What do you think?
Rate this book
Emergence Of Life
Looks at theories concerning the origin of life, discusses the properties of thermal proteins, and describes experiments designed to show the development of life from inanimate matter
- GenresScience
224 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1988
About the author
Nicols Fox
8 books2 followersNicols Fox is an author and bookseller. Her book AGAINST THE MACHINE: The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives is now out in paperback.
She is also the author of the essay found in ALONE TOGETHER, a book of David Graham's photographs of Placentia Island.
Her first book, SPOILED: Why our Food is Making us Sick and What We Can Do About It, is in a Penguin paperback edition and now out of print, as is IT WAS PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU ATE: A Practical Guide For Avoiding and Surviving Foodborne Disease.
OTHER WORKS:
Fox's articles, essays and reviews have appeared in THE ECONOMIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, LEAR'S, NEWSWEEK, THE BOSTON GLOBE, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, ART IN AMERICA, THE NEW ART EXAMINER, THE HUNGRY MIND REVIEW (now THE RUMINATOR REVIEW), WASHINGTON JOURNALISM REVIEW (now AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW) WASHINGTONIAN, MAINE TIMES, DOWN EAST, and many other publications.
A graduate of Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia, Fox received an MFA in creative writing and literature from Bennington College in 1999. Born in Virginia, she now lives on the coast of Maine.
She is also the author of the essay found in ALONE TOGETHER, a book of David Graham's photographs of Placentia Island.
Her first book, SPOILED: Why our Food is Making us Sick and What We Can Do About It, is in a Penguin paperback edition and now out of print, as is IT WAS PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU ATE: A Practical Guide For Avoiding and Surviving Foodborne Disease.
OTHER WORKS:
Fox's articles, essays and reviews have appeared in THE ECONOMIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, LEAR'S, NEWSWEEK, THE BOSTON GLOBE, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, ART IN AMERICA, THE NEW ART EXAMINER, THE HUNGRY MIND REVIEW (now THE RUMINATOR REVIEW), WASHINGTON JOURNALISM REVIEW (now AMERICAN JOURNALISM REVIEW) WASHINGTONIAN, MAINE TIMES, DOWN EAST, and many other publications.
A graduate of Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia, Fox received an MFA in creative writing and literature from Bennington College in 1999. Born in Virginia, she now lives on the coast of Maine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 5, 2025
A BIOCHEMIST RESEARCHER MAKES SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
Biochemist Sidney Fox (1912-1998) wrote in the Preface to this 1988 book, “The primary audience I have selected is that composed of those who have had a high school course in biology… For someone who knows little of evolution, the visible result of the evolutionary sequence is often considered equivalent to miraculous. Accordingly, this book seeks to answer primarily the kind of question that younger and nontechnical audiences have asked. It attempts to explain evolutionary theory to the uninitiated, and scientific methodology to those who will not become vocational scientists. It attempts to clarify the essential nature of the transition from the inanimate to the animate, and it relates personal experiences of the kind with which intelligent readers can identify.”
He continues, “The advances and perceptions reviewed in this book are not an impartial selection of various points of view on how life emerged on this planet. They are instead a treatment of the connected picture the author sees as most relevant… I feel comfortable with a frankly acknowledged bias derived from experiments and experience. That is because it appears to me that the universe and life in it began with a bias; it is not true that all (now) conceivable alternatives had an equal opportunity. To the extent that some possibilities were more pregnant for development than others, the universe originated and developed from bias. At least in this way, I feel in touch with my universe and with, I hope, its special biases.”
He explains in the first chapter, “For many fringe questions, we would like better answers, but the central queries have been answered by the identification of internal---that is, true evolutionary—processes. If any one of these processes is the ‘secret’ of life, I would say it’s the high degree of self-ordering of amino acids, and the resultant diversity of functions.” (Pg. 5)
He notes, “The question where on the Earth are amino acids that could be converted to life is pointless today, since our planet is contaminated with amino acids FROM living things already… The question of prelife amino acids can be confused by the presence of life-derived amino acids.” (Pg. 14)
He states, “the DNA/RNA mechanism as we know it is extremely complex. That such a complex mechanism could have been present at the beginning of organic evolution is even to the most imaginative scientist essentially unfathomable or very improbable. The alternative is that the complex templating mechanism… that uses nucleic acids was preceded by simpler mechanisms. That answer brings the proteins into purview as indeed the logical simpler mechanism,” (Pg. 23-24)
He recounts, “A face-to-face conversation with [A.I.] Oparin in 1979 through an interpreter satisfied me that by that date Oparin had come to recognize the inadequacy of his own laboratory model. Oparin stressed to me, however, that coacervate droplets could reveal principles of cellular organization, even if they did not specify how cells first arose. I agreed with him in this last comment, a few months before he died, and emphasized that they served this role very well and early in his research.” (Pg. 37)
Very surprisingly, he admits, “The scientific credentials of the leadership of the Institute of Creation Research in San Diego are quite weighty… Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials… This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists. [Henry] Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.” (Pg. 46)
He continues, “The ‘scientific creationists’ emphasize the incompleteness of the fossil record, but they do not comment on the microfossils of Elso Barghoorn and those of J. William Schopf or on the proteinoid microspheres… The experimentally demonstrated simple emergence of a protocell, followed in evolution theoretically by multiple stapes to a modern cell, is an alternative they do not consider… A focus on this group’s criticism of prebiotic proteins shows … three especially false statements: that laboratory conditions would not have existed on primeval Earth; that the proteins produced were not ordered, biologically useful, or chemically specific; and that the proteins would have quickly been destroyed. These claims… are readily answered. The conditions to make these substances are widespread on Earth, even today…numerous laboratories show that the thermal proteins are highly ordered… Finally, the book ‘Scientific Creationism’ cites as support for the third point a paper from our laboratory, in which the evidence is quite the opposite that [that book] stated!” (Pg. 46-47)
He cites a 1968 paper on human social behavior, and comments, “The experiments showed the emergence was not of a lone individual but of a larger group. More than that, the individuals revealed a strong propensity for the formation of couples right from the beginning. The ‘chemistry’ … between two human individuals of opposite gender appears from these experiments to have been ingrained for three billion years. We can postulate that the attraction is basically between positive charges on one (proto)cell and negative charges on another. Through the microscope, one can see attractions, ‘flirting,’ repulsions, and repeated attractions. The experiments have many of the elements of a dating dance or a primitive human ceremony that anthropologists might describe.” (Pg. 80)
He reports that bioengineer W. Ross Ashby stated, “No organism reproduces ITSELF… there is a matrix, and introduced form, a complex dynamic interaction… and the generation of more forms somewhat like the original one. Cells or molecules are reproduced, they do not reproduce themselves. In order for cells or higher organisms to reproduce, they must obtain energy from the environment. This they do by feeding. In many contexts, the distinction between self-reproduction and being reproduced is trivial or semantic. In our context, dealing with how the processes got started, it is crucial.” (Pg. 96)
He summarizes, “Experiments for retracing principal molecular events in prebiotic, probiotic, and early biotic evolution have indicated a highly non-random, albeit not totally determinate, stepwise sequence… The resultant laboratory protocells possess properties describing a protometabolism, precisely limited protogrowth, an ability for heterotrophic reproduction, electrical responses to stimuli, and related phenomena… Further experiments partially describe how the necessary ancient protein, already informed by self-ordering of precursor amino acids, underwent complex changes to a genetic coding system. Fundamental principles identified are (1) attainment of otherwise impossible compounds by steps, (2) self-sequencing of animo acids to informed proteins, and (3) self-organization of the proteins into cells on contact with water. The experiments reveal that instructions for sequences of amino acids in the first proteins could have come from the amino acids themselves; computerized studies of modern proteins suggest that this process has been inherited.” (Pg. 182)
This book may appeal to those who are studying the origin of life on earth.
Biochemist Sidney Fox (1912-1998) wrote in the Preface to this 1988 book, “The primary audience I have selected is that composed of those who have had a high school course in biology… For someone who knows little of evolution, the visible result of the evolutionary sequence is often considered equivalent to miraculous. Accordingly, this book seeks to answer primarily the kind of question that younger and nontechnical audiences have asked. It attempts to explain evolutionary theory to the uninitiated, and scientific methodology to those who will not become vocational scientists. It attempts to clarify the essential nature of the transition from the inanimate to the animate, and it relates personal experiences of the kind with which intelligent readers can identify.”
He continues, “The advances and perceptions reviewed in this book are not an impartial selection of various points of view on how life emerged on this planet. They are instead a treatment of the connected picture the author sees as most relevant… I feel comfortable with a frankly acknowledged bias derived from experiments and experience. That is because it appears to me that the universe and life in it began with a bias; it is not true that all (now) conceivable alternatives had an equal opportunity. To the extent that some possibilities were more pregnant for development than others, the universe originated and developed from bias. At least in this way, I feel in touch with my universe and with, I hope, its special biases.”
He explains in the first chapter, “For many fringe questions, we would like better answers, but the central queries have been answered by the identification of internal---that is, true evolutionary—processes. If any one of these processes is the ‘secret’ of life, I would say it’s the high degree of self-ordering of amino acids, and the resultant diversity of functions.” (Pg. 5)
He notes, “The question where on the Earth are amino acids that could be converted to life is pointless today, since our planet is contaminated with amino acids FROM living things already… The question of prelife amino acids can be confused by the presence of life-derived amino acids.” (Pg. 14)
He states, “the DNA/RNA mechanism as we know it is extremely complex. That such a complex mechanism could have been present at the beginning of organic evolution is even to the most imaginative scientist essentially unfathomable or very improbable. The alternative is that the complex templating mechanism… that uses nucleic acids was preceded by simpler mechanisms. That answer brings the proteins into purview as indeed the logical simpler mechanism,” (Pg. 23-24)
He recounts, “A face-to-face conversation with [A.I.] Oparin in 1979 through an interpreter satisfied me that by that date Oparin had come to recognize the inadequacy of his own laboratory model. Oparin stressed to me, however, that coacervate droplets could reveal principles of cellular organization, even if they did not specify how cells first arose. I agreed with him in this last comment, a few months before he died, and emphasized that they served this role very well and early in his research.” (Pg. 37)
Very surprisingly, he admits, “The scientific credentials of the leadership of the Institute of Creation Research in San Diego are quite weighty… Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials… This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists. [Henry] Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.” (Pg. 46)
He continues, “The ‘scientific creationists’ emphasize the incompleteness of the fossil record, but they do not comment on the microfossils of Elso Barghoorn and those of J. William Schopf or on the proteinoid microspheres… The experimentally demonstrated simple emergence of a protocell, followed in evolution theoretically by multiple stapes to a modern cell, is an alternative they do not consider… A focus on this group’s criticism of prebiotic proteins shows … three especially false statements: that laboratory conditions would not have existed on primeval Earth; that the proteins produced were not ordered, biologically useful, or chemically specific; and that the proteins would have quickly been destroyed. These claims… are readily answered. The conditions to make these substances are widespread on Earth, even today…numerous laboratories show that the thermal proteins are highly ordered… Finally, the book ‘Scientific Creationism’ cites as support for the third point a paper from our laboratory, in which the evidence is quite the opposite that [that book] stated!” (Pg. 46-47)
He cites a 1968 paper on human social behavior, and comments, “The experiments showed the emergence was not of a lone individual but of a larger group. More than that, the individuals revealed a strong propensity for the formation of couples right from the beginning. The ‘chemistry’ … between two human individuals of opposite gender appears from these experiments to have been ingrained for three billion years. We can postulate that the attraction is basically between positive charges on one (proto)cell and negative charges on another. Through the microscope, one can see attractions, ‘flirting,’ repulsions, and repeated attractions. The experiments have many of the elements of a dating dance or a primitive human ceremony that anthropologists might describe.” (Pg. 80)
He reports that bioengineer W. Ross Ashby stated, “No organism reproduces ITSELF… there is a matrix, and introduced form, a complex dynamic interaction… and the generation of more forms somewhat like the original one. Cells or molecules are reproduced, they do not reproduce themselves. In order for cells or higher organisms to reproduce, they must obtain energy from the environment. This they do by feeding. In many contexts, the distinction between self-reproduction and being reproduced is trivial or semantic. In our context, dealing with how the processes got started, it is crucial.” (Pg. 96)
He summarizes, “Experiments for retracing principal molecular events in prebiotic, probiotic, and early biotic evolution have indicated a highly non-random, albeit not totally determinate, stepwise sequence… The resultant laboratory protocells possess properties describing a protometabolism, precisely limited protogrowth, an ability for heterotrophic reproduction, electrical responses to stimuli, and related phenomena… Further experiments partially describe how the necessary ancient protein, already informed by self-ordering of precursor amino acids, underwent complex changes to a genetic coding system. Fundamental principles identified are (1) attainment of otherwise impossible compounds by steps, (2) self-sequencing of animo acids to informed proteins, and (3) self-organization of the proteins into cells on contact with water. The experiments reveal that instructions for sequences of amino acids in the first proteins could have come from the amino acids themselves; computerized studies of modern proteins suggest that this process has been inherited.” (Pg. 182)
This book may appeal to those who are studying the origin of life on earth.
Displaying 1 of 1 review