The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from Natural Selection

...the appeal made tonight to our imaginations. I must say that the opposing side has been just as imaginative. Mr. Burke, for instance, declares the idea to be impossible—a statement that is, of course, equally absurd. Assertions from either side count for nothing. Furthermore, the author of the paper tells us that man must have existed for a very long time—the author suggests ten million years. Well, we have no objection to that; any amount of time is available to any speculative philosopher.

The author then brings a charge against anthropologists—claiming that they only look at the portion of the truth that supports their side and insist on focusing on the errors of the other side. I don't believe such a statement is fair to anthropologists, ethnologists, and ethnographers. On the contrary, I believe there are many living anthropologists who are at least as capable of examining all the facts as any disciple of Darwin. I believe there are men in Europe who do not simply look at facts that favor their own views, but who look at the evidence as a whole, examine it fairly, and try to interpret the truth through a careful study of all the evidence.

We are told that the Portuguese and Spanish people keep their characteristics in South America. That is an assertion that should have some evidence to support it. We are also told that Jews everywhere remain the same. I believe this is an argument that Mr. Wallace attributes to a polygenist someone who believes that human races have different origins rather than a single common ancestor.

Mr. Wallace: Alike in features.

The President: If they are alike in facial features, they will be alike in other characteristics. This is no evidence at all. I am well aware that there is no change in craniological relating to the scientific study of the shape and size of the skulls of different human races development and height, and that a mere change in skin color is only temporary.

Mr. Bollaert: They lose their prolific character their ability to produce many offspring.

The President: Yes, when moved to climates that do not suit them; just as you cannot successfully establish a European race in India. Then he tells us that the best of the argument supports the principle of the diversity of the human race; no doubt the polygenists will be glad to hear they have the best of the argument.

Now, Mr. Wallace very frankly admits—contrary to some of Mr. Darwin's recent followers—that man differs very little from the ape in physical structure. I believe some of his disciples now claim there is a very great difference, and that a Neanderthal skull the first Neanderthal fossils had been discovered in 1856, only eight years before this debate, and were a major point of contention regarding human evolution only slightly resembles an ape. It is pleasant to find at least one Darwinite a follower of Charles Darwin's theories who is true to his principles and not frightened away from them by public outcry.

Then he tells us that a hardier and more prolific race will be developed—a very provident farsighted or prudent race as well. I do not know, by the way, the physical characteristics of a "provident" race. I would be glad to know how this provident race is supposed to be produced?

Then we have the statement that the Mexican government came from the north; but that is open to debate, like all the other statements. Again, there is another assertion: that the ancient Britons were in a savage state at the time of Julius Caesar. Is that really a fact? Does it have any but the barest traditional historical evidence as a foundation? It is not—