Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-07-22
ORIGIN OF LIFE.
New Light on the Old Debate n
Spontaneous Generation.

NO question or problem of biology has
been more determnedly fought and con
tested than that of the possibility of life
originating today from matter which is
OF non-iiYing character This of course.
is the controversy between the spontan-
eous generation theory of old and the
theory of biogenesis The former held
that life could sprinr de noyo and arise
from Inorganic matter 1t represented
the most ancient belief in life's genesis.
for the ancients did not doubt that that
which was non-living or what was once
living matter. but dead and putrescent
could produce that which was vital We
can go back to the days of Francesca
Redi in Florence. and recall his expert
ment with the development of maggots In
meat, whereby he showed that these in
sect larvae Were bred not out of the de-
composing flesh, but out of the eggs
which the mother flies deposited in the
putrefying material Redi's experiment
was the beginning of research which
fully justified his axiom. "Omne Vivuu,
ex Yivo." He inaugurated the doc
trine of biogenesis which maintains
that in all our experience we can de
tect life to spring only from pre-
existing vitality. This is the doctrine
which Huxley declared had been vic
toflous all along he line. The records
from Spallanzazni TO Tyndall seemed
to warrant this declarations To-day
the scientific world EN- masse accepts
biogenesis as the only way of vital
evolution.
Naturally the question of lfe's
primitive origin is hound up with that
of Its origins today. 1t is the lowest
grades Of life's kingdom, of course.
that form the field of controversy.
such as it is The problem is not how
higher organisms are born. for their
origin is clear enough, but how the
specks of protoplasm which constitute
the groundlings Of vitality-and pre-
sumaDly represent the first living
things TO be evolved-originated All
recent work in the direction 3f sub
stimulating biogenesis or the reverse
lies in ;he field of microscopic lite.
feature which explains the many diff
culties involved in the research. The
WORLD at one time was utterly UNI
suited to be life's abode. 1t was a
| fiery globe, and only on its settling
| dcwn to form a crust, with air and
water-necessities of life as we know
| it-can We conceive that organisms
could be developed Whence were de-
rived the first lowly things that peo-
| pie water. air and earth, is a question
| only apProachable from the domain of
theory. We may elect to believe that
! changed chemical conditions favored
the formation of protoplasm, and that
life was a natural result of the eNolu-
ton # ne only substance which ex-
hibits vitality. Or we may suppose
some creative act bestowing life on
matter hitherto inorganic; or. with
Lord Kelvin. We may postuiate a
moss grown fragment from another
world, telling on the cooling earth.
and constituting the first germs of a
vitality which, once planted. would go
on props eating their kind. with eNolu=
ton in due time. to bring about the
marvellous variety of forms and struc-
ture thot cEaracterizes the werld
today.
These are speculations. but now the
controversy shifts its ground. We are
concerned 10 know if life today can be
demonstrated 10 arise de noYo from
non living matter life, as before, be-
ing of lowly kind DR.. Charlton Bas-
tam has returned to the discussion OF
this topic, and in recent publication
reverts to the statement of his belief
that abiogenesis is still represented as
an actual mode of origin of low or
ganisns. He is almost alone in his
belief, for, with the exception OF this
propounder of certain views sons
years ago, which held that primitiv,
lae-forms would be developed il
radioactive solutions. nobody OF an!
mark in the scientific world save him
self has ventured to espouse the caus