Page images

mitted to the cylinder. At what pressure is the steam when admitted to the cylinder? What is the temperature of the steam for this pressure? (See curve of steam pressure.) Does the maximum pressure recorded on the indicator card correspond to that registered by the steam gauge ? During what fraction of a stroke is the maximum pressure upon the piston exerted? (See indicator card.)

Ascertain the internal dimensions of the cylinder. What is the temperature and what the pressure of the exhaust steam?

How many units of heat disappear as the quantity of steam which enters the cylinder at one time expands to the temperature and pressure at the close of the stroke? (For final pressure see indicator diagram.) How many units of heat disappear as the quantity of steam which enters the cylinder at one time expands to the temperature and pressure of the exhaust steam? (In what other ways has heat disappeared ?) What efficiency do these figures indicate ?

Count the number of strokes per minute, and determine the average pressure of steam in the cylinder. (See indicator diagram.) What horsepower is the engine developing ?

If the exhaust steam were conducted to another cylinder attached to the same shaft and all the heat which escapes to the exhaust were utilized in this second cylinder, how many times larger should the area of the piston be than that of the first, the length of stroke in the two engines being the same?

Assuming the boiler at this plant to have the same effi ciency as that of the boilers at the college heating plant, and omitting further loss by radiation from the steam pipes, what part of the energy developed in the burning of a pound of coal actually appears as work! JOIN L. TILTON. SIMPSON COLLEGE,


gether with what purports to be a registration of vital points which would make a belief in the evolution theory incredible, has come from Professor L. T. Townsend, of Drew Theological Seminary, in an address entitled, “ The Collapse of Evolution, delivered recently before the American Bible League, at the Boston convention.

This exposition appears to give in brief form, an excellent idea of the attitude of the average anti-evolutionist in respect to some of the fundamental principles of the descent theory (especially from the theological standpoint). Believing that there may be some of your readers who would appreciate a concise statement of this attitude, and of the arguments which so many of the more conservative anti-evolutionists of theological profession hold towards certain phases of this much troubled question, I have ventured to enclose to you in brief, argumentative form (although the address does not readily lend itself to such arrangement) an account of this article which, so far as I am aware, has appeared only in a periodical of limited circulation, The Bible Student and Teacher; and which, to my mind, shows the theological anti-evolutionist's standpoint in a definite and concise manner.

I undertake at this time no criticism of any part of Professor Townsend's argument, but attempt merely to state the argumentative points of the address in the clearest and most logical sequence possible. That many points require criticism will be apparent to the most casual reader; that, however, I leave to others. The following is the gist of the argument:



ORGANIC EVOLUTION. TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: It is not often that in a single article emanating from good authority, one is able to find, in concise form. many of the so-called arguments of the antievolutionist against the theory of the animal descent of man. One of the most typical and most recent of these expositions upon the relation of belief in this theory, with Biblical teachings and established scientific facts, to

The theory of evolution and the animal descent of man is a poorly constructed affair, supported hy not one single well-established fact in science, philosophy or religion, for: I. The assertion that the original germs of animal

life do not require the supernatural is false,

for: 1. Natural forces to-day can not produce the

same germs. 2. Spontaneous generation, in any sense, is not

proved possible at the present day, and is no longer mentioned in scientific circles.'


3. Many famous biologists have abandoned the

theories of the natural origin of life, for: A. Huxley was led reluctantly to give up his

bioplastic theory. B. Sir William Thomson surrendered his

speculation that life germs came to this

earth from some planet. C. Herbert Spencer abandoned his theory of

the 'chemical origin of life.' D. Tyndall said: 'Proofs that spontaneous

generation has occurred at any time in

the earth's history, are still wanting.' E. Virchow held that there was no evidence

that the original germs arose by spon

taneous generation. II. There is no truth in the law of universal de.

velopment and improvement of animals, for: 1. From the 'primordeal zone' to the present,

the multitude of species have shown no

improvement since their creation, for: A. The marine algæ found to-day are no

more perfect than those found in the dis

tant Silurian period. B. Among trees, the oak, birch, hazel, Scotch

fir, have shown no improvement in thou

sands of years. C. The coral “insects' which built the first

coral reefs in Florida, have shown no im

provement in 300 centuries. D. The crustacean family, since its appear

ance at the close of the carboniferous

period, has not changed. E. The molluscs, fishes, reptiles, birds and

mammals have never shown the least improvement or elaboration since their ap

pearance. F. Mummies of cats, bulls, ibices, birds, dogs

and crocodiles from the tombs of Egypt, have shown no change in 5,000 years; are identical with their living representatives

of to-day. G. The Cro-Magnon’ skull belonging to the

earliest stone age, is not different from

the human skulls of to-day. H. A scientist, having examined the statuettes

recently discovered in Crete, concludes that the muscles and veins of the forearm

of man have not changed in 4,000 years. 2. On the other hand, in scores of instances

there is a pronounced deterioration of both

parts and functions, for:
A. One may observe cases of degeneration in:

a. The acidians.
6. Many parasitic species.

c. The fishes (constant degeneration since

the Devonian period). d. All the lower mammals.

e. The whole human race. III. There is no such thing as transmutation of

species by natural processes, for: 1. The proofs which evolutionists have brought

forward in favor of transmutation are in

reality, meaningless, for: A. Geological records do not uphold the

theory, for: a. In such cases as the supposed phylogeny

of the horse, the resemblances between the original four-toed animals and the modern horse,' are no greater than those between a cow and a crow, or between a man and a mouse; and this

is no evidence of transmutation.' 6. The so-called missing link, pithecan.

thropus erectus, is no evidence, for: a'. At the meeting of famous zoologists at

Leyden, only seven out of twenty-four agreed that the pithecanthropus'

was a missing link. b'. Professor D. C. Cunningham, of Dub

lin, concluded that this lot of bones

was part baboon and part human. B. Biological records do not uphold the theory

of transmutation, for: a. Manifestations of the principle of the

biogenetic law furnish no support for

the theory, for: a'. This law but shows the prophetic ele

ment in nature'; i. e., the creator is a prophet and his method is to anticipate by type, pattern or prophecy, what may be expected in his subse

quent creations. b. The ease with which present-day scien

tists can place in its proper class and order any fossil or prehistoric animal,

is a sign that species have not changed. c. No one has ever been able to change the

structureless germ of one plant or animal into the structureless germ of

another. d. Sterility of the offspring of crossed

species bars the most available way for

the process of transmutation to act. IV. There is no emergence of man from the brute

condition, for: 1. Geology, history, archeology, anatomy, philol

ogy, ethics and religion demonstrate the fact that the first beings on earth which

nature, through evolution or any other

process. 5. M. Stanislas Meunier, of the Paris Museum,

argues in favor of special creation by an

infinite power.. 6. Virchow, speaking of evolution, said: 'It is

all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descends from the ape or

from any other animal.' 7. Fleishmann, of Erlangen, said: “The Darwin

ian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it. It is a product of the imagi

nation.' 8. Edward von Hartmann in his work, The

Passing of Darwinism,' shows that the

theory is now incredible. 9. Dr. A. H. Sayes, of Oxford, says: 'The appli

cation of the evolution theory to the religious and secular history of the world, is

founded on a huge mistake. 10. Many others, as Donnert, Goette, Hoppe,

Paulsen, Rutermeyer, Wundt, Zoeckler and Griefswald, once supporters of evolution, have now abandoned it.

wore the human form were not brutes nor eren barbarians, but were as perfect in brain and as capable in intellect as any

people now living, for: A. Geology, archeology and anthropology all

concur in the facts that: a. The human race was not existent before

the close of the glacial period; i. e.,

about 15,000 years ago. b. Man was highly civilized 7,000 years

ago, and has not materially changed

since that time. c. There is left only 8,000 years for the rise

of man from the brute condition—a fact which is incredible when we note that man has not changed at all in the

last 7,000 years. B. Philological research demonstrates the

fact that the languages of all primitive tribes have undergone a descent rather

than an ascent. C. A study of comparative religion shows

that all forms of worship emanated from

a true worship of one supreme being. D. The ethical codes of the ancient Babylon

ians and Egyptians excelled in loftiness and purity ours of the present day, which

have degenerated. V. The scholars and scientists are not all evolu

tionists, for: 1. Dr. N. S. Shaler, of Harvard University,

says: “It begins to be evident to naturalists that the Darwinian hypothesis is still unve rified. Notwithstanding the evidence derived from animals and plants under domestication, it has not been proved that a single species * * * has been established

by the operation of natural selection." 2. St. George Mivart, of the University College,

Kensington, says of the theory: 'I can not

call it anything but a puerile hypothesis.' 3. Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum, re

marks: ‘Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense; it is not founded by observation, and wholly unsupported by

fact.' 4. L. S. Beale, of King's College, London, says:

* There is no evidence that a man has descended from, or is or was in any way

specially related to, any other organism, in * This is a misinterpretation of Dr. Shaler's attitude which is decidedly in favor of some evolution hypothesis.-P. B. H.

CONCLUSION. In view of the facts: 1. That the advocates of evolution can not prove

that life germs arose by natural processes; 2. That evolutionists show an utter inability to

prove that there exists a universal law of

development and improvement; 3. That they can not prove lower species of

plants can be transmuted into higher; 4. That in all excavations not a single connect

ing link between species has been discov

ered; 5. That physical and mental science proves it to

be impossible for an animal to come into possession of a human soul, human mind or

human body; 6. That geologists have silenced the voices of

the advocates of the animal descent of man; 7. That all scholarly men and scientists are not

evolutionists; 8. That many who once upheld evolution are

now abandoning it; There need not be a moment's hesitation in saying that the hypothesis of evolution, with all the other speculations attached to it, has collapsed beyond the hope of restoration.


March 4, 1905.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

100 | 209.3 330.2. 197.6 253.5

100 132.6 154.4 134.3 107.3 III.

100 | 134.9 181.3 158 9 81.4

100 | 151.6 151.6 138.3 120.0

24 100 | 186.1 157.0 193.0 125 5 VI. 60 100 | 155 5 157.9 157.9 | 104.1 Av. for 204 plants. 100 ! 161.6 188.7 | 163.3 131.9





The work here reported was undertaken to determine the concentration af a nutrient solution which is best adapted to the growth of wheat, and further to find out whether or not an increase in concentration alone may accelerate growth aside from changes in the nutrient value of the solution. The nutrient solution used contained calcium sulphate, magnesium phosphate, potassium carbonate, sodium nitrate and ammonium chloride in chemically equivalent amounts. It was made up to concentrations of 10, 70, 150, 745 and 1,545 parts per million, respectively. To each solution 5 parts per million of ferric chloride were added, thus making the concentrations of total salts 15, 75, 155, 750 and 1,550 parts per million. In the two higher concentrations some phosphates and carbonates of calcium and magnesium were precipitated out, but the error thus produced is too small to affect the general results under consideration.

A series of cultures of wheat seedlings was grown for 28 days in these solutions, the latter being changed every day. At the end of the period the plants in the solution of 15 parts per million were the poorest of the lot, being remarkably stunted, as though suffering for want of water. Those in the solution of 75 parts per million were considerably better, while those in the solution of 155 parts per million were unmistakably the best. Those in the solution of 750 parts per million were similar to those in the one of 75 parts, while those in the solution of 1,550 parts per million were again very poor and showed the same stunting of growth as do plants growing in alkali soils.

This experiment was performed six times with different growing conditions, and each time the results were in the same order. The general development was always in the same relative order as the transpiration.'

It will be seen from the table that curves of these transpirations would have maximum points somewhere between 155 and 750 parts per million of total solids in solution. No attempt was made to determine the maximum point more accurately, but by interpolation it is estimated to lie in the vicinity of 300 parts per million of total solids. This may be taken as approximately the concentration best suited to growth under the conditions of these experiments.

Whether the depression noticed in the lower concentrations of the above series is due to a scarcity of one or more of the nutritive elements or to the low concentration of the solution as a whole is considered in the following experiments. In experiment VII. to each of four portions of the solution above described, containing 15 parts per million of total salts, were added 140 parts per million of one of the salts occurring in the original solution, a different salt being used in each case. To a fifth portion was added 140 parts per million of a mixture of all four of these salts in chemically equivalent amounts. Twenty-four plants were grown in each of the five solutions for thirteen days, and their growth was compared with that of a similar culture in the

* For evidence in regard to the use of transpiration as a criterion here, see a paper about to appear in the Botanical Gazette, Livingston, B. E., * Relation of Transpiration to Growth in Wheat

original solution. Table II. presents the data for this experiment as well as for the two following ones. Relative transpirations on the basis of 100 for the original nutrient solution of 15 parts per million are given. There was a marked increase in the growth of the plants, with the addition of each one of the salts, but none of them produced as good plants as did the combination of all four salts.

In experiment VIII. the same solution of 15 parts per million was increased in concentration by the addition of 60, 140, 735 and 1,535 parts per million of calcium sulphate. Thirty-six seedlings were grown in each solution for thirteen days, comparison being again made with the original solution. The increase in transpiration was also very marked in this

need in this case, as is shown by the data in Table II. Here the transpiration figures tend to show a

spiration figures tend to show a depressing effect in the solution of highest concentration, as in the former case.

. This

This experiment was repeated with similar results.

TABLE II. Data for Experiments VII. to IX.

that with calcium sulphate just described, and the results showed the same general effect, although the actual differences between the different cultures were not nearly as great. The last fact is probably due to the toxic effect of the chlorine ion, tending to retard growth and thus partially masking the effect of concentration. The data are given in Table II.

From the experiments thus far described it is evident that there is an optimum physical concentration of the nutrient solution at which water cultures of wheat thrive best, aside from variations in the amounts present of the different nutrient materials. In the solutions of lower concentration the retarding factor for plant growth is not necessarily connected with the low osmotic pressure, for the same acceleration of growth which is observed to accompany an increase in concentration can be obtained by entirely different means. The author has already called attention to the fact that both nutrient solutions and soil extracts are greatly improved for the growth of wheat by addition of small quantities of the practically insoluble bodies, carbon black and ferric hydrate and that the beneficial effect of these bodies is due to their power to absorb toxic substances. Such toxic materials are present in many soils, and physiologically similar ones are given off by the roots of wheat grown in water culture. The addition of these insoluble bodies to a weak nutrient solution can not possibly increase its concentration to any appreciable degree; indeed, such addition is apt to decrease its concentration to some extent owing to phenomena of adsorption. Yet such treatments result in the same sort of acceleration of growth as is obtained with increase in concentration.

Dr. B. E. Livingston, of the bureau of soils, has made possible a quantitative comparison in this regard by furnishing the author with

? Breazeale, J. F., ' Effect of Certain Solids upon the Growth of Wheat in Water Cultures,' about to appear in the Botanical Gazette.

In this regard see Livingston, B. E., Britton, J. C., and Reid, F. R., “Studies on the Properties of a Sterile Soil, U. S. Dept. Agric., Bureau of Soils, Bul. No. 28.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »