That is the principal reason for rejecting all sorts of chemical
morphogenetic theories put forward to explain the problem of
localisation; it is more explicit, and therefore, I suppose, still
more convincing than the more general consideration that the very
fact of restitutions in itself must contradict the hypothesis that
a disintegration of compounds might be the directive agency in
morphogenesis. To sum up: Specificity of organic form does not go
hand-in-hand with specificity of chemical composition, and therefore
cannot depend on it; and besides that, specific organic form is such
that it can never be explained by atomic or molecular arrangement in
the chemical sense; for, to state it in a short but expressive manner,
the “form” of an atom or molecule can never be that of a lion or a
monkey. To assume that would be to go beyond the limits of chemistry in
chemistry itself.
*No Machine Possible Inside the Harmonious Systems*
And now we turn to the last possibility which is left to us in our
endeavour to “understand” the localisation of the differentiation in our
harmonious-equipotential systems by the means of physics and chemistry.
Outside causes have failed to account for it, chemical disintegration
of a compound has failed too. But could there not exist some sort of
complicated interactions amongst the parts of the harmonious system
themselves? Could there not exist some kind of a real machine in the
system, which, if once set going, would result in the differentiations
that are to take place? Then we might say that the “prospective
potency” of the system is in fact that machine; we should know what the
letter *E* of our equation stood for: viz., a resultant action of many
complicated elemental interactions, and nothing more.
Weismann, we know already, had assumed that a sort of machine was the
prime mover of morphogenesis. We have seen that his theory cannot be
true; the results of experiments most strongly contradict it. But, of
course, the experiments only showed us that *such* a machine as *he*
had imagined to exist could not be there, that development could not be
governed by the disintegration of a given complicated structure into its
simplest parts. But might not some other machine be imaginable?
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