526 
Phenomena of Ontogenesis 
[October, 
have furnished us with excellent reasons for believing that 
between living and not- living matter there is no link, but, 
on the contrary, an impassable barrier ; that inanimate 
matter could, by no combination of chances, become animate ; 
in short, that this world, destitute of life-germs, would, 
through all the changes that have taken place during the 
ages that have elapsed since it first became habitable, have 
remained an absolute desert, without a vestige of even the 
lowest forms of life. Thus, although it may never be actu- 
ally demonstrated, evidence is already forthcoming of such 
a nature as to render it in the highest degree probable that 
spontaneous generation even from dead organic matter, is 
impossible at the present day ; and if impossible now, it can 
never have taken place at any period of the world’s history, 
physical laws being unalterable. The inconsistencies of Profs. 
Huxley and Tyndall, on this point, have been clearly indi- 
cated by Dr. Bastian, who remarks that : — “ We find Prof. 
Tyndall also affirming in the most unhesitating language 
the ultimate similarity between crystalline and living mat- 
ter: affirming that all the various structures by which the 
two kinds of matter may be represented are equally the 
‘ results of the free play of the forces of the atoms and 
molecules ’ entering into their composition. And yet he, 
too, would have us believe that whilst differences in degree 
of molecular complexity alone separate living from not- 
living matter, the physical agencies which freely occasion 
the growth of living matter are now incapable of causing its 
origination.” In another place he comments thus on Prof. 
Huxley’s views: — “ What reason does Prof. Huxley give, 
in explanation of his supposition as to the present non- 
occurrence of Archebiosis ? He says, if it were given him 
i to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time ’ to 
a still more remote period of the earth’s history, he would 
expeCt ( to be a witness to the evolution of living proto- 
plasm from not living matter.’ And the only reason dis- 
tinctly implied why a similar process should not occur at 
the present day, is because the physical and chemical con- 
a shadow of evidence in favour of the doctrine of spontaneous generation. 
There is, on the contrary, overwhelming evidence against it ; but do not carry 
away with you the notion, sometimes erroneously ascribed to me, that I deem 
spontaneous generation impossible, or that I wish to limit the power of 
matter in relation to life. My views on this subject ought to be well known. 
But possibility is one thing and proof is another ; and when in our day I seek 
for experimental evidence of the transformation of non-living into the living, 
I am led inexorably to the conclusion that no such evidence exists, and that 
in the lowest, as in the highest, of organised creatures, the method of nature 
is that life shall be the issue of antecedent life.” 
