From  the  book  by  the  same  name (1958)

Appendix I


Up until the time of Darwin all men who thought about the matter at all recognized that there were such things as natural spices. The idea came from two sources, from the Scriptures and from observation of nature. The Scriptures taught that all men were descended from Adam and Eve, which gave the concept of mankind as constituting a natural species of the highest order. The Scriptures taught that two of a "kind" (Hebrew MIN, Genesis 1:11, 6:20) entered the ark as seed for a new animal population on the earth after the Deluge, which gave the idea of the existence of natural species among the animals. These simple but enlightening, Scriptural facts were the original source of the majority held opinion that there were natural species. Observation of nature confirmed this view. It was apparent to men that mankind itself was made up of many races and types scattered the world over, yet that all these races were perfectly able to intermarry and bear children, except in a few individual cases. 

Man became to himself therefore, from observation of nature, the best example of a natural species. It was readily apparent also that among the animals there were similar forms which cross-bred naturally with one another and produced fertile progeny. In the cases of dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, poultry this was so. All these formed groups which contained many varieties of individuals, all of which readily and easily crossed with the individuals within their respective groups. In plants the knowledge that there were natural species was not so clearly recognized. The knowledge which the ancients had 800 years before Christ regarding the sexuality of plants had been lost during the Middle Ages, and was not recovered until the latter part of the 17th century. But when the fact that plants as well as animals cross-bred was rediscovered and experimentation in the crossing of plants was carried out, men readily concluded that what was true in the animal kingdom, was true also in the plant world. So up until 1860 the existence of natural species was a conviction of all intelligent men. This is evident from the definitions of species given by men of science of those days. Linnaeus (1707-1778)   said,  "There are as many species as  God created in

Numbers in parentheses refer to  the  sources   of  information listed at the end of the appendix.

the beginning," and this he amplified by saying. "Varieties are plants of the same species." John Ray (1628-1705) defined natural species as "a group of organisms with marked characteristics in common and freely inter-breeding." Baron Cuvier (1761-1832) said, "All the beings belonging to one of these forms [perpetual since the beginning of all things, that is, the Creation], constitute what we call species." De Candolle (1778-1841) defined species as "an assemblage of all the individuals which resemble each other more than they do others, which can by mutual fecundation produce fertile individuals, and which are able to reproduce their like in a manner that they may be supposed by analogy to have descended from a single being or a single pair." Quatrefages (1810-1892) called species "an assemblage of individuals more or less resembling one another, which are descended or may be regarded as being descended from a single pair by the uninterrupted succession of families."

The criterion in the minds of intelligent men before Darwin of what constituted a natural species was the natural ability and willingness to cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. Members of groups called species crossed with one another in nature and produced fertile progeny, whereas distinct species did not cross, or if they were induced to do so by man, the progeny manifested greater or lesser degrees of sterility. There were two especially famous botanists before Darwin. One was Kohlreuter, who between the years 1760 and 1766 performed the first series of systematic experiments in plant-crossing carried out in modern times. So thorough and well-recorded was his work that exactly the same results have been secured by those who have repeated his experiments since 1900. The other was Gartner, who is said to have performed between the years 1825 and 1850, experiments in cross-breeding plants "that have not been equalled by any modern worker" (2). These two men, after, their years of investigation, concluded emphatically that natural species composed of inter-breeding varieties exist, and that between distinct natural species some degree of sterility was a universal law of nature.

The view of men before Darwin's day regarding natural species is well stated by the evolutionist, de Vries: "At his (Darwin's) time it was universally assumed that species had been created as such, but that subspecies and varieties had been derived from them according to natural laws (10).

Denial  of  the  Existance  of  Natural  Species.—The believer in the Bible need not hesitate one moment to accept what is and has always been so obvious. Natural species most certainly do exist, and there is no real ground for thinking that they have not been and will not always exist as they are today. The lover of the Bible can expect, however, that not merely the constancy but even the existence of species will be denied or discredited by many evolutionists as a part of their efforts to discredit the Biblical doctrine of special creation.

The first denial of the existence of natural species was made by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species, published 1859. He taught that natural species, while they seem to exist, were but figments of men's imaginations and did not exist in reality. The reason he taught thus was because the blotting out of the idea of natural species was absolutely necessary to the successful propagation of his theory of evolution. This is apparent from the words of his close friend, Alfred Russel Wallace, written fifteen years after the publication of the Origin. "One of the greatest, perhaps we may say the greatest of all difficulties in the way of accepting the theory of evolution as the complete explanation of the origin of species has been the remarkable difference between varieties and species in respect of fertility when crossed. Generally speaking, it may be said that varieties of any species, however different they may be in external appearance, are perfectly fertile when crossed and their mongrel offspring are equally fertile when bred among themselves; while distinct species, on the other hand, however closely they may resemble each other externally, are usually infertile when crossed, and their hybrid offspring absolutely sterile" (17). 

To get rid of the conception of species which was accepted by scientists and others of his day was, therefore, in Darwin's opinion, absolutely necessary. Instead of definite species being in existence, organic life had to be in a state of flux with no specific distinctions whatever. Darwin eagerly sought, therefore, both in the Origin and his later volumes, Plants and Animals under Domestication, to blot out the idea of natural species. And the substance of his argument for doing so was that species do not exist because there is not always the same degree of sterility between them. He said. "Why has the production of hybrids been permitted (by the Creator)? To grant to species the special power of producing hybrids, and then stop their further propagation by different degrees of sterility . . . seems a strange arrangement."

Equal Degrees of Sterility Between Species Not Essential to Their Eistence.—To the question Darwin asks it may well be replied, "Why should the production of hybrids not be permitted?" Because a thing happens to be a "strange arrangement" to Darwin does not mean there is not a very excellent and wonderful reason for just that arrangement. Darwin evidently thought the Lord would have done better if He had consulted him on some matters. Alas! He did not, and therefore we find natural species separated by different degrees of sterility.

This arrangement, however, which we know exists, furnishes a hollow argument for, the non-existence of natural species. For the existence and perpetuation of species some degree of sterility partial or total is of course, necessary. Unless some sterility between species had been caused to exist  interbreeding between the various "kinds" would have taken place in such a way that utter chaos and disoder would now have been the result. But all that was actually necessary, both for the existence and perpetuation of species was that between them there should be a sufficient degree of sterility to keep disorder and chaos out of the world and to keep  natural species   reproducing  "after  their kind." That such a degree  of  sterility  actually  exists  all who have eyes to see can see.

Outward  Appearance  Not a  Sure  Criterion  of  Natural Species.—Doubtless there are many tests which are yet to be discovered by which natural species may be distinguished. One present test is outward form. Members of the same species look alike. Beneath a varying outward appearance the different varieties of a species, have, anunderlying similarity which usually enables men to decide which forms belong to a species and which do not. Outward form, however, while it is of much assistance in determining what is a natural species and what is not, is by itself an insufficient test for the reason that organisms which may look alike outwardly are very often very different germinally (i. e. in the constitution of the gametes or "marrying cells"). For example, there are many varieties of the ass, which are all readily cross fertile with one another. There are also many varieties of the horse, which are all readily cross fertile with one another. One variety of the ass group looks considerably like the Prevalski breed of horse. The Prevalski horse, however, and the ass are so different germinally that the offspring of a cross, the mule, is sterile. It has likewise been discovered that horses have 19 chromosomes in their gametes, while asses have 32 (13). On the other hand, two breeds of horses, a great Clydesdale and a slim racing Thoroughbred look so different that it would be easy to class them as different natural species. Yet they have an identical constitution of gametes. Appearances, therefore, are deceitful. Two moths, one called Euralia Wahlbergi and the other Euralia mima look so different that, on the basis of looks alone they would be classed as different species. Yet they are perfectly fertile when mated (15). On the other hand there are two distinct groups of fertile, interbreeding fruit-flies. Drosophila Melanogaster and Drosophila Simulans. which look much alike when not examined closely. But these can be made to cross only with great difficulty and the hybrids are absolutely sterile (14). There are two barleys, one having six rows, the other having two rows of kernels. These are, therefore, on the basis of appearance likely to be classed as distinct species. These two barleys, however, cross readily and produce offspring according to Mendel's Law. What is called "teosinte." a variety of wild corn found in hot countries like Mexico, is called on the basis of appearance a species distinct from the natural species, corn, of which there are hundreds of interbreeding varieties differing in size, shape, color and other characteristics. But since teosinte and the corn varieties are perfectly interfertile there is no reason for putting teosinte in a natural species by itself. (5). Who would hastily think, merely by looking at them, that "cabbage" forms shown in Figure 2 are so readily interfertile as to constitute one natural species.

Sterility One Important Criterion of Species.—As already  indicated, one of the principal tests of species has to do with the phenomenon of sterility, and with the kind or character of the sterility even more than the degree. Professor D. F. Jones of Yale University says "One criterion that divides living organisms into natural groups is the barrier of sexual incompatibility. There can be no argument about the separate classification of a race that cannot unite with other organisms and produce fertile off-spring" (13)

Complete Sterility Between Species the Rule.—The animal and plant world is made up of thousands of groups of varieties 153 which are perfectly fertile with one another., but which are absolutely sterile toward members of all other groups. Cases, are reported of complete fertility between "distinct" species. This, say Babcock and Clausen, is "a comparatively rare condition" (1). Such reported cases arise from the fact that different varieties within species have been mistaken for distinct species purely on the basis of outward appearance. The general truth is just the opposite. Complete sterility between species is the rule, and any degree of fertility between them is the exception. How did this acknowledged condition come about? Here is a problem over which evolutionists have long pondered for a satisfactory explanation, but in vain.

Darwin in his day, and his followers today, however, make much of those comparatively few cases where the sterility between certain distinct species is not complete but partial. A few typical examples of such cases may be considered, and the reader left to decide for himself whether these cases weaken the idea of the existence of natural species or strengthen it.

Cases of Incomplete Sterility Between Distinct Species.
There are several hundred varieties of apples which have been
developed  by man,  and  all  these  are  perfectly  interfertile.  Apples will cross with no other species. Attempts have been made to cross the apple with the pear and the quince, but such attempts have  failed  utterly. There  are  many varieties of the species to which cabbage belongs, and these varieties are all so readily fertile with one another that it is hard to keep a cabbage field of one variety pure if it is near the field of another. Cabbages will not cross with the two species which are most similar, to them, turnip and rape. Yet a Russian named Krapechenko (1928) managed to get a cabbage pollen to fertilize a radish ovum (11). From this there came a plant monstrosity which grew and grew in the greenhouse, but was never able to produce a flower.  The germ cells

153 The number of varieties of domestic plant and animal species, is, in general, much greater than that of the species known only in the wild state, which are sometimes represented by but one or two varieties. The reason for this is that in the domesticated species the new varieties which have arisen have been sheltered from destruction by man and used for his benefit, whereas many of the new varieties which have arisen in the natural state have been unable to survive when they appeared. It is extremely probable that most wild species have the same capacity for producing varieties which our domestic species, e. g. horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep,  have  displayed.

of the two distinct species, cabbage and radish, were able to unite, and the different elements in the germ cells were elastic enough to adjust themselves to one another sufficiently well to produce a plant body, but were not able to adjust themselves well enough together to produce such delicate and vital structures as the flowers (see page 171).154 Strawberries and blackberries are species with many varieties of each. Luther Burbank succeeded in making a cross between a strawberry and a blackberry. A peculiar hybrid was produced. At first it grew exactly like a strawberry. Then it changed and grew like a raspberry. "But no seed was formed. The plants were as sterile as mules" (5). After "ten thousand tries" Burbank got a plant from a cross of a petunia with an ornamental nicotiana plant. The hybrid grew peculiarly, first like a nicotiana, and then like a petunia. The hybrid, however, was completely sterile (5). Wheat varieties, of which there are hundreds cannot be readily crossed with anything but wheat. However, this, for example, is reported. A man named Jesenko made several thousands of attempts to pollinate rye flowers with wheat pollen, but in vain. Then he tried to pollinate wheat flowers with rye pollen, and he managed to get seeds at the rate of six for each one thousand attempts. These seeds produced hybrid rye-wheat plants with flowers, but the plants were incapable by themselves of producing offspring. Jesenko continued his experiments by trying to cross the rye-wheat hybrid back with either parent form. When the hybrid was pollinated with wheat pollen three seeds were secured in 1,000 attempts, and when the hybrids were pollinated with rye pollen only one seed was secured in 4,800 attempts (13). What happened to these hybrid progeny will presently be explained.

Animals likewise shed rich light on the difficulties of sterility which arise when distinct species are crossed. Dogs and foxes will not cross at all, nor will the quite similar species, sheep and goats. The horse and the ass will cross, but the product, a mule, is sterile. The reason for the well known sterility of the mule has also been discovered. The germ cells of the horse have 19 chromosomes. The gametes of the ass have 32. In spite of this difference a union of the germ cells takes place and a new and useful individual is formed. But when growth and development of the new individual proceeds to the point where new germ cells are to be formed for reproduction, confusion and disorder take place within the germ cells and the mules are sterile. "When the hybrid mule forms its germ cells, the chromosomes do not pair or balance properly,  and the resulting cells are not able to survive" (16)

154 Cabbages, according to evolutionary theory, are closely related to the turnip and the rape. All three species are supposed to have evolved out of the same branch on the evolutionary tree, and are therefore classed in the same genus (Brassica). Radishes, because they are so different from the cabbage, rape, and turnip, are supposed to have come from a totally different branch of the evolutionary tree. Yet cabbage and radishes will form hybrids, while cabbages and their near relatives, rapes and turnips, will not. Surely here is a "strange arrangement." How would Darwin explain it? Radishes and cabbages each have the same number of chromosomes (9)   while rapes and  turnips do not.

The ass and the an ass-zebra hybrid, is sterile (13). American bison have been crossed with domestic cattle. The cross can occur only when the cattle is the male. The "cattalo," as the hybrid is sometimes called, is very hard to produce. The cross is described as "violent" and "dangerously severe" About two-thirds of the hybrids are born dead. The mothers of the hybrids themselves often die. Of the small number of hybrids that are produced alive very few are males, and these die-early. Only one male "cattalo" is ever known to have reached maturity, and it was as sterile as the mule. Females only usually reach maturity, and not many of these. Most of these females are sterile, but in some cases by crossing them with either domestic or bison bulls a few three-quarter hybrids have been produced. These hybrids are still inclined to be sterile. When the back-crossing of the hybrids with the one or the other parent species is kept up for a few generations, the sterility entirely disappears, as well as the physical characteristics of the other natural species, a phenomenon the importance of which will presently be called to the reader's attention (4).

From the above examples it is apparent that there is some inherent quality in the germ cells of different groups of both plants and animals of distinct species which enables them to unite and function normally and easily with the members of their own group, but which makes them unable to unite and function normally with members of the other groups.

Hybrids Between True Species Unstable Organisms Which Revert to Parent Species.—A highly significant light on the existence and permanence of natural species comes from the consideration of what happens when two distinct species are able to cross and produce, a few offsprings that are partially fertile. What happens is that the hybrids revert to one or the other natural species, and the intermediate forms no longer exist. The progeny of interspecific hybrids split into two groups, and these groups more or less gradually become identical with the original species which produced them, all the hybrids eventually ceasing to be. The split into groups may not come in the exact middle. In some cases the hybrid progeny form one group, like one or the other parent species, and go only in one direction, that is revert to just one or the other parent species. The final result, however, is always the same. The hybrids eventually cease to exist. Professors Babcock and Clausen say, "It has often been observed that the progenies of partially fertile hybrids run back to the parental condition" (1).

Reversion in Rye-Wheat Hybrids.—As an example of the reversion to natural species spoken of above may be taken the case of the cross between rye and wheat. The rye-wheat hybrid produced is a highly sterile plant. It is not able to reproduce itself. The cause of the sterility is the even balance of elements foreign to each other. The  only way any offspring from the rye-wheat hybrids can be produced is by back-crossing them with either rye or wheat, with the result that a limited number of plants are secured. However the hybrid offspring produced by such back-crossing are practically identical with the natural species with which the back-crossing is done. The hybrids crossed with wheat produce plants that are like wheat. The hybrids crossed with rye produce plants that are like rye. These plants, however are not all equally like the parent form with which the back-crossing is done: Some are more so than others. Plants produced by back-crossing the hybrids with rye are strikingly like rye, but some more so than others. Plants produced by back-crossing the hybrids with wheat are strikingly like wheat, only some are more so than others. And, what is important to note, the plants most like the parent species with which the back-crossing is done are most fertile, while the plants least like the parent species with which the back-crossing is done are most sterile. Furthermore the hybrid progeny which are most like wheat are fertile toward wheat and sterile toward rye, and the hybrid progeny most like rye are fertile toward rye and sterile toward wheat. The sterile plants, because of their sterility, die out. The fertile plants, because of their fertility, live on. and each succeeding generation becomes more and more like the species they are closest to. The final result is that the hybrids return to the natural species out of which they sprang  (13).

Reversion in Cattle-Bison Hybrids.—We have already re-ferred to the production of the hybrids between domestic cattle and bison and the difficulties of the cross. The male hybrids are invariably sterile: the females partially fertile. Since no males are fertile, back-crossing must be done with either domestic or bison males. But when this takes place, the hybrids show a great tendency to reversion even after but one cross, while in two back-crosses the reversion is practically complete. Mossom Boyd, a wealthy cattleman who performed long experiments in crossing bison and domestic cattle in hopes of producing a hardier type of beef-cattle for the western ranges, says, "An ordinary observer might mistake the three-quarter buffalo (the product of a cattle-bison hybrid back-crossed with a bison) for a bison; he would scarcely distinguish the one-quarter buffalo (the product of a cattle-bison hybrid back-crossed with a domestic male) from domestic cattle, except for the finer quality of hair. The one-eighth, buffaloes he would not distinguish at all from domestic cattle" (4). It was this instability in cattle-bison hybrids and their tendency to reversion which caused W. F. Hornaday, Director, of the New York Zoological Gardens, to say in 1904, "Interesting as have been the experiments made by Mr. C. J. Jones and others in the cross-breeding of buffaloes (bison) and domestic cattle, it is now quite time that all such experiments should cease. It has been proven conclusively that it is impossible to introduce and maintain a tangible strain of buffalo blood into the mass of western range cattle"(12).

Reversion in Wild Cavy-Guinea Pig Hybrids.—From 1909 to 1914 Frolessor Detletsen of Illinois University carried on a series of experiments in the crossing of the common guinea-pig with a species of wild rodents from Brazil, which illustrates well the phenomena of reversion in species crosses. The wild Brazilian cavy is somewhat like the guinea-pig, but has certain differences in physical characteristics and is only half as large. The two species were crossed with difficulty because of their instinctive aversion for one another, similar to the natural aversion of the two species, cattle and bison. It is certain that the species we are discussing would never mate in nature, so great is their distaste for one another. As in the case of the cattle-bison hybrids, the male hybrids of this cavy-guinea pig cross were sterile. The female hybrids were fertile. A back-cross was made between a female hybrid and a wild cavy. All the offspring of this cross were sterile, so such back-crossing with cavies was discontinued. The hybrids were then crossed with guinea-pig males. The three-quarter male offspring produced by this crossing were still all sterile, the female offspring fertile. These three-quarter hybrid females were again back-crossed with the guinea pigs, and in this generation a few of the male offspring produced were fertile, although most of them were still sterile. The females, of course, were fertile. By continued back-crossing with guinea pigs the male offspring gradually returned to normal fertility. By that time, however, all trace of any physical characteristics of the Brazilian cavy had long disappeared. In fact after only two back-crosses with guinea pigs the hybrids were indistinguishable from normal guinea pigs in size, skeletal shape, and coat colors  (9).

Further interesting light on the instability of interspecific hybrids and their reversion to either species entering into a cross comes from the consideration of what happens when two distinct species are able to cross and produce offspring without recourse to back-crossing with either parent species. Such cases are rare and are known only in plants, but when they occur they furnish more evidence of the fact that hybrids between natural species are not stable organisms and eventually revert to one or the other species in the cross.

Reversion in Rustica and Pantctttata.—As an example of such reversion may be taken the case of the hybrids produced by crossing the two species of ornamental plans technically known as Nicotiana Rustica and N. Naniculata. The experiment about to be described was performed and recorded by Prof. E. M. East of Harvard University. When N. Rustica and N. Paniculata were crossed, almost complete sterility was observed. About one seed was produced where normally there should have been a hundred. These seeds produced plants on which, by careful hand pollination, a few shriveled seeds were formed. Many of these shriveled seeds were sterile, but a few germinated and produced plants. By hard work 246 such second-generation, hybrid plants were secured. But a noteworthy condition among these plants was evident. They were divided into two groups, one group resembling one natural species, the other group the other. One group resembled Rustica. The other closely resembled Paniculata. Plants midway in form between the two—resembling both at once as the original hybrids did—-were missing. They had been eliminated. In his experiments East continued to raise the plants of these two groups, without letting them be crossed back with either parent species. The result was that in subsequent generations the plants of the Paniculata group by their own actions became identical with the original Paniculata species, and became fully fertile again, while the plants of the Rustica group in subsequent generations by their own actions became identical with the Rustica species and became fully fertile again (1).

The example of the reversion to species in the case of the rye-wheat cross given above is described by Jones, and at the close of his description he says, "For this reason it is to be expected that wide crosses (i. e. between distinct species) will tend to revert to either parent" (13). The example of the reversion of the Paniculata-Rustica hybrids is described by Professors Babcock and Clausen (1), and at the close of their description of this reversion to species, together with the account of a similar case of reversion in a cross between the two species, emmer and spelt, they say, "In both the hybrids discussed above, there is an illustration of an observation made repeatedly in species hybridization, namely, that the descendants eventually revert to the parental condition." Elsewhere these men also say regarding the phenomenon of reversion in experiments in which common tobacco plants were crossed with other natural species, "This phenomenon of complete return to the parental condition is all the more striking when different varieties of Tabacum (tobacco) are employed in the original hybridization"  (1).

In 1914 Luther Burbank, an ardent evolutionist, claimed to have succeeded in making a hybrid between the plum and the apricot which he called "plum-cot." He boasted at the time that he had, broken down a supposed Divine law that distinct species should not permanently be hybridized, and claimed that he had in the "plum-cot" created a permanent new form. The present writer has carefully investigated this case and finds that those who are well acquainted with the hybrid say it is now apparently nothing but a plum. In a letter to the Hon. John M. Nelson, Congressman from Wisconsin. John T. Bregger, successor to BURBANK as manager of the "Luther Burbank Experimental Farms," says, "The plum-cot tree looks very much like the plum. The fruit, however is in color like the plum, but has a short fuzz like an apricot. It is inclined to be somewhat acid in flavor, but very juicy and some of them very palatable." In a letter to the present writer Prof. W. H. Chandler, head of the Department of Pomology of the University of California says, "All plum-cots that I have seen seem to me to be merely plums." And in  another letter Professor Guy L. Philp,  Assistant Pomologist at the same university, says, "We have growing on the station grounds five or six so-called plum-cots. Of this number most of the varieties show no character other than the Japanese plum." When, together with these statements, it is realized that this hybrid, because it is a tree and therefore matures slowly, has had the opportunity to pass through but two or three generations at the most, and reversion to species has not had full opportunity to take place, it can be said that the evidence points strongly to the ultimate reversion of this hybrid, if this has not already taken place.

According to the mass of evidence, permanent hybrids between distinct natural specie's do not persist. They are unstable and tend to revert. Cases in plant species of what are perhaps actual cases of stable interspecific hybrids have been reported. These abnormal plants are usually kept in greenhouses where, under protected conditions, they are not subject to the rigors and changes of conditions, to which plants in the open are subjected. It is known that certain species of plants can hybridize only when grown very slowly—that is when the temperature is kept cool and the rate of growth of the plant is retarded. Slow growth gives the contrary elements in the hybrid time to adjust themselves to one another. But under rigorous natural conditions where there are sudden changes in temperature and moisture it is more than likely that the interspecific hybrid could not survive. The only hybrids that are permanent unions between different types are those between varieties within species. These should not properly be called hybrids, since the word hybrid implies a violation of nature.

Intervarietal Sterility Different from Interspecific Sterility—-before leaving the discussion of sterility between species, a word should be said about sterility within species, i. e. between varieties. Sterility sometimes exists between members of the same species. This may be due to individual cases of disease. It may be due to a difference in size, e. g. as between a poodle and a mastiff. Certain plants of the same species, e. g. two varieties of the four-o'clock, can not be crossed when one variety of the species is used as the male, because the pollen tubes of that variety are not long enough or not able to grow fast enough to penetrate down to the ovules of the other, but can be crossed when the other variety is the male (16). These causes of intervarietal sterility, however, are purely mechanical or temporary. They are not due to a difference in the germ cells themselves. The germ cells within a species are identical, having the same number, order, and character of chromosomes, and when whatever obstacles to the union of germ cells of organisms within species there may be are removed, the germ cells readily unite to produce a new plant or animal with normal powers of growth and reproduction. The germ cells of distinct species, however, are fundamentally different, and no amount of human ingenuity can remove that difference, so as to enable the germ cells to unite and function normally in the production of a new in individual and future generations. Herein lies the great difference between species and varieties in respect of sterility. And to this great difference bear witness the statements of Babcock and Clausen, "A different type of sterility is represented in species hybrid. The sterility of species hybrid is in quite a different category from that of the sterility occurring within species" (1).

Obedience to Mendel's Laws Another Important Test of Species—There is another criterion for determining what forms belong to a natural species and what do not. It is a criterion of the very greatest importance and was one totally unknown in the days when Darwin sought to discredit the idea of natural species. The test is based on the facts of Mendelian heredity. It is: Do the generations of offspring of a cross between different forms show strict obedience to Mendel's Laws or not? If they do, the forms are varieties. If they do not, they are distinct species.

As is well known, all the varieties of a species, e.g. all the varieties of the species of fruit-flies, Drosophila Melanogaster, cross-breed readily and follow Mendel's laws of heredity. Within species the various forms are due to certain factory in the germ cells of the members of the species, and these factors segregate and unite according to a definite orderly law. When distinct species are crossed, however, and a few hybrids can be produced which are able to bring forth a few progeny, orderliness disappears and chaos results. The laws of heredity, when two of the same species are crossed and a new individual produced, may be likened to the manner in which a new watch works, which has been made by combining the parts of two watches of exactly the same make. The parts fit perfectly together and work in such harmony that no trouble is experienced. The laws of heredity, when two of different species are crossed, is like the workings of a new watch made by combining the parts of two watches produced by different manufacturers. If the parts can be combined, the watch either will not go at all, or if it goes, does so imperfectly and eventually breaks down. The fault in this illustration, of course, lies in the fact that a watch is made of material which cannot adjust itself when its forms do not fit, whereas a plant or animal is composed of living tissues which are able, within limits, to make adjustments.

The great difference in this respect between varieties and species is described by the well-known evolutionist and student of heredity, Prof. Castle of Harvard, who says, "But in crosses between different species, which do not ordinarily cross under natural conditions, the inheritance is not typically Mendelian, being complicated by blending effect in F 1 (first filial generation), imperfect segregation in F 2 (second filial generation), partial sterility and abnormal sex ratios, things of frequent occurrence in species crosses, as we shall see" (6). 

And of significance in this same connection is the statement by Babcock and Clausen that crosses between distinct species "exhibit phenomena which do not conform, without marked modifications, to the laws which govern variation and heredity within a species" (1). Consequently we find these last mentioned students of heredity giving a definition of species which marks a definite return to the conception of species held by the old creationists before Darwin's day: "A species, whether wild or domesticated, consists of an assemblage of forms which interbreed freely and produce fertile hybrids conforming to Mendel's laws" (1). They add, "In the majority of instances there is no difficulty in grouping individuals into assemblages of this character."

Return to the Old Conception of SPECIES.—Through the influence of Darwin, discredit was cast upon the Biblical conception of natural species held by the old scientists, Ray, DeCan-doll e, Quatrefages and others, and the fact of species was almost entirely ignored in evolutionary discussions. With the rediscovery of Mendelism in 1900, however, the concept of species Darwin had discredited began to come back. In 1913 Batesonf then the leader in the investigation of  Mendelian  principles  of  heredity, said, "With the spread of evolutionary ideas, to speak much of the fixidity of species has become unfashionable, and yet how striking and inscrutable are the manifestations of that fixidity") (3). Again he said, "In the enthusiasm with which evolutionary ideas were received, the specificity of living things was almost forgotten . . . and the scientific world persuaded itself readily that species had, after all, been a mere figment of the human mind. Without presuming to declare what future research only can reveal, I anticipate that, when variation has been properly examined and the several kinds of variability have been successfully distinguished according to their respective natures, the result will render the natural definiteness of species increasingly apparent" (3). 

In 1914 another voice was raised against the practice of ignoring the existence of natural species. Writing in the Journal of Heredity on "The Existence of Natural Species," Dr. O. T. Cook of the Bureau of Plant Breeding, United States Department of Agriculture, said, "That all the plants and animals are organized into species is a fundamental fact of biology … The  species  underlie  all … Of course  these  complexities of specific organization and sexuality are very unwelcome ideas to those who are about to solve the problems of evolution and heredity by simple experimental and statistical methods, but no truly biological investigation can disregard the fundamental fact that organisms exist as species" (7). In a paper read in 1926 at a joint discussion of the Botany and Zoology Sections of the British Association for the Advancement of Science on the theme "The Conception of a Species" we find these statements, "A species is a group of individuals of common descent with certain characteristics in common, which are represented in the nucleus of each cell by constant and characteristic sets of chromosomes. Two thousand eight hundred and forty-five species, including all the Phyla, so far examined, show remarkable constancy in their specific sets of chromosomes." (18).

New Species Not Arising.—Evolutionists talk about the origin of "species"—that is, of the origin of new organisms as a whole. The "origin of species" is considered by them to be their problem. We think their tasks should take another form namely, to account for the non-miraculous origin not of new, fully equipped and completely functioning individuals, but of the various parts that make up the individual, e. g. lungs, heart, eyes, germ-cells. Even so, evolutionists can not account for the origin of new species, for the reason that, although new varieties of natural species are continually being produced by crossing (see Appendix II), none of these new varieties ever is a new species, separated from its parent forms by a wall of sterility. To be a new species, a variety of a natural species would have to be separated from the species in which it arose by a wall of sterility similar to that which now separates natural species from one another. For example, if a new species were ever to arise out of the dog species, a number of puppies would have to be born that would not be able to cross back with other dogs and yet would be able to cross with each other. Such puppies would then be a new species. This is the way evolutionists say evolution has taken place. The trouble for them is that such puppies or varieties in natural species, either of plants or of animals, are not arising. Now and then some enthusiastic evolutionist reports that such offspring have arisen, but further investigation invariably reveals that the report is erroneous. Bateson said in 1922, "The production of an indubitably sterile hybrid from completely fertile parents, which have arisen under critical observation from a single common origin is the event for which we wait. Until this event is witnessed, our knowledge of evolution is incomplete in a vital respect. From time to time a record of such an observation is published, but none has yet survived criticism" (3). 

The writer was much interested in a case which seemed partially to fulfill the requirements which Bateson laid down. It was first reported by Prof. H. H. Plough of Amherst College in 1924. A race of fruit-flies was produced by him whose individuals were more fertile inter se than with the parent stock. It was hoped by Morgan and others that the sterility toward the parent stock which seemed to have begun in these flies would increase until it was complete. Plough announced that investigation of the case was being continued. In 1929, wishing to learn what had happened to the flies, the writer corresponded with Prof. Plough, who replied in part as follows: "I may say that much of the significance which this case appeared to have for the theory of evolution has probably disappeared, for it has become increasingly clear that the particular stock is not infertile with the wild stock, although it is with many mutant combinations. It has obviously changed in this relation in the past four years—i. e. with selection it has itself become more fertile when inbred, and in so doing seems to have lost its intolerance for the wild (i. e. parent stock) and partially for some others. This is the exact reverse of what one would expect from the situation, and quite  destroys  its  value  for the  evolutionary theory." 

Plough's results are typical of all similar cases with other species, and there have been a number which at first looked promising. Returning to England after making the now famous address before the American Association, Bateson found himself attacked by his fellow evolutionists for making statements damaging to the cause of evolution. Bateson, however, did not retreat. He said. "I directed once more the attention of naturalists to the fact that we still await the production of indubitably sterile hybrids from completely fertile parents which have arisen under critical observation from a single origin. So far as our knowledge goes, all the domestic races, for example of dogs, of pigeons, of fowls, among animals; and of cabbage, of peas, of Primula Sinensis and many more plants—when inter-crossed among themselves—never produce this sterility in their mongrels, though the races are often distinct enough to pass for species. But if we begin crossing natural species, even those which on our reckoning must be very closely allied, we constantly find either that they will not cross breed, or that if they can be crossed the results are more or less sterile" (3).

The well-known American evolutionist, Morgan, speaking of Bateson's requirements for proof of the origin of new species, says that he questions the necessity of putting the theory of evolution to the test Bateson called for. Such a test, Morgan thinks, would render the demonstration of the origin of species "well-nigh impossible," since it is very unlikely, he thinks, that such a wall of sterility between varieties could arise all at once. Morgan thinks it best to explain the raising up of this wall of sterility between varieties, so as to separate them into distinct species, as the result of the long separation of these varieties, geographically or otherwise. Foxes and dogs, on Morgan's theory, were once simple varieties of one ancient species, just as the fox-terrier and the poodle are now. But dogs and foxes got separated somehow in the ancient days and stayed separated so long that they became the two distinct species which they are today, completely separated by a wall of sterility. Morgan says, "The interpretation of the sterility between species and the sterility of hybrids that seems to me more probable is very different from that suggested by Bateson. Both phenomena, as I interpret them, are the result of many kinds of difference which have arisen in the two species that have been separated for a long time"  (14).

Morgan's theory of the origin of new species is pure speculation, and is contrary to whatever evidence bearing on that matter there is. Separation has caused no sterility between varieties of natural species in any known case. Varieties of plants and animals brought from Europe to America soon after its discovery are as perfectly fertile with the European forms when brought back and crossed as they could possibly be. Native domestic cattle of India and of Europe, having been separated for thousands of years, are perfectly fertile today when crossed. In the human species Europeans and American Indians and races of the Far East have no greater difficulty in producing normal children when intermarriage takes place than do those people who live in neighboring villages in the same land, although Europeans, Indians and Polynesians have been separated for thousands of years, living all the while in different climates, engaging in different occupations, eating different foods. Morgan doubtless would say that thousands of years are not long enough for sterility to arise. Millions of years are required. This, however, must be recognized as pure speculation, and is of no interest to one who desires concrete proof of the "origin of species" instead of possibilities which rest on faith. Bateson answered Morgan in advance when he said that "even time can not complete that which has not yet begun"  (3).


Reference has already been made (see page 161) to a cross between a cabbage and a radish, which was said to have produced a hybrid plant which grew and grew, but would not produce flowers or seeds. Such was the case for several years. The hybrid could produce no flowers. It was kept alive only by "vegetative reproduction," that is, by cutting off branches from the plant and rooting them. Finally flowers did appear and produced seeds, and when the seeds were planted they brought forth plants like the hybrid itself, and these plants continued to breed true to form. This the evolutionists called "the creation of new species." But it is not the creation of new species in any real sense, for it is nothing but the making of one out of two, or the combination of old material which already existed to form something else. Furthermore, Krapechenko's radish-cabbage hybrid did not persist but reverted or perished, as all other intergeneric hybrids do in time (21)   (22).

In 1937 a way was discovered by biologists to cause radish-cabbage hybrids, and other similar hybrids from wide crosses, to reproduce themselves and persist temporarily more quickly than was done in the Russian experiment. This is by the use of a chemical called "colocine," which has the power to cause growing plants to double their ordinary chromosome number. Other chemical agents and artificial ways have been found which will accomplish the same thing, though not as well as with colocine (19). In connection with the discovery of the use of colocine it has been learned what is necessary within a sterile, inter-specific hybrid to make it reproduce itself. That is a doubling of the ordinary chromosome number. This is a condition in reproduction which is artificial—since ordinary reproduction (such as between varieties within species) does not require any such doubling of the chromosomes.

Evolutionists have many unsolved problems which they must explain before they can expect men to give up their faith in creation and in Divine revelation, and not the least of these unsolved problems is the reason why, from purely natural causes, there have come to be what so clearly are natural species, i. e. groups of plants and animals composed of varieties freely interbreeding according to Mendel's Laws and separated by walls of various degrees of sterility from other   groups of plants and animals. 

Darwin sought by "natural selection" to account for the non-miraculous origin of the present world of plants and animals, and he sought by "natural selection" to account for the phenomenon of sterility between species. He was unable to do so. He said, "At one time it appeared to me probable that the sterility of first crosses and of hybrids might have been slowly acquired through natural selection of slightly lessened degrees of fertility . . . After mature reflection, it seems to me that this could not have been effected through natural selection" (8). 

No evolutionist has been more successful than Darwin in accounting for the sterility which separates species, and no evolutionist has begun to account for the wonderful phenomena of heredity within species known as Mendel's Laws. When Bateson truthfully said in 1922, "That particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious" (3), it can be seen what a tremendous task lies ahead of those who wish to supplant the doctrine of special creation with the doctrine of evolution. When the evolutionists have explained "the origin and nature of species" their theory will be worthy of consideration by creationists. Until then creationists will cling to the doctrine of the special creation of each separate species or "kind."


1. Babcock, E. B., and Clausen, R. E., Genetics in Relation to Agriculture, 1927, pages 314; 326; 319; 319-324; 591; 305.

2. Bailey, L. H., and Gilbert, A. W., Plant Breeding, 1917, page 111.

3. Bateson, W., Problems of Genetics, 1913, pages 16, 21; Smithsonian Institute Report, 1915, page 376; Science, Jan. 20, 1922; Nature, July 15, 1922.

4. Boyd, M., Journal of Heredity, Vol.  5,  1914,  pages  189-198.

5. Burbank, L., His Methods and Discoveries, 1914. Vol. 8, page 11; Vol.' 2, pages 63-93; Vol. 4, page 160; Vol. 7, page 63; Vol. 4, page 138; Vol. 2, page 295; Vol. 2, page 275.

6. Castle, W. E., Genetics and Eugenics, 1926, page 199.

7. Cook,  O. T., Journal of Heredity, Vol. 5, 1914, pages 155-8.

8. Darwin, C, Origin of Species, 6th ed., page 292.

9. Detlefsen, J. A., Genetic Studies on Cavy Species Cross, 1914.

10. De Vries, H., Plant and Animal Breeding, 1907, page 1.

11. Gravatt, F. A., Journal of Heredity, Vol. 5, 1914, pages 269-272.

12. Hornaday, W. T., The American Natural History, 1904, page 103.

13. Jones, D. F., Selective Fertilisation, 1928, p. 97; Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement, 1925, pages 112; 385; 382; 384; 386-7; 385.

14. Morgan, T. H.,  The Genetics of Drosophila, 1925, page
Evolution and Genetics, 1925, page 46; 53.

15. Punnett, R., Mendelism, 6th ed., 1922, page 182; 183.

16. Sinnott, E. W., and Dunn, L. C, Principles of Genetics, pages 113-114.

17. Wallace, A. R., Darwinism, 1890, page 152.

18. Hurst, C. C, Report for the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford), 1926, page 356; Science March 18, 1928.

19. Riley, H. P., Genetics and Cytogenetics, 1948.

20. Huxley, Julian, A Modern Synthesis, 1943.

21. Howard, H. W., Journal of Genetics, Vol. 16, 1937.

22. Richharia, R. H., Journal of Genetics, Vol. 39, 1937.






Keith Hunt