Untitled

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 808, 21 January 1955, Page 5

Sir,-It is regrettable in these days of advanced scientific research that Mr. J. Malton Murray should so challengingly and triumphantly refer to theories which are wholly unscientific and completely outdated. In the realms of human embryology he blissfully refers to gill slits and tails and in palaentology (which he mistakenly refers to as geology), he senms to infer that, following his climax "Finally," he has said the last word. There is not space to bring evidence to show how utterly worthless are these theories in embryology, theories which are quite untenable, and which have been abandoned years ago by many of the strongest. champions of evolution. Suffice it so say that the coccyx, far from being vestigial, is necessary to provide support for the muscles which control the functions of elimination, and at no time in its development does the human embryo resemble a fish or have gill slits, Regarding the palaeontological record, the supposed continuity, there are great gaps in the evolutionary chain-gaps which have never been bridged and cannot be bridged by any conjuring expert. Continuity has been forged only by

jumping from one phylum to another and by astute and judicious arrangement. Wide inheritable variations within natural species are possible in many cases, but no variation outside the limits of natural species occurs. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this is not a religious versus scientific controversy, but one of science against pseudo-science. Mr. Murray writes with assurance and certainty which is not now echoed by many of the great champions of evolution. To substantiate this let me quote at random only two. Sir Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and is unprovable, we must accept it in faith." E. W. McBride, Professor of Zoology in the Imperial Colleges of Sciences, England: "I well remember the enthusiasm with which the Mendelian theory was received when it was first introduced’ to the scientific world, we thought at last that the key to evolution had been discovered, but as our knowledge of the facts grew the difficulty of using Mendelian phenomena to explain evolution became apparent and this early hope sickened and died. The way that Mendel cut was seen to lead into a cul-de-sac." Many evolutionists in Britain, France and America whose research collectively deals with every branch of the subject could be quoted, all expressing negative results. The late Dr, William Bateson has even said: "Had Darwin known of Mendel’s work, he would never have written Origin of Species." I know that I shall be ridiculed by that common argument, numerical superiority of authority in support of evolu-tion-I can take it. It is truth we seek and weight of evidence counts more with me than weight of authority. Galileo even stood alone, Who was right? Progress towards truth cannot be other than a slow process so long as an obscurantist evolution. dominates thought.

NATURALIST

(Winton).