Preformation: Grains of Truth

The problems of how genes code information about the morphology of organism and how this information is expressed belong to the great puzzles of the developmental biology. Preformationism of the 17th century proposed that all living beings existed preformed inside their forebears in the manner of a Russian doll, put there by God at the beginning of Creation with a precise moment established for each one to unfold and come to life. Preformationists believed beyond doubt that umpteen numbers of miniatures (animalcules ) were inside the body of every organism. They have given detailed and probably the exact description of these animalcules.

Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek was so firm as to speak out, “I know very well that there are Universities who do no believe that living creatures are in the male semen; but I do not mind about this, as I know I have the truth” Notwithstanding their belief on the creation of these miniatures and that they unfold to become mature organism, their observations on the existence of such miniatures could not be brushed aside as absurd. I fear modern(?) science have discarded the theory without proper inquiry and investigation.

The debate on development, that is, whether it is a process of growing in the sense of blowing-up, of an already finally structured miniature organism (basically, the doctrine of preformation), or rather a modeling process by which an initially almost unstructured germ develops step by step the complex structure of the organism (basically the doctrine of epigenesist and approximates the modern genetics) seems to have had a fresh leaf of life with the publication of the book “LIFECODE: The Theory of Biological Self-Organization” by Stuart Pivar.

Modern genetics commonly believed that morphology is a direct expression of gene activity. It was also believed that determining the exact structure of the genome of humans and other species would reveal how the body is assembled. Rather than launching biology into a new era of understanding, the complete decoding of the human genome announced in December 2000 augured a crisis in biology. Long thought to comprise over a hundred thousand genes, the human genome was found to contain merely thirty thousand. The decoding of the mouse genome in December 2002, also numbered thirty thousand,the same number as man, and of these, only three hundred differed from the human genes, a mere 1%. The 1,000 cell roundworm has 19,500 genes and the corn plant 40,000, 10,000 more than human (Ast 2005)

WHETHER THE THEORY OF ANIMALCULES WAS DISPROVED BEFORE DISCARDED?
I'd say NO. Though our present day advanced miscroscopes have helped us to go through cells, nucleous or even chromosomes and genes, these microscopic developments are too low to view the animalcules. In other words, the animalcules, as described by the animalculists of 17th century are of the order of 10-21 m.

Leeuwenhoek wrote, “I usually judge that three or four hundred of the smallest animalcules, laid out of the smallest animalcules, laid out one against another, would reach to the length of an axis of a common grain of sand; and taking only the least number, to wit 300, then,

300 x 300 x 300 = 27000000 animalcules together are as big as a sand-grain”

That is, as many as 27000000 (to the least) are contained in the size of a sand grain, as per the description of Leeuwenhoek.

Now, let us calculate the volume of a sand-grain. Usually sand grains measure from 1/400 inch (0.06 millimeter) to 1/12 inch (2.1. millimeters) in diameter.

If the diameter of sand grain is taken as 0.06 mm, then

Volume = 4π R³
= 4 x π x (0.03) x (0.03)
= 3.39 x 10-13 m3

Applying this volume of a sand grain to the description of Leeuwenhoek,

No. of animalcules in a sand grain is approximately 27000000
Then, volume of a single animalcule is appx = 3.39 x 10-13 m3
--------------------
27000000
= 1.25 x 10-20m3

Given our advancement in the sphere of microscopy, we are still struggling hard to see namostructures smaller than 0.1 nm. i.e.10-10m.

There were lots of people who proposed and advocated the heliocentric theory, but they were ridiculed and ignored. The scientific data at that time and common sense were against Galileo. Most educated people held the geocentric view of Ptolemy, not the heliocentric one of Copernicus. Today, we wonder how they discarded such important theories without proper scrutiny and verification. But, one big question remains before us. Are we committing a similar kind of contemporary blender? Had we ridiculed and discarded any such theories worth consideration and study or which were beyond the reach of our present science. It appears, WE HAD. The theory of Preformation is one of such theories the present science ridiculed and discarded without much application of mind and study.

As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it is stated that Leeuwenhoek had claimed that as many as 27000000 animalcules together are as big as a sand grain. The experimental and mathematical prowess of Leeuwenhoek is well-known. He could hardly have made such an intricate calculation without enough study and evidence. Interestingly, the size of animalcules as calculated by Leeuwenhoek coincides precisely with that by Charles Bonnet. Though both of them advocated the theory of Preformation, Leeuwenhoek belonged to the period 1632-1723 whereas Charles Bonnet was between 1720 and 1783. Nonetheless, Charles Bonnet had described the size of the minute animalcules, as below, which approximates to the findings of Leeuwenhoek.

Charles Bonnet wrote in 1762,

“The Sun is a million times bigger than the earth and has at its edge a globule of light, of which several thousands enter the eye of the Animal twenty seven millions (27000000) times smaller than a mite”