The Press. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1909. LIFE AND ITS BEGINNING.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13597, 4 December 1909, Page 8

The Press. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1909. LIFE AND ITS BEGINNING.

The origin of Life is a problem of perennial interest to the biologist. Scientists may be divided into two camps, according to their attitude on this question. On the one hand we have those -who consider life a mechanism, and believe that the problem of it* origin will be solver] when we have explained the structure of some 6imple organism in the terms of matter and motion. On the other hand, there are other workers who believe that no such simple explanation is possible of the phenomenon of life. Recent -writings show that both schools are still actively engaged in expressing their opinions about the tubject. As a general rule the practical worker at anatomy or physiology is convinced that with scalpel, test-tube, and microscope, he will sooner or later lay bare the secret of life. On the other hand the biologist who deals with the broader and more speculative sides of his subject, usually considers that no matter how complete the analysis of the phenomena of life may be made from' the mechanical point of view, there will still he left out of consideration a more or less unknown vital force. The two 6chools of thought may therefore be termed the mechanical and the vitalistic.

Let us take an example of the statements of each in illustration of its views. A recent writer in "Science Progress" tells us that there is much more mystery in the evolution of man from the amoeba, than of the emceba from the dust of the earth. Perhaps his views may sound more convincing if put into his own. language. "It is " true," he says, "that no one has yet " been able to produce- life from ammo '• acids, any more, for example, than " a few years ago anyone was eble to "devise a machine and fly through the " air like a bird. There was no very " great mystery about aviation, though " the practical difficulties seemed in- " superable. In the same way, to thoee, ' ' who have followed the splendid de- " velopment of bio-chemistry within the " last five or ten years, and especially " within the last one or two ■ years, " there is no very great mystery about "the chemical nature of life. There ie " infinitely greater mystery in the evo- " lution of a sentient being, a Newton, "a Wagner, from an amoeba or it* " prototype, than in the process by " which the phospborised protein or " granular substance of the cell " nucleus becomes capable of auto syn- " thesis—that is to say, in the only de- " cisive sense of the word, alive.' . It it clear that to this optimistic biologist there will soon be left little of interest in the problem.

On the other band, a botanist of standing, writing about the same time, tolls us, "We have advanced consider- " ably in on? knowledge of the various " methods by which we can stain or "harden this protoplasm; we are be- " ginning to suspect that the complex- " ity of ite atoms (if it has an atom) " is almost beyond our comprehension; "we know crudely, what it*will do "when given certain solutions, under " various temperatures, under an "electric shock, and "at vari"ous atmospheric pressures; modern " microscopes have aleo revealed an extraordinary amount of detail in its " apparent structure, but as to what it "is, how it lives, dies, and reproduces " itself, we are still in a state of hopeless ignorance. The minute speck of " living slime (i.e. the ammba) defies "our analysis; it does things of itself, " and it certainly does them on pur- " pose." How are we to reconcile these conflicting statements; or are they to be reconciled at all ? Iβ the second writer merely ignorant or the first presumptuous? To us it seems thai the antinomy is only to be solved, like most antinomies, by approaching the question from another and a higher point of view. It is true, as the first writer tells us, that immense advances have been made in recent years in our knowledge of the chemistry of protoplasm. The chief component of protoplasm is protein; and it has been recently shown by Emil Fischer that the proteins are made up of ammo acids. These in turn are suitable compounds built up of carbohydrates, such as sugar, starch, etc., united in different ways with the radicle ammonia. Sugar may be regarded, in turn, as being formed from carbon and water. Thus it appears as if the longhidden secret of the chemical nature of protoplasm were solved, or at least upon the verge of solution. The second writer quoted was probably unaware of these recent advances in our knowledge of the chemistry of protoplasm—and in this respect ignorant*

But granting that we may soon be ablo to make protoplasm in a test-tube, our next question is, Will the jelly thus formed be alive? The first writer quoted (Karl Snyder) evidently thinks that it will be so, that it will be able to attract to itself from the nutrient particles around it the necessary materials for its £rowfch ("auto-syn-thesis") ; that when the body has grown too complex and unwieldy it will, as a result of its own instability, break up and divide in accordance with mechanical laws, and tlms reproduce itself; in other words, that it will perform all the functions of life. In this opinion Snyder its, perhaps, too hopeful. Though it cannot be denied that in many places the gap between the living and nonliving has been almost bridged, yet in other places it is ever widening. Biitechli's foam plasms have shown us that non-living organisms may spontaneously exhibit the curious streaming movements of the amoeba. It has been proved by others that metals show symptoms of fatigue and poisoning ; and in other reepects the behaviour of the nonliving displays unexpected resemblances to the living. On the other hand the vast increase in our knowledge of the complexity of the structure of the cell, and the ever-broadening survey of the factors of evolution, have differentiated more widely the living from the non-living, co that though they seem to approach more nearly in many directions than at one time they appeared to do, yet, as already has been stated } in other ways they seem to be further apart than ever.

Granting, however, that the somewhat wild hopes of the bio-chemist are realised, and that in a few years' time he finds himself able to make living protoplasm in a test-tube, will he then be able to say that he has solved the problem of life? If the question is interpreted in a certain narrow sense the answer to it is undoubtedly ''Yes/ but if more broadly and truly interpreted, tho answer is as certainly "No." The explanation will show what is the chemical composition of certain minute organisms, it will explain why they move, grow, and divide; but it will not explain and cannot possibly in ony sense account for the rudimentary sentiency such organisms exhibit. We believe that no mechanical explanation will ever succeed in doing this. If not even the psychic life of tho microorganism is susceptible of any phyeicomechanical interpretation, much less is the mind that can scale the highest heights of mathematics or create a great symphony or fugue to be explained merely as a product of matter and motion. The vitelistic hypothesis, however crude and ilWefined it still may be, probably contains a more profound truth than the most elaborate and well-thought-out mechanicalistic theory. It is true that we may be driven back to Clifford's belief that the atom contains the promise and potency of all life, but the association of mind with matter will still remain one of the deepest of all mysteries.