Anatomy, Comparative; Embryology, Human; Evolution; Human beings -- Origin
This much-disputed question of “spontaneous generation” seems so
obscure, because people have associated with the term a mass of very
different, and often very absurd, ideas, and have attempted to solve
the difficulty by the crudest experiments. The real doctrine of the
spontaneous generation of life cannot possibly be refuted by
experiments.
Every experiment that has a negative result only proves that no
organism has been formed out of inorganic matter in the
conditions—highly artificial conditions—we have established. On the
other hand, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove the theory by
way of experiment; and even if Monera were still formed daily by
spontaneous generation (which is quite possible), it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to find a solid proof of it. Those who
will not admit the spontaneous generation of the first living things in
our sense must have recourse to a supernatural miracle; and this is, as
a matter of fact, the desperate resource to which our “exact”
scientists are driven, to the complete abdication of reason.
A famous English physicist, Lord Kelvin (then Sir W. Thomson),
attempted to dispense with the hypothesis of spontaneous generation by
assuming that the organic inhabitants of the earth were developed from
germs that came from the inhabitants of other planets, and that chanced
to fall on our planet on fragments of their original home, or
meteorites. This hypothesis found many supporters, among others the
distinguished German physicist, Helmholtz. However, it was refuted in
1872 by the able physicist, Friedrich Zöllner, of Leipzig, in his work,
_On the Nature of Comets._ He showed clearly how unscientific this
hypothesis is; firstly in point of logic, and secondly in point of
scientific content. At the same time he pointed out that our hypothesis
of spontaneous generation is “a necessary condition for understanding
nature according to the law of causality.”
I repeat that we must call in the aid of the hypothesis only as regards
the Monera, the structureless “organisms without organs.” Every complex
organism must have been evolved from some lower organism. We must not
assume the spontaneous generation of even the simplest cell, for this
itself consists of at least two parts—the internal, firm nuclear
substance, and the external, softer cellular substance or the
protoplasm of the cell-body. These two parts must have been formed by
differentiation from the indifferent plasson of a moneron, or a cytode.
For this reason the natural history of the Monera is of great interest;
here alone can we find the means to overcome the chief difficulties of
the problem of spontaneous generation. The actual living Monera are
specimens of such organless or structureless organisms, as they must
have boon formed by spontaneous generation at the commencement of the
history of life.
Chapter XIX.
OUR PROTIST ANCESTORS
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account