Sec. 31. Heredity has no Power to Generate a New Human Being; nor to Evolve One from the Germ-Cell
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.