40 life's beginning on the earth 



the existence of small invisible crystals in them. How can 

 we find out whether or not these are present? 



The solution of this problem has been greatly handi- 

 capped by the conception that the forces acting in life must 

 be different from those in non-living matter. As early as 

 1858, a Swiss, Carl Naegeli, pointed out that many of the 

 components of living matter are probably built up of very 

 tiny crystals. Naegeli found some evidence for their crys- 

 talline character through the study of the appearance of 

 plant and animal material, if illuminated by a special kind 

 of light, so-called polarized light which forms if ordinary 

 light passes through a plate of transparent lime-spar under 

 certain conditions. There appears a play of colors, which 

 is otherwise seen only if certain crystals are illuminated with 

 this polarized light. Particularly, fibers which have grown 

 in living plants or animals, like silk fibers, cotton fibers, 

 tendons, or muscle fibers, distinctly exhibit such a play of 

 color. Hence it is likely that they have invisibly small 

 crystalline components in them, a fact which tends to show 

 that the process of living growth shows some traits similar 

 to those of crystallization. 



By such studies, one of the artificially erected walls of 

 separation between living and dead matter was torn down 

 as early as 1862. The time honored teaching of science 

 had been that the growth of a crystal bears no similarity to 

 living growth, this being explained by vital forces, vital 

 energy, or some other meaningless word. It is only natural 

 therefore, that every possible effort was made to disprove 

 the arguments which indicate the crystallinity of the prod- 

 ucts of vital growth. Every possible effort was made to 

 prove that the characteristic play in color of plant and ani- 

 mal material can also appear even when no crystals are 

 present at all. 



It is always possible for a scientific specialist to find flaws 

 in a theory. So against Naegeli's reasonable theory, argu- 



