Heredity is defined as: “The influence of parents
upon offspring; transmission of qualities or characteristics,
mental or physical, from parents to offspring.”
(Cent. Dic. 4, p. 2802.)
Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion
are necessary to group two or more atoms into a prescribed
chemical combination or into a specified mechanical
arrangement. It is a well-known fact that
each normal human body is composed of the same
chemical elements; has the same chemical combinations
and the same mechanical arrangements that are
found in every other such body. Therefore, we may
well say that the atoms and cells in the body are
grouped into prescribed chemical combinations and
into specified mechanical arrangements; and that intellect,
memory and will-power are necessary to make
these combinations and arrangements.
It is also well-known that every human being,
begins life as a germ-cell, stem-cell, or fertilized ovum,
all of these phrases meaning the same thing; that
every such body develops and grows anew for itself.
Each body is a new combination of the atoms and
cells, of which it is composed. The forces and motions,
which assemble and group these atoms and cells
into the chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements,
which build up a body, are new, unique
and peculiar to that body.
The theory of heredity is based on these facts:
The father contributes the spermatozoön and the
mother the ovum, which form the germ-cell; this cell
and its daughter-cells develop and grow to be a man or
a woman, who has substantially the same form, size,
structure, organs and parts that one of its parents
has, and generally has some of their qualities, characteristics
and traits.
But these facts do not prove that the child inherits
anything from either parent; they do not prove
that the parents, or either of them, caused the child
to develop, grow and resemble them in any of these
particulars. The existence of a fact and the cause of
that fact are two different things. Thus, every body
knows that a stone falls to the ground; but nobody
knows why. The child resembles its father—but why?
Do the parents cause this resemblance? Can they,
or either of them, cause their child to have blue eyes
or black; a long or short nose; a large or small foot?
Neither Darwin, nor any other man has ever
shown how it is possible for the bodies of the parents,
or any part of either of them, to affect, modify or determine
the form, features, size, structure, qualities,
characteristics or traits of their children. It is admitted
on all sides that the parents have no voluntary
control over these things. Darwin, (Origin of Species,
1, p. 15), says: “The laws governing inheritance are
for the most part unknown.” Haeckel is voluminous
in describing the phenomena of reproduction, heredity,
etc. But has nothing to say about the cause, nor
the mechanism of heredity.
It is undoubtedly true that the human body is a
compound physical structure; that each organ and
part of every such body has to be made, anew, of
fresh materials, for that body; that the child does
not “take over,” bodily, any organ nor part of either
parent, but has its own new organs, unique and peculiar
to itself; that neither the father nor the mother
has any voluntary power to select, assemble nor group
the atoms and cells, of which the embryo body is made;
nor to generate, guide, nor control the forces and motions
by which this work is done. All this being true,
how is it possible for the parents, or either of them,
to transmit any of their qualities, characteristics or
traits to their child?
The notion of mankind in general appears to be
the body of the child is a sort of offshoot or branch of
the bodies of the parents, as if the child had budded
out on the trunk of the mother; and finally dropped
off and become a distinct individual. But this view
is wholly erroneous. The embryo becomes a separate
and distinct entity the moment the germ-cell is
formed; and it develops and grows, anew, for itself
independently of the bodies of its parents, which have
no more to do with its development and growth than
the body of any other person has.
If we assume that each human being is a new
direct and special creation by Almighty God, we can
readily understand the mysterious phenomena called
“heredity.”
At first, the germ-cell does not resemble either
parent nor even a human being, it being too small,
even to suggest a human body, at all. An infant at
birth, is too rudimentary to resemble either parent
more closely than it does any other person of the same
sex.
Whether the germ-cell and its daughter-cells are
to develop and grow to be a man, resembling its
father; or a woman resembling its mother, the same
forces and motions are required to assemble and group
the necessary atoms and cells into the proper chemical
combinations and mechanical arrangements in order
to construct its body. The fact that the child may
resemble its father or its mother or both of them, does
not dispense with the assembling of the atoms and
cells; nor with the grouping of them into the necessary
combination and arrangements. It is clear that the
same or similar forces and motions are necessary to
construct any animal body, whatever its form, size
or sex may be.
According to the evolutionist and materialist, the
fact that the child resembles its parents is adequate
to account for, and explain all the phenomena of reproduction.
But the existence of this resemblance,
and, the cause of it, are two wholly different things.
The fact that the child resembles its parents only
deepens the mystery; for it would require less knowledge,
skill and creative force to construct a body with
the qualities and characteristics of mankind in general,
than it would to group the atoms and cells of the
body in such a manner as to produce a body in the
image of a particular man or woman. Thus a portrait
painter could make a fancy sketch of an imaginary
person, without any striking features, more
easily than he could paint a particular man with all
his peculiarities; as, for example, his bald head, high
forehead, blue eyes, long aquiline nose, wide mouth,
massive lower jaw and tall, slender body. The closer
the resemblance, between the child and its parents, the
greater the mystery.
It being a fact that the body of the child has
identically the same organs and parts that are formed
in the body of its father, or in that of the mother; and
that the child closely resembles one or both of them,
we naturally inquire: “What force or agency causes
the germ-cell and its daughter-cells to develop and
grow until they become a man, like its father; or a
woman like its mother?” We cannot even imagine that
this sameness of organs and parts, of structure, form
and size, and this close resemblance happens by chance
or accident.
Every man has conscious knowledge that he had
no voluntary part in the production of his child, except
that he placed the spermatozoön at a point from
which it could reach the ovum. The mother knows
that she had no voluntary part nor agency in the production
of her child except that she permitted the
father to place the spermatozoön in reach of the ovum.
Neither of them has any voluntary power, nor any
control over the formation of the spermatozoön nor of
the ovum; nor over the development and growth of
the child, nor over its structure, form, size nor over
its features.
The spermatozoön is a microscopic cell, 1/500th
of an inch in length, (Martin, Human Body, p. 651),
the head, which is the largest part of it, being, apparently
about 1/10,000th of an inch in diameter, (Haeckel,
Evolution of Man, p. 53, fig. 22.) It consists of a
homogeneous mass of protoplasm, composed of carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen; and sometimes has a
trace of phosphorus and sulphur. (Cent. Dic. 6, p.
4799; Huxley, Anat. Invert. An., pp. 9, 14.) See index
infra, “Spermatozoön.” Although the spermatozoön
is not visible to the naked eye, and has certain vital
properties and potentialities, yet it is a physical body
with all the attributes of a brick or stone.
If any quality, characteristic or trait of the father
passes from him to his child, it is transmitted by, and
through the spermatozoön, for that is the only thing
that passes from the one to the other. So, if any
quality, characteristic or trait of the mother passes
from her to her child, it is transmitted by and through
the ovum, that being the only thing that passes from
her to it.
Whatever power or influence the father’s body,
or any organ or part of it, may have to affect or modify
the body of his child or any part of it, must be effected
by and through the spermatozoön before it leaves his
genital organs; for it is clear that neither the father’s
body, nor any organ nor part of it, has any power to
affect, modify or differentiate the spermatozoön, nor
any part of it, after it leaves his body.
It is absurd to suppose that the father’s body, or
any organ or part of it, can affect, modify or differentiate
the spermatozoön, or any part of it, in such
a manner that it shall cause the child to have qualities,
characteristics and traits resembling those of the father.
In fact he could not possibly know whether there
is one, many, or none in his genital organs, at any
given time, for a stronger reason no single organ nor
any part of his body could possibly affect, modify nor
differentiate the spermatozoön in such a manner as
to cause the child, which arises from it to have organs
and parts resembling those of the father. Thus,
suppose the father has blue eyes. How could the
father, or his eyes, possibly affect the spermatozoön
in such a way as to cause the child’s eyes to be blue?
How could the father, or his nose, modify the spermatozoön
in such a manner as to cause the child’s nose
to resemble the father’s nose. It would be absurd
to suppose that the father’s brain and his vocal organs
can affect the spermatozoön in such a manner as to
cause the child to be a notable singer.
Professor Weismann says:
“It is well known that many mental and physical
qualities of parents are transmitted to their children,
such as the color of the eyes and hair, the shape
and size of the finger nails; and not only these, but
as everyone knows, even such minute and indefinable
physical and mental characteristics as likeness of
features, bearing, gait, handwriting, a mild and equable
or passionate and irritable temperament.”—(Weismann
on Heredity, 2, p. 14.)
The color of the eyes depends on the coloring
matter or pigment in the irises. How could the father’s
eyes possibly affect the spermatozoön in such a
manner as to make the child’s eyes blue? How could
the father’s red hair differentiate the spermatozoön
so as to give the child red hair? Can we imagine that
the father’s finger nails can affect the spermatozoön
in such a way as to make the child’s nails of the same
“shape and size” as those of the father? How could
such a thing be? Can we believe that a man’s brain,
nerves and muscles, can so affect the spermatozoön
that the child’s handwriting shall be like that of the
father? How could this be? How could the father’s
brain modify the spermatozoön in such sort that the
child shall have the same temperament that the father
has?
Most of the resemblances between the child and
its parents result from education, association and
environment. If a child’s parents die when it is six
months old; and it be placed in the hands of a
stranger and his wife; it is easy to see that many
of the child’s qualities, characteristics and traits
would be borrowed from the man and his wife with
whom the orphan lives.
The infant, at birth, is merely a living creature
without any physical qualities, characteristics or
traits peculiar to itself; nor has it any mental qualities,
characteristics nor traits, whatever. In fact, it
has scarcely any intellect, at all. It follows that most
of the physical qualities and characteristics of each
person are acquired; and that all of the mental qualities,
characteristics and traits of every one are acquired,
they being the result of education, association
and environment. No doubt most of the resemblance
between a child and its parents are caused by education,
imitation and association.
The evolutionist has invented divers theories to
account for, and explain the phenomena of reproduction
on material and mechanical principles, without
the aid of any supernatural psychic or creative force.
For example, Darwin invented the theory of “gemmules”
and “pangenesis;” Spencer advanced the
hypothesis of “physiological units” or “constitutional
units,” “structural proclivity,” or “proclivity
towards the organic form of the species;” Cope suggested
“bathmism (go-ism)” “simple growth-force,”
“grade-growth-force” and “excess-growth;” Weismann
invented the “continuity of germ-plasm,” “ids,”
“iddants” and “determinants.” But none of these
words or phrases explain anything. If there is anything
in nature corresponding to these words none of
these writers ever saw them, nor did they know anything
about them. These “gemmules,” “units,”
“proclivities,” “ids,” “bathmisms,” etc., are purely
hypothetical—mere figments of the imagination.
Every body has rejected Darwin’s theory of “gemmules,”
and “pangenesis;” no one but Spencer ever
adopted his hypothesis of “physiological units” and
“proclivities;” Cope was the only man that over used
“bathmism,” etc.; Spencer, Romanes and others gave
many reasons why Weismann’s “continuity of germ-plasm,”
“ids,” “iddants” and “determinants” were
absurd and impossible. No two of them agreed on
anything, except the supposed fact of organic evolution.
Spencer, somewhere says, in substance, that
there is a general belief that organic evolution has
occurred; but great diversity of opinion as to the manner
in which it has been effected.
The theory of the evolutionist is that the genital
organs of a man generate spermatozoä, with all their
properties and potentialities, spontaneously and automatically,
without the aid of any extraneous, psychic
or creative force, and that those of a woman produce
ova in the same manner. He maintains that a
spermatozoön and an ovum unite and fuse into a
germ-cell (fertilized ovum) and that this cell (germ)
then becomes, automatically, a living being; that it
develops and grows spontaneously and automatically,
to be a man or a woman, without the aid or guidance
of any extraneous psychic or creative force, whatever.
As a fact the fertilized ovum does not develop into
a man or woman at all, but a vast number of daughter-cells
are produced from it, which are metamorphosed
and molded by the Creator into a man or woman.
The evolutionist holds that the fertilized ovum inherits
all its properties and potentialities from its parents.
In other words, he contends that the germ-cell
develops and grows as it does because its father and
mother developed and grew in the same manner. Is
there any apparent reason why the germ-cell should
develop and grow at all? Why should it develop and
grow, spontaneously and automatically, as its father
and mother grew? The germ-cell is a new combination
of the atoms of which it is composed; the embryo
is built up of new materials; wholly different from
those which compose the bodies of its parents; and by
new forces and motions, altogether different from
those which built up the bodies of its parents. How
could the mode, in which the bodies of the father and
mother developed and grew, possibly affect the development
and growth of the child?
The fact that each normal body develops and
grows in the same manner that the bodies of its parents
grew, and as every other normal body grows, is
conclusive evidence that the development and growth
of each human body is caused, guided and controlled
by an extraneous supernatural psychic and creative
force, which is ubiquitous, all over the earth. No
other hypothesis can explain the uniform mode of
development and growth, which we observe, among
all the mammals in every age and country.
The fact that the child resembles its father or
mother, or both of them, is strong evidence that the
same creative force made all three of them. We cannot
believe that the blind, unthinking cells, which
build up the body of the child, automatically, group
themselves in such a manner as to make the child in
the image of the father or mother.
Everyone knows that each human body is built
of atoms and cells, which are assembled and grouped
into certain chemical combinations and mechanical
arrangements by force and motion, and that there cannot
be any such thing as force and motion without, at
least two physical bodies, the one to transmit the force
and the other to move. The word, “heredity,” does
not denote a physical body nor a physical force. It
is a mere name for a group of vital phenomena. How
could heredity bring two or more atoms or cells together?
Such a suggestion is too absurd even for the
imagination.
Perhaps the orthodox churchman would maintain
that the Creator endowed Adam’s genital organs
with the power to generate spermatozoä; and also
endowed those of Eve with the power to produce ova;
that He endowed these spermatozoä and ova with the
power to produce new men and woman, automatically;
and that He ordained that they should have the
power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova, with
the same properties and potentialities that were possessed
by the original spermatozoä and ova, that were
generated in the bodies of Adam and Eve and so on
forever.
This brings us back to the proposition that every
human body is a compound physical structure, composed
of atoms and cells, which are grouped into certain
chemical combinations and mechanical arrangements;
and that intellect, memory, will-power, force
and motion are necessary to make these combinations
and arrangements. To do this work, automatically,
these atoms and cells must be endowed with divine
intellect, memory, will-power and creative force; and
this is equivalent to a special creation. So if it be
said that each fertilized ovum is endowed with the
power to produce a new man or woman, the answer
is that this endowment is equivalent to a special
creation.
The reader may argue that the Creator endowed
Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s ova with the power
to develop men and women, who were endowed with
the power to produce new spermatozoä and new ova,
with the same properties and potentialities that were
possessed by those of Adam and Eve and so on forever
to the nth. generation.
There are several insuperable objections to this
theory:
First.—It is inconceivable that a man could be
endowed with the power to produce spermatozoä before
he is born; nor could a woman produce ova before
her birth; nor is it possible to endow a fertilized
ovum with the power to produce a man or woman before
it is formed. When Adam’s spermatozoä and
Eve’s ova were made the men and women to be produced
from them had not come into being; and it was
impossible for even the Creator to endow them, at
that time, with the power to produce spermatozoä and
ova. Intellect, memory, will-power, force and motion
were necessary to group the atoms and cells of which
the bodies of these new men and women were to be
composed, into the necessary chemical combinations
and mechanical arrangements in order to construct
their bodies. Neither the spermatozoä, the ova nor the
germ-cells produced from them, had intellect, memory,
will-power nor the necessary force. Therefore
it was impossible for Adam’s spermatozoä and Eve’s
ova, or germ-cell, resulting from their fusion, to produce
Adam and Eve’s children, automatically.
Secondly.—Neither the children of Adam and
Eve nor of any other man or woman ever had the
power to generate spermatozoä and ova, voluntarily.
It is inconceivable that the blind unthinking genital
organs of Adam’s children or of any other
man or woman ever produced spermatozoä and
ova spontaneously and automatically. We are
compelled to believe that the Creator always
generates, guides and controls the forces and motions
which assemble and group the atoms into the form of
the spermatozoä and ova; and that he directly and
specially endows each spermatozoön and ovum with
such properties and potentialities as it may possess.
Thirdly.—Life is not a property of matter. If
it were, there would be no such thing as death; for
matter and all its attributes and properties are eternal.
The atoms, of which a man’s body is composed,
are as old as the earth. But during his life, they are
grouped together; and this group of atoms is endowed
with the properties and potentials of a living being.
The human body has identically the same physical
properties, whether it be living or dead. Thus, it has
the same weight, length, breadth and thickness after
death that it had while living, until disintegration
sets in. Apparently, the living human body is similar
to a piece of iron, when charged with electricity or
magnetism. Neither of these adds anything to the
weight of the iron; nor do they change its structure,
form, size, nor its appearance. When they leave the
iron it remains as it was before it was charged with
them. So it is with the human body for a time after
life leaves it.
Life not being a property of matter, it must be
directly and specially conferred, by a supernatural
creative force, upon the body in which it resides.
It is agreed by all biologists that there is no such
thing as spontaneous generation of animals, nor of
plants at this time. As Huxley puts it: “Omne
vivum ex vivo,” “all life comes of life.” (Encyc.
Brit. (9 ed.) 8, p. 746.)
Now, if there be no such thing as spontaneous
generation of animals, nor of plants, why should there
be spontaneous generation of life? Neither the spermatozoön,
nor the ovum can live alone. But when
united and fused together, under proper conditions,
this combination takes on the manifestations of life;
and these manifestations continue until death.
Any good chemist can analyze a fertilized ovum
and learn, exactly, the chemical elements of which it
is composed, and the proportions in which they are
combined. He could then make a new combination of
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen in the same
proportions, in which these substances were combined
in the fertilized ovum; and if life were a property of
that combination of atoms, this new chemical compound,
ought to become a living creature. But no
such thing could ever happen.
As already remarked, neither the spermatozoön
nor the ovum can live alone. But when fused together,
the combination becomes a living creature. The
atoms in the combination are identically the same
that were in the spermatozoön and ovum before the
fusion occurred. Why should the combination live
when the two component parts of it could not?
It is clear that no man can, voluntarily
nor involuntarily endow a spermatozoön with
the power to develop, alone, into a human
being; for every one of them dies in a day, or
within a few days, after it matures; unless it be so
fortunate as to unite and fuse with an ovum. It is
equally clear that no woman can endow an ovum with
the power to become a human being. Every ovum
soon dies, unless it unite and fuse with a spermatozoön
under conditions favorable to growth. Haeckel says:
“there are calculated to be 72,000 [ova] in the sexually
mature maiden.” (Evolution of Man, p. 347.)
The number of spermatozoä, generated in the sexual
organs of a man greatly exceeds the number of ova
produced by a woman. It follows that countless trillions
of spermatozoä and ova die daily, and disintegrate.
Now, if no man can endow a spermatozoön with
the power to develop into a new human being; and
if no woman can endow an ovum with power to do so;
how is it possible for either parent to endow the fertilized
ovum with that power, when it is no part of
the body of either of them?
But the evolutionist maintains that the child has
in fact, many of the qualities, characteristics and
traits, both physical and mental, of its parents; that
the parents transmit these qualities, characteristics
and traits, to their child, by and through the spermatozoön
and the ovum; that this is the only means
by which the child could acquire the qualities, characteristics
and traits of its parents. Hence, the evolutionist
infers that heredity is based on the physical
qualities and properties of the spermatozoön and
ovum.
But, as I have already argued (Sec. 15) the
spermatozoön and the ovum are, themselves, new, direct
and special creations, and so is the embryo body.
While the physical qualities and characteristics of the
spermatozoön may affect the body and mind of the
child, to some extent; yet the child remains a new,
direct and special creation.
Neither Darwin, nor any other man, has ever
shown how it is possible for the father, his body or
any part of it, to impress, modify or affect the spermatozoön,
or any part of it, in such a manner as to
cause the child to resemble him in any particular;
nor has it been shown how it is possible for the mother,
her body or any part of it, to impress, modify
or affect the ovum, or any part of it, in such a manner
as to cause the child to resemble her. When we
consider the great number of spermatozoä and ova
that are produced; their small sizes and short lives;
their location in the genital organs; and the lack of
intellect, memory and will-power in every organ and
part of the bodies of the parents, and the fact that
the “gemmules” must reach the spermatozoön and
the ovum through the blood, we are compelled to believe
that it is impossible for the spermatozoön and
ovum to transmit, unaided and alone, any quality,
characteristic or trait of a parent to the child; and
we are forced to infer that the Creator, directly and
specially, endows the spermatozoön and ovum with
power to convey to the child such qualities, characteristics,
and traits of its parents as they do, in fact,
carry to it.
Assuming for argument that certain qualities,
characteristics and traits of the father and mother
are transmitted to the child by and through the spermatozoön
and ovum; this fact does not militate against
my theory of special Creation; for it seems reasonable
to suppose that the spermatozoön and ovum are specially
endowed by the Creator, with such powers and
potentialities as they possess. Moreover, the evolutionist
and materialist are in this attitude; they cannot
show how it is possible for the germ-cell (composed
of the spermatozoön and ovum) to produce, unaided
and alone, a child with the qualities, characteristics
and traits of its parents; nor can they prove
that the germ-cell and its daughter-cells do, in fact,
automatically, produce the child without the aid of the
Creator.
Assuming for argument that the spermatozoön,
ovum, germ-cell and its daughter-cells appear to do
automatically all the wonderful things that the evolutionist
and materialist say they do, the question remains:
do these senseless, unthinking atoms and cells,
spontaneously and automatically build up the embryo
body with all its organs and parts, or does the Creator,
in fact, generate, guide and control the forces
and motions, which group these cells into the embryo
body? In other words: when the atoms and cells,
which go to build up the embryo body, appear to act
spontaneously and automatically, are they, in fact,
moved, guided, controlled and grouped into the form
of the embryo body by the Creator?
The facts in relation to the development and
growth of the embryo are easily described and understood.
But the real question is this: “What force
or agency causes this development and growth?”
What force or agency causes the child to resemble
its parents? Do the germ-cell and its daughter-cells
spontaneously and automatically cause this resemblance;
or does the Creator cause it?
Referring to the origin of life in the individual,
Professor Martin says:
“At present we know nothing in physiology answering
to the match which lights the furnace; those
manifestations of energy we call life are handed down
from generation to generation, as sacred fire in the
temple of vesta from one watcher to another. Science
may at some time teach us how to bring the chemical
constituents of protoplasm into that combination in
which they possess the faculty of starting the oxidations
under those conditions which characterize life;
then we shall have learnt to strike the vital match.”
(Martin, Human Body, p. 312.)
I do not believe that life is handed down from
generation to generation. On the contrary the Creator
strikes “the vital match” when each fertilized
ovum is formed; and every such human ovum is
directly and specially endowed by the Creator, with
the power to develop into a man or woman.
