M. Naudin, as we see, in order to support his theory, appeals to
the embryogenic phenomena, to which the Darwinists also look for
testimony in favour of their doctrines. The learned botanist,
however, attaches much more importance to the metamorphoses
which take place subsequently to the egg. He recognises _true
proto-organisms_ in the pro-embryo of mosses, in the larvæ of
insects, and of many other inferior animals. He lays particular
stress upon the phenomena of alternate generation, as representing
what has already taken place, or better, as representing in part “the
ancient and general process of creation.”
According to M. Naudin, man was subject to the common law, and
the Mosaic account is at the same time very true and full of
instruction. In its first phase, mankind was concealed within a
temporary organism, already distinct from all others, and incapable
of contracting an alliance with any of them. This is Adam, who sprang
from a primordial blastema called _clay_ in the Bible. At this epoch,
he was, properly speaking, neither male nor female; the two sexes
were not yet differentiated. “It is from this larval form of mankind,
that the evolutive force effected the completion of the species. For
the accomplishment of this great phenomenon, Adam had to pass through
a phase of immobility and unconsciousness, very analogous to the
nymphal state of animals undergoing metamorphosis.” This is the sleep
mentioned in the Bible, during which the work of differentiation
was accomplished, to use the words of M. Naudin, by a process of
germination, similar to that of medusæ and ascidians. Mankind, thus
constituted physiologically, would retain a sufficient evolutive
force for the rapid production of the various great human races.
Passing over the comparisons established by M. Naudin, I will confine
myself to a single observation upon all these ideas; properly
speaking, they do not form a _scientific theory_.
When we fertilise by artificial means the egg of a frog, we know
that we determine an entire series of phenomena, which results in
the formation of a germ, then in that of an embryo, which will be
established by a succession of metamorphoses, in that of a tadpole,
which will be equally subject to metamorphoses, and in that of a
definite animal which will assume all the characters of the species.
So far as man can _make a being_, we _make a frog_ when we fertilise
an egg.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account