ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1762, 29 May 1913, Page 6

ORIGIN OF LIFE.

PROFESSOR SCHAEFER'S THEORY.

PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY'S DISCUSSION.

A complex problem of absorbing interest —that of tho origin of lifo—was discussed by the Wellington Philosophical Society last evening. The discussion turned upon thie, presidential address, delivered by Professor E. A. Schaefer at the Dundee meeting of tho British Association for tho Advancement of Science, on tlio "nature, origin, and maintenance of life. Professor liasterficld presided over an attendance, of about sixty members. 11l tho course ol a detailed description of Dr. Schaefer's address, Professor East- , erficld said that the former was one of the leading physiologists of Great Britain. The paper which had given rise to so much discussion contained middle part which was an extremely useful account of recent physiological progress. This part had passed almost without notice in the British press. It was preceded by a lrglilv speculative attempt to describe the onigin of life on our planet. It was this speculative portion which had attracted most notice in Great Britain, and no doubt it would bo the most interesting portion of the paper to his audience. Dr. Schacfcr advanced his speculations with duo scientific caution, but ho did not mako clear what the origin of life on this planet was. At the outset Dr. Schaefer declined to define life. He contended, however, that death and life should not be regarded as antitheses, but that death should be regarded as the sequel to life. It presupposed that life had existed. From this point Dr. Schaefer went on to say that problems of life w"re problems of matterthat it was only through matter that life manifested itself. The next point was that chemical action could be discovered in all living organisms, from tho simple cfcll upwards, and that cessation of life meant cessation of this action. Dr. Schaefer contended that both living matter and dead matter grow and reproduced, and pointed out that even tho segmentation of cells such as was ordinarily regarded as characteristic of, the Tcproauetive process could bo brought about by purely chemical and purely mechanical means. Ho pointed particularly in this connection to the work of Loolj. who had demonstrated that the fertilisation of the ova might be a purely mcehanical or chemical act. Dr. Schaefer then asked whether it was necessary to assume that there was in tho living cell what was colled vital force. Was Fne principle of vitalism in. animate matter different from what was found in inanimate matter? Dr. Schaefer held that such a vital force was unnecessary in viow of the facts which : he had recorded. He then went on to ask whether, assuming that it was unnecessary to assume vitalism in living matter, it was necessary to assume that living matter could never originate from inanimate matter. Here ho decided that it was quite a possibility that living matter had arisen out of matter which was previously dead without the introduction of any new force. Dr. Schaefer pointed out that tho matter of which cells were composed— protoplasm—was a combination of only a very few chemical elements, built up together with water, so as to form a colloid which he presumed to be tho chemical basis of life.

A Big Jump. . It was hero that Dr. Schaefer seemed to the speaker to make the big jump in suggesting that when a chemist succeoded in building up this compound he would E reduce the phenomena described us life, 'r. Schaefer said that the possibility of the production of life hvas not so remote as was generally assumed. Ho next sought to apply tho evolutionary hypothesis. H«earding the doctrine of evolution as having been shown to apply almost throughout nature, he supposed that the tionarv hypothesis would account for tho production of tho life matter from the d«id, there being a gradual change from lifeless material to material which was distinctly alive. Dr. Schacfer pointed out that direct evidenco in support of his hypothesis could hardly be hoped for, beoauso it would be so difficult to know at. what stage tho process was commencing, ond also because tho molecules of tho earlier life structure would not be detected even bv microscopic means. Dr. Schaefer held that this process might bo going on now unobserved, because available methods of attack would be insuihcient to lead to its discovery-. Professor Easterfield went on to describe other portions of Dr. Scliaefer's paper. Professor Kirk as Critic. Criticising the views advanced by Dr. Schaefer, Professor H. B. Kirk said that that gentleman was fully competent to doal with tho subject, and that the address seemed to him to be one of the finest and most stimulating ever delivered to a British audience. I)r. Schaefer held: That problems of life '.yere problems of matter. That physical and chemical processes wero identical in living and in non-living matter. That 1 both classes of matter assimilated, grew, and reproduced in tho same,way. Dr. Schaefer had a confident expectation that synthetic protoplasm would bo produced, and that, when produced, it would live. In oppo, sition to these views, Professor Kirk submitted that life could not be conceived except in connection with a physical basis. Dr. Schaefer had produced no proof whatever that in any non-living body function was fulfilled. In dealing with an animal which had many functions,' somo of which could be explained, they were apt to lose sight of the failure, so far, to explain the residuum. This fact was not so likely to be lost sight of when a single form of life such as the amoeba was considered. After touching upon the absenco of purposive movement in nonliving substances, Professor Kirk asked why it was, if the movements of simple life forms were due to chemical action, that they could bo stilled by the application of nn anacsthctic. Dr. Schaefer had said that crystals grew. It was true that they did if growth meant increase in size, but this was a very different thing to the growth of living Indies. Pabulum for the crystal must be material of its own kind in solution. In this case there was not assimilation. A typical life body took material wliko itself, made that mnterinl like, and ulaeed tho newly-formed particles, not on the surface, but am one the old narticlrc. Even living colloid, Professor Kirk stated, did not assimilate and did not reproduce itself. It was timo, ho continued, that the development of some organisms could bo mechanically started and carried on through stages. This had been der.ju:)started with the egg of the frog. After dealing at some length with the uronorties of protoplasm, Professor Kirk remarked that living matter was always organised or tended to be organised. The advocates of the gradual evolution of organic, from inorganic he wntended, were in a less satisfactory tosition than the early evolutionists prior to the introduction of the theory of natural selection by Darwin and Wallaco. Not one of the lines of evidence on which evolution was bn c ed was open to these later theorists. Vet it «oemed io him that their view that evolution had been o gradual process and hod extended right down was a most natural and reasonable one. Tn his concluding remarks. I'rofessor Kirk laid stress on the part that Itorodity had played in evolution, in massing on from parent to offspring favourable characteristics. Failing gainething of this kind it seemed to him, he said, that evolution w.i 9 impossible to conceive.

The Theory Supported. Dr. C. M. BesE spoke in support of tho views advanced by Professor Schaefcr. The latter, he said, did not pretend that his arguments were final or unanswerable, but opponents of Dr. Schaefer's theory had produced no other reply than to anneal to a hypothetical vilol force. Dr. Schoefer, Dr. Begg went on to remark. was a laboratory dreamer. This fact had appeared from the poetic rhapsody on the subiect. of death, at the conclusion of Dr. Schaefor's paper, which Professor Ensterfield had read. Pcrsonnlly he could hardly look forward to a time when people would look on death with iudilTorcncc. Dr. Beig went on (o contend that a true analogy could be drawn between the movement of mercury and oil particles under differentiated surface pressure and the movements of amoeboid life. Certain form? of plants were able to build livin" substance from inorganic material. consisted chemically of' a few elements combined in a very complicated fa'-liion. It .wired reasonable tn assume Hint some of the difficulties of drawing parallels between organic and inoraanic matter would dis-

appear in tlx© light of greater knowledge. Mentioning a number of illustrations of his contention, Dr. Begg said that eorno of the characteristic activities of protoplasm could.ba duplicated in certain solutions. Referring; to the experiments carried out by Dr. Bastian, Dr. Begg said that tho letter's experiments and his book on "The Origin of Life" had not been taken seriously bj- any scientific man of eminence. At the same timo he considered that those experiments were worth repeating. If it could.be shown that there were no fallacies in Bastian's methods the results would go a lou? way towards solving tho problem. After tlio principal speakers had concluded, tliero was a brief general discussion.

Some Diverse Opinions. Dr. Cockayne said that he was pot a vitalist. Tlio whole' of the explanations furnished by scionco up to the present time were founded upon a chemical and physical basis, and increasing knowledge had greatly weakened the stronghold of tho vital force theouists. "I think, for my part," he colluded, "that it is probably a waste of time to worry about tho problem of life."

Professor Laby said that tho field to which chemical and physical laws were held not to apply had steadily decreased villi advancing knowledge.

Ono member of ike audience complained that tho discussion had been distressingly indeterminate, and suggested that speculation as to the problem of life might well be left to poets dowered with rich imagination. Further developing his theme, lie was arrested 011 a point of order. Another speaker ventured the opinion that a discovery that life had a chemical basis "would not make any difference."

Professor Hunter argued that since an evolutionary chain connecting l man with amoeboid life had been constructed it was surely no very wild leap in the dark to connect man with a colloidal substance.

Professor Kirk, in replying, warmly contested tho view that speculative discussion as to tlie origin of life was a waste of time.