1 06 PROPER TIES OF LIVING MA TTER 



there is no example of non-living matter undergoing altera- 

 tions in property corresponding in any way to those 

 manifested .by every living creature in the course of its 

 development and during its growth. 



What could be more absurd than to suggest that the 

 properties of man, dog, butterfly, and amoeba were. due not to 

 vitality, but to their constituent elements, or to the pro- 

 perties of the original molecules of which their tissues were 

 constructed? Mr. Huxley has himself asserted, "That 

 the powers of all the different forms of living things were 

 substantially one, that their forms were substantially one, and, 

 finally, that their composition was also substantially one" 

 (Scotsman, Nov. pth, 1868). But yet if his doctrine concern- 

 ing different " properties " is correct, he ought to be able to 

 prove not only that there is a difference in the composition 

 of the . different protoplasms, but that the difference as 

 regards the properties of the elements, or of the things 

 compounded of them, in the case of dog, differ sufficiently 

 from those of the elements or compounds of man, to account 

 for the very wide differences between dog and man. But 

 have we not however, on the other hand, evidence of 

 an approximation towards identity of composition in the 

 living matter, associated with a marvellous difference in the 

 results of the actions ? How, then, can the differences be 

 explained by any ordinary properties of the elements? 

 Wonderful properties have indeed to be discovered in 

 connection with the elements oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, 

 carbon, sulphur, and phosphorus, before we can refer the 

 differences in property of living beings compounded of them 

 to the properties of the elements themselves. 



We may consider what conclusions would have been 



