The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1912. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1539, 7 September 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1912. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

The presidential address of PnoFESSOii Schaei'Kh at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which a short summary was given in yesterday's Dominion, appears to have been a remarkably interesting one. His subject was the origin of life,

and he declares emphatically in favour of the continuity of evolution from inorganic to organic,, from nonliving to living. Life, he says, is purely a matter of chemical interaction, and chemists sooner or later will be able to produce living substance similar to that from which all existing vital organisms have been evolved. Such theories are, of course, not new, and, however probable they may appear, it should always be borne in mind that they still lack experimental verification. When we pass from these fascinating suggestions of the scientific imagination to plain hard facts, the contention that life only proceeds from pre-existing life still holds the field, and the problem of its origin remains shrouded in the deepest mystery. What- is known as spontaneous generation has never yet been proved in a single_ instance, and the discovery of the missing link between tho Jiving and tho non-liv-ing is still one of the _ splendid quests of the modern scientist. Some years ago the world of thought was startled with the announcement that life had been artificially created in sterilised bouillon by the action of radium; but subsequent information showed that the experimenter himself did not claim to have proved the possibility of. spontaneous generation. All he stated was that he thought he had discovered one more link in the chain which connects the inorganic with the organic; the real mystery of life being left as impenetrable as ever. Sonic good people seem _to be a little nervous regarding this relentless probing by men of science into the deepest mysteries of life and death. They have an uneasy feeling that if, for instance, some scientist succeeded in bridging the gulf between the living and the non-living a deadly blow would be struck at the spiritual interpretation of , the universe. Such fears are, however, quite groundless; and .as the London Times states, Professor Schaefee, in declaring that the problems of life from the scientific viewpoint are essentially problems of matter, "guards himself against a crude and obsolete materialism by carefully distinguishing between life and soul." Supposing an organism could be made by artificial means— what then? This question may be best answered in the words of an eminent scientist, Professor J. A. Thomson, one of the leading exponents of Darwinism. He states that if living substance could be artifically produced

we should then know, what no naturalist at present knows, however strongly he may believe it, that what we call notliving has in it the potentiality of giving origin to what wo call living. But tho hypothetical discovery would in no way affect tho dignity and value of living creatures, or of our own life. The whole world would bo more continuous and vital. If it came about that wiv vero ablo to bring materials and «nerg&s together in such a way that living creatures of a simple sort resulted', we should still have to remember that we had acted as directive agents in the synthesis. Finally, if tho experiment- succeeded) we should not have arrived nt any explanation of life. We should be able to say that given certain antecedent conditions, certain consequences ensue, but we should still be unable to answer the questions HOW and WHY.

It is, a great mistake to make the spiritual interpretation of the unidepend upon a special Divine interposition at the point where life started. Professor Lloyd Morgan, another, distinguished scientist, states that "those who would concentrate the mystery existence on the pin-point of the genesis of protoplasm, do violence alike to philosophy and religion. Those who would single out from among the multitudinous differentiations of an evolving universe this alone for special interposition would seem to do little honour to the Divinity they profess to servo." If reason, as a German philosopher states, does not reside in the whole structure of the universe it cannot be found in any single spot of it.

Though the gulf between living and dead matter still remains there is a growing feeling among modern scientists and philosophers that it will be bridged in the not-far-distant future. t When Professor Schaefer expresses the opinion that life was not evolved once for all in the fardistant past, but is being even now evolved in Nature's workshop, he is only confirming tho opinion expressed by many others. For instance, the_ Bishop of Tasmania (Dr. Mercer), in a recent book on The Science of TAfe, writes:

It is possible, some would say probable, that life may be coming into existence every moment. Particles of living matter, of exceedingly simple organisation, may be in continual process of formation, and may serve as food for creatures adapted to secure and to assimilate them. But we have no valid ground for maintaining such a theory, intrinsically interesting, and to my mind, reasonable as it undoubtedly is.

Another theologian boldly declares that lie would welcome a discovery bridging the gulf between inorganic matter -and organic life. "The more simply the. thing is done," he Eays, "the more divine it becomes in our eyes." Indeed, the best thought of the day seems to be tending towards the belief that there is no gulf to bridge, _ because there is really no such thing as dead matter. We may be coming back to the belief which has been'held by many thinkers,in all ages that everything is living. Tyndall saw in matter "the promise and the potency'of life," and a recent American writer declares that "we live in a living world. We know life immediately only in ourselves as the activity of our spirits. Life is spirit in action. Objective reality manifests itself to us as activity, and this leads us to the conclusion that it is spirit." ■ .