Second Irrefutable: Dawson’s “Dawn Man.” Irrefutable? What have we here? A shattered, imperfect brain-case, part of the mandible and a canine tooth. Keith says that Sir Arthur Smith Woodward rightly recognized that the skull and jaw were part of the same individual. Then how do Waterson and Miller say that the jaw is a chimpanzee’s and does not belong to that skull? and Hrdlička that it is human, but again does not belong to that skull? and Ray Lankester, who wrote to one, H. G. Wells: “I think we are stumped, baffled?” And so on, until we have Keith repeating with approval the words of G. Elliot Smith, “The difference between the human and the ape brain is only quantitative.” And Le Buffe responding: “Then why did Dr. Arthur S. Woodward say ‘We cannot of course go by the size, for the Neanderthal man has a larger brain cavity than some of us at the present day. It is quality not quantity that counts’? That is surely true, we hope, as the heaviest brain ever found (weight, 2850 grammes) was that of an epileptic idiot.” Here is a true picture of the state of modern science as it relates to man--a few disputed bones and any quantity of disputed conjectures. Keith’s picture is obviously false. He should visit the excavations at Glozel, France, where the findings are declared by some savants, “_du mérite le plus incontesté_,” to be of the “_époque néolithique_”; and by other savants, “_dont les travaux font authorité dans le monde_,” to pertain not to the neolithic but to the “_époque néo-fumiste_.” But what if someone were actually to find the missing link? It would be merely a skeleton intermediate between that of ape and man. It would prove nothing; settle nothing. What is needed is the spectacle of a female monkey in the act of giving birth to a human child; and as nobody claims that well-bred monkeys do that sort of thing nowadays, the prospect is not hopeful. Yet Albert Edward Wiggam says in “The New Decalogue of Science”[113] that the “Darwinian generalization,” after a “battle with entrenched opinion, authority, prejudice and vested interests, has at last received the universal assent of practically all educated men.” I do not see how a “universal assent” can include “practically all,” if by that is meant anything different from simply all. But this is tabloid, pre-digested science, with the hulls of opposing opinion carefully removed. The implication is that non-Darwinians, however eminent, are _ipso facto_, ignorant. Those who do not feel themselves properly brow-beaten must have thicker skulls than _Pithecanthropus erectus_. But I think Mr. Wiggam is here showing a variation from the paramecium of very doubtful survival-value.