As more evidence supports creationism our contemporary evolutinists have been putting up " smoke screens and bait-n-switch definitions of evolution in hopes of skating by the fact that evolution was already debunked. However as we look back in the past we see the forefathers of evolution like the german evolutionary forefather ernst haekyl singing a different tune.
THEORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSE
AND OF THE EARTH. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.
THE CARBON THEORY. THE PLASTID
THEORY.
History of the Development of the Earth.—Kant’s Theory of the Development
of the Universe, or the Cosmological Gas Theory.—Development
of Suns, Planets, and Moons.—First Origin of Water.—Comparison
of Organisms and Anorgana.—Organic and Inorganic Substances.—Degrees
of Density, or Conditions of Aggregation.—Albuminous
Combinations of Carbon.—Organic and Inorganic Forms.—Crystals
and Formless Organisms without Organs.—Stereometrical Fundamental
Forms of Crystals and of Organisms.—Organic and Inorganic Forces.—Vital
Force.—Growth and Adaptation in Crystals and in Organisms.—Formative
Tendencies of Crystals.—Unity of Organic and Inorganic
Nature.—Spontaneous Generation, or Archigony.—Autogony
and Plasmogony.—Origin of Monera by Spontaneous Generation.—Origin
of Cells from Monera.—The Cell Theory.—The Plastid Theory.—Plastids,
or Structural Units.—Cytods and Cells.—Four Different
Kinds of Plastids.
In our considerations hitherto we have endeavoured to
answer the question, “By what causes have new species of
animals and plants arisen out of existing species?” We
have answered this question according to Darwin’s theory,
that natural selection in the struggle for existence—that is,
the interaction of the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation—is
completely sufficient for producing mechanically the
317
endless variety of the different animals and plants, which
have the appearance of being organized according to a plan
for a definite purpose. Meanwhile the question must have
already repeatedly presented itself to the reader, how did
the first organisms, or that one original and primæval organism
arise, from which we derive all the others?
This question
Lamarck(2) answered by the hypothesis
of spontaneous generation, or
archigony. But
Darwin
passes over and avoids this subject, as he expressly
remarks that he has “nothing to do with the origin of
the soul, nor with that of life itself.” At the conclusion
of his work he expresses himself more distinctly in the
following words:—“
I imagine that probably all organic
beings which ever lived on this earth descended from
some primitive form, which was first called into life by
the Creator.” Moreover, Darwin, for the consolation of
those who see in the Theory of Descent the destruction of
the whole “moral order of the universe,” appeals to the
celebrated author and divine who wrote to him, that
“he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a
conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few
original forms capable of self-development into other and
needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act
of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his
laws.”
Those to whom the belief in a supernatural creation is an
emotional necessity may rest satisfied with this conception.
They may reconcile that belief with the Theory of Descent;
for in the creation of a single original organism possessing
the capability to develop all others out of itself by inheritance
and adaptation, they can really find much more cause
318
for admiring the power and wisdom of the Creator than in
the independent creation of different species.
If, taking this point of view, we were to explain the
origin of the first terrestrial organisms, from which all the
others are descended, as due to the action of a personal
Creator acting according to a definite plan, we should of
course have to renounce all scientific knowledge of the
process, and pass from the domain of true science to the
completely distinct domain of poetical faith.
By assuming
a supernatural act of creation we should be taking a leap
into the inconceivable. Before we decide upon this latter
step, and thereby renounce all pretension to a scientific
knowledge of the process, we are at all events in duty
bound to endeavour to examine it in the light of a mechanical
hypothesis. We must at least examine whether this
process is really so wonderful, and whether we cannot form
a tenable conception of a completely non-miraculous origin
of the first primary organism. We might then be able
entirely to reject miracle in creation.
It will be necessary for this purpose, first of all, to go
back further into the past, and to examine the history of
the creation of the earth. Going back still further, we
shall find it necessary to consider the history of the creation
of the whole universe in its most general outlines.
All my readers undoubtedly know that from the structure
of the earth,
as it is at present known to us, the
notion has been derived, and as yet has not been refuted,
that its interior is in a fiery fluid condition, and that the
firm crust, composed of different strata,
on the surface
of which organisms are living, forms only a very thin
pellicle or shell round the fiery fluid centre. We have
319
arrived at this idea by different confirmatory experiments
and reasonings. In the first place, the observation
that the temperature of the earth’s crust continually increases
towards the centre is in favour of this supposition. The
deeper we descend, the greater the warmth of the ground,
and in such proportion, that with every 100 feet the
temperature increases about one degree. At a depth of
six miles, therefore, a heat of 1500° would be attained, sufficient
to keep most of the firm substances of our earth’s crust
in a molten, fiery, fluid state. This depth, however, is only
the 286th part of the whole diameter of the earth (1717
miles). We further know that springs which rise out of a
considerable depth possess a very high temperature, and
sometimes even throw water up to the surface in a boiling
state. Lastly, very important proofs are furnished by
volcanic phenomena, the eruption of fiery fluid masses of
stone bursting through certain parts of the earth’s crust.
All these phenomena lead us with great certainty to the important
assumption that the firm crust of the earth forms
only quite a small fraction, not nearly the one-thousandth
part of the whole diameter of the terrestrial globe, and that
the rest is still for the most part in a molten or fiery
fluid state.
Now if, starting with this assumption, we reflect on the
ancient history of the development of the globe, we are
logically carried back a step further, namely, to the assumption
that at an earlier date
the whole earth was a fiery fluid
body, and that the formation of a thin, stiffened crust on the
surface was only a later process. Only gradually, by
radiating its intrinsic heat into the cold space of the universe,
has the surface of the glowing ball become condensed into
320
a thin crust. That the temperature of the earth in remote
times was much higher than it is now, is proved by
many phenomena. Among other things, this is rendered
probable by the equal distribution of organisms in remote
times of the earth’s history. While at present, as is well
known, the different populations of animals and plants
correspond to the different zones of the earth and their
appropriate temperature, in earlier times this was distinctly
not the case.
We see from the distribution of fossils in the remoter
ages, that it was only at a very late date, in fact, at a comparatively
recent period of the organic history of the
earth (at the beginning of the so-called cænolithic or tertiary
period), that a separation of zones and of the corresponding
organic populations occurred. During the immensely long
primary and secondary periods, tropical plants, which
require a very high degree of temperature, lived not only
in the present torrid zone, under the equator, but also in
the present temperate and frigid zones. Many other
phenomena also demonstrate a gradual decrease of the temperature
of the globe as a whole, and especially a late and
gradual cooling of the earth’s crust about the poles. Bronn,
in his excellent “Investigations of the Laws of Development
of the Organic World,” has collected
numerous geological and
palæontological proofs of this fact.
These phenomena and
the mathematico-astronomical knowledge
of the structure of the universe justify the theory that,
inconceivable ages ago, l
ong before the first existence of
organisms, the whole earth was a fiery fluid globe.
Now, this
theory corresponds with the grand theory of the origin of
the universe, and especially of our planetary system, which,
321
on the ground of mathematical and astronomical facts, was
put forward in 1755 by our critical philosopher Kant,
(22)
and was later more thoroughly established by the celebrated
mathematicians, Laplace and Herschel. This cosmogeny, or
theory of the development of the universe, is now almost
universally acknowledged; it has not been replaced by a
better one, and mathematicians, astronomers, and geologists
have continually, by various arguments, strengthened its
position.
Kant’s cosmogeny maintains that the whole universe, inconceivable
ages ago, consisted of a gaseous chaos. All the
substances which are found at present separated on the
earth, and other bodies of the universe, in different conditions
of density—in the solid, semi-fluid, liquid, and elastic
fluid or gaseous states of aggregation—
originally constituted
together one single homogeneous mass, equally filling up the
space of the universe, which, in consequence of an extremely
high degree of temperature, was in an exceedingly thin
gaseous or nebulous state. The millions of bodies in
the universe which at present form the different solar
systems did not then exist. They originated only in consequence
of a universal rotatory movement, or rotation,
during which a number of masses acquired greater density
than the remaining gaseous mass, and then acted upon the
latter as central points of attraction. Thus arose a separation
of the chaotic primary nebula, or gaseous universe, into
a number of rotating nebulous spheres, which became
more and more condensed. Our solar system was such a
gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the particles of which
revolved round a common central point, the solar nucleus.
The nebulous ball itself, like all the rest, in consequence
322
of its rotatory movement, assumed a spheroidal or a flattened
globular form.
While the centripetal force attracted the rotating particles
nearer and nearer to the firm central point of the nebulous
ball, and thus condensed the latter more and more, the centrifugal
force, on the other hand, always tended to separate
the peripheral particles further and further from it, and to
hurl them off. On the equatorial sides of the ball, which
was flattened at both poles, this centrifugal force was
strongest, and as soon as, by increase of density, it attained
predominance over the centripetal force, a circular nebulous
ring separated itself from the rotating ball. This nebulous
ring marked the course of future planets. The nebulous
mass of the ring gradually condensed, and became a planet,
which revolved round its own axis, and at the same
time rotated round the central body. In precisely the
same manner, from the equator of the planetary mass, as
soon as the centrifugal force gained predominance over
the centripetal force, new nebulous rings were ejected,
which moved round the planets as the latter moved round
the sun. These nebulous rings, too, became condensed into
rotating balls. Thus arose the moons, only one of which
moves round our earth, whilst four move round Jupiter, and
six round Uranus. The ring of Saturn still shows us a moon
in its early stage of development. As by increasing refrigeration
these simple processes of condensation and expulsion
repeated themselves over and over again, there arose the
different solar systems, the planets rotating round their
central suns, and the satellites or moons moving round their
planets.
The original gaseous condition of the rotating bodies of
323
the universe gradually changed, by increasing refrigeration
and condensation, into the fiery fluid or molten state of
aggregation. By the process of condensation, a great
quantity of heat was emitted, and the rotating suns, planets,
and moons, soon changed into glowing balls of fire, like
gigantic drops of melted metal, which emitted light and
heat. By loss of heat, the melted mass on the surface of the
fiery fluid ball became further condensed, and thus arose a
thin, firm crust, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. In all
essential respects our mother earth probably did not differ
from the other bodies of the universe.
In view of the object of these pages, it will not be of
especial interest to follow in detail the
history of the natural
creation of the universe, with its different solar and planetary
systems, and to establish it mathematically by the different
astronomical and geological proofs.
The outlines of it,
which I have just mentioned, must be sufficient here, and
for further details I refer to Kant’s 5 “General History of
Nature and Theory of the Heavens.”(22) I will only add
that this wonderful theory, which might be called the cosmological
gas theory, harmonizes with all the general series of
phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable
contradiction to any one of them.
Moreover, it
is purely mechanical or monistic, makes use exclusively of
the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes
every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious
action of a personal Creator. Kant’s Cosmological Gas
Theory consequently occupies a similar supreme position in
Anorganology, especially in
Geology, and forms the crown
of our knowledge in that department, in the same
324way as Lamarck’s Theory of Descent does in
Biology, and
especially in
Anthropology. Both rest exclusively upon
mechanical or unconscious causes (causæ efficientes), in no
case upon prearranged or conscious causes (causæ finales).
(Compare above, p.
100-106.) Both therefore fulfil all the
demands of a scientific theory, and consequently will remain
generally acknowledged until they are replaced by better
ones.
I will, however, not deny that Kant’s grand cosmogeny
has some weak points, which prevent our placing the same
unconditional confidence in it as in Lamarck’s Theory of
Descent. The notion of an original gaseous chaos filling
the whole universe presents great difficulties of various
kinds. A great and unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that
the Cosmological Gas Theory furnishes no starting-point at
all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the
rotary motion in the gas-filled universe. In seeking for
such an impulse, we are involuntarily led to the mistaken
questioning about a “first beginning.” We can as little
imagine a
first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the
motion of the universe as of its final end.
T
he universe is unlimited and immeasurable in both
space and time. It is
eternal, and it is
infinite.
Nor can
we imagine a beginning or end to the uninterrupted and
eternal motion in which all particles of the universe are
always engaged. The great laws of the
conservation of
force(38) and the
conservation of matter, the foundations
of our whole conception of nature,
admit of no other supposition.
The
universe, as far as it is cognisable to human
capability,
appears as a connected chain of material phenomena
of motion, necessitating a continual change of325
forms. Every form, as the temporary result of a multiplicity
of phenomena of motion, is as such perishable, and
of limited duration. But, in the continual change of forms,
matter and the motion inseparable from it remain eternal
and indestructible.
Now, although Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory is not able
to explain the development of motion in the whole universe
in a satisfactory manner, beyond that gaseous state of chaos,
and although many other weighty considerations may be
brought forward against it, especially by chemistry
and geology, yet we must on the whole acknowledge its
great merit, inasmuch as it explains in an excellent
manner, by due consideration of development, the whole
structure of all that is accessible to our observation, that is,
the anatomy of the solar systems, and especially of our
planetary system. It may be that this development was
altogether different from what Kant supposes, and our
earth may have arisen by the aggregation of numberless
small meteorides, scattered in space, or in any other manner,
but hitherto no one has as yet been able to establish any
other theory of development, or to offer one in the place
of Kant’s cosmogeny.
After this general glance at the
monistic cosmogeny, or
the non-miraculous history of the development of the
universe, let us now return to a minute fraction of it, to our
mother earth, which we left as a ball flattened at both poles
and in a fiery fluid state, its surface having condensed by
becoming cooled into a very thin firm crust. The crust, on
first cooling, must have covered the whole surface of the
terrestrial sphere as a continuous smooth and thin shell.
But soon it must have become uneven and hummocky; for,
326
since during the continued cooling, the fiery fluid nucleus
became more and more condensed and contracted, and
consequently the diameter of the earth diminished, the
thin cold crust, which could not closely follow the softer
nuclear mass, must have fallen in, in many places. An
empty space would have arisen between the two, had not
the pressure of the outer atmosphere forced down the
fragile crust towards the interior, breaking it in so doing.
Other unevennesses probably arose from the fact that, in
different parts, the cooled crust during the process of
refrigeration contracted also itself, and thus became fissured
with cracks and rents. The fiery fluid nucleus flowed up
to the external surface through these cracks, and again
became cooled and stiff. Thus, even at an early period there
arose many elevations and depressions, which were the first
foundations of mountains and valleys.
After the temperature of the cooled terrestrial ball had
fallen to a certain degree, a very important new process was
effected, namely,
the first origin of water. Water had until
then existed only in the form of steam in the atmosphere
surrounding the globe. The water could evidently not condense
into a state of fluid drops until the temperature of the
atmosphere had considerably decreased. Now, then, there
began a further transformation of the earth’s crust by the force
of water. It continually fell in the form of rain, and in that
form washed down the elevations of the earth’s crust,
filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and, by
depositing it in layers, it caused the extremely important
neptunic transformations of the earth’s crust, which have
continued since then uninterruptedly, and which in our
next chapter we shall examine a little more closely.
327
It was not till the earth’s crust had so far cooled that the
water had condensed into a fluid form,
it was not till the
hitherto dry crust of the earth had for the first time become
covered with liquid water, that the origin of the first
organisms could take place. For all animals and all plants—in
fact, all organisms—consist in great measure of fluid
water, which combines in a peculiar manner with other substances,
and brings them into a semi-fluid state of aggregation.
We can therefore, from these general outlines of the
inorganic history of the earth’s crust, deduce the important
fact, that at a certain definite time life had its beginning on
earth, and that terrestrial organisms did not exist from
eternity, but at a certain period came into existence for the
first time.
Now, how are we to conceive of this origin of the first
organisms? This is the point at which most naturalists,
even at the present day, are inclined to give up the attempt
at natural explanation, and take refuge in the miracle of an
inconceivable creation. In doing so, as has already been remarked,
they quit the domain of scientific knowledge, and
renounce all further insight into the eternal laws which have
determined nature’s history. But before despondingly taking
such a step, and before we despair of the possibility of
any knowledge of this important process, we may at least
make an attempt to understand it. Let us see if in reality
the origin of a first organism out of inorganic matter, the
origin of a living body out of lifeless matter, is so utterly
inconceivable and beyond all experience. In one word, let
us examine the question of
spontaneous generation, or archigony.
In so doing, it is above all things necessary to form
a clear idea of the principal properties of the two chief
328
groups of natural bodies, the so-called inanimate or inorganic,
and the animate or organic bodies, and then establish
what is common to, and what are the differences between,
the two groups. It is desirable to go somewhat carefully
into the
comparison of organisms and anorgana,
since it is commonly very much neglected, although it is
necessary for a right understanding of nature from the
monistic point of view. It will be most advantageous here
to look separately at the three fundamental properties of
every natural body; these are matter, form, and force. Let
us begin with
matter. (Gen. Morph. iii.)
By chemistry we have succeeded in analysing all bodies
known to us into a small number of elements or simple substances,
which cannot be further divided, for example,
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and the different metals:
potassium, sodium, iron, gold, etc. At present we know
about seventy such elements or simple substances. The
majority of them are unimportant and rare; the minority
only are widely distributed, and compose not only most of
the anorgana, but also all organisms. If we compare those
elements which constitute the body of organisms with those
which are met with in anorgana, we have first to note the
highly important fact that in animal and vegetable bodies
no element occurs but what can be found outside of them in
inanimate nature. There are no special organic elements or
simple organic substances.
The chemical and physical differences existing between
organisms and anorgana, consequently, do not lie in their
material foundation; they do not arise from the different
nature of the
elements composing them, but from the different
manner in which the latter are united by chemical
329
combination. This different manner of combination gives
rise to certain physical peculiarities, especially in density of
substance, which at first sight seems to constitute a deep
chasm between the two groups of bodies. Inorganic or
inanimate natural bodies, such as crystals and the amorphous
rocks, are in a state of density which we call the firm or
solid state, and which we oppose to the liquid state of water
and to the gaseous state of air. It is familiar to every one
that these three different degrees of density, or states of
aggregation of anorgana, are by no means peculiar to the
different elements, but are the results of a certain degree
of temperature. Every inorganic solid body, by increase of
temperature, can be reduced to the liquid or melted state,
and, by further heat, to the gaseous or elastic state. In the
same way most gaseous bodies, by a proper decrease of
temperature can first be converted into a liquid state, and
further, into a solid state of density.
In opposition to these three states of density of anorgana,
the living body of all organisms—animals as well as plants—is
in an altogether peculiar fourth state of aggregation.
It is neither solid like stone, nor liquid like water, but presents
rather a medium between these two states, which may
therefore be designated as the firm-fluid or swollen state of
aggregation (viscid). In all living bodies, without exception,
there is a certain quantity of water combined in a peculiar
way with solid matter, and owing to this characteristic
combination of water with solid matter we have that
soft state of aggregation, neither solid nor liquid, which
is of great importance in the mechanical explanation of
the phenomena of life. Its cause lies essentially in the
physical and chemical properties of a simple, indivisible,
330
elementary substance, namely,
carbon (Gen. Morph. i.
122-130).
Of all elements, carbon is to us by far the most important
and interesting, because this simple substance plays the
largest part in all animal and vegetable bodies known to
us. It is that element which, by its peculiar tendency to
form complicated combinations with the other elements,
produces the greatest variety of chemical compounds, and
among them the forms and living substance of animal and
vegetable bodies. Carbon is especially distinguished by
the fact that it can unite with the other elements in
infinitely manifold relations of number and weight. By the
combination of carbon with three other elements, with
oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen (to which generally sulphur,
and frequently, also, phosphorus is added), there arise those
exceedingly important compounds which we have become
acquainted with as the first and most indispensable
substratum of all vital phenomena, the albuminous combinations,
or albuminous bodies (protean matter).
We have before this (p. 185) become acquainted with the
simplest of all species of organisms in the Monera, whose
entire bodies when completely developed consist of nothing
but a semi-fluid albuminous lump; they are organisms which
are of the utmost importance for the theory of the first
origin of life. But most other organisms, also, at a certain
period of their existence—at least, in the first period of their
life—in the shape of egg-cells or germ-cells, are essentially
nothing but simple little lumps of such albuminous formative
matter, known as plasma, or protoplasma. They then
differ from the Monera only by the fact that in the interior
of the albuminous corpuscle the cell-kernel, or nucleus, has
331
separated itself from the surrounding cell-substance (protoplasma).
As we have already pointed out, the cells, with
their simple attributes, are so many citizens, who by
co-operation and differentiation build up the body of even
the most perfect organism; this being, as it were, a cell
republic (p. 301). The fully developed form and the vital
phenomena of such an organism are determined solely by the
activities of these small albuminous corpuscles.
It may be considered as one of the greatest triumphs of
recent biology, especially of the theory of tissues, that we
are now able to trace the wonder of the phenomena of life
to these substances, and that we can demonstrate the
infinitely manifold and complicated physical and chemical
properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause of
organic or vital phenomena. All the different forms of
organisms are simply and directly the result of the combination
of the different forms of cells. The infinitely
manifold varieties of form, size, and combination of the cells
have arisen only gradually by the division of labour, and by
the gradual adaptation of the simple homogeneous lumps of
plasma, which originally were the only constituents of the
cell-mass. From this it follows of necessity that the
fundamental phenomena of life—nutrition and generation—in
their highest manifestations, as well as in their simplest
expressions, must also be traced to the material nature of
that albuminous formative substance. The other vital
activities are gradually evolved from these two. Thus,
then, the general explanation of life is now no more
difficult to us than the explanation of the physical properties
of inorganic bodies. All vital phenomena and formative
processes of organisms are as directly dependent upon the
332
chemical composition and the physical forces of organic
matter as the vital phenomena of inorganic crystals—that is,
the process of
their growth and
their specific formation—are
the direct results of their chemical composition and of their
physical condition. The
ultimate causes, it is true, remain
in
both cases concealed from us. When gold and copper
crystallize in a cubical, bismuth and antimony in a
hexagonal, iodine and sulphur in a rhombic form of
crystal, the occurrence is in reality neither more nor less
mysterious to us than is every elementary process of
organic formation, every self-formation of the organic cell.
In this respect we can no longer draw a fundamental
distinction between organisms and anorgana, a distinction
of which, formerly, naturalists were generally convinced.
Let us secondly examine the agreements and differences
which are presented to us in the
formation of organic and
inorganic natural bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 130). Formerly
the simple structure of the latter and the composite
structure of the former were looked upon as the principal
distinction. The body of all organisms was supposed to
consist of dissimilar or heterogeneous parts, of instruments
or organs which worked together for the purposes of life.
On the other hand, the most perfect anorgana, that is to say,
crystals, were supposed to consist entirely of continuous or
homogeneous matter. This distinction appears very essential.
But it loses all importance through the fact that in
late years we have become acquainted with the exceedingly
remarkable and important Monera.
(15) (Compare above,
p. 185.) The whole body of these most simple of all
organisms—a semi-fluid, formless, and simple lump of
albumen—consists, in fact, of only a single chemical combination,
333
and is as perfectly simple in its structure as any
crystal, which consists of a single inorganic combination,
for example, of a metallic salt or of a silicate of the earths
and alkalies.
As naturalists believed in differences in the inner structure
or composition, so they supposed themselves able to
find complete differences in the external forms of organisms
and anorgana, especially in the mathematically determinable
crystalline forms of the latter. Certainly crystallization
is pre-eminently a quality of the so-called anorgana.
Crystals are limited by plane surfaces, which meet in
straight lines and at certain measurable angles. Animal
and vegetable forms, on the contrary, seem at first sight to
admit of no such geometrical determination. They are for
the most part limited by curved surfaces and crooked lines,
which meet at variable angles. But in recent times we
have become acquainted, among Radiolaria
(23) and among
many other Protista, with a large number of lower
organisms, whose body, in the same way as crystals, may be
traced to a mathematically determinable fundamental form,
and whose form in its whole, as well as in its parts, is
bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes and
angles. In my general doctrine of
Fundamental Forms, or
Promorphology, I have given detailed proofs of this, and at
the same time established a general system of forms, the ideal
stereometrical type-forms, which explain the real forms of
inorganic crystals, as well as of organic individuals (Gen.
Morph. i. 375-574). Moreover, there are also perfectly
amorphous organisms, like the Monera, Amœba, etc., which
change their forms every moment, and in which we are as
little able to point out a definite fundamental form as in
334
the case of the shapeless or amorphous anorgana, such as
non-crystallized stones, deposits, etc. We are consequently
unable to find any essential difference in the external
forms or the inner structure of anorgana and organisms.
Thirdly, let us turn to the
forces or the
phenomena of
motion of these two different groups of bodies (Gen. Morph.
i. 140). Here we meet with the greatest difficulties. The
vital phenomena, known as a rule only in the highly
developed organisms, in the more perfect animals and plants,
seem there so mysterious, so wonderful, so peculiar, that
most persons are decidedly of opinion that in inorganic
nature there occurs nothing at all similar, or in the least
degree comparable to them. Organisms are for this very
reason called animate, and the anorgana, inanimate natural
bodies. Hence, even so late as the commencement of the
present century, the science which investigates the
phenomena of life, namely physiology, retained the
erroneous idea that the physical and chemical properties
of matter were not sufficient for explaining these
phenomena. In our own day, especially during the last
ten years, this idea may be regarded as having been completely
refuted. In physiology, at least, it has now no
place. It now never occurs to a physiologist to consider
any of the vital phenomena as the result of a mysterious
vital force, of an active power working for a definite purpose,
standing outside of matter, and, so to speak, taking only
the physico-chemical forces into its service. Modern
physiology has arrived at the strictly monistic conviction
that all of the vital phenomena, and, above all, the two
fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation are
purely physico-chemical processes, and directly dependent
335
on the material nature of the organism, just as all the
physical and chemical qualities of every crystal are
determined solely by its material composition. Now, as
the elementary substance which determines the peculiar
material composition of organisms is carbon, we must
ultimately reduce all vital phenomena, and, above all, the
two fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation
to the properties of the carbon.
The peculiar-chemico-physical
properties, and especially the semi-fluid state of
aggregation, and the easy decomposibility of the exceedingly
composite albuminous combinations of carbon, are the
mechanical causes of those peculiar phenomena of motion
which distinguish organisms from anorgana, and which
in a narrow sense are usually called “life.”
In order to understand this “
carbon theory,” which I have
established in detail in the second book of my General
Morphology, it is necessary, above all things, closely to
examine those phenomena of motion which are common to
both groups of natural bodies. First among them is the
process of growth. If we cause any inorganic solution of
salt slowly to evaporate, crystals are formed in it, which
slowly increase in size during the continued evaporation of
the water. This process of growth arises from the fact
that new particles continually pass over from the fluid state
of aggregation into the solid, and, according to certain laws,
deposit themselves upon the firm kernel of the crystal
already formed. From such an apposition of particles arise
the mathematically definite crystalline shapes. In like
manner the growth of organisms takes place by the accession
of new particles. The only difference is that in the growth
of organisms, in consequence of their semi-fluid state of
336
aggregation, the newly-added particles penetrate into the
interior of the organism (inter-susception), whereas anorgana
receive homogeneous matter from without only by
apposition or an addition of new particles to the surface.
This important difference of growth by inter-susception
and by apposition is obviously only the necessary and direct
result of the different conditions of density or state of
aggregation in organisms and anorgana.
Unfortunately I cannot here follow in detail the various
exceedingly interesting parallels and analogies which occur
between the formation of the most perfect anorgana, the
crystals, and the formation of the simplest organisms, the
Monera and their next kindred forms. For this I must
refer to a minute comparison of organisms and anorgana,
which I have carried out in the fifth chapter of my General
Morphology (Gen. Morph. i. 111-160). I have there
shown in detail that there exist no complete differences
between organic and inorganic natural bodies, neither in
respect to form and structure, nor in respect to matter and
force; and that the actually existing differences are dependent
upon the peculiar nature of the
carbon; and that there
exists no insurmountable chasm between organic and
inorganic nature. We can perceive this most important
fact very clearly if we examine and compare the origin of
the forms in crystals and in the simplest organic individuals.
In the formation of crystal individuals, two different counteracting
formative tendencies come into operation. The
inner
constructive force, or the inner formative tendency, which
corresponds to the Heredity of organisms, in the case of the
crystal is the direct result of its material constitution or of
its chemical composition. The form of the crystal, so far as
337
it is determined by this inner original formative tendency,
is the result of the specific and definite way in which the
smallest particles of the crystallizing matter unite together
in different directions according to law. That independent
inner formative force, which is directly inherent in the
matter itself, is directly counteracted by a second formative
force. The
external constructive force, or the external
formative tendency, may be called Adaptation in crystals as
well as in organisms. Every crystal individual during its
formation, like every organic individual, must submit and
adapt itself to the surrounding influences and conditions
of existence of the outer world. In fact, the form and size of
every crystal is dependent upon its whole surroundings, for
example, upon the vessel in which the crystallization takes
place, upon the temperature and the pressure of the air
under which the crystal is formed, upon the presence or
absence of heterogeneous bodies, etc. Consequently, the
form of every single crystal, like the form of every single
organism, is the result of the interaction of two opposing
factors—the
inner formative tendency, which is determined
by the chemical constitution of the
matter itself, and of the
external formative tendency, which is dependent upon the
influence of
surrounding matter. Both these constructive
forces interact similarly also in the organism, and, just as in
the crystal, are of a purely mechanical nature and directly
inherent in the substance of the body. If we designate the
growth and the formation of organisms as a process of life, we
may with equal reason apply the same term to the developing
crystal. The teleological conception of nature, which looks
upon organisms as machines of creation arranged for a
definite purpose, must logically acknowledge the same also
338
in regard to the forms of crystals. The differences which
exist between the simplest organic individuals and inorganic
crystals are determined by the
solid state of aggregation of
the latter, and by the
semi-fluid state of the former.
Beyond that the causes producing form are exactly the
same in both. This conviction forces itself upon us most
clearly, if we compare the exceedingly remarkable phenomena
of growth, adaptation, and the “correlation of parts”
of developing crystals with the corresponding phenomena
of the origin of the simplest organic individuals (Monera
and cells). The analogy between the two is so great that,
in reality, no accurate boundary can be drawn. In my
General Morphology I have quoted in support of this a
number of striking facts (Gen. Morph. i. 146, 156, 158.)
If we vividly picture to ourselves this “
unity of
organic and inorganic nature” this essential agreement of
organisms and anorgana in matter, form, and force, and if
we bear in mind that we are not able to establish any
one fundamental distinction between these two groups of
bodies (as was formerly generally assumed), then the question
of spontaneous generation will lose a great deal of the
difficulty which at first seems to surround it. Then the
development of the first organism out of inorganic matter
will appear a much more easily conceivable and intelligible
process than has hitherto been the case, whilst an artificial
absolute barrier between organic or animate, and inorganic
or inanimate nature was maintained.
In the question of
spontaneous generation, or archigony,
which we can now answer more definitely, it must be borne
in mind that by this conception we understand generally
the
non-parental generation of an organic individual, the
339
origin of an organism independent of a parental or producing
organism. It is in this sense that on a former
occasion (p. 183) I mentioned spontaneous generation
(archigony) as opposed to parental generation or propagation
(tocogony). In the latter case the organic individual
arises by a greater or less portion of an already existing
organism separating itself and growing independently.
(Gen. Morph. ii. 32.)
In spontaneous generation, which is often also called
original generation (generatio spontanea, æquivoca, primaria
etc.), we must first distinguish two essentially different
kinds, namely,
autogeny and
plasmogeny. By
autogeny
we understand the origin of a most simple organic individual
in an
inorganic formative fluid, that is, in a
fluid which contains the fundamental substances for the
composition of the organism dissolved in simple and loose
combinations (for example, carbonic acid, ammonia, binary
salts, etc.). On the other hand, we call spontaneous generation
plasmogeny when the organism arises in an
organic
formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which contains those
requisite fundamental substances dissolved in the form of
complicated and fluid combinations of carbon (for example,
albumen, fat, hydrate of carbon, etc.). (Gen. Morph. i. 174,
ii. 33.)
Neither the process of autogeny, nor that of plasmogeny,
has yet been directly observed with perfect certainty.
In early, and also in more recent times, numerous and
interesting experiments have been made as to the possibility
or reality of spontaneous generation. Almost all these
experiments refer not to autogeny, but to plasmogeny, to the
origin of an organism out of already formed organic matter.
340
It is evident, however, that this latter process is only of
subordinate interest for our history of creation. It is much
more important for us to solve the question, “Is there such
a thing as autogeny? Is it possible that an organism can
arise, not out of pre-existing organic, but out of purely inorganic,
matter?” Hence we can quietly lay aside all the
numerous experiments which refer only to plasmogeny,
which have been carried on very zealously during the last
ten years, and which for the most part have had a negative
result. For even supposing that the reality of plasmogeny
were strictly proved, still autogeny would not be explained
by it.
The experiments on autogeny have likewise as yet
furnished no certain and positive result. Yet we must at
the outset most distinctly protest against the notion
that these experiments have proved the impossibility of
spontaneous generation in general. Most naturalists who
have endeavoured to decide this question experimentally,
and who, after having employed all possible precautionary
measures, under well-ascertained conditions, have seen no
organisms come into being, have straightway made the
assertion, on the ground of these negative results: “That it
is altogether impossible for organisms to come into existence
by themselves without parental generation.” This hasty
and inconsiderate assertion they have supported by the
negative results of their experiments, which, after all, could
prove nothing except that, under these or those highly
artificial circumstances created by the experimenters themselves,
no organism was developed. From these experiments,
which have been for the most part made under the
most unnatural conditions, and in a highly artificial
341
manner, we can by no means draw the conclusion that
spontaneous generation in general is impossible. The
impossibility of such a process can, in fact, never be proved.
For how can we know that in remote primæval times there
did not exist conditions quite different from those at
present obtaining, and which may have rendered spontaneous
generation possible? Indeed, we can even positively
and with full assurance maintain that the general
conditions of life in primæval times must have been entirely
different from those of the present time. Think only of the
fact that the enormous masses of carbon which we now
find deposited in the primary coal mountains were first
reduced to a solid form by the action of vegetable life, and
are the compressed and condensed remains of innumerable
vegetable substances, which have accumulated in the course
of many millions of years. But at the time when, after
the origin of water in a liquid state on the cooled
crust of the earth, organisms were first formed by
spontaneous generation, those immeasurable quantities of
carbon existed in a totally different form, probably for the
most part dispersed in the atmosphere in the shape of
carbonic acid. The whole composition of the atmosphere
was therefore extremely different from the present.
Further, as may be inferred upon chemical, physical, and
geological grounds, the density and the electrical conditions
of the atmosphere were quite different. In like manner the
chemical and physical nature of the primæval ocean, which
then continuously covered the whole surface of the earth as
an uninterrupted watery sheet, was quite peculiar. The
temperature, the density, the amount of salt, etc., must have
been very different from those of the present ocean. In
342
any case, therefore, even if we do not know anything more
about it, there remains to us the supposition, which can at
least not be disputed, that at that time, under conditions
quite different from those of to-day, a spontaneous generation,
which now is perhaps no longer possible, may have
taken place.
But it is necessary to add here that, by the recent progress
of chemistry and physiology, the mysterious and
miraculous character which at first seems to belong to this
much disputed and yet inevitable process of spontaneous
generation, has been to a great extent, or almost entirely,
destroyed. Not fifty years ago, all chemists maintained that
we were unable to produce artificially in our laboratories
any complicated combination of carbon, or so-called “organic
combination.” The mystic “vital force” alone was supposed
to be able to produce these combinations. When,
therefore, in 1828, Wöhler, in Göttingen, for the first time
refuted this dogma, and exhibited pure “organic” urea, obtained
in an artificial manner from a purely inorganic body
(cyanate of ammonium), it caused the greatest surprise and
astonishment. In more recent times, by the progress of synthetic
chemistry, we have succeeded in producing in our
laboratories a great variety of similar “organic” combinations
of carbon, by purely artificial means—for example
alcohol, acetic acid, formic acid. Indeed, many exceedingly
complicated combinations of carbon are now artificially
produced, so that there is every likelihood, sooner
or later, of our producing artificially the most complicated,
and at the same time the most important of all, namely, the
albuminous combinations, or plasma-bodies. By the consideration
of this probability, the deep chasm which was
343
formerly and generally believed to exist between organic
and inorganic bodies is almost or entirely removed, and the
way is paved for the conception of spontaneous generation.
Of still greater, nay, the very greatest importance to the
hypothesis of spontaneous generation are, finally, the exceedingly
remarkable
Monera, those creatures which we have
already so frequently mentioned, and which are not only the
simplest of all observed organisms, but even the simplest of
all imaginable organisms. I have already described these
wonderful “
organisms without organs,” when examining
the simplest phenomena of propagation and inheritance.
We already know seven different genera of these Monera,
some of which live in fresh water, others in the sea (compare
above, p.
184; also Plate
I. and its explanation
in the Appendix). In a perfectly developed and freely
motile state, they one and all present us with nothing but a
simple little lump of an albuminous combination of carbon.
The individual genera and species differ only a little in the
manner of propagation and development, and in the way of
taking nourishment. Through the discovery of these organisms,
which are of the utmost importance, the supposition
of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties.
For as all trace of organization—all distinction of heterogeneous
parts—is still wanting in them, and as all the vital
phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous
and formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by
spontaneous generation. If this happens through
plasmogeny,
and if plasma capable of life already exists, it
then only needs to individualize itself in the same way as
the mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself in crystallization.
If, on the other hand, the spontaneous generation
344
of the Monera takes place by true
autogeny, then it is
further requisite that that plasma capable of life, that primæval
mucus, should be formed out of simpler combinations
of carbon. As we are now able artificially to produce,
in our laboratories, combinations of carbon similar to this
in the complexity of their constitution, there is absolutely
no reason for supposing that there are not conditions in free
nature also, in which such combinations could take place.
Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous generation was
advocated, it failed at once to obtain adherents on account
of the composite structure of the simplest organisms then
known. It is only since we have discovered the exceedingly
important Monera, only since we have become acquainted
in them with organisms not in any way built up of distinct
organs, but which consist solely of a single chemical combination,
and yet grow, nourish, and propagate themselves, that
this great difficulty has been removed, and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation has gained a degree of probability
which entitles it to fill up the gap existing between Kant’s
cosmogony and Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. Even
among the Monera at present known there is a species
which probably, even now, always comes into existence by
spontaneous generation. This is the wonderful
Bathybius
Hæckelii, discovered and described by Huxley. As I have
already mentioned (p. 184), this Moneron is found in the
greatest depths of the sea, at a depth of between 12,000 and
24,000 feet, where it covers the ground partly as retiform
threads and plaits of plasma, partly in the form of larger or
smaller irregular lumps of the same material.
6
Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not
differentiated, and are similar to inorganic crystals in
being homogeneously composed of one single substance,
could arise by spontaneous generation, and could become the
primæval parents of all other organisms. In their further
development we have pointed out that the most important
process is the formation of a
kernel or
nucleus in the simple
little lump of albumen. We can conceive this to take place
in a purely physical manner, by the condensation of the
innermost central part of the albumen. The more solid
central mass, which at first gradually shaded off into the
peripheral plasma, becomes sharply separated from it, and
thus forms an independent, round, albuminous corpuscle,
the kernel; and by this process the Moneron becomes
a
cell. Now, it must have become evident from our
previous chapters, that the further development of all
other organisms out of such a cell presents no difficulty, for
every animal and every plant, in the beginning of its individual
life, is a simple cell. Man, as well as every other
animal, is at first nothing but a simple egg-cell, a single
lump of mucus, containing a kernel (p. 297, Fig. 5).
In the same way as the kernel of the organic cell
arose in the interior or central mass of the originally homogeneous
lump of plasma, by separation, so, too, the first
cell-membrane
was formed on its surface. This simple, but most
important process, as has already been remarked, can likewise
be explained in a purely physical manner, either as a
chemical deposit, or as a physical condensation in the uppermost
stratum of the mass, or as a secretion. One of the first
processes of adaptation effected by the Moneron originating
by spontaneous generation must have been the condensation
346
of an external crust, which as a protecting covering shut in
the softer interior from the hostile influences of the
outer world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous
Moneron, a cell-kernel arose in the interior and
a membrane arose on the surface, all the fundamental
parts of the unit were furnished, out of which, by infinitely
manifold repetition and combination, as attested by actual
observation, the body of higher organisms is constructed.
As has already been mentioned, our whole understanding
of an organism rests upon the cell theory established thirty
years ago by Schleiden and Schwann. According to it,
every organism is either a simple cell or a cell-community,
a republic of closely connected cells. All the forms and
vital phenomena of every organism are the collective result
of the forms and vital phenomena of all the single cells of
which it is composed. By the recent progress of the cell
theory it has become necessary to give the elementary
organisms, that is, the “organic” individuals of the first
order, which are usually designated as
cells, the more
general and more suitable name of
form-units, or
plastids.
Among these form-units we distinguish two main groups,
namely, the cytods and the genuine cells. The
cytods are,
like the Monera, pieces of plasma without a kernel
(p. 186, Fig. 1).
Cells, on the other hand, are pieces of plasma
containing a kernel or nucleus (p. 188, Fig. 2). Each of
these two main groups of plastids is again divided into two
subordinate groups, according as they possess or do not
possess an external covering (skin, shell, or membrane).
We may accordingly distinguish the following four grades
or species of plastids, namely: 1.
Simple cytods (p. 186,
Fig. 1
A); 2.
Encased cytods; 3.
Simple cells (p. 188,
347
Fig. 2
B); 4.
Encased cells (p. 188, Fig. 2
A). (Gen. Morph.
i. 269-289.)
Concerning the relation of these four forms of plastids
to spontaneous generation, the following is the most
probable:—1. The
simple cytods (Gymnocytoda), naked
particles of plasma without kernel, like the still living
Monera, are the only plastids which directly come into
existence by spontaneous generation. 2. The
enclosed cytods
(Lepocytoda), particles of plasma without kernel, which are
surrounded by a covering (membrane or shell), arose out of
the simple cytods either by the condensation of the outer
layers of plasma or by the secretion of a covering. 3. The
simple cells (Gymnocyta), or naked cells, particles of plasma
with kernel, but without covering, arose out of the simple
cytods by the condensation of the innermost particles of
plasma into a kernel, or nucleus, by differentiation of a
central kernel and peripheral cell-substance. 4. The
enclosed cells (Lepocyta), or testaceous cells, particles of
plasma with kernel and an outer covering (membrane or
shell), arose either out of the enclosed cytods by the formation
of a kernel, or out of the simple cells by the formation
of a membrane. All the other forms of form-units, or
plastids, met with, besides these, have only subsequently
arisen out of these four fundamental forms by natural
selection, by descent with adaptation, by differentiation
and transformation.
By this
theory of plastids, by deducing all the different
forms of plastids, and hence, also, all organisms composed
of them, from the Monera, we obtain a simple and natural
connection in the whole series of the development of nature.
The origin of the first Monera by spontaneous generation
348
appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the process
of the development of the earth. We admit that this
process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by
experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again
say that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent
completion of the non-miraculous history of creation, that
it has absolutely nothing forced or miraculous about it,
and that certainly it can never be positively refuted. It
must be taken into consideration that the process of spontaneous
generation, even if it still took place daily and
hourly, would in any case be exceedingly difficult to observe
and establish with absolute certainty as such. With regard
to the Monera, we find ourselves placed before the following
alternative:
either they are actually directly derived from
pre-existing, or “created,” most ancient Monera, and in this
case they would have had to propagate themselves unchanged
for many millions of years, and to have maintained
their original form of simple particles of plasma;
or, the
present Monera have originated much later in the course of
the organic history of the earth, by repeated acts of spontaneous
generation, and in this case spontaneous generation
may take place now as well as then. The latter supposition
has evidently much more probability on its side than
the former.
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous
generation, then at this one point of the history of development
we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural
creation. The Creator must have created the first
organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are
derived, and as such he must have created the simplest
Monera, or primæval cytods, and given them the capability
349
of developing further in a mechanical way.
I leave it to
each one of my readers to choose between this idea and the
hypothesis of spontaneous generation. To me the idea that
the Creator should have in this one point arbitrarily interfered
with the regular process of development of matter,
which in all other cases proceeds entirely without his interposition,
seems to be just as unsatisfactory to a believing
mind as to a scientific intellect. If, on the other hand,
we assume the hypothesis of spontaneous generation for the
origin of the first organisms, which in consequence of
reasons mentioned above,
and especially in consequence of
the discovery of the Monera, has lost its former difficulty,
then we arrive at the establishment of an uninterrupted
natural connection between the development of the earth
and the organisms produced on it, and, in this last remaining
lurking-place of obscurity, we can proclaim the unity
of all Nature, and the unity of her laws of Development
(Gen. Morph. i. 164)"
