The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview

We Don't Know What We Don't Know

Emergence of Life on Earth by Iris Fry is a magisterial survey of the history, facts, and philosophical underpinnings of origin-of-life studies up to 1999 (the book was published in January 2000). It is required reading for anyone willing to seriously engage in the creation vs evolution debate -- on either side -- though Fry is clearly writing from the evolutionists' camp. She notes that "Origin-of-life research is, by definition, an interdisciplinary field to which, among others, astrophysicists, planetary scientists, geologists, physical, organic, and biological chemists, evolutionary biologists, and molecular biologists all contribute" (4). Adding to this mix the philosophical and general history-of-science learning that is necessary only underscores Fry's achievement in even gathering all of this information together; she is quite learned, and the book provides copious notes and a large bibliography for further investigation. (As an aside, I came across this book as a source reference in Thomas Nagel's n  Mind and Cosmosn and am very glad that I did). Fry begins with the ancient Greeks and presses through to the current day, citing authors including Dawkins, Behe, Sagan, and Gould, as well as a host of lesser-known scientists.

At the end of the book, Fry summarizes: "As repeatedly pointed out in this book, the basic assumption of scientific research on evolution and its extension to the origin-of-life stage is that no supernatural, purposeful intervention is involved in the natural world. Historically, the scientific study of the origin of life became possible only after the evolutionary worldview was established. The underlying philosophical theme of current origin-of-life theories is that life emerged from a lifeless world through a continuous process governed by physicochemical mechanisms. This theme and the claim of direct or indirect purposeful interference by a supernatural designer present opposite accounts of physical reality and are thus mutually exclusive." Two points are to be made here: first is the mutual exclusiveness of the competing points of view, despite the attempts of some to merge them. Second is that despite this tension, no "scientific" consensus has yet emerged in the origin-of-life debate. As Fry admits, quoting Christian de Duve, "until such time as biologists can demonstrate an entirely material origin for life, the divine will remain a contender" (212).

Fry further acknowledges: "Origin-of-life scientists will probably not consider these suggestions [from the Intelligent Design community] as serious and will continue their research, looking for 'mechanisms other than chance' that could have brought about the self-organization of primitive biological systems under prevailing prebiotic conditions. Making a commitment to either a creationist or a scientific position on the question of the emergence of life is completely legitimate as long as the implications are clear. Commitment to the evolutionary philosophical worldview means that the only way to solve the origin-of-life problem is to continue scientific research. This is the case even though...no theory suggested so far has gained the general support of researchers in the field" (215).

As an overview or as a reference, Emergence of Life on Earth is highly recommended.

a well writen scientific book about the origin of life.

A bit of a chore to read at times, but ultimately succeeds in making the historical and philosophical case that abiogenesis, unlike creationisms and (at the moment) panspermia, offers a useful research paradigm.

Bringing together the ideologies, the science, and the fringe science, Fry's book is still a good read for those casually interested in the subject. It does get a little complex at points, and some knowledge of the sciences involved is required.

Last week, I read Stuart Kauffman's At Home in the Universe, which in an odd mixture of graphs and flowery language claimed to explain how life arose, nearly four billion years ago, from inorganic matter. I found it most unsatisfactory, and ordered a copy of Iris Fry's The Emergence of Life on Earth; initial reports suggested that it would contain more facts and less poetry. I am pleased to say that it delivered handsomely. If it isn't the best book currently available on this difficult subject, the ones ahead must be extremely good.

Fry, an Israeli with degrees in both biochemistry and history, comes across as insightful, hard-working (the bibliography contains an impressively eclectic range of references), impartial and brave. She does not pretend to ignore the obvious problems, and tells you from the start that it is inappropriate to discuss the origins of life without paying attention to the philosophical and religious aspects. I have an unpleasant feeling that this has scared off a fair number of readers, which is a pity. Fry has no axe to grind and is splendidly even-handed. She's doing her job as a responsible historian of science, and she's doing it very well.

The book came out in 2000, so it's possible that there have been some important recent developments, but I'm inclined to think things are more or less where they were then. The bottom line is that no one really knows how life got started. There are a bunch of interesting theories, and people certainly understand the problem much better than they did. Unfortunately, some of that increased understanding has served to reveal just how great the challenges are. Some distinguished biologists (Monod and Crick are the best-known examples) have just thrown up their hands in despair and said that they don't see an answer. For life to arise spontaneously seems, on the face of it, so staggeringly unlikely that it shouldn't ever have happened. But it has.

The central problem is what Fry calls "the chicken and the egg". DNA can't replicate without various protein enzymes, but the enzymes, all very complicated molecules, are created by the DNA. Somehow you need to break into this closed cycle. The most popular approach is the "RNA world": RNA is able to serve as the genetic material, and can also act as an enzyme. So maybe it can be the chicken and the egg. But it's not at all clear how you get to the RNA world. We know that evolution allows complex structures gradually to come into being under selectional pressures. Here, though, we want to explain how the actual mechanisms of evolution arose. Again: how do you break into the cycle?

There is another metaphor Fry likes, "the wall and the arch". You see an arch, and it seems impossible that it could have arisen naturally. Each stone requires all the others. But arches can form, if they are originally part of a wall. The central part of the wall is washed away, and the arch is left. The most promising approaches involve trying to find analogous pieces of molecular scaffolding that would support development of the RNA world. They are ingenious, and maybe one of them is right. So far, though, the evidence seems inconclusive. On top of everything else, the process would have had to work very quickly. The geological record suggests that life arose shortly after the Earth had cooled down and stopped being bombarded by giant meteorites. The gap could have been as little as a few million years.

Fry refers often to creationists who gleefully point out all the problems, and cool-headedly analyzes the similarities and differences between the two camps. She points out that both sides are engaging in important philosophical commitments. This is obvious with the creationists, who make no secret of wanting to find a supernatural explanation; but it is equally true that many of the scientists are driven, for ideological reasons, to seek an account entirely in terms of natural processes. Fry does not think it an accident that several of the key figures in the early development of the subject - Oprin, Haldane, Pirie and Bernal - were Marxists, or that the first international conference on the origins of life was held in the Soviet Union. She shows how optimistic claims from the scientists have several times turned out to be horribly mistaken.

So are the atheist scientists just as bad as the creationists? Fry disagrees: she presents good evidence to show that the scientists are making slow but genuine progress, while the creationists advance no real counter-theories, contenting themselves with gloating from the sidelines. She considers their claims to be doing 'science' to be without foundation, and their demands that creationism should be taught alongside evolution to be ludicrous. It is all the more ironic that a quick Google search shows many creationists selectively quoting her book.

I don't want to knock Richard Dawkins, who does a fine job of explaining evolution. But it's obvious, after looking at Fry's treatment, that he is not being straightforward when he talks about the origins of life. The story is less clear than he wants it to be. It is sad that several hundred people read Dawkins for every one who reads Fry. She doesn't write quite as well as he does, and it takes a little more effort to get through her prose. But if you're willing to invest the time, you may also learn more. Go on, show you're different from the herd.

This is exactly what the title says it is: an overview of schools of thought about the emergence of life on earth, starting with historical/religious philosophies and continuing into modern scientific discoveries. The chapters are fairly concise, which made this good bus reading.