An Interesting Controversy

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXX, Issue 8683, 7 January 1905, Page 4 (Supplement)

An Interesting Controversy

(By Dr Andrew Wilson.)

In the pases of Nature for November 10 appeared a hishlv interesting oommuni- j cation from ChaTlton Bastian,_a; distinguished London physician, and a biologist'of hish repute. Dr Bastian dealt in" that letter with a topic which appears to possess a perennial vitality—to wit, the oricrin of life. He refers to what one miaht call the besinninir of life as represented to-day by the lowest forms of animals and " plants—groundlings, these, which mav fairlv be taken as representing life's beainninss" or at least its primitive developments "in the past of the earth. That this subject will always form one of extreme interest goes without saybg. We know our earth was once an incandescent orb, unfitted to serve as an abode of vital it v. We know it so far cooled down, developed the features of land, air, and water, and became adapted for the habitation of livins beings. Whence, it may be asked, did "the first and primeval germs of vitality originate? Let 11s mark that one© living germs or cells appeared, the difficulty of a beginning vanished away. Given the start, evolution did the rest. There is no philosophical or other difficulty in figuring forth liow. from simple living forms, more complex' beins would naturally arise. It is the case of that worthy lady, Mrs Glasse, of cookerv-book fame, "and her hare. That which had first to be caught was the vital hare. Lacking this element, all the rest remains undetermined and void. Philosophy advances varied views of life's besinninss for our consideration. One I school = asks us to fisure forth the trans- ' formation (by admittedly known processes) of the original non-living matter of the '. world into livina substance. This is abio- ! cenesis. the doctrine of the spontaneous ! origin of ceneration of that which is vital ; from that" which is inorganic. The gulf between the two, it was held, was once crossed, and nothing more was needed. i The world was stocked thus with its pn'mitive population, and evolution did the ! rest. A side view suggests that the same I process is still proceeding around us. ' This, indeed, is Dr Bastian's position, i Wliv, it is argued, if life originated from inoreanic matter at the start, should that .act of transnbstantiation, in a physiological sense, have ceased ? It is Dr Bastian's offer to the editor of Nature to send him ;an illustrated paper showing at least, if not the actual origin of life from nonS living matter, the "birth of monads and Rallied animalcules and of fungus-germs [ from matter which is not like them at ■all. I Here we must be careful to note that I in such a view, it is not necessarily part of the argument to assume that the re- ! cognisable living forms of which Dr Bas--1 tian speaks have originated de novo—that is. from non-living matter. He starts with certain materials (called Zooglcea?) with which microscopists are familiar, and asserts that he can demonstrate by photoaraphs tbat out of this material scum, so to put it, definite living masses are assuredly to be regarded as alive. Dr Bastian's aim b to show that out of a common, life-substance diverse organisms are produced to-day as they were in the past. He is an advocate of the doctrine of heterogenesis. Be holds that varied life

develops trom a common origin. Beyond this, as we have seen, lies the further question, of what begot or begets the vital scum? If we start with life already present in the Zooglcea-masses, tho Rubicon has been crossed. How it was crossed and how the transition took place from the non-livin? to tho lowest vital state remains as before, a subject for speculation. Some philosophers elect to believe that the germs of life were introduced into this world from another planet. Lord Kelvin's idea of such germs being borne on a moss-grown fragment from another orb. represents such a. view. Here life is regarded as having come to us, and not as 'having spontaneously originated from non-living matto». The editor referred to, as was to be expected, will publish Dr Bastian's paper, and also replies thereon from competent critics. We may, therefore, look forward to an interesting; discussion. Dr Bastian complains that his opponents are illogical somewhat, in that, while they believe in the natural origin of living matter in the past (i.e., from non-living materials), they deny the operation of any such process existing or operating at the present time. They imply that it is all a matter of evidence. Nobody has seen, they say, or at least demonstrated, that in suitable fluids mimit-e particles may gradually appear from tne recion of the invisible." Itis this feature which Dr Bastian says he is prepared to prove, and this is why the I forthcoming discussion -will be found to be of the highest interest. Beyond this proof, if afforded, however, there -will, I take it. be the further question, "Whence tho particles which develop into low living things? Are they living to start with, or °do they represent non-living units which, by some subtle process, are transmuted from that which is inorganic to that which is alive?

Those familiar with biological records know that Dr Bastian has fought his fight valiantly in 'he years of the past. He has written at least two bulky volumes on the subject, and he has experimented ceaselessly to prove his case. The evidence hitherto has not apparently satisfied biologists, but Dr 'Bastian complains tliat as "the Royal o*:d Linniean .Societies are guided in their acceptance of papers by referees who are wedded, on biological questions, to laboratory methods," it is useless for him to attempt to submit papers for consideration. But surely Dr Bastian's own methods are those of the laboratory—all experiment, indeed, is. We must have facts first of all, for theso form the basis of what interpretation is to be given of life's origins. All that is needed is a fair field and no prejudice. In the pages of the journal in question Dr Bastian. will find both conditions. Meanwhile I wait for the fray.