What do you think?
Rate this book
David Attenborough's First Life: A Journey Back in Time With Matt Kaplan
The epic story of the beginning of life on Earth from the much loved and respected naturalist, writer and broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough.Spanning billions of years, First Life reveals the extraordinary story of the evolution of the first life on Earth and how it then evolved into multicellular life, the first plant, the first animal, the first predator, the first to live on land: key moments in the development of the huge diversity of life that has lived on planet Earth. First Life travels the world, from Canada to Australia, Morocco to Scotland, to unearth the secrets hidden in prehistoric fossils and meet the palaeontologists who have harnessed new techniques to enhance greatly our understanding of the origins of life.With an introduction by David Attenborough, and insights captured during the making of the television series, this book is a journey of discovery, showing us what these early animals would have looked like and how they would have lived, bringing them to life with the help of modern computer technology. First Life shows us how evolutionary features of the first creatures have been passed down to modern animals, including humans, giving us amazing insight into the remarkable evolutionary journey that has brought us here today.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2010
22 people are currently reading
307 people want to read
About the author
David Attenborough
173 books2,725 followersSir David Frederick Attenborough is a naturalist and broadcaster, who is most well-known for writing and presenting the nine "Life" series, produced in conjunction with BBC's Natural History Unit. The series includes Life on Earth (1979), The Living Planet (1984), The Trials of Life (1990), Life in the Freezer (about Antarctica; 1993), The Private Life of Plants (1995), The Life of Birds (1998), The Life of Mammals (2002), Life in the Undergrowth (2005) and Life in Cold Blood (2008).
He is the younger brother of director and actor Richard Attenborough.
Photo credit: Wildscreen's photograph of David Attenborough at ARKive's launch in Bristol, England © May 2003
He is the younger brother of director and actor Richard Attenborough.
Photo credit: Wildscreen's photograph of David Attenborough at ARKive's launch in Bristol, England © May 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 28, 2014
this book was interesting. it had cool photographs and a lot of good facts about the first animals and organisms. I written a couple books myself about early life.
March 18, 2011
I am quite frankly amazed at the other reviews of this book. I found it unremittingly poor. The only partially redeeming features were the small parts written by David Attenborough himself and some of the photographs.
So what's the problem? To start with I found the actual writing very bad, almost childlike in places. That is perhaps deliberate; the target audience is presumably children. The reason I say this is because there are frequent and very lengthy explanations of very simple concepts; for example: basic evolutionary ideas that would be part of the knowledge base of any educated child over the age of about fourteen. These concepts are repeated again and again, at length. Unfortunately, in an attempt to `dumb down' the subject matter to match the intended audience, which is quite acceptable although somewhat irritating to an adult, errors creep in. For example, it is asserted that `true flight' requires lift, and that lift defines 'true flight', whatever that is. This simplification is just incorrect, although repeated several times. A flying squirrel is used as an example of an animal that doesn't exhibit 'true flight'. However, a flying squirrel most certainly does develop lift in its glide.
But where things get really bad is the errors that don't arise due to an attempt to make things understandable to a child. They are just plain factual errors. And they should have been picked up either by the author, or by the copy-editor. They aren't isolated -- they are on almost every page. The book has the feel of something that has been knocked out at high speed and then either not copy-edited at all, or copy-edited badly. There are also numerous contradictions in the text.
In addition, in a scientific book aimed at children it is quite disgraceful to say that certain things are `proved' when this is clearly not the case.
A few examples will make the point; and I stress that these are just examples:
1. On page 109, we are told events at Mistaken Point took place between 575 and 560 Ma. On page 114: the rocks span 10Ma.
2. Page 135: the caption to the picture of Dickinsonia says the organism displays left-right bilateral symmetry. On the same page, David Attenborough's narrative is quite clear it doesn't display this.
3. Page 125: "Animals are formed from the union of genetic material from two separate parents". This is not correct. Yes, usually, but not always. The use of the words 'usually', 'often' etc are important in order not to mislead.
4. Page 137. In referring to the fossils of Mistaken Point: "Although they became extinct because they couldn't perform the more sophisticated functions of mammals...". This statement is just preposterous! My jaw dropped open that anyone could write this, let alone someone who apparently has a scientific background. At this point in the book I started to wonder whether Kaplan had actually subcontracted the writing of a lot of the text. The absolute tripe of that statement (and there is no polite way to otherwise put it) just beggars belief. (The mammals didn't appear for hundreds of millions of years after the Mistaken Point animals became extinct).
5. Page 140: "the Ediacaran, dating from 630 million to 542 million years ago". The accepted dates per the ICS (The International Committee on Stratigraphy) are 635 to 542Ma. Interestingly, Wikipedia has this error too at the head of the Ediacaran page -- I won't suggest this is where Kaplan got his dates. This point is important as I refer to dates later. Note particularly that the start of the Cambrian (the end of the Ediacaran) is 542Ma.
6. Page 147: "The fossilised tracks ... prove that something could slither". Page 129: "There is no way to prove without doubt that the traces are not geological in their origin". The use of the word `prove', on page 147, is indefensible, particularly when Kaplan contradicts himself so clearly. And this is not an isolated case -- he seems fond of the word 'prove'. This lends weight to my thought that Kaplan didn't write large sections of the text. A scientist would use a word like 'suggest'.
7. Page 167: There seems to be complete confusion over dates and what animals lived when. Markuelia is referred to in respect of Precambrian life and grouped with Spriggina and Kimberella. Elsewhere in the book, in detail, Markuelia is described as living after the start of the Cambrian.
8. Page 167: We now have the Cambrian period beginning at 543Ma (ICS 542Ma and see 5. above)
9. Page 176: Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is put forward in some detail as an accepted explanation in relation to evolutionary events. What is not explained is that this theory is widely disputed and most evolutionists believe it is not correct.
10. Page 251: "About 251 million years ago, during a time period known as the Permian...". 251 Ma ago was at the boundary between the Permian and the Triassic.
11. Geological and palaeontological `blinks of the eye' are clichés and often stunningly inaccurate and misleading. Page 176: 10Ma is mentioned as a palaeontological `blink of the eye', one of many 'blinks of the eye' in the book. Really? To give an example (my own): North and South America joined around 3-4Ma ago, and mammals spread south displacing and causing the extinction of marsupials. This is evidenced in the fossil record. 10Ma is most certainly a significant palaentological time period and no 'blink of the eye'.
12. Some statements in the book are really quite extraordinary, Page 192: "Trilobites were probably the most advanced forms of life on the planet for the 250Ma from the beginning of the Cambrian." That takes us up to the end of the Carboniferous... ie after fish, land tetrapods etc. It is just a quite staggeringly inaccurate statement. A land based tetrapod is, without doubt, more advanced than a trilobite.
13. Page 224: "Carolinites genacinaca was alive between 488 and 433 million years.... a period known as the Ordovician". No, that was a period that spans the Ordovician and Silurian. The Ordovician spanned 488 to 444Ma and the Silurian 444 to 416Ma.
14. Page 240. The caption to the picture is "Peripatus: ......". No, the picture is of Aysheaia.
The above are just a sample. For a book that retails at £25 we really deserve better. As a geoscientist with a particular interest in evolution the errors were glaring. As a scientist, the misuse of words like `prove' were disturbing. An interested lay reader would reasonably expect the text to be accurate. It isn't.
I am quite sure David Attenborough never read this book before printing and distribution. He would never have allowed it to go out under his name.
I suggest giving this book a miss.
So what's the problem? To start with I found the actual writing very bad, almost childlike in places. That is perhaps deliberate; the target audience is presumably children. The reason I say this is because there are frequent and very lengthy explanations of very simple concepts; for example: basic evolutionary ideas that would be part of the knowledge base of any educated child over the age of about fourteen. These concepts are repeated again and again, at length. Unfortunately, in an attempt to `dumb down' the subject matter to match the intended audience, which is quite acceptable although somewhat irritating to an adult, errors creep in. For example, it is asserted that `true flight' requires lift, and that lift defines 'true flight', whatever that is. This simplification is just incorrect, although repeated several times. A flying squirrel is used as an example of an animal that doesn't exhibit 'true flight'. However, a flying squirrel most certainly does develop lift in its glide.
But where things get really bad is the errors that don't arise due to an attempt to make things understandable to a child. They are just plain factual errors. And they should have been picked up either by the author, or by the copy-editor. They aren't isolated -- they are on almost every page. The book has the feel of something that has been knocked out at high speed and then either not copy-edited at all, or copy-edited badly. There are also numerous contradictions in the text.
In addition, in a scientific book aimed at children it is quite disgraceful to say that certain things are `proved' when this is clearly not the case.
A few examples will make the point; and I stress that these are just examples:
1. On page 109, we are told events at Mistaken Point took place between 575 and 560 Ma. On page 114: the rocks span 10Ma.
2. Page 135: the caption to the picture of Dickinsonia says the organism displays left-right bilateral symmetry. On the same page, David Attenborough's narrative is quite clear it doesn't display this.
3. Page 125: "Animals are formed from the union of genetic material from two separate parents". This is not correct. Yes, usually, but not always. The use of the words 'usually', 'often' etc are important in order not to mislead.
4. Page 137. In referring to the fossils of Mistaken Point: "Although they became extinct because they couldn't perform the more sophisticated functions of mammals...". This statement is just preposterous! My jaw dropped open that anyone could write this, let alone someone who apparently has a scientific background. At this point in the book I started to wonder whether Kaplan had actually subcontracted the writing of a lot of the text. The absolute tripe of that statement (and there is no polite way to otherwise put it) just beggars belief. (The mammals didn't appear for hundreds of millions of years after the Mistaken Point animals became extinct).
5. Page 140: "the Ediacaran, dating from 630 million to 542 million years ago". The accepted dates per the ICS (The International Committee on Stratigraphy) are 635 to 542Ma. Interestingly, Wikipedia has this error too at the head of the Ediacaran page -- I won't suggest this is where Kaplan got his dates. This point is important as I refer to dates later. Note particularly that the start of the Cambrian (the end of the Ediacaran) is 542Ma.
6. Page 147: "The fossilised tracks ... prove that something could slither". Page 129: "There is no way to prove without doubt that the traces are not geological in their origin". The use of the word `prove', on page 147, is indefensible, particularly when Kaplan contradicts himself so clearly. And this is not an isolated case -- he seems fond of the word 'prove'. This lends weight to my thought that Kaplan didn't write large sections of the text. A scientist would use a word like 'suggest'.
7. Page 167: There seems to be complete confusion over dates and what animals lived when. Markuelia is referred to in respect of Precambrian life and grouped with Spriggina and Kimberella. Elsewhere in the book, in detail, Markuelia is described as living after the start of the Cambrian.
8. Page 167: We now have the Cambrian period beginning at 543Ma (ICS 542Ma and see 5. above)
9. Page 176: Eldridge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is put forward in some detail as an accepted explanation in relation to evolutionary events. What is not explained is that this theory is widely disputed and most evolutionists believe it is not correct.
10. Page 251: "About 251 million years ago, during a time period known as the Permian...". 251 Ma ago was at the boundary between the Permian and the Triassic.
11. Geological and palaeontological `blinks of the eye' are clichés and often stunningly inaccurate and misleading. Page 176: 10Ma is mentioned as a palaeontological `blink of the eye', one of many 'blinks of the eye' in the book. Really? To give an example (my own): North and South America joined around 3-4Ma ago, and mammals spread south displacing and causing the extinction of marsupials. This is evidenced in the fossil record. 10Ma is most certainly a significant palaentological time period and no 'blink of the eye'.
12. Some statements in the book are really quite extraordinary, Page 192: "Trilobites were probably the most advanced forms of life on the planet for the 250Ma from the beginning of the Cambrian." That takes us up to the end of the Carboniferous... ie after fish, land tetrapods etc. It is just a quite staggeringly inaccurate statement. A land based tetrapod is, without doubt, more advanced than a trilobite.
13. Page 224: "Carolinites genacinaca was alive between 488 and 433 million years.... a period known as the Ordovician". No, that was a period that spans the Ordovician and Silurian. The Ordovician spanned 488 to 444Ma and the Silurian 444 to 416Ma.
14. Page 240. The caption to the picture is "Peripatus: ......". No, the picture is of Aysheaia.
The above are just a sample. For a book that retails at £25 we really deserve better. As a geoscientist with a particular interest in evolution the errors were glaring. As a scientist, the misuse of words like `prove' were disturbing. An interested lay reader would reasonably expect the text to be accurate. It isn't.
I am quite sure David Attenborough never read this book before printing and distribution. He would never have allowed it to go out under his name.
I suggest giving this book a miss.
October 12, 2023
Life’s Rocky Start:
This book is an enjoyable read, a bit technical in parts but all in all a good overview of evolution from life’s raw beginnings to our present day environment. Written more for the layman or juvenile reader than a student or professional. “First Life” co-written by David Attenborough and Science journalist Matt Kaplan probably follows the layout of the BBC Nature series by the same name. Illustrated with numerous color photos, some showing Attenborough or some professional paleontologists, and some art that gives you a glimpse of some of the animals mentioned in the main text. You may want to have a tablet or iPad handy to look up some of the animals or environments in the main text.
Last Ranger
This book is an enjoyable read, a bit technical in parts but all in all a good overview of evolution from life’s raw beginnings to our present day environment. Written more for the layman or juvenile reader than a student or professional. “First Life” co-written by David Attenborough and Science journalist Matt Kaplan probably follows the layout of the BBC Nature series by the same name. Illustrated with numerous color photos, some showing Attenborough or some professional paleontologists, and some art that gives you a glimpse of some of the animals mentioned in the main text. You may want to have a tablet or iPad handy to look up some of the animals or environments in the main text.
Last Ranger
January 31, 2023
Really interesting read about early life. Don't be fooled by the cover with David Attenborough into thinking this is a light read, it is a dense and informative popular science book.
September 22, 2025
A fascinating journey through the mists of time, starting with the primordial soup that fostered the beginnings of what we call life, exploring ancient species such as trilobytes and fronds.
May 3, 2011
The information for this listing appears to be a little confused. The author of this book is Matt Kaplan, with the introduction written by the lovely Sir David. The listing for this book appears to have these two facts swapped around.
There are a few small sections by David Attenborough, which are by far the most entertaining and engaging sections. The book covers much of what was presented in the series, and though relatively concise and too the point, there isn't the charming narrative to the book which the narration of David Attenborough provides to the series.
As with all BBC nature book tie-ins the book is beautifully produced with wonderful large colour photography. If kept as a coffee table book rather than an authority on the subject, it makes for a nice item to pick up and flick through.
Al that said I fond this on sale for £1.99 in a discount bookshop and would have bought ten at that price if I could have carried more than one copy of this weighty tome at a time.
There are a few small sections by David Attenborough, which are by far the most entertaining and engaging sections. The book covers much of what was presented in the series, and though relatively concise and too the point, there isn't the charming narrative to the book which the narration of David Attenborough provides to the series.
As with all BBC nature book tie-ins the book is beautifully produced with wonderful large colour photography. If kept as a coffee table book rather than an authority on the subject, it makes for a nice item to pick up and flick through.
Al that said I fond this on sale for £1.99 in a discount bookshop and would have bought ten at that price if I could have carried more than one copy of this weighty tome at a time.
November 22, 2010
It's Sir David Attenborough... an automatic 5 stars! This is the tie-in book for his forthcoming BBC series, co-written by a former NHM colleague of mine (Good work Matt!). The photography is amazing and I can't praise this book enough. If you are a fan of Sir David with an interest in Natural History, then you will not be disappointed
December 4, 2014
You can almost hear his mellifluous tones as you read this book – the writing style is such that you could be watching and listening the accompanying programme.
I missed the TV series, so this was a new experience and it really worked. Good gritty research, well presented and very readable.
I missed the TV series, so this was a new experience and it really worked. Good gritty research, well presented and very readable.
May 9, 2012
This book fits in with the tv series very well. Not much more information given than in the series. Worth a read if you havn't seen the series yet.
January 20, 2013
A quality book from a quality TV series. Accessible yet comprehensive. Beautifully presented.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews