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

...is based on known facts, but rather on tradition called history. It is offered as an argument that because the Britons ancient inhabitants of Great Britain before the Roman conquest were slaves and savages two thousand years ago, certain people who are savages now will become our equals in that same amount of time.

However, this whole premise is absurd, as you cannot prove the fact except through the flimsiest traditional evidence. We were told that "natural selection" operates through external causes; now we are told of an "inherent power." This is surely incorrect. There must be a mistake here, because the principle of selection relies on external circumstances. I would, therefore, expect Mr. Wallace, for the sake of his argument, to withdraw the phrase "inherent power."

Regarding the idea of man lacking the faculty of speech, I thought speech was man’s defining characteristic. Professor Huxley, following Cuvier Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), a French naturalist and zoologist, says as much. Furthermore, we are told that man can nullify the power of natural selection. If man can do that, then natural selection must be quite a weak force. If man—insignificant man, even civilized man—has the power to override this so-called law of natural selection, then it must be a very feeble law indeed.

At the same time, I have nothing against the law of natural selection as a hypothesis. It stands on its own merits as a purely philosophical speculation, but it is not a part of inductive science science based on drawing general conclusions from specific observations and evidence. We should always maintain a clear distinction there. I place the Darwinian hypothesis in the same category as any other hypothesis that can be brought against it on the same subject. Neither is more acceptable than the other; it is simply a matter of which one can be proven.

However, in all these matters, we enjoy a bit of poetic license, and I must admit I listened with some pleasure to the beautiful "dream" the author presented at the conclusion of his paper. Although he did not satisfy me with scientific facts, he thoroughly entertained me with his vision of humanity's future destiny. Yet, the strange part of his argument was that man's physical appearance would always remain the same. I do not agree with that, and I believe it is a mistake.

He suggests that the human mind will advance and improve without any corresponding development of the brain. He claims all other traits will remain, but that no individual will be inferior to the current highest races. Well, that is a comforting thought for the "lower" races; they will cease to exist, in any case. Mr. Wallace then stated that we will all eventually be equal, though that seems a long way off. He also suggests that government will become unnecessary. I admit, that would be a great blessing.

Passions will either cease to exist or be managed temperately, perfectly aligned with man's physical structure. And all of this is supposed to happen with the exact same brain organization we have now. I suppose the laws of natural selection are meant to entirely change the functions of the brain and the nature of man, even while his physical characteristics remain unchanged.

For the sake of his own reputation, I hope the author will withdraw this entire "dream" and not conflate these two subjects. As students of science, we must object to this kind of dreaming because it is not based on evidence. Some members of this society are accused of offering speculations, but none have yet presented anything even a thousandth part