART II - - IX GRAVEYARDS 53 - X CHANGE OF CLIMATE 64 - XI DEGENERATION 70 - XII FOSSIL MEN 74 - XIII INDUCTIVE METHODS 81 - APPENDIX 89 - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - -A brief outline of the argument which I have used in the following pages -will be in order here. - -Darwinism, as a part, the chief part, of the general Evolution Theory, -rests logically and historically on the succession of life idea as -taught by geology. If there has actually been this succession of life on -the globe, then some form of genetic connection between these successive -types is the intuitive conclusion of every thinking mind. But if there -is no positive evidence that certain types are essentially older than -others, =if this succession of life is not an actual scientific fact=, -then Darwinism or any other form of evolution has no more scientific -value than the vagaries of the old Greeks--in short, from the standpoint -of true inductive science it is a most gigantic hoax, historically -scarce second to the Ptolemaic astronomy. - -In Part One I have examined critically this succession of life theory. -It is improper to speak of my argument as destructive, for there never -was any real constructive argument to be thus destroyed. It is -essentially =an exposure=, and I am willing to =give a thousand dollars= -to any one who will, in the face of the facts here presented, show me -how to prove that one kind of fossil is older than another. - -In Part Two I have attempted to build up a true, safe induction in the -candid, unprejudiced spirit of a coroner called upon to hold a _post -mortem_. The abnormal character of most of the fossiliferous deposits, -the sudden world-wide change of climate they record, the marked -degeneration in all organic forms in passing from the older to the -modern world, together with the great outstanding fact that human -beings, with thousands of other living species of animals and plants -have at this great world-crisis left their fossils in the rocks all over -the world, prove beyond a possible doubt that our once magnificently -stocked world met with a tremendous catastrophe some thousands of years -ago, before the dawn of history. As for the =origin= of the living -beings that existed before that event, we can only suppose a =direct -creation=, since modern science knows nothing of the spontaneous -generation of life, or of certain types of life having originated -=before= other types, and thus being able to serve as =the source of -origin= of other alleged succeeding types. - -With the myth of a life succession dissipated once and for ever, the -world stands face to face with creation as the direct act of the -Infinite God. - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE ABSTRACT IDEA - - -How many of us have ever tried to think out a statement of just how we -would prove that there has been a succession of life on the globe in a -particular order? - -Herbert Spencer did[1] and he did not seem to think the way in which it -is usually attempted a very praiseworthy example of the methods to be -pursued in natural science. - -He starts out with Werner, of Neptunian fame, and shows that the -latter's main idea of the rocks always succeeding one another over the -whole globe like the coats of an onion was "untenable if analyzed," and -"physically absurd," for among other things it is incomprehensible that -these very different kinds of rocks could have been precipitated one -after another by the same "chaotic menstrum." - -But he then proceeds to show that the science is "still swayed by the -crude hypotheses it set out with; so that even now, old doctrines that -are abandoned as untenable in theory, continue in practice to mould the -ideas of geologists, and to foster sundry beliefs that are logically -indefensible." - -Werner had taken for his data the way in which the rocks happened to -occur in "a narrow district of Germany," and had at once jumped to the -conclusion that they must always occur in this relative order over the -entire globe. "Thus on a very incomplete acquaintance with a thousandth -part of the earth's crust, he based a sweeping generalization applying -to the whole of it." - -Werner classified the rocks according to their mineral characters, but -when the fossils were taken as the prime test of age, the "original -nomenclature of periods and formations" kept alive the original idea of -complete envelopes encircling the whole globe one outside each other -like the coats of an onion. So that now, instead of Werner's successive -ages of sandstone making or limestone making, and successive suites of -these rocks, we have successive ages of various types of life, with -successive systems or "groups of formations which everywhere succeed -each other in a given order; and are severally everywhere of the same -age. Though it may not be asserted that these successive systems are -universal, yet it seems to be tacitly assumed that they are so.... -Though, probably, no competent geologist would contend that the European -classification of strata is applicable to the globe as a whole; yet -most, if not all geologists, write as though it were so." - -Spencer then goes on to show how dogmatic and unscientific it is to say -that when the Carboniferous flora, for example, existed in some -localities, this type of life and this only must have enveloped the -world. - -"Now this belief," he says, "that geologic 'systems' are universal, is -quite as untenable as the other. It is just as absurd when considered _a -priori_: and it is equally inconsistent with the facts," for all such -systems of similar life-forms must in olden time have been of merely -"local origin," just as they are now. In other words, we have no -scientific knowledge of a time in the past when there were not -zoological provinces and zones as there are to-day, one type of life -existing in one locality, while another and totally different type -existed somewhere else. - -Then, after quoting from Lyell a strong protest against the old fancy -that only certain types of sandstone and marls were made at certain -epochs, he proceeds: - -"Nevertheless, while in this and numerous passages of like implication, -Sir C. Lyell protests against the bias here illustrated, he seems -himself not completely free from it. Though he utterly rejects the old -hypothesis that all over the earth the same continuous strata lie upon -each other in regular order, like the coats of an onion, he still writes -as though geologic 'systems' do thus succeed each other. A reader of his -'Manual' would certainly suppose him to believe, that the Primary epoch -ended, and the Secondary epoch commenced, all over the world at the same -time.... =Must we not say that though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, -its spirit is tractable, under a transcendental form, even in the -conclusions of its antagonists.=" - -Spencer then examines at considerable length the kindred idea that the -same or similar species "lived in all parts of the earth at the same -time." "This theory," he says, "is scarcely more tenable than the -other." - -He then shows how in some localities there are now forming coral -deposits, in some places chalk, and in others beds of Molluscs; while in -still other places entirely different forms of life are existing. In -fact, each zone or depth of the ocean has its particular type of life, -just as successive altitudes do on the sides of a mountain; and it is a -dogmatic and arbitrary assumption to say that such conditions have not -existed in the past. - -"On our own coasts, the marine remains found a few miles from shore, in -banks where fish congregate, are different from those found close to the -shore, where only littoral species flourish. A large proportion of -aquatic creatures have structures that do not admit of fossilization; -while of the rest, the great majority are destroyed, when dead, by the -various kinds of scavengers that creep among the rocks and weeds. So -that no one deposit near our shores can contain anything like a true -representation of the fauna of the surrounding sea; much less of the -co-existing faunas of other seas in the same latitude; and still less of -the faunas of seas in distant latitudes. Were it not that the assertion -seems needful, it would be almost absurd to say that the organic remains -now being buried in the Dogger Bank can tell us next to nothing about -the fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and corals that are now being buried in -the Bay of Bengal." - -This author evidently found it difficult to keep within the bounds of -parliamentary language when speaking of the absurd and vicious reasoning -at the very basis of the whole current geological theory; for, unlike -the other physical sciences, the great leading ideas of geology are not -generalisations framed from the whole series or group of observed facts, -but are really abstract statements supposed to be reasonable in -themselves, or at the most =very hasty conclusions based on wholly -insufficient data=, like that of Werner in his "narrow district of -Germany." Sir Henry Howorth[2] has well expressed the urgent need that -there is of a complete reconstruction of geological theory: - - "It is a singular and a notable fact, that while most other branches - of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of - metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains - imprisoned in _a priori_ theories." - -But Huxley[3] also has left us some remarks along the same line which -are almost equally helpful in showing the essential absurdity of the -assumption that when one type of life was living and being buried in one -locality another and very diverse type could not have been doing the -same things in other distant localities. - -This is how he expresses it: - -"All competent authorities will probably assent to the proposition that -physical geology does not enable us in any way to reply to this -question--Were the British Cretaceous rocks deposited at the same time -as those of India, or were they a million of years younger, or a million -of years older?" - -This phase of the idea, however, is not so bad, for the human mind -refuses to believe that distant and disconnected groups of similar forms -were not connected in time and genetic relationship. It is really the -reverse of this proposition that contains the most essential absurdity, -and this is the very phase that is most essential to the whole -succession of life idea. Huxley, indeed, seems to have caught a glimpse -of this truth, for he says: - -"A Devonian fauna and flora in the British Islands =may= have been -contemporaneous with Silurian life in North America, and with a -Carboniferous fauna and flora in Africa. =Geographical provinces and -zones may have been as distinctly marked in the Palaeozoic epoch as at -present.=" - -Certainly; but if this be true, it is equally certain that the -Carboniferous flora of Pennsylvania may have been contemporaneous alike -with the Cretaceous flora of British Columbia and the Tertiary flora of -Germany and Australia. But in that case what becomes of this succession -of life which for nearly a century has been the pole star of all the -other biological sciences--I might almost say of the historical and -theological as well? - -Must it not be admitted that in any system of clear thinking this whole -idea of there having really been a succession of life on the globe is -not only =not proved= by scientific methods, but that it is essentially -unprovable and absurd? - -Huxley, in point of fact, admits this, though he goes right on with his -scheme of evolution, just as if he never thought of the logical -consequences involved. His words are: - -"In the present condition of our knowledge and of our methods (_sic_) -one verdict--'=not proven and not provable='--must be recorded against -all grand hypotheses of the palaeontologist respecting the general -succession of life on the globe." - -In view of these startling facts, is it not amazing to see the -supernatural knowledge of the past continually and quietly assumed in -every geological vision of the earth's history? - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] "Illogical Geology; Illustrations of Universal Progress," pp. - 329-380; D. Appleton & Co., 1890. - -[2] "The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood," Preface VII. - -[3] "Discourses Biol. and Geol.," pp. 279-288. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -HISTORY OF THE IDEA - - -Among the few stray principles that the future will probably be able to -save from the wreck of Spencer's philosophy, is the advisability of -looking into =the genealogy of an idea=. What has been its surroundings? -What is its family history? Does it come of good stock, or is its family -low and not very respectable? - -This is especially true in the case of a scientific idea, which above -all others needs to have a clean bill of health and a good family -record. But, unfortunately, the idea we are here considering has a bad -record, very bad in fact; for the whole family of Cosmogonies, of which -this notion is the only surviving representative, were supposed to have -been banished from the land of science long ago, and were all reported -dead. Some of them had to be executed by popular ridicule, but most of -them died natural deaths, the result of inherited taint, in the latter -part of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It is perfectly -astonishing how any of the family could have survived over into the -twentieth century, in the face of such an antecedent record. - -For one of the chief traits of the family as a whole is that of mental -disorder of various stages and degrees. Some of them were raving crazy; -others were mild and comparatively harmless, except that their drivel -had such a disturbing effect on scientific investigations that they had -to be put out of the way. It seems such a pity that when this last -fellow, early in life, was up before Doctors Huxley and Spencer for -examination, he was not locked up or put in limbo forthwith. This is -especially unfortunate, because this survivor of an otherwise extinct -race has since then produced a large family, some of which it is true -have already expired, while the eldest son, Darwinism, was reported in -1901 to be "at its last gasp,"[4] and was even said last year to have -had its "tombstone inscription" written by von Hartmann of Germany. But -the succession of life idea itself, the father of all this brood, is -still certified by those in authority to be healthy and _compos mentis_. - -The Cosmogony Family is a very ancient one, running back to the time of -Plato and Thales of Miletus. Indeed the cuneiform inscriptions of -Babylonia seem to indicate that a tribe with very similar -characteristics existed several millenniums before the Christian era. -But discarding all these, the first men that we need to mention are -perhaps Burnet and Whiston, who knew no other way of arriving at -geological truth than to spin a yarn about how the world was made. -Woodward seems to have had a little better sense, and is named along -with Hooke and John Ray as one of the real founders of the science. - -Unfortunately the brood of Cosmogonists was not dead, for Moro and De -Maillet were at this same period spinning their fantastic theories about -the origin of things; or as Zittel puts it, "accepted the risks of -error, and set about explaining the past and present =from the -subjective standpoint=."[5] This tendency we will find to be a birthmark -in the family, and will serve to invariably identify any of them -wherever found. We must remember this, and apply the test to the modern -survivors. - -Buffon seems to have been really the founder of the family in the modern -form. He is credited with the sarcastic remark that "geologists must -feel like the ancient Roman augurs who could not meet each other without -laughing;" though in view of his fantastic scheme of seven "epochs," in -which he endeavors to portray "the beginning, the past, and the future -(_sic_) of our planet,"[6] one is reminded of the common symptom which -manifests itself in thinking all the rest of the world crazy. - -The "Heroic Age of Geology" succeeded this period, and was characterized -largely by a determination to discard speculation, and to seek to build -up a true science of actual fact and truth. - -We have already seen from Spencer's remarks that A. G. Werner, who was, -however, one of the leaders in Germany at this time, was very far from -following true inductive methods. And the following language of Sir -Arch. Geikie shows that in him the family characteristics were decidedly -prominent: - -"But never in the history of science did a stranger hallucination arise -than that of Werner and his school, when they supposed themselves to -discard theory and build on a foundation of accurately-ascertained fact. -Never was a system devised in which theory was more rampant; theory, -too, unsupported by observation, and, as we now know, utterly erroneous. -From beginning to end of Werner's method and its applications, -assumptions were made for which there was no ground, and these -assumptions were treated as demonstrable facts. =The very point to be -proved was taken for granted=, and the geognosts, who boasted of their -avoidance of speculation, were in reality among the most hopelessly -speculative of all the generations that had tried to solve the problem -of the theory of the earth."[7] - -In fact this author says that: - -"The Wernerians were as certain of the origin and sequence of the rocks -as if they had been present at the formation of the earth's crust." (pp. -288-9.) - -Here we see the family characteristics very strongly developed. - -In speaking of Werner's five successive "suites" or onion-coats in which -he wrapped his embryo world, Zittel complains: - -"Unfortunately, Werner's field observations were =limited to a small -district=, the Erz mountains and the neighboring parts of Saxony and -Bohemia. And his chronological scheme of formations was founded upon the -mode of occurrence of the rocks within these narrow confines." (p. 59.) - -And yet, as we have seen, it is precisely such a charge as this that -Spencer and Huxley bring against the modern phase of the doctrine of -successive ages based on the succession of life idea. Werner, from -observations "limited to a small district," constructed his scheme of -exact chronological sequence, basing it entirely upon the mineral or -mechanical character of his "suites." And hundreds of enthusiastic -followers long declared that the rocks everywhere conformed to this -classification, even so great an observer as von Humboldt thinking that -the rocks which he examined in Central and South America fully confirmed -Werner's chronological arrangement. - -But such notions to-day only cause a smile of pity, for it is now well -known that, take the world over, =the rocks do not occur= as Werner -imagined, though, as Geikie says, he and his disciples were as certain -of the matter "as if they had been present at the formation of the -earth's crust." Besides, as already pointed out, we moderns ought now to -have pretty well assimilated the idea that while one kind of mineral or -rock was forming in one locality, =a totally different kind of deposit= -may have been in process of formation in another spot some distance off -=at the very same time=, and we cannot imagine a time in the past when -this principle would not hold good. But in a precisely similar way the -idea of a time value was, as we shall see, transferred from the -mechanical and mineral character of the rocks to their fossil contents; -and from observations again "limited to a small district," William Smith -and Cuvier conceived the idea that the fossils occurred =only= in a -certain order; that only certain fossils lived at a certain time; that, -for example, while Trilobites were living and dying in one locality, -Nummulites or Mammals positively were not living and dying in another -locality, though in any system of clear thinking this latter notion is -just as irrational as that of Werner. Hence Spencer is compelled to say, -"though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, its spirit is still -traceable, under a transcendental form, even in the conclusions of its -antagonists." - -The two cases are exactly parallel; only it has taken us nearly a -hundred years, it seems, to find out that the fossils do not follow the -prearranged order of Smith and Cuvier any better than the rocks and -minerals do the scheme of Werner. If hundreds of geologists still seem -to think that the fossils in general agree with the standard order, we -must remember how many sharp observers said the same thing for decades -about Werner's scheme. The taint of heredity will always come out sooner -or later; and both of these schemes exhibit very strongly the family -history of the whole tribe of Cosmogonies, viz., =the facts refuse to -certify that they are of sound mind=. - -It was William Smith, an English land surveyor, who first conceived the -idea of fixing the relative ages of strata by their fossils. Just how -far he carried this idea it seems difficult to determine exactly. -Lyell[8] says nothing along this line about him, save that he followed -the leading divisions of the Secondary strata as outlined by Werner, -though he claims "independently" of the latter. Whewell[9] remarks -rather pityingly on his having had "no literary cultivation" in his -youth, but has nothing about the degree in which he is responsible for -the modern scheme of life succession of which many modern geologists -have made him the "father". Geikie and Zittel are much more explicit. -The former[10] says that "he had reached early in life the conclusions -on which his fame rests, and he never advanced beyond them." "His plain, -solid, matter-of-fact intellect never branched into theory or -speculation, but occupied itself wholly in the observation of facts." -Zittel[11] says pretty much the same thing, remarking that "Smith -confined himself to the empirical investigation of his country, and was -never tempted into general speculations about the history of the -formation of the earth"--words which to my mind are the very highest -praise, for they seem to indicate that he was only in a very limited way -responsible for the unscientific and illogical scheme of a "phylogenic -series" or complete "life-history of the earth," which now passes as the -science of geology. Doubtless like his little bright-eyed German -contemporary, A. G. Werner, he had not had his imagination sufficiently -cultivated in his youth to be able to appreciate the beauty of first -assuming your premises and then proving them by means of your -conclusion, i.e., first assuming that there has been a gradual -development on the earth from the lowest to the highest, and then -arranging the fossils from scattered localities over the earth in such a -way that they cannot fail to testify to the fact. - -The following may be taken as a fair statement of what he actually -accomplished and taught: - -"After his long period of field observations, William Smith came to the -conclusion that one and the same succession of strata stretched through -England from the south coast to the east, and that each individual -horizon could be recognized by its particular fossils, that certain -forms reappear in the same beds in the different localities, and that -each fossil species belongs to a definite horizon of rock."[12] - -But even granting the perfect accuracy of this generalization of Smith's -for the rocks which he examined, I fail to see how it is any better than -Werner's scheme, which Zittel characterizes as "weak" and premature, and -of which Whewell (p. 521) says that "he promulgated, as respecting the -world, a scheme collected from a province, and even too hastily gathered -from that narrow field." - -Quoting again from Zittel's criticism of Werner's work ("Hist. of -Geology," p. 59), we must admit that Smith's observations also were -"limited to a small district," and "his chronological scheme of -formations was founded upon the mode of occurrence of the rocks -(fossils) within these narrow confines." There is, as we have shown, a -monstrous jump from this to the conclusion that =even these particular -fossils= must always occur in this particular relative order over the -whole earth. How can any one deny that if we had a complete collection -of all the fossils laid down during the last thousand years--when all -admit that the so-called "phylogenic series" is complete--particular -fossils would in many cases be found to occur only in particular rocks, -and we could still arrange them in this same order from the lowest to -the highest forms of life, while we might even happen to find "small -districts" where the "mode of occurrence of the rocks within these -narrow confines" would have all the appearance of showing a true -"phylogenic" order. This of itself ought to be sufficient to show us -the weakness of this subjective method of study, and the purely -hypothetical and imaginary value of the fossils in determining the real -age of a rock deposit. - -The name of Baron Cuvier is the next that we have to consider. An -examination of part of his teaching will come naturally a little later -when considering "extinct species." That part of his work which related -to the doctrine of Catastrophism is somewhat aside from the subject of -our study; while with regard to his influence on the succession of life -idea _per se_ there is not very much that need be said. And yet Cuvier -is the real founder of modern cosmological geology, and thus in a -certain sense the father of biological evolution. - -But if the absence of the architectonic mania for building a cosmogony -will serve to remove in a great measure any suspicions with regard to -William Smith's results, we cannot say the same for those of Cuvier. In -his scheme the hereditary Cosmological taint, which is such an -invariable characteristic of the family, is very strong, though -disguised and almost transfigured by learning and genius. It is -doubtless these latter qualities which have secured for the theory such -a phenomenal length of life, though of course we know that nothing born -of this whole brood can ever secure a permanent home in the kingdom of -science. - -"How glorious," wrote this otherwise truly great man in his famous -"Preliminary Discourse," "it would be if we could arrange the organized -products of the universe in their chronological order, as we can already -(Werner's onion-coats) do with the more important mineral substances!" - -His work (with that of his co-laborer Brongniart) on the fossils of the -Paris basin was probably accurate and logical enough for that limited -locality. It was only when he quietly assumed as Werner had done, that -the rocks must always occur in this particular order all over the world, -or as Whewell expresses it, "promulgated as respecting the world, a -scheme collected from a province, and (perhaps) even too hastily -gathered from that narrow field"--it was only, I say, when this -monstrous assumption was incorporated into his scheme, and he began to -call into being his vision of organic creation on the instalment plan, -as Werner had done with the minerals, that his great and valuable work -for science became tainted with the deadly Cosmological virus, dooming -it to death sooner or later. Sherlock Holmes might attempt to diagnose a -disease by a mere glance at his patient's boots, but even this gave him -more data and was a more logical proceeding than the facts and methods -of Cuvier supplied for constructing a scheme of organic creation. - -It will not be necessary to detail the manner in which the modern -"phylogenic series" was gradually pieced together from the scattered -fragments here and there all over the globe; but it should be noted here -that the whole chain of life was practically complete before any serious -attempt was made to study the rocks on the top of the ground, and to -find out how this marvellous record of the past =joined on to the modern -period=, thus reversing completely the true inductive method, and -leaving the most important of all, viz., the rocks containing human -remains and other living species, over till the last, with the result -that we have for over half a century been laboring under a "Glacial -Nightmare," and these deposits on the top of the ground "still remain in -many respects the despair of geology." - -Then came Lyell, Agassiz, and Darwin; and now in the light of the keen -discussions instituted by Weismann in the later eighties of the last -century, the modern world is pretty well agreed on two results, viz., -that so far from natural selection being able to originate a species, it -can't possibly =originate= anything at all, and also that no individual -can transmit to his descendants what he has himself acquired in his -lifetime, and hence it is hard to see how he can transmit what he has -not got himself and what none of his ancestors ever had. - -I have not the space to show how Agassiz further complicated the problem -immensely by his absurdly illogical use of his three "laws" of -comparison, when the prime fact of there ever having been a succession -of life on the globe in any order whatever had never been proved; but I -am free to say that if Cuvier's system of creation on the instalment -plan had been fact instead of fancy, some scheme of evolution would -undoubtedly be implied in this general fact. It is this instinctive -feeling on the part of modern scientists which makes them to-day, while -confessing the failure of Darwinism, still cling to the general idea of -evolution =somehow=. Hence it seems quite evident that, having deviated -from strict inductive methods by pursuing this _ignis fatuus_ of a -cosmological history of creation, it was essential in the interests of -true science to go the whole journey and make a complete investigation -of the biological side of the question, in order to complete the -demonstration that science was on a wrong tack entirely. Darwin and -Weismann were inevitable in view of the wholly unscientific course on -which biology entered under the guidance of Buffon and Cuvier. - -What then can we take as the general lesson to be learned from the -stubborn way in which, for over a hundred years, the world has followed -this hypnotic suggestion of folly, that we might explain our genesis and -being from the scientific standpoint? One of the lessons--there may be -others--is that =science knows nothing about origins=, and that, in -speculating along these lines, the cosmological taint will always -vitiate the accuracy of our conclusions and debauch the true spirit of -induction. A hundred years ago, they thought they knew all about how the -world was made. The keen investigations inspired by Darwinism were -necessary to convince us that we know nothing at all about it. Modern -biology has simply developed a gigantic _reductio ad absurdum_ argument -against the easy assumptions of the earlier geologists that it occurred -by a progression from the low to the high. A hundred years--nay fifty -years ago--this assumption did not appear so unscientific, for we did -not then have the biological evidence to refute such an idea. Now, -however, in the light of the modern progress of science, this awful -mystery of our existence, of our creation and destiny, is borne in upon -us from every dividing cell, from every sprouting seed, from countless -millions of the eloquent voices of nature, which our forefathers were -too blind to see, too deaf to understand; and with weary, reluctant -sadness does science confess that about it all she knows absolutely -nothing. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[4] Nature, Nov. 28, 1901, pp. 76, 77. - -[5] "History of Geology," p. 23. - -[6] Zittel, p. 42. - -[7] "Founders of Geology," p. 112; Johns Hopkins Press, 1901. - -[8] "Principles," p. 50, 8th Ed. - -[9] "History of the Inductive Sciences," vol. ii., p. 521. - -[10] "Founders of Geology," pp. 237-8. - -[11] "History," p. 112. - -[12] Zittel, "History," p. 110. It should be noted that all these rocks - in England thus examined by Smith make up only a small fraction of - the total geological series--largely what we now call the Jurassic - and Cretaceous rocks. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -FACT NUMBER ONE - - -Hitherto we have been dealing only with the _a priori_ aspects of the -succession of life idea. We have seen that it is really based on two -primary assumptions, viz.: - -(1) That over all the earth the fossils =must always occur= in the -particular order in which they were found to occur in a few corners of -Western Europe; and also-- - -(2) That in the long ago =there were no such things as zoological -provinces and zones=, and totally different types of fossils from -separated localities could not possibly have been contemporaneous with -one another as we know they are to-day in "recent" deposits.[13] - -On the blending of these two assumptions, the latter essentially absurd, -and the former long ago disproved by the facts of the rocks, has been -built up the towering structure of a complete "phylogenic series" from -the Cambrian to the Pleistocene. The way in which, as we have been, -Spencer and Huxley treated this subject, reminds us very much of the old -advice, "When you meet with an insuperable difficulty, look it -steadfastly in the face--and pass on." For neither they nor any of their -thousands of followers have ever, so far as I know, pointed out the -horrible logic in taking this immense complex of guesses and assumptions -as the starting-point for new departures, the solid foundation for -detailed "investigations" as to =just how= this wonderful phenomenon of -development has occurred. For after Agassiz and his contemporaries had -built on these large assumptions of Cuvier, and had arranged the details -and the exact order of these successive forms by comparison with the -embryonic life of the modern individual, the evolutionists of our time, -led by such men as Spencer and Haeckel, with their "philogenetic -principle," =prove= their theory of evolution by showing that the -embryonic life of the individual is only "a brief recapitulation, as it -were from memory," of the geological succession in time. There would -really seem to be little hope of reaching with any arguments a -generation of scientists who can elaborate genealogical trees of descent -for the different families and genera of the animal kingdom, based -wholly on such a series of assumptions and blind guesses, and then palm -off their work on a credulous world as the proved results of =inductive= -science. - -And yet I am tempted to make some effort in this direction. And since we -have now examined the _a priori_ aspects of the question, it remains to -test the two above mentioned assumptions by the facts of the rocks. The -=second=, indeed, involving as it does a profound supernatural knowledge -of the past, and being so positively contrary to all that we know of the -modern world as to seem essentially absurd, is yet by its very nature -beyond the reach of any tests that we can bring to bear upon it. Hence -it remains to test by the facts of the rocks =the assumption that all -over the earth the fossils invariably occur in the particular order in -which they were first found in a few corners of Western Europe= by the -founders of the science. Have we already a sufficiently broad knowledge -of the rocks of the world to decide such a question? I think we have. - -To begin then at the beginning, let us try to find out how we can fix on -the rocks which are absolutely the oldest on the globe. We would expect -to find a good many patches of them here and there, but there must be -some common characteristic by which they may be distinguished wherever -found. Of course, when I say "rocks" here I mean fossils, for as has -long been agreed upon by geologists, mineral and mechanical characters -are of practically no use in determining the age of deposits, and we are -here dealing only with life and the order in which it has occurred on -the globe. Accordingly our problem is really to find that typical group -of fossils which is essentially older than all dissimilar groups of -fossils. - -In most localities we do not have to go very far down[14] into the earth -to find granite or other so-called igneous rocks, which not only do not -contain any traces of fossils, but which we have no proper reason for -supposing ever contained any. These Azoic or Archaean rocks constitute -practically all the earth's crust, there being only a thin skim of -fossiliferous strata on the outside somewhat like the skin on an apple. -Now it would be natural enough to suppose that those fossils which occur -at the bottom, or next to the Archaean, are the oldest. This is -doubtless what the earlier geologists had in mind, or at least ought to -have had, for it is not quite certain that they had any clear thoughts -on the matter whatever. They did not really begin at the bottom, but -half way up, so to speak, at the Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks, and -Sedgwick and Murchison, who undertook to find bottom, got too excited -over their Cambro-Silurian controversy to attend to such an -insignificant detail as the logical proof that any type of fossils was -really older than all others. If they had really stopped to consider -that some type of fossil might occur next to the Archaean in Wales, and -another type occur thus in Scotland, while still another type altogether -might be found in this position in some other locality, and so on over -the world, leading us to the very natural conclusion that in the olden -times as now =there were zoological provinces and districts=, the -history of science during the nineteenth century might have been very -different, and this chapter might never have been written. But this -commonplace of modern geology, that any type of fossil whatever, even -the very "youngest," may occur next to the Archaean, was not then -considered or understood; and when about 1830 it came to be recognized, -other things were allowed to obscure its significance, and the habit of -arranging the rocks in chronological order according to their fossils -was too firmly established to be disturbed by such an idea. - -But the Fact Number One, which I have chosen as the subject of this -chapter, is the now well established principle that =any kind of fossil -whatever, even "young" Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or -Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or -crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the -so-called "oldest" rocks=. - -The first part of this proposition, about any rocks occurring next to -the Archaean, is covered by the following quotation from Dana:[15] - -"A stratum of one era may rest upon any stratum in the whole of the -series below it,--the Coal-measures on either the Archaean, Silurian, or -Devonian strata; and the Jurassic, Cretaceous, or Tertiary on any one of -the earlier rocks, the intermediate being wanting. The Quaternary in -America in some cases rests on Archaean rocks, in others on Silurian or -Devonian, in others on Cretaceous or Tertiary." - -It would be tedious to multiply testimony on a point so universally -understood. - -As for the other half of this fact, that even the so-called "youngest" -rocks may be metamorphic and crystalline just as well as the "oldest," -it also is now a recognized commonplace of science. Dana[16] says that -as early as 1833 Lyell taught this as a general truth applicable to "all -the formations from the earliest to the latest." - -The first reference I can find to any disproof of this old fable of -Werner's, that only certain kinds of rock are to be found next to the -"Primitive" or Archaean, is in the observations of Studer and Beaumont -in the Alps, (1826-28), who found "relatively young" fossils in -crystalline schists, which, as Zittel says, "was a very great blow to -the geologists who upheld the hypothesis of the Archaean or pre-Cambrian -age of all gneisses and schists." - -James Geikie, doubtless referring to the same series of rocks, tells us -that:-- - -"In the central Alps of Switzerland, some of the Eocene strata are so -highly metamorphosed that they closely resemble some of the most ancient -deposits of the globe, consisting, as they do, of crystalline rocks, -marble, quartz-rock, mica schist, and gneiss."[17] - -Hence we need not be surprised at the following statement of the -situation by Zittel.[18] - -"The last fifteen years of the nineteenth century witnessed very great -advances in our knowledge of rock-deformation and metamorphism. =It has -been found that there is no geological epoch whose sedimentary deposits -have been wholly safeguarded from metamorphic changes=, and, as this -broad fact has come to be realized, it has proved most unsettling, and -has necessitated a revision of the stratigraphy of many districts in the -light of new possibilities. The newer researches scarcely recognize any -theory; they are directed rather to the empirical method of obtaining -all possible information regarding microscopic and field evidences of -the passage from metamorphic to igneous rocks, and from metamorphic to -sedimentary rocks." - -But in addition to what Zittel means by recognizing "no theory" as to -the origin of the various sorts of "igneous" rocks, it seems to me that -this "broad fact" ought surely to prove "most unsettling," to the -traditional theories about certain fossils being intrinsically older -than others. With our minds divested of all prejudice, and this "broad" -Fact Number One well comprehended, that any kind of fossil whatever may -occur next to the Archaean, and the rocky strata containing it may in -texture and appearance "closely resemble some of the most ancient -deposits on the globe," =where= on this broad earth shall we look for -the place =to start= our life-succession That is, where can we now go to -find those kinds of fossils which we can prove, by independent -arguments, to be absolutely older than all others? It may seem very -difficult for some of us to discard a theory so long an integral part of -all geology; but until it can be proved that this "broad fact" as stated -by Zittel and Dana is no fact at all, I see no escape from the -acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils being -essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely -nothing in nature to support it. - -Or, to state the matter in another way, since the life succession theory -rests logically and historically on Werner's notion that only certain -kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the "bottom" or next to the -Archaean, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks -whatever may be thus situated, it is as clear as sunlight that the life -succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that -there is =no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first=. - -Of course, the reason the followers of Cuvier and his life succession -now find themselves in such a fix as this is because they have not been -following true inductive methods. Theirs has been a geology by -hypothesis instead of by observed fact. They started out with a pretty -scheme ready-made about the origin and formation of the world, perfectly -innocent of any evil intent in such a method of procedure, and -unconscious of its speculative character; and for nearly a hundred years -they have supposed that they were following inductive methods in -Geology. But in view of what we have now learned I think we are -perfectly justified in adapting and applying to Cuvier and the modern -school of geologists what Geikie[19] says about Werner and his school: - -"But never in the history of science did a stranger hallucination arise -than that of Cuvier and the modern school, when they supposed themselves -to discard theory and build on a foundation of accurately ascertained -fact. Never was a system devised in which theory was more rampant; -theory, too, unsupported by observation, and, as we now know, utterly -erroneous. From beginning to end of Cuvier's method and its -applications, assumptions were made for which there was no ground, and -these assumptions were treated as demonstrable facts. The very point to -be proved was taken for granted, and the evolutionary geologists who -boasted of their avoidance of speculation, were in reality among the -most hopelessly speculative of all the generations that had tried to -solve the problem of the theory of the earth." - -FOOTNOTES: - -[13] The onion-coat hypothesis, which is the only other alternative, - modern science professes to have abandoned. - -[14] When the text-books speak of ten or twelve miles thickness of the - fossiliferous rocks, the reader should remember how the rocks have - to be patched up together from here and there to make this - incredible thickness, as only a small fraction of such a thickness - exists in any one place. - -[15] "Manual," p. 399, Fourth Ed. - -[16] "Manual," p. 408. - -[17] "Manual of Historical Geol.," p. 74. - -[18] "Hist.," p. 360. - -[19] "Founders of Geology," p. 112. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -FACT NUMBER TWO - - -If we had ample evidence that a certain man was personally acquainted -with Julius Caesar, that they were born in the same town, went to school -together, served in the same wars, and later carried on an extensive -mutual correspondence, would we not conclude that they must have lived -in the same age of the world's history? I confess that the conclusion -seems quite unavoidable. Who would dream that eighteen centuries or more -had separated the two lives, and that while one was an old Roman the -other was an American of the latter nineteenth century? - -Some such a puzzle as this is presented in geology under the general -subject of =conformability=. Let me define this term. - -Strata laid down by water are in the first place in a horizontal -position. Some subsequent force may have disturbed them, so that we may -now find them standing up on edge like books in a library. But all human -experience goes to show that they were not deposited in this position. -Some disturbing cause must have taken hold of them since they were laid -down, for the water in which they were made must have spread them out -smooth and horizontal, each subsequent layer or stratum fitting "like a -glove" on the preceding. Thus when we find two successive layers -agreeing with one another in their planes of bedding, with every -indication that the lower one was not disturbed in any way before the -upper one was spread out upon it, the two are said to be =conformable=. -But if the lower bed has evidently been upturned or disturbed before the -other was laid down, or if its surface has even been partly eroded or -washed away by the water, the strata are said to be =unconformable=, or -they show =unconformability= in bedding. - -Of course, in all this we are dealing only with =relative= time. When we -find one bed or stratum lying above another in their natural position, -the lower one is of course the older of the two; but whether laid down -ten minutes earlier, or ten million years earlier, how are we to -determine? Ignoring the matter of the fossils they contain, must we not -own that, though there is no way of telling just how much longer the -lower one was deposited before the next succeeding, yet if the two are -conformable to one another, and the bottom one shows no evidence of -disturbance or erosion before the other was fitted upon it, the strong -presumption would seem to be that no great length of time could have -elapsed between the laying down of the two layers. To say that we have -here a geological example similar to that of a modern American having -been personally acquainted with Julius Caesar, would seem to be quite -"inexplicable," as Herbert Spencer used to say. - -But if the life succession theory be true, we have just such a conundrum -in our Fact Number Two, which is that =any formation whatever may rest -conformably upon any other "older" formation=. - -The lower may be Devonian, Silurian, or Cambrian, and the upper one -Cretaceous or Tertiary, and thus according to the theory millions on -millions of years must have elapsed after the first, and before the -following bed was laid down, but the conformability is perfect, and the -beds have all the appearance of having followed in quick succession. -Sometimes, too, though less frequently, these age-separated formations -are lithologically the same, and can only be separated by their fossils! - -But before going into the minute description of any of these cases, we -must notice some general statements. Thus as long ago as the date of the -publication of "The Origin of Species," Darwin, in speaking of the -"Imperfection of the Geological Record," could speak of "The many cases -on record of a formation conformably covered, after an immense interval -of time, by another and later formation, without the underlying bed -having suffered in the interval by any wear and tear."[20] - -Also Geikie,[21] in speaking of how "fossil evidence may be made to -prove the existence of gaps which are not otherwise apparent," says that -"It is not so easy to give a satisfactory account of those which occur -where the strata are strictly conformable, and where no evidence can be -observed of any considerable change of physical conditions at the time -of deposit. A group of quite conformable strata having the same general -lithological characters throughout, may be marked by a great discrepance -between the fossils of the upper and the lower part." In many cases he -says these conditions are "not merely local, but persistent over wide -areas.... They occur abundantly among the European Palaeozoic and -Secondary rocks," and are "traceable over wide regions." - -We have seen how Dana admits that "A stratum of one era may rest upon -any stratum in the whole series below it, ... the intermediate being -wanting." He classes this under the head of the "=Difficulties=" of the -science, quite naturally as it would seem, though he does not expressly -assert that these age-separated formations are often =conformable= to -one another, as Geikie and Darwin have said in the above given -quotations. - -The literature really teems with illustrations of these facts, and the -more detailed accounts contained in the various Geological Reports are -often quite charmingly _naive_ in their description of the conditions. -Two examples, however, must suffice, both from the Canadian North West. - -The first is from the Report on the region about Banff, in Alberta, near -the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and just east of the Rockies. - -"East of the main divide the Lower Carboniferous is overlaid in places -by beds of Lower Cretaceous age, and here again, although the two -formations differ so widely in respect to age, one overlies the other -without any perceptible break, and the separation of one from the other -is rendered more difficult by the fact that the upper beds of the -Carboniferous =are lithologically almost precisely like those of the -Cretaceous (above them.) Were it not for fossil evidence, one would -naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with.="[22] - -The other example is from the District of Athabasca. - -"The Devonian limestone is apparently succeeded conformably by the -Cretaceous, and with the possible exception of a thin bed of -conglomerate of limited extent, which occurs below Crooked Rapid on the -Athabasca, the age of which is doubtful, the =vast interval of time= -which separated the two formations, is, so far as observed, -=unrepresented= either by deposition or erosion."[23] - -Of course, some geological writers labor to explain this thundering -rebuke of their theory, just as the Ptolemaic astronomers had their -"deterrents" and "epicycles" for every new difficulty. But surely the -detailed records of such observations as these are fearful examples of -the power of tradition to blind the minds of investigators to the -meaning of the very plainest facts. - -On a previous page (Id. p. 51,) the author last quoted gives us some -idea of the "remarkable persistence" of this instructive case of -conformability, which extends from the Athabasca "in a broad band around -the southern end of Birch Mountains, and across Lake Claire to Peace -River, and up the latter stream to a point two miles above Vermillion -Falls." - -The distance, as I judge from the map, can not be less than 150 miles in -a straight direction, thus making a district of probably several -thousand square miles in extent where, according to the theory of a life -succession, nature must have put an injunction on the action of the -elements, and they had to continue in the _status quo_ for millions of -ages, or from the Devonian to the Cretaceous "age," the water neither -wearing away nor building up over any part of this consecrated ground -during all this time. - -Nor is this all, for from Part E, Report (p. 209) of this same volume, -we are told of strata near Lake Manitoba, =over 500 miles away=, in -almost the same wonderful relationship,--"Devonian rocks very similar in -character" to those in Athabasca still overlaid directly by the -Cretaceous, though in this case as it happens "unconformably." It would -almost seem to be a _bona fide_ case of Werner's onion coats cropping -out. - -And all this incredible picture of nature's inconsistent behaviour in -past ages is necessitated solely by the loving allegiance with which the -infallibility of the life succession theory is regarded by modern -geologists. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[20] "Origin," Vol. II., p. 58: Sixth Ed. The first edition, I believe, - contains the same language. - -[21] "Text-Book," p. 842. - -[22] Canadian "Annual Report," New Series, Vol. II., Part A, p. 8. - -[23] "Annual Report," New Series, Vol. V., Part D, p. 52. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -TURNED UPSIDE DOWN - - -How many of us have ever seen a mountain fall? Not very many. And yet -events even more wonderful than this have frequently occurred in the -past, as we are confidently assured by the leaders in geological -science. Thus, in speaking of a certain region in the Alps, Dana[24] -says that "one of the overthrust folds has put the beds upside down over -an area of 450 square miles." - -It is well worth our while to try to understand this statement. Our -first and most natural inquiry is, What is it that leads scientists to -think so? The details of this particular case are not very accessible, -and so we are driven to reasoning from analogy from the known methods -and constructions employed in this science. We must agree that none of -the authorities who report this circumstance can testify as -eye-witnesses of this marvellous event: they were not there on the spot -when old Mother Earth turned this huge calcareous and silicious pancake. -And yet there must be some kind of evidence by which these eminent men -have arrived at this conclusion. What kind of evidence can it be? - -We cannot imagine any physical evidence which could even remotely -suggest such an idea. In fact from the universal custom of making the -contained fossils the supreme test of the age of a rock deposit, we are -perfectly safe in concluding that it is =solely because the fossils -occur here in the reverse of the accepted order=, that we have this -astounding picture of an immense mountain mass having been put "upside -down over an area of 450 square miles." The "older" fossils are -evidently here on top, while the "younger" ones are underneath, and of -course some explanation must be given of this flat contradiction of the -life succession theory. - -But let us retrace our steps somewhat, and pick up the thread of our -argument. We have already found quite serious reason to question the -accuracy of this life succession theory: but there is still another way -of testing its rationality. If certain fossils are not necessarily older -than certain others, it might reasonably be expected that we would now -and then find them reversed as to position, i.e., with the "younger" -below and the "older" above. Accordingly we have the following very -necessary caution from Prof. Nicholson:[25] - -"It may even be said that in any case where there should appear to be a -clear and decisive discordance between the physical and the -palaeontological (fossil) evidence as to the age of a given series of -beds, it is the former that is to be distrusted rather than the latter." - -To meet all ordinary cases of this character, where the differences -involve only a few formations representing a few "ages" or a few million -years, the theory of pioneer "colonies" was invented by Barrande in -1852. - -But for extreme cases, say where Silurian or Cambrian fossils occur -=above= Jurassic, Cretaceous or Tertiary, there is in such a predicament -always an anxious search made for faults and displacements; or gigantic -"thrust-faults" or "overthrust folds," like the example already quoted -from Dana, are described in picturesque language, many miles in -extent--inventions which, as I have already suggested of a similar -expedient to explain away evidence, deserve to rank with the famous -"epicycles" of Ptolemy, and will do so some day. - -Here is Geikie's highly instructive statement regarding the same -conditions:-- - -"We may even demonstrate that in some mountainous ground, the strata -have been turned completely upside down, _if_ we can show that the -fossils in what are now the uppermost layers =ought properly= to lie -underneath those in the beds below them."[26] - -Some day, I fancy, a statement like this will be regarded as a literary -curiosity. - -There are plenty of examples under this head, though two or three ought -to be as good as a dozen. In the part of Alberta east of the Rockies -already referred to, is a section of country of about fourteen square -miles at least--and we know not how much more--where Cambrian fossils -are found =above= Cretaceous, and the inevitable "thrust fault" is thus -described by one of the officers of the Canadian Geological Survey. He -has just been speaking of "a series" of these "gigantic thrust -faults":-- - -"One of the largest and most important of these occurs along the eastern -base of the chain, and brings the Cambrian limestones of the Castle -Mountain group over the Cretaceous of the foot hills. This fault has a -vertical displacement of more than 15,000 feet (? three miles), and an -estimated horizontal displacement of the Cambrian beds of about seven -miles in an easterly section. The actually observed overlap amounts to -nearly two miles. The angle of inclination of its plane to the horizon -is =very low=, and in consequence of this its outcrop follows a very -sinuous line along the base of the mountains, =and acts exactly like the -line of contact of two nearly horizontal formations=. - -"The best places for examining this fault are at the gaps of the Bow and -of the south fork of the Ghost River. At the former place the Cretaceous -shales form the floor of the bay which the Bow has cut in the eastern -wall of the range, and rise to a considerable height in the surrounding -slopes. Their line of contact with the massive gray limestones of the -overlying Castle Mountain group is well seen near the entrance of the -gap in the hills to the north. The fault plane here is nearly -horizontal, and the two formations, viewed from the valley, =appear to -succeed one another conformably=."[27] - -But what an amazing condition of affairs is this. Here are great -mountainous masses of rock, very similar in mechanical and mineral -make-up to thousands of examples elsewhere. The line of bedding between -them "acts exactly like the line of contact of two nearly horizontal -formations," and in a natural section cut out by a river the two "appear -to succeed one another conformably." And yet we are asked to believe -that all this is merely an optical illusion. The rocks could not -possibly have been deposited in this way, for the lower ones contain -"Benton fossils" (Cretaceous), and the upper ones are Cambrian, and -almost the whole geological series and untold millions of years occurred -=after= the upper one, and =before= the lower one was formed. Solely on -the strength of the infallibility of a theory invented a hundred years -ago in a little corner of Western Europe, which "promulgated, as -respecting the world, a scheme collected from that province," and -assumed that over all the world the rocks must always follow the order -there observed, we are here asked to deny the positive evidence of our -senses =because= these rocks do not follow this accepted order. I must -confess that I cannot see the force of such a method of reasoning. It is -carrying the argument several degrees beyond the reasoning of the three -little green peas in the little green pod, as narrated in the exquisite -fable of Eugene Field. These wise little fellows noticed that their -little world was all green, and they themselves green likewise, and they -shrewdly concluded from this that the whole universe must also be green. -But we are not told of their travelling abroad and persisting in a -systematic attempt to explain all subsequently observed facts in terms -of their theory. - -This government Report last quoted from says that in the eastern part of -Tennessee the Appalachian Chain "presents an almost identical -structure," and refers to a similar state of things in the Highlands of -Scotland. Dana, in the last edition of his "Manual" (p. 369), refers to -this report, and reproduces some of its plates showing some of the -structures referred to; and on another page, in speaking of this similar -example in Scotland, says that "a mass of the oldest crystalline rocks, -many miles in length from north to south, was thrust at least ten miles -westward over younger rocks, part of the latter fossiliferous"; and -further declares that "the thrust planes look like planes of bedding, -and were long so considered."[28] - -Geikie quite naturally devotes several pages in his "Text-Book" to a -description of these conditions in the Highlands; but from one of his -first reports on these observations, published in _Nature_[29] we get -some much more suggestive details. The thrust-planes, he says, are -difficult to be "distinguished from ordinary stratification planes, like -which they have been plicated, faulted, and denuded. Here and there, as -a result of denudation, a portion of one of them =appears capping a -hill-top=. One almost refuses to believe that the little outlier on the -summit does not lie normally on the rocks below it, but on a nearly -horizontal fault by which it has been moved into its place." - -Speaking of some similar conditions in Ross Shire, which he himself had -previously described as naturally conformable, he declares:-- - -"=Had these sections been planned for the purpose of deception= they -could not have been more skillfully devised ... and no one coming first -to this ground would suspect that what appears to be a normal -stratigraphical sequence is not really so." - -"When a geologist finds" things in this condition, he says, "he may be -excused if he begins to wonder =whether he himself is not really -standing on his head=." - -But I would only weary the reader by attempting to pursue this subject -further. Those who wish to do so will find many additional examples in -the larger works of Dana, LeConte, Prestwich, and Geikie, to say nothing -of the more detailed statements buried in numerous Government Reports -and special monographs in German and French. - -From the very same set of beds different observers try to explain these -puzzles in very different ways. Some, like Helm, will describe gigantic -overthrust folds, and will draw immense arcs of circles several miles -high in the air, as the place where the rocks must once have been. -Others, like Rothpletz, from an examination of the very same rocks, will -cut the mountain up into sections with imaginary fault-planes, and will -tell how, in the district about Glarus for example, an enormous mass of -mountains "travelled from east to west a distance of about twenty-five -miles from the Rhine valley to the Linth," or how the "Rhatikon Mountain -mass travelled from Montafon valley to the Rhine valley, about nineteen -miles from east to west."[30] - -With regard to some at least of these conditions in the Alps, Geikie -virtually admits that these incredible and self-contradictory -earth-movements are necessitated by and described from fossil evidence -only, for he says:-- - -"... the strata could scarcely be supposed to have been really inverted, -save for the evidence (_sic_) as to their true order of succession -supplied by their included fossils." "... portions of Carboniferous -strata appear as if regularly interbedded among Jurassic rocks, and -indeed could not be separated save after a study of their enclosed -organic remains."[31] - -In fact, we are perfectly safe in concluding in all similar cases that -we may encounter in the literature of the science that it is the -reversed order of the fossils which constitutes the whole evidence; for, -as I have said, we can imagine no possible physical evidence competent -to form a foundation for such ideas, nor do I know of anything save the -exigencies of this venerable theory of life succession, for which -otherwise competent observers will thus freely sacrifice their common -sense. When the dividing line between two sets of strata "acts exactly -like the line of contact between two nearly horizontal formations," so -much so that in a natural section cut out by a river the two "appear to -succeed one another conformably," a calm judicial mind, divested of all -theoretical prejudice, instead of talking about these conditions having -been planned by nature "for the purpose of deception," will find no -difficulty at all in believing that these rocks were really laid down in -the =reverse order= in which we now find them, with the "younger" below -and the "older" above, and only one under the hypnotic spell of a -preconceived theory would at the suggestion of such a fact begin "to -wonder whether he himself is not really standing on his head." - -FOOTNOTES: - -[24] "Manual," p. 367. - -[25] "Ancient Life-History of the Earth," p. 40. - -[26] "Text-Book," p. 837, Ed. of 1903. - -[27] "Annual Report," New Series, Vol. II., Part D, pp. 33-34. - -[28] pp. 111, 534. - -[29] Nov. 13, 1884, pp. 29-35. - -[30] See _Nature_, Jan. 24, 1901, p. 294. - -[31] "Text-Book," p. 678. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -FACT NUMBER FOUR - - -There is only one class of agents now working upon the rocks of the -globe which have been in business continuously ever since the dry land -appeared, and which have left us a legible record of approximately the -amount of business they have been doing all these centuries. And my Fact -Number Four, which will complete this line of argument in illustrating -the antagonism between the facts of the rocks and the theory of life -succession, is that the =rivers= of the world, which of course are the -agents to which I have referred, in traveling across the country, =act -precisely as if they knew nothing of the varying ages of the rocks=, but -on the contrary treat them all alike as if they were of the same age, -and =as if they began sawing at them all at the same time=. Of course it -is, evidently, in only a few cases where the records are so free from -ambiguity as to be quite incapable of being misunderstood, that is, the -cases of rivers with steep rocky gorges, or those that cut through -mountain ranges; but there are several such rivers in the world, and -they all seem to tell the same story. - -The famous Colorado River is a good example. It flows from "younger" -strata into "older" in its deep cutting across the Arizona plateau.[32] -Stated in terms of the current theory, this means that when the region -of country about the lower part of this river's course first became dry -land, the upper part was still sea, and that thus there was no such -river in existence here until the very "youngest" of these rocks was -formed. For otherwise the river must have started running from the sea -toward the dry land, i.e., running up hill. Stated in terms neutral as -to theory, it means that the whole of this region of country, drained by -this large river, with its rocks of many varying "ages," was all -elevated practically as it is now before this river began its work of -erosion. It treats all these rocks as if they were of the same age, and -as if it began sawing at them all at the same time. - -Also its companion, the Green River, cuts through the Uinta Range in the -same manner. Similar conditions are said to occur on the Danube, and in -the river-courses of the Himalayas, and elsewhere. - -In the case of the Colorado, Zittel says that: - -"Powell's explanation of the apparent enigma is that after the river had -eroded its channel rocks were uplifted in one portion of its course, but -so slow was the rate of uplift that the river was enabled to deepen its -channel, either proportionately or more rapidly, so that it was never -diverted from its former course." - -It was by similarly cunning inventions that the early writers on -astronomy, alchemy, and medicine evaded the force of accumulated facts -which told against their absurd theories. - -We have now completed our survey of the strictly stratigraphical phases -of this question, and have found four very remarkable principles about -the rocks, which I wish to summarize here before proceeding further. - -(1) The "broad fact," as stated by Zittel and Dana, that any kind of -rocks whatever, i.e. containing any kinds of fossils, even the -"youngest," may rest on the Archaean, and may thus in position, as also -in texture and appearance, resemble the very oldest deposits on the -globe. - -(2) That any kind of beds may rest in such perfect conformability on any -other so-called "older" beds over vast stretches of country that, "were -it not for fossil evidence, one would naturally suppose that a single -formation was being dealt with," while "the vast interval of time -intervening is unrepresented either by deposition or erosion." The -youngest seem to have followed the oldest in quick succession. - -(3) That in very many cases and over many square miles of country these -conditions are exactly reversed, and such very "ancient" rocks as -Cambrian limestones are on top of the comparatively "young" Cretaceous, -while the lime between them "acts exactly like the line of contact of -two nearly horizontal formations," and in a natural section made by a -river the two "appear to succeed one another conformably." To any one -ignorant of the theory of life succession they have every appearance of -having been deposited as we find them. - -(4) That the rivers of the world, in cutting across the country, -completely ignore the varying ages of the rocks in the different parts -of their courses, and act precisely as if they began sawing at them all -at the same time. - -Now I know not what additional fact can be demanded or imagined to -complete the demonstration that there is =no particular order= in which -the fossils can be said to occur as regards succession in time. It is -true, some fossiliferous deposits, metamorphosed almost beyond -recognition, and buried deep beneath thousands of feet of subsequent -deposits, have enough appearance of remote antiquity about them in all -conscience. But to increase this antiquity by saying that other equally -prodigious masses of rocks elsewhere were deposited long after these, or -by pointing to still other deposits in another region which are said to -be older than any of the others, is an illogical and wholly unscientific -procedure. I fear I could scarcely confine myself within the bounds of -parliamentary language were I to attempt to express an opinion regarding -any effort that may now be made to justify the life succession theory in -view of the above acknowledged facts. - -And surely it is scarcely necessary in this enlightened age to point out -how completely this vitiates any biological argument (such as that of -Darwinism) which has incorporated into its system the results of such -illogical reasoning, or which in any way is dependent upon the -conclusions of such a theory of geology. In view of the laws of -evidence, which every intelligent person is supposed to understand -now-a-days, surely some strange things passed for scientific proof -during the nineteenth century. For, as we have seen, the earlier -geologists did little better than =assume= the succession of life -bodily; than Agassiz and his contemporaries =arranged the details= and -the exact order of these successive life forms by comparison with the -embryonic life of the modern individual; and now the evolutionists of -our day, led by such men as Spencer and Haeckel with their "phylogenetic -principle," =prove their theory of evolution= by showing that the -embryonic life of the modern individual is only "a brief -recapitulation, as it were, from memory," of the (assumed) geological -succession in time. Surely this will some day make a more amazing record -for posterity than those of phlogiston or the epicycles of Ptolemy. - -If I am now asked: What do the rocks have to tell us, in view of the -fact that they refuse to testify to a life succession? I can only say -that we are not as yet in a position to decide this question. There are -several other matters connected with the character and mode of -occurrence of the fossils, which are almost equally important with -anything already considered, in forming a true scientific induction -regarding this matter. These facts must be considered in subsequent -chapters. Already, however, we can say this much, that we have in the -rocks almost as complete a world, in some respects vastly more complete, -than the living world of to-day. With the life succession theory -repudiated, we have still to deal with the fossils themselves which have -been thus systematically classified; =but this geological series becomes -only the taxonomic or classification series of an older state of our -present world=, buried somehow and at some time or times in the remote -past--the how and the when of which we have not as yet the means to -determine. - -But I think we are now prepared to enter the mazes of the biological -argument, and to study the subject of extinct species, which by many is -supposed to furnish a line of independent evidence in favor of the life -succession theory. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[32] See Zittel, "History of Geol.," pp. 210, 211. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -EXTINCT SPECIES - - -Let us now test the value of this assumed life succession by another -very simple question. In "Eocene times," so we are told, England was a -land of palms, with a semi-tropical flora and fauna. In fact at this -time, cycads, gourds, proteads (like the Australian shrubs and trees), -the fig, cinnamon, screw-pine, and various species of acacias and palms, -abounded in England and Western Europe; while turtles, monkeys, -crocodiles, and other sub-tropical and warm-temperate forms were equally -abundant. Then again, in the Pleistocene deposits of the same countries, -we find various species of elephant and rhinoceros, with a hippopotamus, -lion, and hyena, identical with species now living in the tropics, -"although," as Dana says, "these modern kinds are dwarfs in comparison." - -=Now, how are we to prove that these various forms of animal life did -not exist together in these countries at the same time as the trees and -plants before mentioned?= - -Lions and monkeys, hippopotami and crocodiles, with elephants, hyenas, -and rhinoceroses, now live beneath the palms, mimosas, acacias, and -other tropical plants represented in the Eocene and Miocene beds. What -is there to hinder us from believing that they all lived there together -in that olden time? Surely it would be the very irony of scientific fate -if forms now so closely connected in life should in death be so divided. -Or, to present it in another form, why should we be asked to believe -that these acacias, cinnamons, palms, etc., lived and died ages or -millions of years before the lions, elephants, rhinoceroses and -hippopotami, came into existence to enjoy their shade; and then, after -these unnumbered ages had dragged their slow length along and vanished -into the dim past, and all these semi-tropical plants had shifted to the -tropics or been turned into lignite, these lions, elephants, and -hippopotami came into existence in these same localities, when no such -plants existed anywhere in Europe? - -Surely we ought to expect some pretty substantial evidence for such a -violation of "the observed uniformity of nature." We generally boast -that we have outgrown the crude ideas of the earlier years of the -science when they spoke of "ages" of limestone making or of sandstone -making; but it seems that some of us have not yet attained to that broad -view of the essential =unity of nature= in which the flora and fauna of -our world are seen to be just as indissolubly connected with each other. -But nature could as easily be persuaded to produce for a whole age -nothing in the way of rock but limestone or conglomerate, as to adjust -her powers to such an unbalanced state of affairs as is spoken of above, -with the animals in one age and the complementary plants in another. - -But in considering this question as to why the Eocene plants and the -Pleistocene animals may not be supposed to have lived contemporaneously -together, we are brought face to face with the =second= supposed -argument in favor of there having been a succession of life on the -globe. The answer given is that all the animals of these "early" -Tertiary beds are extinct species, also very many of the plants; while -the hyena, lion, hippopotamus, etc., of the Pleistocene are identical -with the living species, and even the mammoth is so closely like its -nearest surviving relative, the Asiatic elephant (_E. indicus_), that -these also might be classed as identical.[33] - -This point being considered by many as so important, and having such a -vital connection with the whole life succession theory, we must go into -the matter somewhat in detail, even at the risk of appearing rather -technical to some. - -If the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic strata are often of enormous extent, -spreading in vast sheets over wide regions, so that their -stratigraphical order in any particular district is quite readily made -out, it is in =most cases= altogether different with the Tertiary and -Pleistocene deposits. For these resemble one another so much in -everything except their fossils, and occur so generally in detached and -fragmentary beds, holding no stratigraphical relation to one another, -that Lyell devised the plan of distinguishing them from one another and -arranging them in the accustomed order of successive ages, by their -relative percentages of living and extinct mollusca. With only -unimportant changes, Lyell's divisions are still followed in classifying -off the Tertiary and post-Tertiary beds. Those with all the species -extinct, or less than 5 per cent. living, are classed as Eocene; those -containing =few= extinct forms, or nearly all living species, are -classed as Pleistocene or post-Tertiary. The Miocene and Pliocene -represent the intermediate grades, and all are supposed to be a true -chronological order. It goes without saying that in actual practice it -is often so extremely difficult to adjust these differences that beds -are assigned to an "early" or a "late" division on =general principles= -by what the literary critics would call "tact" or "intuition," rather -than by the strict percentage system, though for these large and -important divisions of Tertiary and post-Tertiary rocks, these are -absolutely the only professed grounds on which the subdivisions are -distinguished and arranged in the customary order of time. - -In the words of Dr. David Page: - -"As there is often no perceptible mineral distinction between many -clays, sands and gravels, it is only by their imbedded fossils that -geologists can determine their Tertiary or post-Tertiary character."[34] - -Now to say that a set of beds, ninety-five per cent. of whose fossils -belong to extinct species, and only five per cent. are now living, must -be vastly older than another set where these percentages are reversed, -i.e. where the species are nearly all living, seems at first thought an -eminently reasonable idea, and we immediately begin to imagine the long -ages it must have taken for these exceedingly numerous and apparently -vigorous species to wear out and become extinct in the alleged ordinary -way by the merciless struggle for existence with forms more fitted to -survive. - -But it is hardly necessary to point out that all this is based on the -assumption of =Uniformity= in its most extreme type, a doctrine which -not only denies that these living forms are merely the =lucky survivors= -of tremendous changes in which their contemporaries perished, but which -in essence is taking for granted beforehand the very point which ought -to be the chief aim of all geological inquiry, viz., How did the -geological changes take place? It would not be considered a very -scientific procedure for a coroner, called upon to hold a _post mortem_, -to content himself with interesting statistics about the percentage of -people who die of old age, fever, and other causes, while there was -clear and decisive evidence that the poor fellow had been =shot=. In -this case, as in geology, it is not merely the result that is wrong, but -the whole method of investigation. For, as in the latter case we don't -want to know how people generally die, but how this particular person -actually did die, so, in our study of geology, we do not wish to know -merely the rate at which changes of surface and extinctions of species -are now going on, and then project this measure backward into the past -as an infallible guide, but we wish to know for sure just what changes -of this nature have taken place. A true induction is, I think, capable -of deciding very positively whether or not the tools of nature have -always worked at the same rate and with the same force as at present; -and this method of arranging the fossils in supposed chronological order -on the percentage basis mentioned above, is only an extreme form of -methods claiming to be inductive which in this age of the world ought to -be considered a shame and a disgrace, because, as Howorth says, they are -based, "not upon induction, but upon hypotheses," and have "all the -infirmity of the science of the Middle Ages." - -Then again, it occurs to us, that this method, of attaching a time-value -to percentages of extinct or living species, would make the sub-fossil -remains of the bison on the Western prairies almost infinitely =older= -than those of the lion, hippopotamus, etc., in the Pleistocene beds of -Europe; for (except for some few specimens artificially preserved, and -which may be ignored in this connection) the bison is to-day absolutely -extinct, while the Pleistocene mammals are found by the thousand in the -proper localities and show no signs of surrender in the struggle for -existence. Similar comparisons might be made between the great wingless -birds of Madagascar, Mauritius and New Zealand, and the many cases of -"persistent" forms which have survived unchanged from Carboniferous, -Silurian, or Cambrian times, a period of time which, in the language of -the current geology, means quite a large fraction of eternity. But all -of these considerations show that the mere fact of certain species being -extinct and others being now alive, is no trustworthy guide in -determining the relative age of their remains, until we first find out -=how they happened to become extinct=. - -The inquiry as to the =how= and the =when= (relatively) is an absolutely -essential preliminary in any such investigation; and is inseparably -united in nature with the general question of how the great geological -changes have taken place in the past. Of course, if everything like a -world-catastrophe is =a priori= denied; if, in other words, it is -settled from the first that all these fossils living and extinct did not -live contemporaneously with each other, the living ones being simply the -lucky survivors of stupendous changes in which the others perished, then -all pretense of a scientific investigation of the subject is at an end. -If a coroner has it settled beforehand that an accident or a murder -could not possibly have occurred, then his profession of a candid _post -mortem_ examination is only a farce; for he does not hold it to find out -anything, since he knows everything essential about it beforehand. -Uniformitarians would certainly make poor coroners, or for that matter -poor investigators of law or history, or anything else. - -Will some one please give us a reasonable explanation of why the lion, -hippopotamus, rhinoceros, and elephant shifted from England to the -tropics? Or will they explain how, at this same general time, some -elephants and rhinoceroses got caught in the merciless frosts of -Northern Siberia so suddenly that their flesh has remained untainted all -these centuries, and is now, wherever exposed, greedily devoured by the -dogs and wolves? - -An abundant warm-climate vegetation once mantled all the polar regions, -and its fossils have been found just about as far north as explorers -have ever gone; while Dana says that, "The encasing in ice of huge -elephants, and the perfect preservation of the flesh, shows that the -cold finally became =suddenly= extreme, as of a single winter's night, -and knew no relenting afterwards."[35] - -Now, if no one can deny this =sudden= change of climate over half the -world or so at least, is it not extremely unscientific to deny that this -same cause, whatever it may have been, was quite competent to bring -about a good many other changes, and the extinction of numerous other -species which we are so often reminded must imply the lapse of untold -ages of time? The economizing of energy, or the famous law of parsimony -as stated by Leibnitz, is quite appropriate in this case, and may be -referred to again in the sequel. The principle upon which I must here -insist is that the mere fact of certain species being extinct, and -others being now alive, gives no clue whatever to the relative age of -these remains, until we first ascertain =why=, =how= and =when= this -extinction was brought about. And yet, though every one admits the fact -of tremendous changes of climate, etc., having intervened between that -ancient world and our own (the true extent and character of which, as I -have said, ought to be the chief point of all geological investigation), -no allowance seems ever to be made for this as a powerful cause of -extermination of all forms of life. But in the utter absence of any such -explanation as to =how= and =when=, and in the very teeth of these facts -assuming a dead-level uniformitarianism, the presence of ten, fifty or a -hundred per cent. of extinct forms in a set of beds is manifestly of no -scientific value in determining age. It would be many degrees more -reasonable and accurate to arrange all the Greek and Latin books of the -world in chronological order according to the percentage of their -=words= which have survived into the English language. Indeed, it would -be much like a coroner, at the inquest following a railway disaster, -attempting to arrange the exact order in which the various victims had -perished by the proportionate number of surviving relatives which each -had left behind him. - -And the completely worthless character of such "evidence" of age -becomes, if possible, more apparent when we consider that very many of -these so-called "extinct" forms are not really distinct species from -their living representatives of to-day. "It is notorious," says Darwin, -"on what excessively slight differences many palaeontologists have -founded their species." And even to-day, in spite of all that we have -learned about variation, little or no allowance seems ever to be made -for the effects of a certainly greatly changed environment. If the -fossil forms among the mollusks and other shell fish for instance, are -not precisely like the modern ones in every respect, they are always -classed as separate species, the older forms thus being "extinct," in -utter disregard of the striking anatomical differences between the huge -Pleistocene mammals and their dwarfish descendants of to-day, which for -a hundred years or so were declared positively to be distinct from one -another, but are now acknowledged to be identical. - -Of course no one denies that there are numerous extinct forms among the -invertebrates, just as we know there are among the huge vertebrates of -the Mesozoic and Tertiaries, none of which we moderns have ever seen -alive. Other forms do not appear familiar to our modern eyes, because -larger or of somewhat different form; but to say that they are really -distinct species from their modern representatives, or to say that no -human being ever saw them alive, are statements utterly incapable of -proof. Up to about the year 1869 it was stoutly maintained that man had -never seen =any= of these fossil forms in life. But no one now maintains -this view, for human remains have now been found along with undisturbed -fossils of the Pleistocene, or even middle Tertiaries, while the -paintings on the cave walls of Southern France seem conclusive that they -were copied from life when the mammoth and reindeer lived side by side -with man in that latitude. Hence the only question now is, and it is the -supreme question of all modern geology, =WITH HOW MUCH OF THAT ANCIENT -FOSSIL WORLD WERE THESE EQUALLY FOSSIL MEN ACQUAINTED?= If Man lived in -"Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," when a luxuriant vegetation was -spread out over all the Arctic regions, what possible evidence is there -to show that his companions, the rhinoceros, hippopotamus, mammoth, -etc., were not also living then and browsing off just such plants, when -the Arctic frosts caught them in the grip of death and put their -"mummies" in cold storage for our astonishment and scientific -information? Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each -other; why should not the plants and animals, contemporary with the same -creature (man), be just as truly contemporary with one another? If man -was contemporary with the Miocene plants, and the Pleistocene mammals -were contemporary with man, what is there to forbid the idea that the -Pleistocene mammals and the middle Tertiary flora were contemporary with -each other? - -For nearly half a century geologists have never had the courage to face -this problem fairly and squarely, with all preconceived prejudices about -uniformity cast aside. Is it possible that all the plants and animals of -the Tertiaries and the Pleistocene may have really lived together in the -same world after all? But the trouble would then be that, with this much -conceded, the whole "phylogenic series" would tumble with it, and become -only the taxonomic or classification series of that ancient world with -which these fossil men were acquainted. To appropriate the words of one -who has done much to clear the ground for a common-sense study of -geology, I know of nothing against such an idea save "the almost -pathetic devotion of a large school of thinkers to the religion founded -by Hutton, whose high priest was Lyell, and which in essence is based on -_a priori_ arguments like those which dominated Mediaeval scholasticism -and made it so barren."[36] - -Baron Cuvier's work in the line of comparative osteology has never been -surpassed, perhaps never equalled since, and he is said to have been -"the greatest naturalist and comparative anatomist of that, or perhaps -of any time." (LeConte, "Evol. and Rel. Thought," pp. 33, 34); and yet -he maintained till the last that all those which we now call the -Pleistocene mammals were distinct species from the modern ones; and it -is only of recent years and with extreme reluctance that many of them -have been admitted to be identical with the ones now living. All of -which tends to show how unreliable are those assertions commonly found -in the text-books about all the species of the so-called "older" rocks -being extinct. It is only with hesitation that such specific -distinctions are surrendered even to-day, though during the last few -decades a steady progress has been made in bringing the palaeontology of -the higher vertebrates into line with our increased knowledge of -zoology, thus breaking down many of the specific distinctions which have -long been maintained between the fossil and the living forms. Even the -mammoth has been found to have so many characters identical with the -modern elephant of India, and such a complete gradation exists between -the two types, that Flower and Lydekker acknowledge the transition from -one to the other is "almost imperceptible," and express a doubt whether -they "can be specifically distinguished" from one another.[37] - -But the extreme reluctance with which anything like a confession of this -fact leaks out in our modern literature can be readily understood when -we try the hopeless task of splicing the environment of the modern form -with that of the ancient on any basis of uniformity. - -Zittel gives us a peep behind the scenes which helps us to appreciate -the value of a percentage of extinct species as a test of the age of a -rock deposit. - -He pictures the uncritical work of the earlier writers on fossil botany, -until August Schink (1868-91) made a great reform in this science; and -Zittel declares that "now the author of a paper on any department" of -fossil botany "is expected to have a sound knowledge" of the systematic -botany of recent forms. But he adds: "It cannot be said that -palaeozoology (the science of fossil animals) has yet arrived at this -desirable standpoint." - -But he justifies this charge of want of confidence by saying: - -"Comparatively few individuals have such a thorough grasp of zoological -and geological knowledge as to enable them to treat palaeontological -researches worthily, and there has accumulated a dead weight of -stratigraphical-palaeontological literature wherein the fossil remains -of animals are named and pigeon-holed solely as an additional ticket of -the age of a rock-deposit, with a willful disregard of the much more -difficult problem of their relationships in the long chain of existence. - -"The terminology which has been introduced in the innumerable monographs -of special fossil faunas in the majority of cases makes only the -slenderest pretext of any connection with recent systematic zoology; if -there is a difficulty, then stratigraphical arguments are made the basis -of a solution. Zoological students are, as a rule, too actively engaged -and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt to -spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions arrived at by -many stratigraphers, or to revise their labors from a zoological point -of view."[38] - -Doubtless this scathing impeachment of the common mania for creating new -names for the fossils has especial reference to the case of the lower -forms of life. For if, in spite of the brilliant and withal careful work -of Cuvier, Owen, Wallace, Huxley, Ray Lankester, and Leith Adams, with -numerous others that might be mentioned, there are still grounds for -such grave doubts of the values of specific distinctions in the case of -the mammals, whose general anatomy and life-history are so well known -and their almost countless variations so well studied out, =what must be -the confusion and inaccuracy= in the case of the lower vertebrates, and -especially of the invertebrates, whose general life-history in so many -instances is so dimly understood, and the limits of their variations -absolutely unknown? Remembering all this, what is our amazement when we -read in this same volume by Professor Zittel[39] that the tendency among -many modern writers in dealing with these lower forms of life, is toward -the erection of the closest possible distinctions between genera and -species, until recent palaeontological literature is fairly inundated -with new names; and all this with =the purpose=, unblushingly avowed, of -"enhancing the value" of such distinctions as a means of determining the -relative ages of strata, and to "bring the ontogenetic and phylogenetic -development" of the various forms "into more =apparent= correspondence." -I do not exaggerate in the least, as the reader may see by referring to -Zittel's book; though not wishing to make my readers "spell through" -another quite technical paragraph I have refrained from direct -quotation. - -But surely we have here a most amazing style of reasoning. It is another -clear case of first assuming one's premises, and then proving them by -means of one's conclusion. The method here employed seems about like -this: First assume the succession of life from the low to the high as a -whole; then in any particular group, as of Brachiopods or Mollusks, -decide the momentous question as to which came first and which later in -"geological time" by comparing them as to size, shape, etc., with the -live modern individual in its development from the egg to maturity; and -lastly, =take the results= of this alleged chronological arrangement to -prove just =how= the modern forms have evolved. Surely it is a most -fearful example of otherwise intelligent men being hypnotized by their -theory into blind obedience to its suggestions and necessities. - -Not long ago I had occasion to write to a well-known geologist about a -Lower Cambrian mollusk which appears strikingly like a modern species. I -give below an extract from his reply which bears directly upon this -point. I withhold the name, for the information was given in a -half-confidential manner, but I may say that the author's work on the -Palaeozoic fossils is recognized on both sides of the Atlantic. - -"Some geologists make it a point to =give a new name= to all forms found -in the Palaeozoic rocks, i.e. a name different from those of modern -species. I was taken to task by a noted palaeontologist for finding a -pupa (a kind of land snail) in Devonian beds; but I could not find any -point in which it differed from the modern genus [? species]. Yet if I -could have had more perfect specimens I might have found differences." - -Such disclosures speak volumes for those able to understand; and lead -one to receive with a smile the familiar assertion that all the species -of the Palaeozoic and other "older" rocks are extinct. And we can now -form a truer estimate of the high scientific accuracy of Lyell's -ingenious division of the Tertiary beds, according to the percentage of -living or extinct Mollusks which they contain. - -But from the inherent weakness of the argument about extinct species as -thus revealed, it follows that chronological distinctions based on any -proportionate number of extinct species =have absolutely no scientific -value=; and hence that the life succession theory finds no support from -these chronological distinctions, just as we have already seen that it -is without a vestige of support from the stratigraphical argument. - -The life succession theory has not a single fact to confirm it in the -realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely -the product of the imagination. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[33] See p. 39 of this volume. - -[34] "Intro. Text-Book," p. 189. - -[35] "Manual," p. 1007. Prof. Dana has italicized the word "=suddenly=." - -[36] Howorth, "The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood," preface, xx, xxi. - -[37] "Mammals, Living and Extinct," pp. 428-9. - -[38] "Hist. of Geol.," pp. 375-6. - -[39] pp. 400, 403, 405. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -SKIPPING - - -We have now to deal with another absurdity involved in the life -succession theory, the discussion of which grows naturally out of the -subject of extinct species. - -As preliminary to the subject here to be presented, we must bear in mind -that the present arrangement of the fossils in alleged chronological -order, as well as the naming of thousands of typical specimens, was all -well advanced while as yet little or nothing was known of the contents -of the depths of the ocean, or even of the land forms of Africa, -Australia, and other foreign countries. In most of the important groups -of both plants and animals, the detailed knowledge of the fossil forms -preceded the knowledge of the corresponding living forms, just as Zittel -says that the theories of the igneous origin of the crystalline rocks -"had been laid without the assistance of chemistry" and the knowledge of -the microscopic structure of these rocks.[40] On pp. 128-137 of his -"History," this author shows how, up to 1820, little or nothing of a -scientific character was known of any of the classes of living animals -save mammals. During the last half century, however, the progress of -science has been steadily showing case after case where families and -genera, long boldly said to have been "extinct" since "Palaeozoic time," -are found in thriving abundance and in little altered condition in -unsuspected places all over the world. And the point for consideration -here is the manifest absurdity of these inhabitants of the modern seas -and the modern land =skipping= all the uncounted millions of years from -"Palaeozoic times" down to the "recent," for, though found in profuse -abundance in these "Older" rocks, not a trace of many of them is to be -found in all the "subsequent" deposits. - -The proposition here to be considered and proved I shall venture to -formulate as follows: - -=There is a fossil world, and there is a modern living world; the two -resembling one another in various details as well as in a general way; -but to get the ancestral representatives of many modern types, e.g., -countless invertebrates, with other lower forms of animals and plants, -we must go clear back to the Mesozoic or the Palaeozoic rocks, for they -are not found in any of the "more recent" deposits.= - -I have already remarked that the blending of the doctrine of life -succession with that of uniformity, must inevitably have given birth to -the evolution theory, for it is evident that the succession from the low -to the high could only have taken place by each type blending with those -before and those after it in the alleged order of time. That such is not -the testimony of the rocks, even when arranged with this idea in view, -is too notorious to need any words of mine, for it has been considered -by many[41] the "greatest of all objections" to the theory of evolution. - -This abruptness in the disappearance of "old" and the first appearance -of "new" forms, has brought into being that "geological scape-goat," as -James Geikie has called the doctrine of the =imperfection of the -record=. But Dawson has well disposed of this argument in the following -words: - -"When we find abundance of examples of the young and old of many fossil -species, and can trace them through their ordinary embryonic -development, why should we not find examples of the links which bound -the species together?"[42] - -But it is equally evident that each successive series ought to contain, -in addition to its own characteristic or "new" species, =all the older -forms which survived into any later deposits, or are now to be found -living in our modern world=. Such no doubt was the idea of those of the -early geological explorers who discarded Werner's onion-coat theory, and -they tried to arrange their series accordingly. This reasonable demand -is still recognized as good; and the principle is alluded to by Dana -when he attempts to show how strata might be discovered and "proved" to -be older than the present Lower Cambrian rocks.[43] - -It is, I say, still recognized =in theory= that the "younger" deposits -ought to contain samples of the "older" types which were still -surviving, in addition to their own characteristic species; but with the -progress of geological discovery it has long since been found that such -an arrangement was utterly impossible. Indeed, it would almost seem as -if modern writers had forgotten the principle altogether. - -For, as already said, according to the present chronological -arrangement, many kinds of invertebrates, both terrestrial and marine, -occurring in comparative abundance in our modern world, are found as -fossils only in the very "oldest" rocks and are =wholly absent from all -the rest!!!= Others which date from "Mesozoic times" are wholly absent -from the Tertiaries, though abundant in our modern world. This I regard -as another crucial test of the rationality of this idea of a life -succession. - -Of course there are certain limitations which must be borne in mind. If -we find a series of beds made up largely of deep sea deposits, we cannot -reasonably expect to find in them examples of all the land forms of the -preceding "ages" which then survived, nor even of the shallow water -types. Nor, conversely, can we demand that, in beds crowded with the -remains of the great mammals and plants, and thus probably of fresh or -shallow water formation, we ought to find examples of all the marine -types still surviving. We now know that each level of ocean depth has -its characteristic types of life, just as do the different heights on a -mountain side. This doctrine of "rock facies" was, I believe, enunciated -first in 1838. Edward Forbes also did much for this same idea, showing -how at the present time certain faunas are confined to definite -geographical limits, and particular ocean depths. Jules Marcou about -1848 applied this principle to the fossils and showed how such -distinctions must have prevailed during geological time. - -Here it seems that we are at last getting a refreshing breath of true -science; but if carried out in its entirety how shall we assure -ourselves that in the long ago very diverse types of fossils, e.g., -gratolites and nummulites, or even trilobites and mammals, =could not -have been contemporary with each other=? This principle of "rock -facies," if incorporated into the science in its early days, would have -saved the world from a large share of the nonsense in our modern -geological and zoological text-books. - -But in answer to any pleadings about the imperfection of the record, or -any protests about the injustice of judging all the life-forms of an -"age" by a few examples of local character, i.e., of fresh, shallow, or -deep water as the case may be, the very obvious retort is, Why then are -such local and fragmentary records given =a time value=? Why, for -example, should the Carboniferous and associated formations be counted -as representing all the deposits made in a certain age of the world, -when we know from the Cambrian and Silurian and also from the alleged -"subsequent" Jurassic that there must have been vast open sea deposits -formed contemporaneously? - -As Dana expresses it: - -"The Lias and Oolyte of Britain and Europe afforded the first full -display of the marine fauna of the world since the era of the -Subcarboniferous. Very partial exhibits were made by the few marine beds -of the Coal measures: still less by the beds of the Permian, and far -less by the Triassic. The seas had not been depopulated. The occurrence -of over 4,000 invertebrate species in Britain in the single Jurassic -period is evidence, not of deficient life for the eras preceding, but of -extremely deficient records."[44] - -Surely these words exhibit the "phylogenic series" in all its native, -unscientific deformity. It is =because= the Coal-measures, the Permian, -and the Triassic, are necessarily "extremely deficient records" of the -total life-forms then in the world, that I am writing this chapter, and -this book. But it seems like perverseness to plead about the -imperfection of the record, and yet refuse the =evidently complementary= -deposits when they are presented. If, as this illustrious author says, -"The seas had not been depopulated," what would he have us think they -were doing? Were they forming no deposits all these intervening ages -that the Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic were being piled up? Were -the fishes and invertebrates all immortalized for these ages, or were -they, when old and full of days translated to some supermundane sphere, -thus escaping deposit in the rocks? Did the elements continue in the -_status quo_ all these uncounted millions of years? and if so, how did -they receive notice that the Triassic period was at last ended, and that -it was time for them to begin work again? I do not like to appear -trivial; but these questions serve to expose the folly of taking -diverse, local, and partial deposits, and attaching a chronological -value to each of them separately, and then pleading in a piteous, -helpless way about the imperfection of the record. - -And yet I cannot promise to present a tithe of the possible evidence, -because of two serious handicaps. First, the ordinary literature of the -science is silent and meagre enough in all conscience, even though the -bare fact may be recorded that a "genus" of the Cambrian or Silurian is -"closely allied" to some genus now living. It may be even admitted that -"according to some it is not genetically distinct from the modern genus" -so-and-so; but the authors =never descend below the "genus,"= and in -most cases forget to tell us whether or not it occurs in other "later" -formations, though of course the presumption is that it does not, but -has skipped all the intervening ages, or it would hardly be named as a -characteristic type of the formation in which it occurs. - -But this disadvantage, serious though it be, is scarcely worth speaking -of when we remember the significant words of a well-known authority -already quoted: - -"Some geologists make it a point to give a new name to all forms found -in the Palaeozoic rocks, i.e. a name different from those of modern -species." - -Or Zittel's confession that: - -"The terminology which has been introduced in the innumerable monographs -of special fossil faunas in the majority of cases makes only the -slenderest pretext of any connection with recent systematic zoology; if -there is a difficulty, then stratigraphical arguments are made the basis -of a solution. Zoological students are as a rule too actively engaged -and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt to -spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions arrived at by -many stratigraphers, or to revise their labors from a zoological point -of view." - -Hence I have no reluctance in saying that, in the present confused state -of the science, it is utterly impossible to find out the truth as to how -many hundreds of these "genera" of the Paleozoic rocks may have survived -to the present, though having skipped perhaps all the formations of the -intervening millions of years. I doubt not that the number is enormously -large, though as I have not attempted "to spell through the arbitrary -palaeontological conclusions" scattered through the literature, I can -only depend on a few though striking examples that lie on the open pages -of the ordinary text-books. - -The larger mammals can of course furnish us no examples, for the "age" -in which they abounded is quite conveniently modern, and is separated -from the present by no great lapse of time. Of the smaller marsupials, -quite a number of jaw-bones have been found in the Jurassic and -Triassic, one from the latter being strikingly like the living -_Myrmecobius_ of Australia. They are scarcely more numerous in the -Cretaceous of America, while in the foreign rocks of this system Dana -says that "Only one species had been reported up to 1894." Those -strange, sad-eyed creatures called Lemurs deserve a passing notice, for -though now confined as to their typical forms to the island of -Madagascar, their fossils seem as exclusively confined to the temperate -regions of the New and the Old World. Flower and Lydekker enumerate -about fifteen fossil species, and add that: - -"... it is very noteworthy that all these types seem to have disappeared -from both regions with the close of the upper portion of the Eocene -period."[45] - -But this jump from the "Eocene period" to the present is as nothing -compared with the secular acrobatics of some of the fishes and -especially of the invertebrates. The living Cestraciont sharks, of which -there are four species found in the seas between Japan and Australia, -seem to disappear with the Cretaceous, skipping the whole Tertiary -Epoch, as do also a tribe of modern barnacles which, as Darwin says, -"coat the rocks all over the world in infinite numbers." The Dipnoans or -Lung-fishes (having lungs as well as gills, such as the _Ceratodus_ and -_Lepidosiren_), which are represented by several living species in -Australia and South Africa, are the remains of a tribe found in whole -shoals in the Carboniferous, Triassic and Jurassic rocks, but not, so -far as I know, in any of the intervening rocks. The living Ceratodus was -only discovered in 1870, and was regarded as a marvel of "persistence." -On a pinch, as when his native streams dry up, this curious fellow can -get along all right without water, breathing air by his lungs like a -land animal. If in the meantime he was off on a trip to the moon, he -must have "persisted" a few million years without either. - -But his cousin, the _Polypterus_ of the Upper Nile, has a still more -amazing record, for he has actually skipped all the formations from the -Devonian down to the modern; while the Limuloids or sea scorpions have -jumped from the Carboniferous down. - -The Mollusks and Brachiopods would afford us examples too numerous to -mention. How is it possible that these numerous families disappear -suddenly and completely with the Mesozoic or even the "early" -Palaeozoic, and are not found in any "later" deposits, though alive now -in our modern world? Parts of Europe and America have, we are told, been -down under the sea and up again a dozen times since then; why then -should we not expect to find abundant remains of these "persistent" -types in the Mesozoic and Tertiaries? Surely these feats of -time-acrobatics show the folly of arranging contemporaneous, taxonomic -groups in single file and giving to each a time value. - -The Chalk points a similar lesson. It was not till the time of the -"Challenger" Expedition that the modern deposits of Globigerina ooze, -made up of species identical with those of the Chalk, were known to be -now forming over vast areas of the ocean floor. In the words of Huxley, -these modern species "bridge over the interval between the present and -the Mesozoic periods."[46] - -As for the silicious sponges found in the Chalk, which were such puzzles -for the scientists during the first half of the nineteenth century, -because their living forms were unknown, the deep-sea investigations -have solved the problem, for in 1877 Sollas demonstrated "the identity -of their structure with that of living Hexactinellids, Lithistids, and -Monactinellids."[47] - -And yet with all the alleged vicissitudes of the continents during the -millions of years since the Cretaceous age, there is so far as I am -aware not a trace of either the chalk or the sponges in any of the -"subsequent" rocks. Pieces of Cretaceous rock are of course found thus -sporadically as boulders, but there is no natural deposit of this kind. -But in the light of these modern discoveries why is not the Chalk of -"the white dear cliffs of Dover," full of modern living species as we -now know it to be, just as "recent" a deposit as the "late" Tertiaries -or the Pleistocene? - -Another good illustration of the absurdity of the present arrangement of -the rocks is found in the Echinoderms--crinoids, star-fishes, -sea-urchins, etc. Of the latter Prof. A. Agassiz found in the deep -waters of the West Indies, four genera of Echinids or sea-urchins of the -"later Tertiary," =but 24 genera of the "early" Tertiary, 10 of the -Cretaceous, and 5 of the Jurassic=.[48] - -But far from being uncommon we know that similar discoveries have been -in almost constant progress during the last half century. And were it -not that "zoological students are," as Zittel says, "too actively -engaged and keenly interested in building up new observations to attempt -to spell through the arbitrary palaeontological conclusions" found in -the "dead weight of stratigraphical-palaeontological literature," there -is no telling what hosts of similar facts might not be pointed to -regarding the forms found in all the "older" rocks. - -Of the star-fishes and serpent-stars (_Asteridea_ and _Ophiuridea_), -Zittel says: "It would seem that the Palaeozoic 'sea-stars' differed -very little from those in the seas of the present age." (p. 395.) The -crinoids, we are told, "are among the earliest in geological history," -making up vast limestones of the Palaeozoic rocks; and forms scarcely -separable from the modern are found in the Jurassic, but so far as the -text-books tell us are =absolutely unknown in any later deposits=. But -there are several modern genera, such as Pentacrinus, Rhizocrinus, -Bathycrinus, etc., found in the deep waters of nearly all the oceans. -The genus Rhizocrinus was discovered off the coast of Norway about the -sixties of the last century. But what were these creatures doing since -"Jurassic times," while the "pulsating crust" was putting parts of the -continents under the sea for ages at a stretch? Why did they form no -deposits during the Cretaceous, Eocene, Miocene or Pliocene ages? Surely -the absurdity of the present arrangement is evident to a child. During -all these intervening ages the climate of the globe continued of the -same remarkable mildness, fossils of all these formations being found -about as far north as explorers have ever gone. Why did the crinoids and -polyp-corals suspend business from "Jurassic times" to the "recent," -merely to accommodate a modern theory? Dana says that "The coral reefs -of the Oolyte in England consist of corals of the same group with the -reef-making species of the existing tropics,"[49] and he argues from -this fact that the mean temperature of the waters must have been about -69 deg. F. But a luxuriant vegetation still continued in the Arctic -regions during the Cretaceous and the Tertiaries. How absurd to say that -these corals built no reefs about the European coasts during all these -ages. Or, to put the matter in another way, considering how many of -their characteristic types are alive in our modern seas, why should we -say that the crinoidal or coral limestones of the Mesozoic or Palaeozoic -rocks are not as recent as the nummulitic limestones of the Eocene or -any late Tertiary deposits? - -It is no answer at all to tell us that, though the general types are the -same, the =species= of the Palaeozoic and the Mesozoic are entirely -extinct. I have not had the courage "to attempt to spell through" all -the "dead weight" of the modern literature, but I think that the world -would like more satisfactory proof of this oft-repeated assertion than -the customs and traditions of a hundred years, and the exigencies of a -fanciful theory. This worn-out argument of Cuvier's about extinct -species has kept up a running fight with common sense for many decades, -and though driven backward from one point to another over the long thin -line of this taxonomic series of the fossil world, it still contests -every inch of ground. - -But let us try the tree-ferns and cycads of the coal beds of the "older" -rocks. In northern regions they are not found "later" than the Triassic -and Jurassic, and doubtless the same holds good of the rocks in the -Tropics, where the modern species now live in fair abundance. But how -did they come to shift to the Tropics so many millions of years before -the palms, etc., of the Tertiaries thought it time to do the same? The -climate had not changed a bit: how did they come to scent the coming -"Glacial Age" so much earlier than their more highly organized fellows? - -The "Challenger" expedition found some Cyathophylloid corals now -building reefs at the bottom of our modern ocean. The geologists had -already assigned =the last= of them to the Carboniferous and Permian -rocks with the idea that they were extinct. But where have these fellows -kept themselves during all the intervening ages while the continents -were deep under the ocean time and time again? or why are not the rocks -containing their fossils as "recent" as any deposits on the globe? - -And so I might go on. There is hardly a tribe found in the "older" rocks -which does not have its living representatives of to-day, and with, I -believe, a fair proportion of the species identical; though in hundreds, -perhaps thousands, of cases these species, genera, or even whole tribes, -have somehow skipped all the intervening formations. - -But let us drop this method of studying our subject, and look at it from -a slightly different standpoint. - -Thus Dana[50] says that: - -"The absence of Lamellibranchs in the Middle Cambrian, although present -in both Lower and Upper, means =the absence of fossils from the rocks, -not of species from the faunas=." - -He puts this in italics by way of emphasis, for it is certainly a -reasonable idea, and as A. R. Wallace says, "no one =now= doubts that -where any type appears in two remote periods it must have been in -existence during the whole intervening period, although we may have no -record of it."[51] But what would be the result if we only extend this -idea to its logical conclusion? It seems to be an effort to avoid one of -the absurdities of the onion-coat theory, without, however, discarding -that theory altogether. - -In speaking of some corals and crinoids of the Devonian which "were -absent" from some of the divisions of this formation because the -conditions of the seas about New York "were unfavorable," Dana says -that "they were back when the seas were again of sufficient purity."[52] - -In his review of these formations he enlarges on this subject: - -"At the close of the early Devonian the evidences of clear seas--the -corals and crinoids, with most of the attendant life--disappear, -migrating no one knows whither.... With the variations in the fineness, -or other characteristics of the beds as H. S. Williams has illustrated, -the species vary.... =The faunas of each stratum are not strictly faunas -of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical faunas.= After the -Corniferous period, corals, crinoids, and trilobites still flourished -=somewhere=, as before, but they are absent from the Central Interior -until the Carboniferous age[53] opens." - -Here we are certainly getting a refreshing breath of common-sense -geology; but what would become of current theories if we enlarge a -little on this idea? - -What if the gigantic dinosaurs of the Cretaceous or the equally -marvellous mammals of the "early" Tertiaries of the Western States, -described by Marsh and Cope, and the Pleistocene mammals of other parts -of America and of Europe and Northern Siberia, "are not strictly faunas -of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical faunas?" What if -the world-wide limestones of the Cambrian and Silurian, and the no less -enormous or widespread nummulitic limestones of the Eocene, extending -from the Alps to Eastern Asia, and constituting mountains ten, fifteen, -or twenty thousand feet high--what if these are possibly -=contemporaneous with one another=? Supposing the coal-measures of Nova -Scotia and Pennsylvania, and the Cretaceous and Tertiary lignites of -Vancouver Island, Alberta, and the Western States are not strictly -floras of epochs or periods of time, but local topographical floras?[54] - -But it must be confessed that the logical extension of this broad view -of the fossils, and the projection of our modern zoological provinces -and zones back into the fossil world would mean the death-blow to the -life succession theory, and might have a very disturbing effect upon -certain theories about human origins and other genetic relationships -which have grown quite popular since the middle of the last century. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[40] "History," pp. 327, 341. - -[41] See LeConte, "Evol. and Religious Thought," p. 253. - -[42] "Modern Ideas of Evol.," p. 35. - -[43] See "Manual," pp. 487-8. - -[44] "Manual," p. 776. - -[45] "Mammals, etc." p. 696. - -[46] "Discourses Biol. and Geol.," p. 347. - -[47] Zittel, "Hist. of Geo.," p. 388. - -[46] Dana, "Manual," p. 59. - -[49] "Manual," p. 793. - -[50] "Manual," p. 488. - -[51] "Distribution of Life," p. 33. - -[52] "Manual," p. 611. - -[53] "Manual," pp. 628-9. - -[54] Note--This is only carrying the argument a little further than - Huxley does when he says that "A Devonian fauna and flora in the - British Islands may have been contemporaneous with Silurian life in - North America, and with a Carboniferous fauna and flora in Africa. - Geographical provinces and zones may have been as distinctly marked - in the Palaeozoic epoch as at present." "Discourses," p. 286. - - - - -PART II. - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -GRAVEYARDS - - -"The crust of our globe," writes a distinguished scientist, "is a great -cemetery, where the rocks are tombstones on which the buried dead have -written their own epitaphs." The reading of these epitaphs is the -business of geology; and too often, as we shall see, the record is that -of a violent and sudden death. - -With the doctrine of Uniformity as a theoretical proposition, I shall -have little to say. At best it is a pure assumption that the present -quiet and regular action of the elements has always prevailed in the -past, or that this supposition is sufficient to explain the facts of the -rocks. In its more extreme form it becomes an iron dogma, which shuts -out all evidence not agreeable to its teachings. But in its essential -nature, whether in its least or its most extreme form, it is not -approaching the subject from the right standpoint. It seeks to show how -the past geological changes may have occurred; it never attempts to -prove how they =must= have occurred. And I may say in passing, that it -is largely for the purpose of avoiding the cumulative character of the -evidence gathered from every stone quarry and from every section of -strata in every corner of the globe, that the uniformitarians have -wished to have these burials take place on the installment plan; for -otherwise the violent and catastrophic character of the events recorded -in the rocks would become too plainly manifest. But if a coroner, called -upon to hold an inquest, were to content himself, after the manner of -Lyell and Hutton, with glittering generalities about how people are all -the time dying of old age, fever, or other causes, coupled with -assurances of the quiet, regular habits and good reputation of all his -fellow citizens, I do not think that he would be praised for his -adherence to inductive methods if we could get at clear and decisive -evidence that the poor fellow under examination had been shot. Just so -with common-sense methods in geology. =A true induction is capable of -finding out for certain= whether or not the present quiet regular action -of the elements has always prevailed in the past; and it is most -unscientific to assume, as the followers of Hutton and Lyell have done, -that the comparatively insignificant changes within historic time have -always prevailed in the past, when there is plenty of clear and decisive -evidence to the contrary. - -The general fact which I wish to develop in this chapter may be stated -somewhat as follows: - -=Rocks belonging to all the various systems or formations give us -fossils in such a state of preservation, and heaped together in such -astonishing numbers, that we cannot resist the conviction that the -majority of these deposits were formed in some sudden and not modern -manner, catastrophic in nature.= - -But before giving any examples of these abnormal deposits we must first -study the modern normal deposits; before we can rightly understand the -sharp contrast between the ancient and the modern action of the -elements, we must become familiar with the way in which fossils are now -being buried by our rivers and oceans. - -One of the many geological myths dissipated by the work of the -"Challenger" Expedition, which, as Zittel says, "marks the grandest -scientific event of the nineteenth century," is that about the ocean -bottom and the work now being carried on there. The older text-books -taught that, not only was the bottom of the ocean thickly strewn with -the remains of the animals which died there and in the waters above, but -also that the oceanic currents were constantly wearing away in some -places and building up in others over all the ocean floor, and hence -producing true stratified deposits. Accordingly it was said that it was -only necessary for these beds to be lifted above the surface to produce -the ordinary rocks that we find everywhere about us. But we now know -that the ocean currents have, as Dana says, "no sensible, mechanical -effects, either in the way of transportation or abrasion."[55] We know -also that all kinds of sediment drop so much quicker in salt water than -in fresh, that none of it gets beyond the narrow "continental shelf" and -the classic 100 fathom line, which in most cases is not very far from -shore. In the north Atlantic there are sediments found in deeper water -produced by ice-floes or icebergs dropping their loads there; but we -cannot suppose such work to have gone on when the Arctic regions were -clothed with a temperate-climate vegetation, much less that such things -occurred over all the earth. On the floor of the open ocean, and away -from the tracks of our modern icebergs, we have two or three kinds of -mud or ooze formed from minute particles of organic matter; but besides -these =absolutely nothing= save a possible sprinkling of volcanic -products, which of course are limited in their distribution. Where then -can we find a stratified or bedded structure now being formed over the -ocean bottom? Dana says there is nothing of the kind now being produced -there, save as the result of possible variations during the passing ages -in the organic deposits thrown down, where a bed of ooze may be supposed -to be thrown down directly upon another kind of ooze. There is =no -gravel=, =no sand=, =no clay=, but whatever variation there might be in -the organic deposits, the new kind would be laid down immediately upon -the preceding similar deposits, unless a thin sprinkling of volcanic -dust happened to intervene. - -Thus to explain practically all the deposits found in the rocks, we are -absolutely limited to the shore deposits and the mouths of large rivers. -Here we certainly have alternations of sand, clay and gravel, producing -a true bedded structure. But I ask: What kind of organic remains will we -get from these modern deposits? Certainly nothing like the crowded -graveyards which we find everywhere in the ancient ones. - -Darwin, in his famous chapter on "The Imperfection of the Geological -Record," has well shown how scanty and imperfect are the modern -fossiliferous deposits. The progress of research has only confirmed and -accentuated the argument there presented on this point. Thus -Nordenskiold, the veteran Arctic explorer, remarks with amazement on the -scarcity of recent organic remains in the Arctic regions, where such a -profusion of animal life exists; while in spite of the great numbers of -cats, dogs and other domestic animals which are constantly being thrown -into rivers like the Hudson or the Thames, dredgings about their mouths -have revealed the surprising fact that scarcely a trace of any of them -is there to be found.[56] - -Even the fishes themselves stand a very poor chance of being buried -intact. As Dana[57] puts it: - -"Vertebrate animals, as fishes, reptiles, etc., which fall to pieces -when the animal portion is removed, =require speedy burial after death=, -to escape destruction from this source (decomposition and chemical -solution from air, rain-water, etc.), as well as from animals that would -prey upon them." - -If a vertebrate fish should die a natural death, which of itself must be -a rare occurrence, the carcass would soon be devoured whole or bit by -bit by other creatures near by. Possibly the lower jaw, or the teeth, -spines, etc., in the case of sharks, or a bone or two of the skeleton, -might be buried unbroken, but a whole vertebrate fish entombed in a -modern deposit is surely a unique occurrence. - -But every geologist knows that the remains of fishes are, in countless -millions of cases, found in a marvelous state of preservation. They have -been entombed in =whole shoals=, with the beds containing them miles in -extent, and scattered over all the globe. Indeed, so accustomed have we -grown to this state of affairs in the rocks we hammer up, that if we -fail to find such well-preserved remains of vertebrate fishes, land -animals, or plants, we feel disappointed, almost hurt; we think that -nature has somehow slighted this particular set of beds. But where in -our modern quiet earth will we go to find deposits now forming like the -copper slate of the Mansfield district, the Jurassic shales of -Solenhofen, the calcareous marls of Oeningen on Lake Constance, the -black slates of Glarus, or the shales of Monte Bolca?--to mention some -cases from the Continent of Europe more than usually famous in the -literature for exquisitely preserved vertebrate fishes, to say nothing -of other fossils. According to Dana, all these must have met with a -"speedy burial after death"--perhaps before, who knows? - -Buckland[58] in speaking of the fossil fish of Monte Bolca, which may be -taken as typical of all the others, is quite positive that these fish -must have "perished suddenly," by some tremendous catastrophe. - -"The skeletons of these fish," he says, "lie parallel to the laminae of -the strata of the calcareous slate; they are always entire, and so -closely packed on one another that many individuals are often contained -in a single block.... =All these fish must have died suddenly= on this -fatal spot, and have been speedily buried in the calcareous sediment -then in course of deposition. From the fact that certain individuals -have even preserved traces of color upon their skin, we are certain that -they were entombed before decomposition of their soft parts had taken -place." - -In many places in America as well as Europe, where these remains of fish -are found, the shaley rock is so full of fish oil that it will burn -almost like coal, while some have even thought that the peculiar -deposits like Albertite "coal" and some cannel coals were formed from -the distillation of the fish oil from the supersaturated rocks. - -De La Beche[59] was also of the opinion that most of the fossils were -buried suddenly and in an abnormal manner. "A very large proportion of -them," he says, "must have been =entombed uninjured, and many alive=, -or, if not alive, at least before decomposition ensued." In this he is -speaking not of the fishes alone but of the fossiliferous deposits in -general. - -There is a series of strata found in all parts of the world which used -to be called the "Old Red Sandstone," now known as the Devonian. In -this, almost wherever we find it, the remains of whole shoals of fishes -occur in such profusion and preservation that the "period" is often -known as the "Age of Fishes." Dr. David Page, after enumerating nearly a -dozen genera, says: - -"These fishes seem to have thronged the waters of the period, and their -remains are often found in masses, =as if they had been suddenly -entombed in living shoals= by the sediment which now contains them." - -I beg leave to quote somewhat at length the picturesque language of Hugh -Miller[60] regarding these rocks as found in Scotland. - -"The river bull-head, when attacked by an enemy, or immediately as it -feels the hook in its jaws, erects its two spines at nearly right angles -with the plates of the head, as if to render itself as difficult of -being swallowed as possible. The attitude is one of danger and alarm; -and it is a curious fact, to which I shall afterward have occasion to -advert, that =in this attitude nine-tenths of the= _Pterichthes_ =of the -Lower Old Red Sandstone are to be found=.... It presents us, too, with a -wonderful record of violent death falling at once, not on a few -individuals, but on whole tribes." - -"At this period of our history, some terrible catastrophe involved in -sudden destruction the fish of an area at least a hundred miles from -boundary to boundary, perhaps much more. The same platform in Orkney as -at Cromarty is strewed thick with remains, which exhibit unequivocally -the marks of violent death. The figures are contorted, contracted, -curved, the tail in many instances is bent round to the head; the spines -stick out; the fins are spread to the full, as in fish that die in -convulsions.... The record is one of destruction at once widely spread -and total, so far as it extended.... By what quiet but potent agency of -destruction were the innumerable existences of =an area perhaps ten -thousand square miles in extent annihilated at once=, and yet the medium -in which they had lived left undisturbed in its operations? - -"Conjecture lacks footing in grappling with the enigma, and expatiates -in uncertainty over all the known phenomena of death." - -I shall not taunt the uniformitarians by asking them to direct us to -some modern analogies. But I would have the reader remember that these -Devonian and other rocks are absolutely world-wide in extent. - -Surely Howorth is talking good science when he says that his masters -Sedgwick and Murchison taught him "that no plainer witness is to be -found of any physical fact than that Nature has at times worked with -enormous energy and rapidity," and "that the rocky strata teem with -evidence of violent and sudden dislocations on a great scale." - -I have spoken only of the class Fishes. But what other class of the -animal kingdom will not point us a similar lesson? The Reptiles and -Amphibians, to say nothing of the larger Mammals, are also found in -countless myriads, packed together as if in natural graveyards. -Everybody knows of the enormous numbers and splendid preservation of the -great reptiles of the Western and Southern States, untombed by Leidy, -Cope and Marsh. One patch of Cretaceous strata in England, the Wealden, -has afforded over thirty different species of dinosaurs, crocodiles, and -pleisosaurs. Mr. Chas. H. Sternberg, one of Zittel's assistants, -recently reported great quantities of Amphibians from the Permian of -Texas. They are of all sizes, some frogs being six feet long, others -ten. Besides these he found three "bone-beds" full of minute forms an -inch or less in length. Of the small ones, which I judge must represent -whole millions of young ones =suddenly= entombed, he says: - -"I got over twenty perfect skulls, many with vertebrae attached, and -thousands of small bones from all parts of the skeleton. In one case, a -complete skull, one-fourth of an inch in length, had connected with it -nearly the entire vertebral column, with ribs in position, coiled upon -itself, bedded with many bones of other species in a red silicious -matrix. So perfectly were they weathered out that they lay in bas-relief -=as white and perfect as if they had died a month ago=; a single row of -teeth, =like the points of cambric needles=, occupied both sets of -jaws."[61] - -How many more such cases there may have been in these "three bone-beds -full" of similar remains, it would be interesting to know. But though -somewhat aside from the present subject, I cannot refrain in passing -from referring to the wonderful preservation of these remains. It is -preposterous to say that these bones have lain thus exposed to the -weather for the millions of years postulated by the popular theory. -There is not a particle of scientific evidence to prove that they are -not just as recent as any specimen from the Tertiaries or the -Pleistocene. Buffon and Cuvier proved the mammals to be of "recent" age, -because they occurred in the superficial deposits. They never heard of -the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous of Colorado and Wyoming, nor -these Permian of Texas. Think of this frog's teeth "like the points of -cambric needles," and he and his fellows "as perfect as if they had died -a month ago." Of one of the big six-foot specimens this author says: -"Its head was so beautifully preserved, and cleaned under long erosion, -it was difficult to believe it was not a recent specimen." While of the -little six-inch fellow referred to above he says: "The bones of the -skull are perfectly preserved, quite smooth, and show the sutures -distinctly; there is no distortion, some red matrix attached below seems -absolutely necessary to convince the mind that it is not =a thing of -yesterday=." James Geikie[62] mentions the case of the Elgin sandstones -"formerly classed as 'Old Red,'" but which are now called Triassic, -"from the fact that they have yielded reptilian remains of a higher -grade than one would expect to meet with in old Red Sandstone." Since -these strata =slide up and down so easily=, we have here far more urgent -scientific reasons for calling these amphibian remains of Texas among -the most "recent" geological deposits on the globe. - -But I must return to my subject. The Invertebrates are also eloquent to -the fact of abnormal conditions having prevailed when their remains were -entombed. We could go through the whole list, but it is the same old -story of abnormal deposits, essentially different from anything that is -being made to-day. - -Where, for instance, in the modern seas, will we find the remains of -polyp-corals now being intercalated between beds of clays or sands over -vast areas, as we find them in the Lias and Oolyte of England and -elsewhere? Corals require a definite depth of water, neither too deep -nor too shallow, but it must be clear and pure; and nothing but some -awful catastrophe could place a bed of coral remains a few feet or a -=few inches= in thickness over the vast areas that we find them. -Crinoids require the same clear, pure water, but much deeper, some of -the modern kinds living =over a mile down=, but every student of the -science knows that the Subcarboniferous limestone of both Europe and -America (called Mountain Limestone in England), so noted for its -crinoids and its corals, is constantly found intercalated between shale -or sandstone, or between the coal beds themselves as at Springfield, -Ill., or in the Lower Coal Measures of Westmorland County, Pa. There are -of course, here and there, great masses of these rocks which represent -an original formation by growth _in situ_; but no sane man can say this -for these great sheets perhaps =only a few inches= in thickness, for in -many cases they show a stratified or bedded structure just as much as a -sandstone or a shale. In some tables given by Dana on pp. 651-2 of his -"Manual," compiled from four different localities, I count no less than -=23 beds= of limestone thus intercalated, though we are not told how -many of them contain corals or crinoids. Such details are generally -omitted as of little consequence. - -Next, let us try the Lamellibranchs, such as the clam, oyster, and other -true bivalves. These creatures have an arrangement in the hinge region -by which the valves of the shell tend to open, but during life are held -together by the adductor muscles. When dead, however, these muscles -relax and decay, and then the valves spread wide open. Of course there -are some, such as certain kinds of clams, which burrow in the mud or -sand, and the shells of these, if they happened to die a natural death -in their holes, could not spread very far apart. However =some mud= must -even then wash into their burrows and into their empty shells. But many -kinds of bivalves do not thus burrow in the ground; and when the fossils -of such kinds are found in quantity with the valves =applied= and often -=hollow=, as is so frequently the case in many of the "older" rocks, I -cannot see how we are to understand any ordinary conditions of deposit. -And yet we are gravely assured by a high authority, that "A sudden -burial is not necessary to entombment in this condition." - -Or, let us take the Brachiopods. These have a bivalve shell, the parts -of which, however, are not pulled apart after death, and only need to -open a little way even in life to admit the sea water which brings them -their food. Yet, though the valves do not gape after death, there is -when dead and empty a =hole= at the hinge or beak, which would readily -admit mud if such were present in the water, or if the shells after -death were subject to the ordinary movements of tide, wave and current. -Yet Dawson[63] says of the Brachiopods, Spirifer and Athyris: - -"I may mention here that in all the Carboniferous limestones of Nova -Scotia the shells of this family are usually found with the valves -closed and =the interior often hollow=." - -Of course he tries to explain how this state of things might occur "in -deep and clear water"--for some of the modern species are found in the -clear depths 18,000 feet down--and he thinks that their entombment in -this condition "does not prove that the death of the animals was -sudden." But we now know that there is no means of producing a -stratified formation in this "deep and clear water," and hence that some -revolution of nature is implied by the conditions in which we find them. - -Some people seem to have converted David Hume's famous sentence into a -scientific formula, thus: "Anything contrary to Uniformity is -impossible: hence no amount of evidence can prove anything contrary to -Uniformity." - -For the trouble in this case is that, not only do such conditions -prevail "in all the Carboniferous limestones of Nova Scotia," which must -be several thousands of square miles in extent, but in the Devonian -shales and Silurian limestones of Ontario and the Middle States at -least--perhaps over the rest of the world--the Brachiopods are found =in -this same tell-tale condition=, and it would establish a very dangerous -precedent to admit abnormal conditions in even a single case. - -I have only touched upon the voluminous evidence that might be adduced -in the case of the lower forms of life. Had I the space, I might show -how the marvelously preserved plants of the coal beds tell the same -story. But we must pass on to consider the remains of the larger land -animals. I have already given a quotation from Dana about the mammoth -and rhinoceros in Northern Siberia, where he says that their encasing in -ice and the perfect preservation of their flesh "shows that the cold -finally became =suddenly= extreme, as of a single winter's night, and -knew no relenting afterward." Not very many serious attempts have been -made to account for this remarkable state of things, which is a protest -against uniformity that can be appreciated by a child, and I never heard -of any theory which attempted to account for the facts without some kind -of awful catastrophe. - -Many, however, seem to have little idea of the extent of these remains -in the Arctic regions. They are not all thus perfectly preserved, for -thousands of skeletons are found in localities where the ground thaws -out somewhat in the short summer, and here of course, the skin and -tissues could not remain intact. Remains of these beasts occur in only a -little less abundance over all Western Europe, and the mammoth also in -North America, well preserved specimens having been obtained from the -Klondike region of Alaska; and there is nothing to forbid the idea that -many, if not most of these latter specimens were also at one time -enshrined as "mummies" in the ice, which has since melted over the more -temperate regions. But we must confine ourselves to the remains in -Siberia. Flower and Lydekker tell us that since the tenth century at -least, these remains have been quarried for the sake of the ivory tusks, -and a regular trade in this fossil ivory, in a state fit for commercial -purposes, has been carried on "both eastward to China, and westward to -Europe," and that "fossil ivory has its price current as well as wheat." - -"They are found at all suitable places along the whole line of the shore -between the mouth of the Obi and Behring Straits, and the further north -the more numerous do they become, the islands of New Siberia being now -one of the favorite collecting localities. The soil of Bear Island and -of Liachoff Islands is said to consist only of sand and ice with such -quantities of mammoth bones as almost to compose its chief substance. -The remains are not only found around the mouths of the great rivers, as -would be the case if the carcasses had been washed down from more -southern localities in the interior of the continent, but are imbedded -in the frozen soil in such circumstances as to indicate that the animals -had lived not far from the localities in which they are now found, and -they are exposed either by the melting of the ice in unusually warm -summers, or by the washing away of the sea cliffs or river banks by -storms or floods. In this way the bodies of more or less nearly perfect -animals, even standing in the erect position, with the soft parts and -hairy covering entire, have been brought to light."[64] - -But these remains of the mammoth, though the best known, are not the -only ones attesting extraordinary conditions: though of course in warmer -latitudes we do not find perfect "mummies" with the hide and flesh -preserved untainted. Let us go to a warmer climate, to Sicily, and read -a description of the remains of the hippopotamus found there. I quote -from Sir Joseph Prestwich: - -"The chief localities, which centre on the hills around Palermo, arrest -attention from the extraordinary quantity of bones of _Hippopotami_ (in -complete hecatombs) which have there been found. Twenty tons of these -bones were shipped from around the one cave of San Ciro, near Palermo, -within the first six months of exploiting them, and they were so fresh -that they were sent to Marseilles to furnish animal charcoal for use in -the sugar factories. How could this bone breccia have been -accumulated?... The only suggestion that has been made is that the bones -are those of successive generations of _Hippopotami_ which went there to -die. But this is not the habit of the animal, and besides, the bones are -those of animals =of all ages down to the foetus=, nor do they show -traces of weathering or exposure.... - -"My supposition is, therefore, that when the island was submerged, the -animate in the plain of Palermo naturally retreated, as the waters -advanced, deeper into the amphitheatre of hills until they found -themselves embayed, as in a seine, with promontories running out to sea -on either side and a mural precipice in front. As the area became more -and more circumscribed the animals must have thronged together in vast -multitudes, crushing into the more accessible caves, and swarming over -the ground at their entrance, until overtaken by the waters and -destroyed."[65] - -Our author then adds this summary of his argument: - -"The extremely fresh condition of the bones, proved by the retention of -so large a proportion of animal matter, and the fact that animals of all -ages were involved in the catastrophe, shows that the event was -geologically, comparatively recent, as other facts show it to have been -sudden." - -That it must have been a good deal more "sudden" than even this author -will admit, is evident from the nature of the hippopotamus. I never -thought that it was particularly afraid of the water, or likely to be -drowned by any such moderate catastrophe as Prestwich invokes in this -singular volume. The reader must, however, note that this affair, like -the entombment of the mammoth, certainly =took place since man was upon -the globe=, even according to the uniformitarians. Would it not be -economy of energy to correlate the two together? But if man dates from -"Miocene times," as some contend, he must have witnessed half a dozen -awful affairs like these, for there is scarcely a country on the globe -that has not been under the ocean since then. - -Let us proceed. - -But whither shall we turn to avoid finding similar phenomena? The vast -deposits of mammals in the Rocky Mountains may occur to the reader. As -Dana says, they "have been found to be literally Tertiary burial -grounds." I need not go into the details of these deposits, nor of those -in other places containing the great mammals which must have been -contemporary with "Tertiary man," for I would only weary the reader with -a monotony of abnormal conditions of deposit--unlike anything now being -produced this wide world over. We shall be stating the case very mildly -indeed, if we conclude that the vast majority of the fossils, by their -profuse abundance and their astonishing preservation, tell a very plain -story of "speedy burial after death," and =are of an essentially -different character= from modern deposits. - -Prof. Nicholson, in speaking of the remains of the Zeuglodon, says: - -"Remains of these gigantic whales are very common in the 'Jackson beds' -of the Southern United States. So common are they that, according to -Dana, 'the large vertebrae, some of them a foot and a half long and a -foot in diameter, were formerly so abundant over the country in Alabama -that they were used for making walls, or were burned to rid the fields -of them.'"[66] - -Shortly before his death in 1895, Dana prepared a revised edition of his -"Manual," and in it he gives us quite a rational explanation of this -case, as follows: - -"Vertebrae were so abundant, on the first discovery, in some places that -many of these Eocene whales must have been stranded together in a common -catastrophe, on the northern borders of the Mexican Gulf--possibly by a -series of earthquake waves of great violence; or by an elevation along -the sea limit that made a confined basin of the border region, which the -hot sun rendered destructive alike to Zeuglodons and their game; or by -an unusual retreat of the tide, which left them dry and floundering -under a tropical sun." (p. 908.) - -That is, this veteran geologist in his old age would not attempt to -account for such abnormal conditions without a catastrophe of some kind. -But if we use similar explanations for similar conditions, where shall -we stop through the whole range of the rocks from the Cambrian to the -Pleistocene? - -Dana became very fond of this idea of earthquake waves, and invoked them -to account for "the universality and abruptness" with which the species -disappear at the close of "Palaeozoic time," using as the generating -cause the uplifting of the Appalachian Mountains, with "flexures miles -in height and space, and slips along newly opened fractures that kept up -their interrupted progress through thousands of feet of displacement," -from which he says "incalculable violence and great surgings of the -ocean should have occurred and been often repeated.... Under such -circumstances the devastation of the sea border and the low-lying lands -of the period, the destruction of their animals and plants, would have -been a sure result. The survivors within a long distance of the coast -line would have been few."[67] - -But as this sudden break in the life-chain "was so general and extensive -that no Carboniferous species is known to occur among the fossils of -succeeding beds, not only in America and Europe, but also over the rest -of the world" (p. 735), he is obliged to make his catastrophe by -earthquake waves positively =world wide=. Hence he adds: "The same waves -would have swept over European land and seas, and there found coadjutors -for new strife in earthquake waves of European origin." - -At the close of the Mesozoic he uses similar language, though in this -case he has the whole range of the mountains on the west of both North -and South America, the Rockies and the Andes, in length a "third of the -circumference of the globe," "undergoing simultaneous orogenic -movements, with like grand results." (p. 875.) "The deluging waves sent -careering over the land" would, he thinks, "have been destructive over -all the coasts of a hemisphere," and "may have made their marches inland -for hundreds of miles" (p. 878), sweeping all before them. - -I should think so; but then what becomes of this doctrine of uniformity? -Personally, I have not the slightest objection to these "deluging waves -sent careering over the land," for I feel sure that just such things -have occurred, and on just such a scale as our author pictures, for, as -he says, the destruction of species "was great, =world-wide=, and one of -the most marvelous events in geological history." (p. 877.) - -But it seems to me that here we have an enormous amount of energy going -to waste. Others have demanded a continent to explain the appearance of -a beetle in a certain locality; but here we have a great world-wide -catastrophe to explain the sudden disappearance of merely a few species. -Why not utilize this surplus energy in doing other necessary work, that -has certainly been accomplished somehow, but has hitherto gone a-begging -for a competent cause? The only thing I object to in Dana's view of the -case is his way of having these "exterminations" take place on the -installment plan. For in that way we have to work up a great world -catastrophe to do only a very limited amount of work, and then have to -repeat the thing another time for a similarly limited work, =when one -such cosmic convulsion is competent to do the whole thing=. I plead for -the "law of parsimony," and the economizing of energy. - -The vast shoals of carcasses which seem to be piled up in almost every -corner of the world are _prima facie_ evidence that our old globe has -witnessed some sort of cosmic convulsion. The exact cause, nature, and -extent of this event we may never have sufficient facts to determine, -though two or three additional facts having a bearing on the subject -will be considered in the following chapters. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[55] "Manual," p. 229. - -[56] _Pop. Sci. Mo._, Vol. xxi, pp. 143, 693. - -[57] "Manual," p. 141. - -[58] "Geol. and Min.," Vol. I., pp. 124-5. Ed. 1858. - -[59] "Theoretical Geol.," p. 265. London, 1834. - -[60] "Old Red Sandstone," pp. 48, 221-2. - -[61] _Pop. Sci. News_, May, 1902, pp. 106-7. - -[62] "Histor. Geol.," p. 53. - -[63] "Acadian Geol.," p. 260. - -[64] "Mammals," p. 430. - -[65] "On Certain Phenomena, etc.," pp. 50-52. - -[66] "Ancient Life-History," p. 300. - -[67] "Manual," p. 736. - - - - -CHAPTER X - -CHANGE OF CLIMATE - - -Another great general fact about the fossil world may be stated about as -follows: - -=All of the fossils= (save a very few of the so-called "Glacial Age," -and they admit of other easy explanation) =give us proofs of an almost -eternal spring having prevailed in the Arctic regions, and semi-tropical -conditions in north temperate latitudes; in short give us proofs of a -singular uniformity of climate over the globe which we can hardly -conceive possible, let alone account for.= - -The proofs of this are almost unnecessary, as this subject of climate -has been pretty well discussed of late years. And it was the -overwhelming evidence on this point which forced Lyell and so many -others to decide against the theory of Croll, which called for a regular -rotation of climates, for they said that the fossil evidence was wholly -against such a view. Howorth has given an admirable argument on this -point in Chapter XI of his second work on the Glacial Theory[68] and to -it I would refer the reader for details which I have not the space to -reproduce here. - -This author first remarks: - -"The best thermometer we can use to test the character of a climate is -the flora and fauna which lived while it prevailed. This is not only the -best, but is virtually the only thermometer available when we inquire -into the climate of past geological ages. Other evidence is always -sophisticated by the fact that we may be attributing to climate what is -due to other causes; boulders can be rolled by the sea as well as by -sub-glacial streams, and conglomerates can be formed by other agencies -than ice. But the biological evidence is unmistakable; cold-blooded -reptiles cannot live in icy water; semi-tropical plants, or plants whose -habitat is in the temperate zone, cannot ripen their seeds and sow -themselves under arctic conditions.... We may examine the whole series -of geological horizons, from the earliest Palaeozoic beds down to the -so-called Glacial beds, and find, so far as I know, no adequate evidence -of discontinuous and alternating climates, no evidence whatever of the -existence of periods of intense cold intervening between warm periods, -but just the contrary. Not only so, but we shall find that the -differentiation of the earth's climate into tropical and arctic zones is -comparatively modern, and that in past ages not only were the climates -more uniform, but more evenly distributed over the whole world." - -Without attempting to follow through the whole series of formations we -may note a few characteristic statements of the text-books. Thus Dana -says of the Cambrian: - -"There was no frigid zone, and there may have been no excessively torrid -zone." - -While of the Silurian coral limestones of the Arctic regions he says: - -"The formation of thick strata of limestone shows that life like that of -the lower latitudes not only existed there, but flourished in -profusion."[69] - -Howorth thus quotes Colonel Fielden, the Arctic explorer, regarding the -fossil Sclerodermic corals of the Silurian, widely distributed in the -Arctic regions: - -"These undoubted reef-forming corals of the Silurian epoch were just as -much inhabitants of warm water in northern latitudes at that period as -are the Sclerodermata of to-day in the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic -oceans.... These corals were forms of life which must have been tropical -in habits and requirement." - -In fact coral limestones of the Carboniferous system are the nearest -known fossiliferous rocks to the North Pole, and from the strike of the -beds must underlie the Polar Sea. In the words of Howorth, "Coal strata -with similar fossils have occurred all round the Polar basin ... and may -be said, therefore, to have occupied a continuous cap around the North -Pole."[70] - -Again I quote from Howorth regarding the Mesozoic rocks: - -"This very widespread fauna and flora proves that the high temperature -of the Secondary era prevailed in all latitudes, and not only so, it -pervaded them apparently continuously without a break. There is no -evidence whatever, known to me, that can be derived from the fauna and -flora of Secondary times, which points to any period of cold as even -possible. There are no shrunken and stunted forms, and no types such as -we associate with cold conditions, and no changes evidenced by -intercalated beds showing vicissitudes of life." - -The following is from Nordenskiold, as quoted by Howorth, and refers to -the whole geological series: - -"From what has been already stated it appears that the animal and -vegetable relics found in the Polar regions, imbedded in strata -deposited in widely separated geological eras, uniformly testify that a -warm climate has in former times prevailed over the whole globe. From -palaeontological science no support can be obtained for the assumption -of a periodical alternation of warm and cold climates on the surface of -the earth."[71] - -And now we have the equally positive language of A. R. Wallace: - -"It is quite impossible to ignore or evade the force of the testimony as -to the continuous warm climate of the North Temperate and Polar Zones -=throughout Tertiary times=. The evidence extends over a vast area both -in space and time, it is derived from the work of the most competent -living geologists, and it is absolutely consistent in its general -tendency ... Whether in Miocene, Upper or Lower Cretaceous, Jurassic, -Triassic, Carboniferous or Silurian times, and in all the numerous -localities extending over more than half the Polar regions, we find =one -uniform climatic aspect of the fossils=."[72] - -Of course in all this I am taking the various kinds of fossils in the -traditional chronological order. But I shall presently show on the best -of authority that Man existed in "Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," -and in view of such an admission we have, even from the standpoint of -current theory, a vital, personal interest in this question of climate. -Let us take, then, the following from James Geikie, the great champion -of the Glacial theory, on the climate of the Arctic regions at this part -of the =human epoch=: - -"Miocene deposits occur in Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, and at other -places within the Arctic Circle. The beds contain a similar (similar to -the "most luxuriant vegetation" of Switzerland) assemblage of -plant-remains; the palm-trees, however, being wanting. It is certainly -wonderful that within so recent a period as the Miocene, a climate -existed within the Arctic regions so mild and genial as to nourish there -beeches, oaks, planes, poplars, walnuts, limes, magnolias, hazel, holly, -blackthorn, logwood, hawthorn, ivy, vines, and many evergreens, besides -numerous conifers, among which was the sequoia, allied to the gigantic -_Wellingtonia_ of California. This ancient vegetation has been traced up -to within eleven degrees of the Pole."[73] - -According to Dana and other American geologists the "Glacial Period" is -only a variation intervening between the warm Tertiary and the equally -warm "Champlain Period," and it was during the latter that the mammoth, -mastodon, etc., roamed over Europe, Asia, and America. Of the climate -then indicated, when all acknowledge that Man was in existence, this -author says: - -"The genial climate that followed the Glacial appears to have been -marvelously genial to the species, =and alike for all the continents, -Australia included=. The kinds that continued into modern time became -dwindled in the change wherever found over the globe, notwithstanding -the fact that genial climates are still to be found over large -regions."[74] - -In his "Geological Story Briefly Told," he uses even stronger language: - -"The brute mammals reached their maximum in numbers and size during the -warm Champlain Period, and many species lived then which have since -become extinct. Those of Europe and Britain were largely warm-climate -species, such as are now confined to warm temperate and tropical -regions; and only in a warm period like the Champlain could they have -thrived and attained their gigantic size. The great abundance of their -remains and their condition show that the climate and food were all the -animals could have desired. They were masters of their wanderings, and -had their choice of the best."[75] - -"The genial climate of the Champlain period was _abruptly_ (italics -Dana's) terminated. For carcasses of the Siberian elephants were frozen -so suddenly and so completely at the change, that the flesh has remained -untainted." (Id. p. 230.) - -I quite agree with this author that the evidence is conclusive as to the -climate and food being "all the animals could have desired," and that -they must have "had their choice of the best." But it seems to me that -in following out their theory these authors have not left the poor -creatures very much to choose from. For as the inevitable result of -their theory in arranging the plants as well as the animals in -chronological order according to the percentages of living and extinct -forms, they have already disposed of, and consigned to the "early" -Tertiaries, etc., all the probable vegetation on which these animals -lived, and thus have nothing left on which to feed the horse and bison, -rhinoceros and elephant, etc., away within the Arctic Circle, except the -few miserable shrubs and lichens which now survive there. - -But this strange, inconsistent notion of Dana's that the so-called -Glacial phenomena lie in between the warm Tertiary and the equally warm -"Champlain period," is easily understood as the survival of the notion, -so tenaciously held even later than the middle decades of the nineteenth -century, that Man was =not= a witness of any of the great geological -changes. When the evidence became overwhelming that Man lived while the -semi-tropical animals roamed over England, the "Glacial period" still -remained as a sort of buffer against the dangerous possibility of -extending the =human= period back any further. I am not aware that this -venerable scientist ever became quite reconciled to the idea of -"Tertiary Man," though in his "Manual" he mentions a few evidences in -favor of this now almost universally accepted opinion. - -As for the real teachings of the Drift phenomena there is no need of -explanation here. At the very most they are confined to a quite limited -part of the northern hemisphere, there being no trace of them in Alaska, -nor on the plains of Siberia, where now almost eternal frosts -prevail.[76] In fact they are practically confined between the Rocky -Mountains and the Missouri River on the west, and the Ural Mountains on -the east; and with a little common sense infused into the foundation -principles of the science we will cease to be tormented with a "Glacial -Nightmare." Much of the Drift phenomena with the raised beaches are -certainly =later= events than most of the other geological work, but are -inseparably connected with the general problem in their explanation. -Even from the ordinary standpoint, I am not aware that the elaborate -argument of Howorth has even been satisfactorily answered. Indeed, I -feel almost like saying that this writer's various contributions to the -cause of inductive geology mark the beginning of the dawn. - -Hence it may suffice here to merely call attention to the great -simplicity introduced into this vast complexity of the glacialists, by -the positive assurance of this author that the "Drift period" and the -Pleistocene =end together=, and join onto the modern; or perhaps I ought -rather to say that the so-called Glacial phenomena lie in between the -true fossil world and our modern one. - -"Thus, in regard to the Pleistocene mammals, the view is now generally -accepted that, in every place where they have been found in a -contemporary bed, that bed underlies the till, and is therefore -pre-glacial. As in other places, so here (Scotland), teeth and bones of -mammals have occurred in the clay itself; but in all such cases they -occur sporadically and as boulders. As Mr. James Geikie says, 'They -almost invariably afford marks of having been subjected to the same -action as the stones and boulders by which they are surrounded; that is -to say, they are rubbed, ground, striated, and smoothed.'"[77] - -And again: - -"=The Pleistocene fauna, so far as I know, came to an end with the -so-called Glacial age.=" (Id. p. 463.) - -From a recent notice in _Nature_[78] it would seem that even Dr. H. -Woodward, of the British Museum, supports this general view in his -"Table of British Strata," by the statement that the glacial deposits -contain =only derived fossils=. - -But this is such a decided simplification of the problem of climate that -I am utterly at a loss to understand how any one can still cling to the -complex and highly artificial arrangement of numerous "interglacial" -periods, to account for a few bones of mammals or a few pockets of -lignite; and how they can even place between the "Glacial period" and -our times the "genial Champlain period," with it, as Dana says, -"=abruptly terminated=," and becoming "=suddenly= extreme as of a single -winter's night." Howorth, in the latter part of the chapter already -quoted from (pp. 460-478), gives a good review of this subject of -intermittent climates, and strongly supports his contention that the -=stratigraphical evidence= all points to the fact that the Pleistocene -forms are always older than the Drift-beds, and where the flora and -fauna of the Pleistocene occur in the Drift, they do so only as -boulders; that, in fact, as he says in his Preface, "The Pleistocene -Flood ... =forms a great dividing line= in the superficial deposits," -separating the true fossil world from the modern. - -I have hardly the space to repeat here my argument about the extremely -fanciful way in which geologists classify the various members of the -Tertiary group and the Pleistocene. And yet I must say a few words. I -have tried to show the utter nonsense of the common custom of -classifying these beds according to the percentage of living and extinct -forms which they contain, when the real fact is that the number and -kinds of the ancient life-forms which have survived into the modern era -is a purely fortuitous circumstance, being limited solely to those lucky -ones which could stand the radical change from a tepid water or a genial -air to the ice and frosts which they now experience, to mention only one -circumstance of that cosmic convulsion which we now know to have really -intervened between that ancient world and our own. =YET IT IS ON SUCH -EVIDENCE ONLY= that these Pleistocene forms are separated from the -Tertiaries, or that the Tertiaries themselves are classified off--at -least as far as the invertebrates and the plants are concerned. No one -claims that the so-called Glacial beds can be sharply distinguished from -other deposits on purely mechanical make-up. Indeed, I am strongly of -the opinion that very many Archaean soils, totally unfossiliferous -themselves, and resting on unfossiliferous rocks, have been assigned to -the "Glacial age," merely because their discoverers did not know what -else to do with them. When beds contain fossils, the latter are the one -and only guide in determining age; but in view of the purely arbitrary -character of this method of classifying off the Tertiary and -post-Tertiary rocks, I do not see where we are going to =draw the line= -when we once admit that the post-Tertiary beds contain only "derived -fossils." It seems to me truly astonishing that shrewd reasoners, like -Howorth and Dr. Woodward, have not seen the dangerous character of this -precedent which they have admitted. For with that marvelous climate of -all geological time continuing right up to that fatal day when it was -"abruptly terminated," and the mammoth and his fellows were caught in -the merciless frosts which now hold them, the percentage of all the -lucky forms of life, plants, invertebrates, or mammals, which could -stand such a change and "persist" into our modern world, must be -=utterly nonsensical as a test of age= even from their standpoint. - -In resuming the main argument of this chapter, I need only summarize by -saying that the evidence is conclusive that all geological time down to -this sharp "dividing line" was characterized by a surprisingly mild and -uniform climate over all the earth. The modern period is characterized -by terrific extremes of heat and cold; and now little or nothing can -exist where previously plant and animal life flourished in profusion. - -This radical and world-wide change in climate, therefore, demands ample -consideration when seeking a true induction as to the past of our globe. -That it was no gradual or secular affair, but that the climate "became -=suddenly= extreme as of a single winter's night," the Siberian -"mummies" are unanswerable arguments. =That it occurred within the human -epoch= all are now agreed. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[68] "The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood," pp. 426-479. - -[69] "Manual," pp. 484, 524-5. - -[70] Op. cit., pp. 434-5. - -[71] Id., p. 45. - -[72] "Island Life," pp. 182, 195-6; "Nightmare," pp. 455-6. - -[73] "Historical Geology," p. 76. - -[74] "Manual," p. 997. - -[75] p. 225, Edition of 1875. - -[76] See Dana's "Manual," pp. 945, 977; also "The Glacial Nightmare," - pp. 45-2, 511, etc. - -[77] "Great Ice Age," p. 129; "Nightmare," p. 473. - -[78] See _Nature_ April 11, 1901, p. 560. - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -DEGENERATION - - -There is another great general fact about the fossil world which seems -to be a natural corollary from the one already given about climate. - -It is this: - -=The fossils, regarded as a whole, invariably supply us with types -larger of their kind and better developed in every way than their -nearest modern representatives, whether of plants or animals.= - -This fact also is so well known that it needs no proof. Through the -whole range of geological literature I do not know of a word of dissent -from this general fact by any writer whatever. Proof therefore is not -necessary, though a brief review of a little of the evidence may refresh -our memories. - -To begin with the Cambrian, Dana says: - -"The Pteropods, among Mollusks, were much larger than the modern species -of the tribe. The Trilobites even of the Lower Cambrian comprise species -as large as living Crustaceans. The Ostrapods are generally larger than -those of recent times."[79] - -Again, in speaking of the general character of the Cambrian fossils, he -says: - -"The types of the early Cambrian are mostly identical with those now -represented in existing seas, and although inferior in general as to -grade [in the "Phylogenic series"], they bear no marks of imperfect or -stunted growth from unfit or foul surroundings." (p. 485.) - -The well known Mollusk, _Maclurea magna_, which is so enormously -abundant in the Silurian, is often eight inches in diameter, and the -astounding Cephalopod genus, _Endoceras_, consisting of twenty species, -found only in two divisions of the Lower Silurian, has left shells over -a foot in diameter, and ten or twelve feet long! - -Of the fishes of the Devonian we have, among other remarks of a similar -character, the following: - -"The Dipnoans, or 'Lung-fishes,' were represented by gigantic species -called by Newberry _Dinichthys_ and _Titanichthys_, from their size and -formidable dental armature.... A still larger species is the -_Titanichthys clarki_ of Newberry, in which the head was four feet or -more broad, the lower jaw a yard long. This jaw was shaped posteriorly -like an oar blade, and anteriorly was turned upward like a sled -runner."[80] - -One of the ancient Eurypterids from the Old Red Sandstone of Europe has -a length of six feet, which is more than three times that of any -Crustacean now living. While a gigantic Isopod Crustacean from the same -strata had a leg the basal joint of which was three inches long, and -three-quarters of an inch through, which is larger than the whole body -of any modern species. - -The ancient "Horse-tails," "Ground-pines," Ferns and Cycads were trees -from 30 to 90 feet high, and their carbonized stems and leaves make up -many of our largest and best beds of coal. Compared with them the modern -representatives are mere herbs or shrubbery. - -Of the gigantic insects of the Devonian and Carboniferous beds we might -make similar remarks. Some of the ancient locusts had an expanse of wing -of over seven inches; while many of the ancient Dragon-flies had bodies -from a foot to sixteen inches long, with wings a foot long and over two -feet in spread from tip to tip. - -Here is James Geikie's summary of the leading types of the Palaeozoic: - -"Many Palaeozoic species were characterized by their large size as -compared with species of the same groups that belong to later times. -Thus, some Trilobites and other Crustaceans were larger than any modern -species of Crustaceans. The Palaeozoic Amphibians also much exceeded in -size any living members of their class. Again, the modern club-mosses, -which are insignificant plants, either trailing on the ground or never -reaching more than two feet in height, were represented by great -lepidodendroid trees." - -Sternberg, in speaking of some of the frogs which he found in the -Permian of Texas, says: - -"I found several skulls that measured over a foot from the end of the -chin to the distal point of the horns.... I think when alive the frog -must have been six feet long."[81] - -He mentions another specimen which was "about 10 feet long," the head of -which was "about 20 inches in length," with jaws "more powerful than -those of an ox." - -Of the monstrous Dinosaurs of the Mesozoic rocks one hardly needs to -speak. - -"They were the most gigantic of terrestrial animals, in some cases -reaching a length of 70 or 80 feet, while at the same time they had a -height of body and massiveness of limb that, without evidence from the -bones, would have been thought too great for muscle to move."[82] - -They abound in both the Old and the New World. - -Of the gigantic Mammals of the Tertiary beds of the Western States, it -would also be superfluous to speak; their gigantic size is known by -every high school pupil, or every one who has visited any important -museum in Europe or America. - -We may perhaps be reminded again that all the species of these "older" -rocks are extinct species. I have already suggested the grave doubts on -this point, regarding the great mass of the lower forms of life, plant -and animal; but we will let that pass. But let us take some of the -"late" Tertiary and Pleistocene mammals, which cannot be distinguished -from living species, and how do we fare? It is the same old story; the -moderns are degenerate dwarfs. - -The hippopotamus (_H. major_) is a good one to start with, for Flower -and Lydekker[83] say that it "cannot be specifically distinguished from -_H. amphibius_" of Africa. This gigantic brute used to live in the -rivers of England and Western Europe. The text-books generally say in -"Pliocene times," because, I suppose, no one has the courage to suggest -that it lived under the ice of the "Glacial period." We are always -pointed to the wool on the rhinoceros and the mammoth as indicating a -somewhat cool climate, but the well known amphibious habits of the -hippopotamus cannot be so easily disposed of. But if, as I believe, this -world never saw a foot of ice at the sea level till the end of the -"Pleistocene period," to speak after the current manner, the problem -becomes very simple. In that case the time of the Hippopotamus in -England was neither earlier nor later than that of the palms and acacias -of the "early" Tertiary or Mesozoic rocks, or than that of the mammoth, -lion, and hyena of the Pleistocene. There is as we now know absolutely -nothing but an out-of-date hypothesis to indicate that they did not all -live there together. We may, if we choose, try to dovetail those -conditions into the present on the basis of uniformity and slow secular -change, by assuming a few million years for the process, but there is -neither a particle of evidence nor of probability that the hippopotamus -was not contemporary alike with the palms of the Eocene and the -elephants and lions of the post-Tertiary. - -As for the mammoth itself, which Flower and Lydekker have intimated may -turn out identical with _E. Columbi_ and _E. armeniacus_, and thus the -direct ancestor of the modern Asiatic elephant (_E. indicus_), some have -argued that its average size was not greater than that of the existing -species of India and Africa. But Nicholson says that it was: - -"... considerably larger than the largest of living elephants, the -skeleton being over sixteen feet in length, exclusive of the tusks, and -over nine feet in height."[84] - -Dana is equally positive: - -"The species was over twice the weight of the largest modern elephant, -and nearly a third taller."[85] - -The upper incisors or tusks were very much longer than in the modern -species, being from ten to twelve feet long, and sometimes curved up and -back so as to form an almost complete circle. As these tusks continue to -grow throughout life, their enormous length is, I take it, a proof of -much greater longevity and thus of greater vitality than in the cases of -the modern species. The latter is simply a degenerate. - -And so I might go on with the Edentates, the Ungulates, the Rodents, the -Carnivores, etc., for the same thing must be said of all. - -As Sir William Dawson[86] remarks: - -"Nothing is more evident in the history of fossil animals and plants of -past geological ages than that =persistence or degeneracy are the rule= -rather than the exception.... We may almost say that all things left -to themselves =tend to degenerate=, and only a new breathing of the -Almighty Spirit can start them again on the path of advancement." - -In spite of the long popular views of Cuvier, every modern scientist -admits that the great lion and hyena of the Pleistocene are identical -with the living species of Africa. Many say the same thing of the fossil -bear as compared with the modern brown bear and the grizzly, though, as -Dana remarks of all three, lion, hyena, and bear, "these modern kinds -are dwarfs in comparison." - -I quote again from Dana: - -"Thus the brute races of the Middle Quaternary on all the continents -exceeded the moderns greatly in magnitude. Why, no one has -explained."[87] - -This was in 1875. In the last edition of his "Manual," published -shortly after his death, he has this to say in addition: - -"A species thrives best in the region of fittest climate. =In the -Pleistocene, the fittest climate was universal.= Geologists have -attributed the extinction of most of the species and the dwindling of -others to the cold of the Reindeer epoch. It is the only explanation yet -found, though seemingly insufficient for the Americas." (p. 1016.) - -However, since the discovery of the pictures of the reindeer and the -mammoth drawn and even painted =side by side= on the caverns of Southern -France, undoubtedly from life and by the same artist, we do not hear so -much about the "Reindeer epoch," and the "Mammoth epoch." A little -thought should have suggested long ago that it was more reasonable to -suppose the reindeer, glutton, musk-ox, etc., to have been originally -adapted to the high mountains and table lands of that ancient world, -than to imagine all the fauna careering up and down over continents and -across seas like a lot of crazy Scandinavian lemmings, as the migration -theory involved. But most geologists seem never to have had any use for -mountains or plateaus, except to breed glaciers and continental -ice-sheets. But the only point which I wish to insist upon here is that -the cause, =whatever it was=, that made such a zoological break at the -"close" of the Pleistocene, and which compelled the shivering, -degenerate survivors, that could not stand the new extremes of frost and -snow, to shift to the Tropics--this cause was certainly competent to do -a good deal more work in the way of "extinction" or "dwindling" of -species than the uniformitarians have generally given it credit for. - -And in summing up this matter regarding the size and physical -development of species, we must confess that we find in geology no -indication of inherent progress upward. Variation there is and variation -there has been, even "mutations" and "saltations," but with one voice do -the rocks testify that the general results of such variation have not -been upward. Rather must we confess as a great biological law, that -=degeneration has marked the history of every living form=. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[79] "Manual," p. 487. - -[80] pp. 618-9. - -[81] _Pop. Sc. News_, May, 1902, p. 106. - -[82] Dana, "Manual," p. 761. - -[83] "Mammals, etc.," p. 281. - -[84] "Ancient Life-History," p. 357. - -[85] "Manual," p. 998. - -[86] "Modern Ideas of Evolution," Appendix. - -[87] "Geol. Story Briefly Told," p. 229. - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -FOSSIL MEN - - -There is still another fact which we must consider ere we can frame any -wise or safe induction regarding the geological changes. It is this: - -=Man himself, to say nothing of numerous living animals and plants, must -have witnessed something of the nature of a cosmic convulsion--how much -it is the object of our search to find out.= Even according to the -ordinary text-books, he must have seen the uplifting of the greater part -of the mountain chains of the world; while he certainly lived in -conditions of climate, and of land and water distribution, together with -plant and animal surroundings, which preclude the possibility of -dovetailing those conditions into the present order of things on any -basis of uniformity. - -By this proposition I simply mean that Man must have witnessed a cosmic -geological catastrophe of some character and of some dimensions--the -true nature and probable limits of this catastrophe ought to be the -chief point of all geological inquiry. But instead of this method, -instead of finding out whether our present world was ever a witness of -such an event, the founders of the science began at the little end of an -assumed succession of life (involving a preposterous supernatural -knowledge of the past), and gradually worked up a habit of explaining -everything in terms of Uniformity long decades before they would -acknowledge that Man or the present order of things had anything to do -with this fossil world. The evidence on this latter point finally became -overwhelming; but with their habit of Uniformity well mastered, and -their long, single file of life succession all tabulated off and -infallibly fixed, modern geologists have hitherto refused to look at the -whole science from this new point of view, or to reconstruct geological -theory if need be in accordance with a true modern induction. - -And in this proposition the reader will understand that I believe in -what is called "Tertiary man." I am aware that a few scientists still -contest this view, but the evidence (from the standpoint of current -theory) seems to me to be overwhelmingly against them. But in this fact, -if it be a fact, that Man lived under the wholly strange and different -conditions of "Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," is =THE VERY -STRONGEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT= that I can conceive of for the necessity of -a complete reconstruction of geological theory--I mean, of course, apart -altogether from the preposterous way in which the life succession was -assumed and built up and then treated as an actual fact. It was when -this grim fact of Man's inseparable connection with the fossil world was -borne in upon me, that I began to realize the possibility and imperative -necessity of reconstructing the science on a truly inductive basis. - -I shall not undertake to give a complete up-to-date argument for -"Miocene" or even "Pliocene Man." The subject is still under discussion -as to =just how far back= along this thin line of receding life forms -Man actually did live, and from the peculiar methods now in vogue which -are so wholly subjective in character, it would seem to be capable of -settlement in almost any way one chooses. However, whole volumes are -being written on the subject, and the end is not yet. But there is no -denying that human remains have frequently been found in strata which, -but for their presence, would have been assigned a place far back in -"Tertiary time." The existence of strong evidence for "Tertiary Man" no -one would think of denying. - -In all this, of course, I am considering the question from the common -uniformitarian standpoint. But why should it be necessary for us to -positively settle the question as to just how far back in geological -time Man actually did live? For those who have attentively read my -statement of the unscientific methods of classifying these Tertiary and -post-Tertiary beds--or all the others for that matter--I need not here -add any further argument if the accepted succession of life is, to put -it as mildly as possible, not quite a scientific certainty; if the -time-honored custom of classifying these so-called "superficial" beds by -their relative percentages of extinct and living forms rests under a -shadow of suspicion as to its scientific accuracy; if, above all, we do -not at the beginning prejudice the whole case by the assumption of -uniformity, =what need is there of determining whether "Pliocene" or -"Miocene" shells are found with these fossil human remains?= - -That Man lived in Western Europe contemporary with those giants of the -prime, the elephant and the musk-ox, the rhinoceros and the reindeer, -the lion, the Cape hyena, and the hippopotamus, at which time a very -different distribution of land and water prevailed over these parts, -with a radically different mantle of climate spread over all, no one -will deny for a moment. Such facts are now found in the primary -text-books for our children in the public schools. - -But since geologists still classify the rocks as they do, and give a -time value to percentages of extinct and living species of marine -shells, etc., we are in a measure compelled to take the matter where we -find it, and enquire how far back in geological time, i.e., among what -kinds of fossils, are human remains found? - -One of the best popular works on the subject that I know of is "The -Meeting-Place of Geology and History," (1894) by Sir J. W. Dawson; -though, like all other works of its kind written from the religious -standpoint, it endeavors as far as possible to minimize the evidence in -support of Man's geological antiquity. - -This author thinks that Dr. Mourlan, of Belgium, has "established the -strongest case yet on record for the existence of Tertiary Man." (p. -30.) It is that of some worked flints and broken bones of animals -"imbedded in sands derived from Eocene and Pliocene beds, and supposed -to have been remanie by wind action." Prestwich[88] has brought forward -similar facts; and though the evidence in favor of the genuine -geological character of these remains seems to me little if any better -than that from the auriferous gravels of California, I am willing to -=take them as reported=. - -Dawson speaks of the nearly entire human skeleton described by -Quatrefages from the Lower Pliocene beds of Castelnedolo, near Brescia, -and only answers it with a sarcastic remark about the well developed -skull of this ancient man. - -"Unfortunately the skull of the only perfect skeleton is said to have -been of fair proportions and superior to those of the ruder types of -post-Glacial men. This has cast a shade of suspicion on the discovery, -especially on the part of evolutionists, who think it is not in -accordance with theory that man should retrograde between the Pliocene -and the early modern period instead of advancing."[89] - -Lastly, we have the following about the Miocene: - -"There are, however, in France two localities (Puy, Courney and Thenay), -one in the Upper and the other in the Middle Miocene, which have -afforded what are supposed to be worked flints." - -He adds that "The geological age of the deposits seems in both cases -beyond question;" but contents himself with a derisive answer about -these chipped flints being possibly "the handiwork of Miocene apes." - -This language, coming from such a source, would seem as good evidence as -is needed to prove that Man was contemporary with, and that his remains -are now found among the fossils of the Middle Miocene. For it must be -remembered that these are reluctant admissions drawn from this -illustrious scientist, who was one of the last champions of the old -ideas about the "recent" origin of Man. As Pres. Asa Mahan of Cornell -has said, "Admissions in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies -constitute the highest kind of evidence." At any rate, I shall treat -this point as already proved, =for whether this particular instance is -accepted or not, practically all modern writers admit the fact of -"Middle Tertiary Man."= - -I have already alluded to the recently discovered paintings on the cave -walls of Southern France, where reindeer, aurochs, horses and mammoths -have been reproduced with striking accuracy and skill, and of such an -age that they have in places been covered by stalactites over two inches -in thickness. The Marquis De Nadaillac,[90] who has given the best -description of these interesting antiquities that I have been able to -see, remarks that "the drawing is wonderful," and that "we are justly -astonished to find such artistic performances in times so distant from -ours, and in which we did not suppose a like civilization." - -I have not seen the geological date to which these remains have been -assigned, but doubtless it is the very "latest" part of the -Pleistocene--they show far too high a development for "Miocene" or even -"Pliocene times." But I should like to be shown some good and sufficient -reason for saying that these men are not just as likely to have been -contemporary with the Middle Tertiary fauna and flora as any others. -=Some men were as commonly admitted.= And in the name of sacred common -sense, if the human period is thus elastic enough to stretch out over -the Pleistocene, the Pliocene, and clear back to the "Middle Miocene," -=why can't we do the same for all of man's strange companions=, the -mammoth and the Cape hyena, the reindeer and the hippopotamus, the lion -and the musk-ox, etc.? The usual sneers about it being impossible for -this apparently incongruous mixture to live side by side in the same -district must now cease. They certainly did live side by side, as is -shown by these companion pictures of the mammoth and the reindeer in the -very southern part of sunny France, to say nothing of the numerous cases -where the bones of the above mentioned animals are all mixed together -indiscriminately. How is it unreasonable to suppose that these -elephants, lions and hippopotami lived beneath the "early" Tertiary -palms, cinnamons, and mimosas of the lower elevations, while the -reindeer, musk-ox and glutton lived beneath the maples, birches and -beeches of the high mountain sides? Some such conditions must have -existed, for that magnificent world, whose ruins we now find buried -beneath our feet, was a =homogeneous and harmonious= unit in its plant -and animal life, in spite of the fables upon which we have so long been -fed in the name of geological science. Things which are equal to the -same thing must be equal to one another; hence the plants and animals -which were contemporary with the same creature (Man) must have been -=contemporary with each other=; and hence there is absolutely nothing to -forbid the idea that Man and his Pleistocene companions were really -contemporary with the flora and fauna of the Middle Tertiary. - -Hence we may now proceed to inquire what geological changes have -occurred since the "Middle of the Miocene," according to the accepted -teachings of geology. - -Our first point must be that of climate, and I have already given -abundant evidence to show that at that "time" an abundant warm-climate -vegetation mantled all the Arctic regions. As already quoted from -Wallace, throughout the whole Arctic regions, and during the whole of -geological time, "we find one uniform climatic aspect of the fossils," -and "It is quite impossible to ignore or evade the force of the -testimony as to the continuous warm climate of the North Temperate and -Polar Zones throughout Tertiary times." - -That this astonishingly mild and uniform climate prevailed over these -regions until and during the time of the mammoth, we ought not to have a -shadow of doubt. =What single bit of positive evidence is there to show -that it did not?= That he must have had some such vegetation on which to -feed is certain, and there is no proof of any previous interruption of -these conditions save a series of hypotheses. He and his fellows browsed -on semi-tropical and warm temperate plants far within the Arctic Circle, -if there happened to be land there, doubtless over the very Pole itself; -but suddenly!! lo, something caught him with the grip of death-- - - "And wrapped his corpse in winding-sheet of ice, - And sung the requiem of his shivering ghost." - -Who has not read of their untainted meat now making food for dogs and -wolves? Their stomachs are well filled with undigested food, showing, as -one author remarks, that they "were quietly feeding when the crisis -came." Dr. Hertz recently reported one not only with its stomach full of -food, but with its mouth full, too. No wonder that even an orthodox -geologist like Prof. Dana is compelled to say that these things prove -"that the cold finally became =suddenly= extreme, as of a single -winter's night, and knew no relenting afterward." - -Here then is one very notable geological event which has taken place -within the human epoch, and the only thing of its kind of which geology -has an undeniable record, viz., a sudden and radical change in the -earth's climate; =a cosmic affair, and not a local phenomenon=. I need -not here attempt to discuss the how of this world catastrophe as it must -have been, or the other changes inseparably involved. The fact itself is -as certain as Man's own existence. - -The next division of our subject, in further consideration of the -changes that have taken place since Man's existence, as stated at the -beginning of this chapter, relates to the changes of land and water -distribution since "Middle Miocene times." And here again I shall try to -take the classification of these rocks just as I find them. - -The first thing which impresses us is the extremely fragmentary -distribution of the Miocene and Pliocene beds. Not, however, that they -are uncommon nor yet of small extent. On the contrary they are scattered -over America and Eurasia--and all the rest of the globe for that -matter--like the spots on a leopard, or the warts on a toad's back, till -it becomes one of the unsearchable mysteries of the science how these -innumerable patches can be got down under the ocean to receive their -load of sediment, without deluging the surrounding regions in a similar -manner. But then, to be sure, fresh-water lakes will answer the same -purpose, and are particularly indicated when the proportion of plants -and terrestrial animals is =in excess= of the true marine fossils. And -so enormous fresh-water basins are described here and there, with the -great mammals crowding about their margins in their zeal to become -fossilized, that the mountain tops may be saved from going under once -more--or perhaps I should say to enable the modern writers to get some -of these strata puckered up to their full height before these "late" -Tertiary deposits were made. This mountain making business is another -affair that geologists would like to have take place on the installment -plan, but unfortunately it seems to have been nearly all postponed till -the very close of "geological time." This arrangement of fresh-water -lakes saves the central Rocky Mountain region from going down again -beneath the deep. But it cannot save the Alps, Juras and Appennines in -Europe, nor parts of the Himalayas, and I know not what other mountains -in Asia, nor the coast region of California and Oregon in America, to -say nothing of large parts of the Andes in South America, with regions -in Africa and Australia. - -But what is the use of trying to figure out the amount of our earth -which has been under the ocean since "Middle Tertiary times," and thus -since Man was upon it? To save the northern half of Europe with all of -Canada from again going under at the close of the "Tertiary period," -geologists have spread out their continental ice sheets, and have asked -them to do duty instead of water. But this is hardly sufficient, for the -"upper" or "later" part of the so-called "Glacial" deposits are clearly -stratified; and so they either invoke a "=flood vast beyond -conception=," as Dana does in America for the "final event in the -history of the glacier," or, as others prefer, the whole region is -baptized again. As Dawson says in his "Meeting-Place of Geology and -History," "=No geological event is better established than the -post-Pliocene submergence.=" - -But I must not weary the reader by dwelling on this monotonous -repetition of catastrophes--for must they not have been catastrophic if -such ups and downs of whole continents are crowded within the human -period? We may allow a number of thousands of years for Man's possible -existence, but Archaeology and History alike protest against the -=millions= of years required to explain these continental oscillations -on any basis of uniformity. One such period of horror ought to be enough -for us, and to understand or explain it in a truly scientific manner, we -must with it correlate the sudden and world-wide change of climate -already described. - -One more point demands consideration ere we complete this subject of -what Man has witnessed of geological change. For, according to current -theory =almost all the mountains have been either wholly formed or at -least completed within quite "recent" times=: indeed many of the -greatest mountain chains have been puckered up from the position of -horizontal strata wholly since "Miocene times," which for us means since -Man was upon the globe. - -Thus Dana in speaking of the part of Western America which has been -elevated since "Miocene times," says that it-- - -"... probably included the whole of the Pacific mountain border, from -the line of the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific coast line and outside -of this line for one or more scores of miles."[91] - -And he adds the significant words: - -"Contemporaneously, similar movements were in progress over the other -continents: along the Andes, affecting half, at least, of South America; -the Pyrenees, Carpathian Alps, and a large part of Europe; the Himalayas -and much of Asia." (p. 365.) - -Let us now take a brief glance at a few of the details of what these -mountains were thus doing while Man was living in semi-tropical England, -or at least Western Europe. - -In speaking of foreign examples of Tertiary mountain-making this author -devotes especial attention to the Alps and the Juras, for their -structure is better understood, having been more carefully studied. And -of an example described by Heim, already spoken of, he says: - -"One of the overthrust folds in the region has put the beds upside down -over an area of 450 square miles. Fifty thousand feet of formations of -the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene Tertiary and Miocene Tertiary, were -upturned =at the close of the Miocene period=."[92] - -With what a whack must this mighty mass of rocks have fallen on -itself--miles in thickness, and turned "upside down over an area of 450 -square miles"!!! - -Of course I am here taking the record just as I find it, as I have -already discussed this matter of "overthrust folds." - -I need not give further examples from the other great mountain ranges. -Their structure is not so well understood as that of the Alps, though -doubtless when examined they will be found just as "young," and just as -full of astonishing mountain movements as those already examined. But -this much is already certain, that =practically over all the world the -mountains were either completed or wholly raised from the sea level= -during "late Tertiary" and "early Quaternary time." No wonder Dana says -that this fact "is one of the most marvelous in geological history." - -"It has been thought incredible that the orographic climax should have -come =so near the end= of geological time, instead of in an early age -when the crust had a plastic layer beneath, and was free to move; yet -=the fact is beyond question=." ("Manual," p. 1020.) - -I think I have now abundantly proved the various heads of the -proposition with which I began this chapter, viz., that even from the -standpoint of the current theories:--[93] - -(1) Man must have seen the entire elevation or at least the completion -of practically all the great mountains of the world, such as the -Rockies, Andes, Alps, Himalayas, etc. - -(2) The relative distribution of land and water surface has--since Man's -advent as commonly stated--changed completely. The land and water have -practically changed places over the greater part of the globe. - -(3) Man lived while the Arctic regions had a mild soft climate, and he -lived to see these conditions so suddenly changed that some of his dumb -brute companions were caught in the waters and frozen so speedily that -their flesh has remained untainted. Other considerations show this -change of climate to have affected the whole globe. - -The lesson to be drawn from this as the last fact in the line of -cumulative evidence here presented, will be considered in the following -chapter. - -FOOTNOTES: - -[88] "Controverted Questions of Geology," Article III., 1895. - -[89] "Meeting-Place," pp. 28, 29. - -[90] _Pop. Sc. News_, Feb. 1902. - -[91] "Manual," p. 364. - -[92] p. 367. - -[93] (Note. In this discussion I have purposely ignored the various - instances where human remains have been reported from deposits of - even greater "antiquity" than the Middle Tertiaries.) - - - - -CHAPTER XIII - -INDUCTIVE METHODS - - -In the First Part of this book I tried to examine into the facts and -methods which are commonly supposed to prove that there has been a -succession of life on the globe. We found that this life succession -theory has not a single fact to support it; that it is not the result of -scientific research, but wholly the product of an inventive imagination; -that no one kind of fossil has even been proved or can be proved to be -intrinsically older than another, or than Man himself; and hence that a -complete reconstruction of geological theory is imperatively demanded by -our modern knowledge. - -In the Second Part I have brought out the following additional facts: - -1. The abnormal character of much of the fossiliferous deposits. - -2. A radical and world-wide change of climate. - -3. The marked degeneration in passing from the fossil world to the -modern one. - -4. The fact that the human race, to say nothing of a vast number of -living species of plants and animals, has participated in some of the -greatest of the geological changes--we really know not how to limit the -number or character of these changes. - -Surely a true spirit of scientific investigation would now begin to -inquire, =How did these changes take place?= Discarding the use of -stronger language, it is at least utterly unscientific to begin -somewhere at the vanishing point of a past eternity and formulate our -pretty theories as to how this deposit was made, and how that was laid -down, and the exact order in which they all occurred; while these -"recent" deposits, in which our race and the plants and animals living -about us are acknowledged to be concerned, are left over till the last, -and we then find that they admit of absolutely no explanation. We -ourselves, to say nothing of thousands of living species of plants and -animals, have participated in some of the very greatest of the -geological changes--we know not how many or how great. =These things -must be first explained.= Has anything happened to our world that will -explain them? Are there known forces and changes now in operation which, -granting time enough, will amply and sufficiently explain these facts, -as simply one in kind with those of the present day? - -To this last question we must admit that our historic experience, -prolonged over several thousand years, utters a thundering =NO!= -Volcanoes are every now and then breaking forth; but volcanoes and -mountain ranges have nothing in common with one another as to structure -and origin. No one claims that a single mountain flexure is now being -formed or has been formed within the historic period. There are indeed -"creeps" in the rocks in certain places, but these are not such as to -contribute to the height of the mountains in which they occur, but -rather the reverse. Sudden changes of level within small areas have -occurred, but neither in extent nor in kind do they furnish any key as -to past changes of level; while the so-called "secular" changes are so -microscopic in extent and so doubtful in character that they are utterly -unworthy of consideration in view of the stupendous problems which we -are trying to explain. The well-known work of Eduard Suess is a standing -protest that such geological chances are =not now in progress=; for, in -speaking of how the land and ocean have exchanged places in the past, -Zittel represents him as teaching that their "cause of origin until now -=has not yet been discovered=."[94] - -Or, to quote the expressive words of Suess himself, with which he -concludes his discussion of this very subject: - -"As Rama looks across the ocean of the universe, and sees its surface -blend in the distant horizon with the dipping sky, and as he considers -if indeed a path might be built far out into the almost immeasurable -space, so we gaze over the ocean of the ages, but =no sign of a shore -shows itself to our view=." (Id. p. 294.) - -As for climate, I never heard any one suggest that cosmic changes of -climate are now known to be going on, much less that =sudden= changes of -the kind indicated by the North Siberian "mummies" are in the habit of -occurring. In fact, we must all own that the mountains, the relative -position of land and water, as well as the climate of our globe, are -each and all now in a state of stable equilibrium, and have been in this -state since the dawn of history or of scientific observation. - -Accordingly I ask, =How much time is needed= to account for the facts -before us on the basis of Uniformity? In common honesty will a short -eternity itself satisfy the stern problem before us? I cannot see that -it holds out the slightest promise of solving it; while, on the other -hand, I am sure that, in dealing with the past of Man's existence -(theories of evolution and all other theories of origins whatever cast -aside), we are not at liberty to make unreasonable demands of time. The -evidence of history and archaeology is all against it. - -From the latter sciences it can be shown that at their very dawn we -have, over all the continents, a group of civilizations seldom equalled -since save in very modern times, and all so undeniably related to one -another and of such a character that they prove a previous state of -civilization in some locality =together=, before these scattered -fragments of our race were dispersed abroad. We can track these various -peoples all back to some region in Southwestern Asia, though the exact -locality for this source of inherited civilization has never yet been -found, and it is now almost certain that it is somehow lost in the -geological changes which have intervened. For when we cross the well -marked boundary line between history and geology, we have still to deal -with men who apparently =were not savages=, men who with tremendous -disadvantages could carve and draw and paint as no savages have ever -done, and who had evidently domesticated the horse and other animals. -But as to time, history gives no countenance to long time, i.e., what -geologists would call long. Good authentic history extends back a few -score centuries, archaeology may promise us a few more. As for -=millions= of years, of even a few =hundred thousands=, the thing -seems too absurd for discussion, unless we forsake inductive methods, -and assume some form of evolution _a priori_. - -Hence it ought to be evident that no amount of learned trifling with -time will solve our problem without supposing some strange event to have -happened our world and our race, long ago, and before the dawn of -history. I see no possible way for scientific reasoning to avoid this -conclusion. Ignoring for the present the Chaldean Deluge tablets, and -what Rawlinson calls the "consentient belief" in a world-catastrophe -"among members of all the great races into which ethnologists have -divided mankind," which like their civilization has the earmarks of -being =an inheritance= from some common source before their dispersion, -we may note that most geologists now admit the certainty of some sort of -catastrophe since man was upon the earth. I might mention Quatrefages -and Dupont, Boyd Dawkins, Howorth, Prestwich, Wright and Sir William -Dawson, with many others. Even Eduard Suess teaches a somewhat similar -local catastrophe, though like the others only as a reluctant concession -to the insistent demands of Chaldean history and archaeological -tradition. But all of these affairs are mere makeshifts in view of the -tremendous demands of the purely geological evidence, and all alike -(save perhaps those of Wright and Howorth) labor under the strange -inconsistency of supposing that such an event could occur without -leaving abundant and indelible marks upon the rocks of our globe. While -in view of the evidence given through the previous pages, I insist that -the purely geological evidence of a world catastrophe is immeasurably -stronger than that of archaeology, that in fact the whole geological -phenomena constitute a cumulative argument of this nature. - -But if this be granted, we must then inquire, What was its nature? and -what its extent? The former is quite easily answered: the latter problem -is still somewhat beyond our reach. - -As to its character, the evidence is very plain. It was a veritable -cataclysm of some sort: it deals with great changes of land and water -surface. If the geological succession is but a hoary myth, and if we -find countless modern living species of plants and animals mixed up in -all the "older" rocks, we cannot ignore these in a rational and -unprejudiced reconstruction of the science. But, ignoring these, we must -remember that =even the Tertiary and post-Tertiary deposits are -absolutely world wide, and are packed with fossils of living species=. -Not a continent and scarcely a country on the globe but contains great -stretches of these deposits, laid down by the sea where now the land is -high and dry. The sea and land have practically shifted places over all -the globe since Man and thousands of other living species left their -fossils in the rocks. It is only the stupendous magnitude of these -changes which has made our scientists reluctant to admit the possibility -of such a catastrophe. - -With the myth of a life succession dissipated, a broad view of the -fossil world cannot fail to convince the mind of the reality of some -such cosmic convulsion, and convince it with all the force of a -mathematical demonstration. Great groups of animals have dropped out of -sight over all the continents, and their carcasses have been buried by -sea water where we now find high plateaus or mountain ranges. Ignoring -completely the abundant fossils in the so-called "older" rocks, and -fixing our attention entirely on the Tertiary and Pleistocene beds that -are acknowledged to be closely connected with the human race and the -modern world, we still have =a problem in race extinction alone= that -appalls the mind. The mammoth, rhinoceros and mastodon, together with -"not less than thirty distinct species of the horse tribe," as Marsh -says, =all disappear from North America at one time=, and the most -ingenious disciple of Hutton and Lyell has been puzzled to invent a -plausible explanation. But when we consider that at this same -"geological period" =similar events were occurring on all the other -continents=--the huge ground-sloths (megatheriums) and glyptodons in -South America; "wombats as large as tapirs," and "kangaroos the size of -elephants" in Australia; the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros in Eurasia; -together with an enormous hippopotamus, as far as England is concerned, -to say nothing of those great bears, lions and hyenas, with a -semi-tropical vegetation, =all disappearing together at the same time=, -or shifting to the other side of the world--it becomes almost like a -deliberate insult to our intellectual honesty to be approached with -offers of "explanations" based on any so-called "natural" action of the -forces of nature. But when, in addition to all this, we consider the -fact that those human giants of the caves of Western Europe were -contemporary with the animals mentioned above, =and disappeared along -with them at this same time=, while mountain masses in all parts of the -world crowded with marine forms of the so-called "older" types -positively =cannot be separated in time from the others=, it becomes as -certain as any other ordinary scientific fact, like sunrise or sunset, -that our once magnificently stocked world =met with some sudden and -awful catastrophe in the long ago=; and is it in any way transgressing -the bounds of true inductive science to correlate this event with the -Deluge of the Hebrew Scriptures and the traditions of every race on -earth? - -We have already seen how Dana supposes =two= such events, one at the -close of the "Palaeozoic age," and the other at the close of the -"Mesozoic," merely to account for the astonishing disappearance of -species at these periods when the fossils are arranged in taxonomic -order; but if we once admit such an event =with Man and all the other -species contemporary with one another=, where shall we limit its power -to disturb the land and water and churn them all up together, leaving -the present simply as the ruins of that previous world? The fact is, the -current Geology is wholly built up from the Cambrian to the Pleistocene -on the =dogmatic denial= that any such catastrophe has occurred to the -world in which Man lived, for =one= such event happening in our modern -homogeneous world is enough to make the whole pretty scheme found in our -text-books tumble like a house of cards. Like the patient and exact -observations of the Ptolemaic astronomers, which accumulated volumes of -evidence contradicting their own theories, and which in the hands of -Copernicus and Galileo, Kepler and Newton, sealed the doom of -astronomical speculation and laid the foundations of an exact science of -the heavens; so have the indefatigable labors of thousands of geologists -accumulated evidence which strikes at the very foundation of the current -Uniformitarianism, and casts a pall of doubt over every conclusion as to -how or when any given deposit of the "older" rocks was produced. - -Here we must leave the question for the present. The possibility of such -a world-wide catastrophe, which might account for the major part of the -geological changes, needs no apology here. The slightest disturbance of -the nice equilibrium of our elements would suffice to send the waters of -the ocean careering over the land; and in the abundance of astronomical -causes competent for such disturbance we cease to regard such an event -as necessarily contrary to "natural law." The possibility of such a -thing no competent scientist now denies; it is the problem of =recovery= -from such a disaster which makes the perplexity. But incredible or not -as the latter may be regarded, I claim to have established a perfect -chain of scientific argument proving a world-wide catastrophe of some -sort since Man was upon it. But this fact, if once admitted, strikes at -the very foundation of the current science, and bids us readjust our -theories from this view-point. The venerable scheme of a life succession -=becomes only the taxonomic or classification series of the world that -existed before this disaster=, and it becomes the business of our -science to find out how many and what deposits were =due to this event=, -and what were accumulated during the =unknown period= of previous -existence. Those of us who wish to speculate can then let our -imaginations have free play as to the uncounted ages before that event; -but the "phylogenic series" as a rational scientific theory is in limbo -forever. Inductive geology, therefore, deals not with the formation of a -world, but =with the ruins of one=; it can teach us absolutely nothing -about origins. - -The latter problem lies across the boundary line in the domain of -philosophy and theology, and to these systems of thought we may -cheerfully leave the task of readjustment in view of the facts here -presented. A few disconnected thoughts along these lines I have ventured -to insert here, not strictly as a part of my purely scientific argument, -but as an appendix. - -FOOTNOTE: - -[94] "History," p. 320. - - - - -APPENDIX - - - - -APPENDIX - -REFLECTIONS - - -In the preceding pages I have endeavored to develop a scientific -argument pure and simple. Yet I do not feel called upon to apologize in -any way for attempting now to show the connection between an inductive -scheme of Geology as set forth in the body of this work and the religion -of Christianity; though my remarks along this line must necessarily be -very brief. - -The most fundamental idea of religion is the fatherhood of God as our -Creator. The only true basis of morality lies in our relationship to Him -as His creatures. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the -Biblical idea of a creation at some definite and not very remote period -in the past became much modified by reason of certain theories of -evolution, which explained the origin of plants and animals as the -result of slow-acting causes, now in operation around us, prolonged over -immense ages of time. These theories, though built up wholly on the -current Geology as a foundation, were yet supposed to be firmly -established in science, and after a spirited discussion among biologists -for a few years, were almost universally accepted in some form or other -by the religious leaders of Christendom. And though the "Theistic -Evolution" of recent years may be supposed to have modified somewhat the -stern heartlessness of pure Darwinism, it still leaves the Christian -world quite at variance with the old Pauline doctrines regarding good -and evil, creation, redemption, the atonement, etc. - -And these are not the only effects of the general acceptance of these -ideas as an explanation of the origin of things. We see their moral -effects in the generation now coming on the stage of action--men -educated in an atmosphere of Evolution, and accustomed from youth to the -idea that all progress, whether in the individual or the race, is to be -reached only by a ceaseless struggle for existence and survival at the -expense of others. In the words of Sir William Dawson, these doctrines -have "stimulated to an intense degree that popular unrest so natural to -an age discontented with its lot ... and which threatens to overthrow -the whole fabric of society as at present constituted."[95] - -This popular and perfectly natural application of the evolution doctrine -to every-day life is certainly intensifying, as never before, the innate -selfishness of human nature, and, in every pursuit of life, embittering -the sad struggle for place and power. Perhaps no other one cause and -result serve more plainly to differentiate the present strenuous age -from those that have gone before. The hitherto undreamed-of advantages -and creature comforts of the present day, instead of tending toward -universal peace and happiness, are apparently only giving a wider range -to the discontent and depravity of the natural human heart. So much so, -that any one familiar with the history of nations cannot but feel a -terrible foreboding creep over him as he faces the prospect presented -to-day by civilised society the world over. - -The only remedy for the many and increasing evils of our world is the -old-fashioned religion of Christ and His apostles. And this applied, not -to the state, but to the individual. The soul-regenerating truths of -Christianity have always, wherever given a proper test by the -individual, resulted in moral uplift and blessing. Ecclesiastical -policies and ideas have always, wherever allowed to influence civil -legislation, resulted in oppression and tyranny. - -What has Geology to do with all this? It has much to do with it. Correct -ideas of geology will remove a great many vain notions--I had almost -said superstitions--regarding our origin, which now pass under the name -of science. And in thus removing false ideas it =leaves the ground -cleared= for more correct ideas regarding =creation=, and thus for truer -concepts of =morality=, the old idea of "must" and "ought" based on our -relation to God as His creatures. - -Mark the words I have used. =Inductive Geology can never prove -creation.= It may remove obstructions which have hitherto obscured this -idea, but this is the utmost limit of any true science. Inductive -Geology removes forever the succession-of-life idea, and thus may -=suggest= the only seeming alternative, viz., Creation as the definite -act of the Infinite God. Before this awful yet sublime fact, with all -the fogs of evolution and metaphysical subtleties cleared away, the -human mind stands to-day as never before within historic times. - -With a fairly complete knowledge of the chemical make-up of protoplasm, -with a good acquaintance with the life history and reproduction of -living cells, we yet =know nothing of the origin of life=. With a good -working knowledge of variation, hybridization, etc., =we know nothing of -the origin of species=. While with a fairly good understanding of the -present geographical distribution of species, and of where their fossils -occur in the rocks, we are =profoundly ignorant of any particular order= -in which these species originated on our globe, or whether they all took -origin at =approximately one and the same time=. In short, having -reached out along every known line of investigation, until we have -apparently reached the limits of the human powers in investigation and -research, twentieth century science must stand with uncovered head and -bowed form in presence of that most august thought of the human mind, -"=In the beginning God created=." - -And yet, personally, I am firmly convinced that the origin of life and -of our cosmos, was according to law, and the laws of nature. As has been -said, How could the origin of nature be contrary to nature? How could -the origin of present forms and conditions be in any way at variance -with the laws by which these forms or conditions are maintained? And -while I do not consider it a very promising field of research, we ought -to have no more reluctance, _per se_, to considering the manner in which -the first cell or the first species was formed, than the way in which a -chicken is produced from the egg. Of course in either case we must have -the materials, and some outside Cause to originate the conditions and -conduct the process; they both require the immanent presence and -fostering care of the great Creator. - -In this connection I beg leave to quote somewhat at length from my book, -"Outlines of Modern Science and Modern Christianity." - -"We are getting no nearer the real mystery in the case by saying that -all the tissues of the chick are built up by the protoplasm in the egg. -The protoplasm in the toes is the same as that in the little creature's -brain. Why does the one build up claws and the other brain cells? Does -memory guide these little things in their wonderful division of labor? -But they all started from one original germ cell, hence they all ought -to have the same memory pictures. Or have they entered into a -mutual-benefit arrangement, like the members of a community, as Haeckel -would have us believe, each contributing by actual desire and effort, I -suppose, an individual share to the general progress of the whole?--No; -they have all the appearance of being mere automata working at the -direct bidding of a Master Mind. Every step of the process needs a -Creator, just as much as the first cell division. In the words of one of -the highest of scientific authorities, 'We still do not know why a -certain cell becomes a gland-cell, another a ganglion-cell; why one cell -gives rise to a smooth muscle-fibre, while a neighbor forms voluntary -muscle;' and this also 'at certain, usually predestined, times in -particular places.'[96] And in the same way the idea of a Creator would -not be disposed of, even if we could possibly hit upon the probable -process of world-formation. We would not, by understanding the process, -really get at the cause of the phenomena, any more than we do now at the -real cause of life. From the scientific method the real mystery remains -as much behind the veil as ever before." (pp. 111, 112.) - -Again I quote from this same work: - -"The origin of organic nature could not well have been otherwise than by -natural process. Do we understand all natural processes? At some time -life was not in existence on our globe. All agree that it had a -beginning. Even if created by the great Creator, the living was at some -time formed from the not-living or the not-material. It does not take -even Huxley's famous 'act of philosophic faith' to believe that. So -that, in spite of all the haze that has been thrown about this question, -the Biblical creation of the organic from the inorganic is no more -contrary to, or even outside of, natural law than is evolution.... - -"But see what we avoid. According to the Bible, death in even the lower -animals (and consequently all misery and suffering: the less is included -in the greater) is only the result of sin on the part of man, the head -of animated nature, a reflex or sympathetic result, if you will. But -with evolution we have countless millions of years of creature -suffering, cruelty, and death before man appeared at all, cruelty and -death that ... have no moral meaning at all, save as the work of a fiend -creator, or a bungling or incompetent one."[97] - -The author then gives a quotation from LeConte, illustrating the -extremely various ways in which matter and energy act on the different -planes of their existence, while "The passage from one plane upward to -another is not a gradual passage by sliding scale, but at one bound. -When the necessary conditions are present, a new and higher form of -force at once appears, like birth into a higher sphere.... It is no -gradual process, but sudden, like birth into a higher sphere."[98] - -The argument then proceeds as follows: - -"The living at some time originated from the not-living. =We call it -creation.= Can any one find a better name? It is preposterous to call it -a process of development or evolution due to the inherent properties of -the atoms, and effected by them alone. And yet it is doubtless as much -according to 'natural law' as are the invariable and exact combinations -of chemistry. We do not understand the ultimate reasons for chemical -affinity any more than we do for gravitation. They are only expressions -of the methodical, order-loving mind of Deity. Creation was only another -action of the same mind, and we are not really finding any new -difficulty when we say that the processes or the reasons for creative -action are beyond our comprehension. When we can really solve some of -the myriad problems right before our eyes, it will be time enough to -complain about creation being incomprehensible or contrary to 'natural -law.' - -"Well, then, remembering that, even according to Huxley's 'act of -philosophic faith,' the origin of the living from the not-living must at -some time have taken place according to natural law, =why should we -suppose that such a process was confined to one example=? If, when the -young planet 'was passing through physical and chemical conditions which -it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy,' the -'necessary conditions' were favorable for one such creation of life, -=why not a few billion=? Would the production of a few billion such -beginnings of protoplasm be any less 'natural' than of one alone? -Remember, however, that both the arrangement of these 'necessary -conditions,' as well as the endowing of matter with these 'properties,' -not only requires a cause, but this cause must be intelligent, for there -is indisputable design in this first origin of life.... The food for a -developing embryo might, for aught that we know, be conveyed to it -direct from the ultimate laboratories of nature, and it thus be built up -by protoplasm in the usual way, without the medium of a parent -form--other than the great Father of all. Or would it be any less -according to natural law to believe that a bird passed through all the -usual stages of embryonic development from the not-living up to the -full-fledged songster of the skies =in one day=--the fifth day of -creation? And =if one example, why not a million=? For, remember that -the youthful earth was then passing through strange conditions, 'which,' -as Huxley says, 'it can no more see again than a man can recall his -infancy.'"[99] - -Omitting some remarks about embryology, I continue this quotation as -follows: - -"But what 'law' would be violated in this springtime of the world if, -instead of twenty years or so for full development, the first man passed -through all these stages =in one day=--the sixth of creation week? He -might as well have originated from the not-living as the evolutionist's -first speck of protoplasm, for he certainly now starts from a mass of -this same protoplasm, identical, as we have seen, in all plants and -animals. - -"And by originating thus, he would escape that horrible heritage of -bestial and savage propensities which he would get through evolution, a -heritage that would make it not his fault, but his misfortune, that sin -and evil are in the world, and which would also shift the responsibility -for the evidently abnormal condition of 'this present evil world' off -from the creature to the Creator, and change to us His character from -that of a loving Father, fettered by no conditions in His creation, to -that of either a bungling, incompetent workman or a heartless fiend; -for, though I am almost ashamed to write the words, the god of the -evolutionist must be either the one or the other." (p. 121.) - - * * * * * - -=With an appreciation nurtured by centuries of study of God's larger -book, baffled often though she has been, and disappointed many times in -the words she has endeavored to spell out, Science to-day proclaims its -subject, its title page, which she has now at last deciphered, "In the -beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - -FOOTNOTES: - -[95] "Modern Ideas of Evolution," p. 12. - -[96] "_Nature_," May 23, 1901, pp. 75, 76. - -[97] "Outlines," etc., p. 116. - -[98] "Evolution and Religious Thought," pp. 314-316. - -[99] "Outlines," etc., p. 119, 120. - - - - -REPORT ON "ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY" - - -Having read the foregoing argument, will you now do the Publishers and -the author the favor of _filling out the following blank_ and mailing -this slip, or a copy of it, to us as early as possible? - -It makes no difference to us even if your opinion is _adverse_. - - THE MODERN HERETIC CO. - 257 S. Hill St., Los Angeles, Cal. - - - Cut out here - +-------------------------------------------------------------------- - |1. What is your opinion of Part I as an exposure of the Evolution - | Theory? - | - | - | - |2. How can it be improved? - | - | - | - |3. What fact or facts have been omitted from Part II that should be - | included in a true, safe, induction regarding the past of our - | globe? - | - | - | - |4. Other remarks. - | - | - | - | - | - | NAME......................................... - | - | STREET AND NUMBER............................ - | - | CITY..................... - | - |Profession or Occupation........................... - - -Modern Science and Modern Christianity - - BY GEORGE McCREADY PRICE - -The Evolution Theory in its whole range, from the Nebulous Cloud, the -Cooling Earth, and the Origin of Life, through Geology and Biology up to -the Moral Nature of Man, Carefully discussed in a Popular Style. No one, -after reading it, could for a moment suppose that the Evolution Theory -had been proved by sound scientific arguments, while the moral and -religious tendencies of the doctrine are shown to be anti-Christian to -the last degree. - -Cloth bound, 272 pages, _net_, 75 cents. Postage extra. - - -God's Two Books - -BY GEORGE McCREADY PRICE - -A pamphlet covering that part of the Evolution Theory which deals with -Geology, Archæology, Darwinism, and ethics. It is especially full on -Geology and Darwinism, and presents many facts and arguments on these -subjects not found in anything now published. (In preparation). - -PAPER COVERS, ABOUT 120 PAGES, 25 CENTS, POSTPAID. - - - THE MODERN HERETIC CO. - 257 SO. HILL ST., - LOS ANGELES, CAL. - - -The Modern Heretic - -A Magazine of Primal Orthodoxy - -GEORGE MCCREADY PRICE, EDITOR - -We believe that the claims of Evolution, "Higher Criticism," New -Theology, New Thought, Spiritism, etc., are unscientific and -un-Christian. We realize that we are in a small minority, and that to -assail these doctrines is to-day called _heresy_. But we have chosen our -position deliberately, and shall abide by the consequences. - -This journal will try to give the most recent discoveries in geology, -biology, physiology and archæology, and to discuss their bearings on -the Christian religion; and we think that no intelligent person can -afford to be without its regular visits. - -Monthly; 50c per year; sample copies free. - -THE MODERN HERETIC CO. - 257 S. HILL ST. - LOS ANGELES, CAL. - - * * * * * - - -Transcriber's Note: - -Punctuation has been standardised, in particular, missing periods have -been supplied where obviously required. All other original errors and -inconsistencies have been retained, except as follows; (the first line -is the original text, the second the passage as currently stands): - - must less of the co-existing faunas of other - much less of the co-existing faunas of other - - which it discusses from a purely scientfic - which it discusses from a purely scientific - - works of Dana, Le Conte, Prestwich, and Geikie - works of Dana, LeConte, Prestwich, and Geikie - - of looking into the =geneology of an idea=. - of looking into the =genealogy of an idea=. - - history of science did a stranger halucination - history of science did a stranger hallucination - - we know they are today in "recent" deposits - we know they are to-day in "recent" deposits - - The author then gives a quotation from Le Conte, - The author then gives a quotation from LeConte, - - But is is equally evident that each successive - But it is equally evident that each successive - - dominated Mediaeval scolasticism and made it - dominated Mediaeval scholasticism and made it - - The Glacian Nightmare and the Flood, - The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood, - - larger species is the _Titnichthys clarki - larger species is the _Titanichthys clarki - - happening in our modern homogenous world is enough - happening in our modern homogeneous world is enough - - widespread numulitic limestones of the Eocene - widespread nummulitic limestones of the Eocene - - of organic creation on the instal ment plan, - of organic creation on the instalment plan, - - Numulites or Mammals positively were not living - Nummulites or Mammals positively were not living - - here and there to make this incredible thicknss, - here and there to make this incredible thickness, - - about 1830 it came to the recognized, other - about 1830 it came to be recognized, other - - the bison is today absolutely extinct, - the bison is to-day absolutely extinct, - - See Le Conte, "Evol. and Religious Thought," - See LeConte, "Evol. and Religious Thought," - - they are directed rather to the empyrical method - they are directed rather to the empirical method - - fitting "like a glove" on the preceeding. - fitting "like a glove" on the preceding. - - Le Conte, "Evol. and Rel. Thought," pp. 33, 34 - LeConte, "Evol. and Rel. Thought," pp. 33, 34 - - and spcial monographs in German and French. - and special monographs in German and French. - - But to incrase this antiquity by saying - But to increase this antiquity by saying - - Lions and monkys, hippopotami and crocodiles, - Lions and monkeys, hippopotami and crocodiles, - - and rhinoceroces, now live beneath the palms, - and rhinoceroses, now live beneath the palms, - - scientists who can elaborate geneological trees of descent - scientists who can elaborate genealogical trees of descent - - have taken for these excedingly numerous - have taken for these exceedingly numerous - - the Pleistocene Mammals and the middle Tertiary flora - the Pleistocene mammals and the middle Tertiary flora - - literature is fairly innundated with new names; - literature is fairly inundated with new names; - - a noted paiaeontologist for finding a pupa - a noted palaeontologist for finding a pupa - - the theories of the igenous origin of the crystalline rocks - the theories of the igneous origin of the crystalline rocks - - went to school toegther, served in the same wars, - went to school together, served in the same wars, - - =or are now to be found iiving in our modern world= - =or are now to be found living in our modern world= - - e.g. gratolites and numulites - e.g. gratolites and nummulites - - these Davonian and other rocks are absolutely - these Devonian and other rocks are absolutely - - it cannot save the Alps, Juras and Appenines - it cannot save the Alps, Juras and Appennines - - without leaving abundant and indellible marks - without leaving abundant and indelible marks - - which it can no more see again than a can can recall - which it can no more see again than a man can recall - - and yet refuse the =evidently complemntary= dposits - and yet refuse the =evidently complementary= deposits - - pages of the ordinary text-boks. - pages of the ordinary text-books. - - these is no telling what hosts of similar facts - there is no telling what hosts of similar facts - - but so far as the text-boks tell us are - but so far as the text-books tell us are - - as recent as the numulitic limestones of the Eocene - as recent as the nummulitic limestones of the Eocene - - [Footnote 2: "Old Red Sandstone," pp. 48-221-2.] - [Footnote 2: "Old Red Sandstone," pp. 48, 221-2] - - for thousands of skletons are found in localities - for thousands of skeletons are found in localities - - is easily understod as the survival of the notion, - is easily understood as the survival of the notion, - - the dim past, and all these semitropical plants had - the dim past, and all these semi-tropical plants had - - =better established than the post-Piiocene submergence.=" - =better established than the post-Pliocene submergence.=" - - example described by Helm, already spoken of, - example described by Heim, already spoken of, - - The former is qulet easily answered: - The former is quite easily answered: - - =race extinction alone= that appals the mind. - =race extinction alone= that appalls the mind. - - which in the hands of Copernicus and Galilio, - which in the hands of Copernicus and Galileo, - - CHAPTER XII INDUCTIVE METHODS - CHAPTER XIII INDUCTIVE METHODS - - In the last edition of his "=Manual=," - In the last edition of his "Manual," - - pre-conceived theory would at the suggestion of such - preconceived theory would at the suggestion of such - - evolution and metaphysical subtilties cleared away, - evolution and metaphysical subtleties cleared away, - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - -***** This file should be named 42043-8.txt or 42043-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/0/4/42043/ - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/42043-8.zip b/42043-8.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 36e7e67..0000000 --- a/42043-8.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/42043-h.zip b/42043-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 55ac293..0000000 --- a/42043-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/42043-h/42043-h.htm b/42043-h/42043-h.htm index 294b8dc..5322d07 100644 --- a/42043-h/42043-h.htm +++ b/42043-h/42043-h.htm @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> <title> The Project Gutenberg eBook of Illogical Geology, The Weakest Point in The Evolution Theory, by George McCready Price. @@ -78,46 +78,7 @@ table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} </style> </head> <body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - - -Title: Illogical Geology - The Weakest Point in The Evolution Theory - -Author: George McCready Price - -Release Date: February 7, 2013 [EBook #42043] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - - - - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - - - - - -</pre> - +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42043 ***</div> <div class="tnote"> <p>TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: @@ -4370,7 +4331,7 @@ Postage extra.</p> <div class='ad'> <p>A pamphlet covering that part of the Evolution Theory which deals - with Geology, Archæology, Darwinism, + with Geology, Archæology, Darwinism, and ethics. It is especially full on Geology and Darwinism, and presents many facts and arguments on these subjects @@ -4402,7 +4363,7 @@ assail these doctrines is to-day called <i>heresy</i>. But we have chosen our position deliberately, and shall abide by the consequences.</p> <p>This journal will try to give the most recent discoveries in geology, -biology, physiology and archæology, and to discuss their bearings on +biology, physiology and archæology, and to discuss their bearings on the Christian religion; and we think that no intelligent person can afford to be without its regular visits.</p> @@ -5024,386 +4985,6 @@ evolution and metaphysical subtleties cleared away,</li> </ul> </div> - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Illogical Geology, by George McCready Price - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY *** - -***** This file should be named 42043-h.htm or 42043-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/0/4/42043/ - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Ayeshah Ali and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Print project.) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at -http://gutenberg.org/license). - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at -809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official -page at http://pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit http://pglaf.org - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - -</pre> - +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42043 ***</div> </body> </html> diff --git a/42043.zip b/42043.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 88f358a..0000000 --- a/42043.zip +++ /dev/null |