When you are the inspiration for a Jurassic Park character (or at least I think he was), then you immediately capture my attention. I'll buy your book, even if its subject matter is generally outside my interests.

Stuart Kauffman seems to have been at least partially the inspiration for the interesting chaotician character "Ian Malcolm" in Jurassic Park, and I thought his real life ideas would be as interesting as his fictional incarnation's ranting on chaos theory.

Not quite. At Home in the Universe *sounds* a lot more interesting than it *was*. It's plodding and jargon-heavy. Reading it felt like a burden, and I didn't come away feeling more informed or that I had encountered something thought-provoking.

Kauffman also frequently inserts random drivel about nature being sacred despite the falsehood of religion. Not only is that absurd on its face (sacred is *defined as* "set aside for religious veneration"), but what the hell does it have to do with his ideas about complexity and emerging order?

It strikes me as extremely disrespectful to mount attacks on your readers' religious beliefs, or narcissistic to assume that they would be the same as yours. We'd expect that kind of think from The God Delusion or God is Not Great, but atheist vitriol is way off topic here.

I see this as a worrisome, almost cancerous trend in the scientific community of the past 15 years or so, where the equations atheism=science and science=atheism actually sounds sensible to large swaths of people, who somehow can no longer distinguish between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

It seems to be the flip side of the gradual degeneration of Christianity into a right wing political movement. Now millions of Americans see no difference between "likes Jesus" and "votes Republican." I don't know what these changes mean, but I do think the implications are wholly negative and its sad that Kauffman's books has to reflect so obviously on the state of affairs.

When you are the inspiration for a Jurassic Park character (or at least I think he was), then you immediately capture my attention. I'll buy your book, even if its subject matter is generally outside my interests.

Stuart Kauffman seems to have been at least partially the inspiration for the interesting chaotician character "Ian Malcolm" in Jurassic Park, and I thought his real life ideas would be as interesting as his fictional incarnation's ranting on chaos theory.

Not quite. At Home in the Universe sounds a lot more interesting than it was. It's plodding and full of jargon. And for a bonus, atheist polemic is included at no added charge! Yay! *Cough*

Kauffman also inserts random drivel about nature being sacred despite the falsehood of religion. Not only is that absurd on its face (sacred means set aside for religious veneration), but what the hell does it have to do with his ideas about complexity and emerging order? Spare me the atheo-preaching, please.

Actually the books is an outcome of scientific experiments in a computer lab. Differently from other reviewers, I want to notice that the facts of chaos exist in every where such as in Nature or in A Company.
Writer shows that everything in the world can be reduced to a series of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions can generate a complex system such as life from dead. He argues also the equilibrium of life and dead from the view of the number of kinds of molecules and the number of kinds of outcome from these molecules create or which are already in the system.
He also like many chaos theorist says that small changes in the system make big changes in the whole. (Explaining evalution). By some evidents and using probability, he shows that life on earth is the expected.
The books most important view is explaning everything as chemical reactions. And I believe this is the right thing...At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity

In this book, Stuart Koaffman opens new doors to us. Through the theory of the chaos, proportions fractals and their networks boulinas, give an interesting speculation us on the origin of the life, the complex systems and the societies. It is hour to be on the awares and to try to focus to us in new horizons. This book took to him of the hand by these new horizons. It is hour to know our house in the universe...

In this book, Stuart Koaffman opens new doors to us. Through the theory of the chaos, proportions fractals and their networks boulinas, give an interesting speculation us on the origin of the life, the complex systems and the societies. It is hour to be on the awares and to try to focus to us in new horizons. This book took to him of the hand by these new horizons. It is hour to know our house in the universe...

Stuart Kaufman's At Home in the Universe is a lay redaction his scientific hypotheses from his Origins of Order, a rich, fascinating, sophisticated, and complementary set of hypotheses added to Darwin's theories of evolution. For the moment, at least, they are the promising fruit of speculative or theoretical biological hypotheses (with physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, mathematics, game theory, and economics thrown in), but they go a long way to filling in many of the gaps that strict Darwinists seem content to ignore. And some of his hypotheses, he readily admits, are heretical.

One of the obvious problems, if not primary one, that Kaufman sets to answer, Is how can natural selection work, culling the fittest to survive, without something to act on? In other words, natural selection operates on the already existent (i.e., regressive engineering), not in the formation of the entity itself. Another problem is that 4 billion years, long as that is, is still not sufficient time for natural selection to have acted through a totally random, step-by-step process in determining today's survivors. Even 100 billion years would not be enough. Another problem is how could so many species have come into existence and failed to survive (99.9%), leaving a mere 100 million for the present, in the span of a mere 4 billion years (mathematically impossible on Darwin's theories alone).

The central theme of Kaufman's work is Self-organized Criticality, a scientific twist on the notion of irreducible complexity (from the Discovery Institute's lexicon, no less), where a minimal degree of inherent complexity in a subcritical-supercritical phase transition is what spontaneously orders the animate world and generates and sustains life in accord with other, as yet, unknown, but implicit laws. From the moment that a sufficiently critical diversity of molecules reached the ideal phase transition, life itself was "spontaneously generated" as inevitable, not by accident. Once life appeared, the acts of natural selection, adaptation, coevolution, evolution of coevolution, cellular, morphological, and physiological differentiation, ontogeny, niches, populations, stable cum-chaotic dynamics, etc., could operate, but in addition to forces beyond natural selection. And while speculative, apparently many scientists share Kaufman's intuitions, inferences, and insights.

But the "other" force or forces is not mystical, much less divine, even if they may be truly awesome. Rather, it is in the nature of the universe, and more particularly in our evolving earth, that these implicit laws work in tandem with Darwin's laws. At this point, these laws are posited from the empirical knowledge we do have, but have not yet demonstrated in the scientific manner to make them even hypotheses. But Kaufman's speculative biology is not a whimsical or arbitrary metaphysics, but logical inferences based on laws and facts already in place. Having done the easy work (thinking the notions of what these other general laws of nature must be like), now science must work in earnest to confirm or reject his speculative hypotheses.

The key word and concept throughout this humorous, heady, and exacting exposition is "complexity" and within the manifold complexities of lives, environments, and mutually intersecting dynamics is a spontaneous order that arises "for free" that in turn sustains stable and steady systems just at the subcritical-supercrticial phase transition (e.g., horizon, or "edge of chaos"). Another key word and concept is "dynamic." Steady-state and homeostasis are often thought of as a static plateau, but that is mistaken, as such states are actually in a fluctuating dynamic at the phase transition between equilibrium (death) and disequilibrium (disorder). Indeed, on many different levels, living organisms are born, dwell, and die precisely at this phase transition between the subcritical (stasis, moribund) and supercritical (chaotic, disordered) states. And the key thesis is that order ("for free") is embedded in the delicate balancing act precisely at this phase transition.

Kaufman extrapolates some of these implicit biological laws and applies them to human cultural and technological advancement. The "fit" is remarkably uncanny, helping us to understand some of the dynamics of technological improvements (and diminishing returns), innovation, extinction, and spontaneity of the economy. Perhaps the most salient features are the concepts of "dynamic" and "spontaneous."

Moreover, if an analogy can be drawn from the biosphere and ecology to the social and political realms, the overwhelming preponderance of biological evidence screams complexity, diversity, and interdependence of organisms and their environments, which arise spontaneously and reciprocally to each other, in a constant dynamic that is vibrant, active, and always on the threshold of "chaos," but retains some stability through change. It is only those social and political forms that are "adaptive" that are socially and politically the "fittest," and democracy and market economies are obviously the most adaptive mechanisms to adapt to changing human needs.

Frederick Hayek addressed himself to these very issues over 50 years ago, and called the market economy and democracies "spontaneous" associations, in contradistinction to "planned" economies and governments. The former "adapt" to changing environments and circumstances, while the latter lack flexibility, and thus do not easily yield to adaptive mechanisms. "Planned" economies attempt to calculate rationally human desires, motivations, and needs in either an abstract or a priori fashion, then calculate the mode of production, the degree, and whether to accommodate, as if some "Absolute Human Mind" could anticipate all contingencies and changes by a simple mathematical formula. The problem is that bureaucrats are notoriously theory-laden and too calculating to include, much less advance, diversity (think Medicare Part D for "planned" absurdity). In practice, socialisms impede innovation and stifle ingenuity. With no means of adaptation, there is no "fittest," much less any mechanism to adapt to the actual dynamics of the world.

Communism's planned economy is an extreme case of an irrational calculus asserting what the government will allow, applying the lowest-common denominator as a criterion of sufficiency. We all know of the U.S.S.R.'s food lines, limited products, forced housing, inferior merchandise, and minimal labor investment. But even weaker forms of the rational calculus, such as socialism, does not do much better. At least their democracies allow policies to change, even if it becomes years for government to adapt to the new exigencies. Even the most socialized societies have "capitalist" outlets, to provide some barometer of social wants and meeting them. Social insurance makes sense on many fronts, but social or state "planning" of economics has rotted state and worker. Kaufman's biological analogies explain why.

Postscript: Kaufman's book is a provocative, challenging, and fascinating (sometime heady) read. Even if all of his hypotheses in the abstract are found to be untrue, at least he captures the reader's imagination, and asks the questions that most of us non-dogmatic Darwinians have raised for some time. In a time when the "easy" and "orthodox" are all too convenient for slipping under the rug, Kaufman's questions (and suggested answers) go the the very nexus of the difficulties. His suggested answers are at once perhaps too simple, on the other hand, perhaps too complex. What is refreshing, above all, is that he's not afraid to ask, and even less fearful of suggesting solutions. Thank gawd for the Sante Fe Institute, where brave and curious minds still ask questions.

Stuart Kaufman's At Home in the Universe is a lay redaction his scientific hypotheses from his Origins of Order, a rich, fascinating, sophisticated, and complementary set of hypotheses added to Darwin's theories of evolution. For the moment, at least, they are the promising fruit of speculative or theoretical biological hypotheses (with physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, mathematics, game theory, and economics thrown in), but they go a long way to filling in many of the gaps that strict Darwinists seem content to ignore. And some of his hypotheses, he readily admits, are heretical.

One of the obvious problems, if not primary one, that Kaufman sets to answer, Is how can natural selection work, culling the fittest to survive, without something to act on? In other words, natural selection operates on the already existent (i.e., regressive engineering), not in the formation of the entity itself. Another problem is that 4 billion years, long as that is, is still not sufficient time for natural selection to have acted through a totally random, step-by-step process in determining today's survivors. Even 100 billion years would not be enough. Another problem is how could so many species have come into existence and failed to survive (99.9%), leaving a mere 100 million for the present, in the span of a mere 4 billion years (mathematically impossible on Darwin's theories alone).

The central theme of Kaufman's work is Self-organized Criticality, a scientific twist on the notion of irreducible complexity (from the Discovery Institute's lexicon, no less), where a minimal degree of inherent complexity in a subcritical-supercritical phase transition is what spontaneously orders the animate world and generates and sustains life in accord with other, as yet, unknown, but implicit laws. From the moment that a sufficiently critical diversity of molecules reached the ideal phase transition, life itself was "spontaneously generated" as inevitable, not by accident. Once life appeared, the acts of natural selection, adaptation, coevolution, evolution of coevolution, cellular, morphological, and physiological differentiation, ontogeny, niches, populations, stable cum-chaotic dynamics, etc., could operate, but in addition to forces beyond natural selection. And while speculative, apparently many scientists share Kaufman's intuitions, inferences, and insights.

But the "other" force or forces is not mystical, much less divine, even if they may be truly awesome. Rather, it is in the nature of the universe, and more particularly in our evolving earth, that these implicit laws work in tandem with Darwin's laws. At this point, these laws are posited from the empirical knowledge we do have, but have not yet demonstrated in the scientific manner to make them even hypotheses. But Kaufman's speculative biology is not a whimsical or arbitrary metaphysics, but logical inferences based on laws and facts already in place. Having done the easy work (thinking the notions of what these other general laws of nature must be like), now science must work in earnest to confirm or reject his speculative hypotheses.

The key word and concept throughout this humorous, heady, and exacting exposition is "complexity" and within the manifold complexities of lives, environments, and mutually intersecting dynamics is a spontaneous order that arises "for free" that in turn sustains stable and steady systems just at the subcritical-supercrticial phase transition (e.g., horizon, or "edge of chaos"). Another key word and concept is "dynamic." Steady-state and homeostasis are often thought of as a static plateau, but that is mistaken, as such states are actually in a fluctuating dynamic at the phase transition between equilibrium (death) and disequilibrium (disorder). Indeed, on many different levels, living organisms are born, dwell, and die precisely at this phase transition between the subcritical (stasis, moribund) and supercritical (chaotic, disordered) states. And the key thesis is that order ("for free") is embedded in the delicate balancing act precisely at this phase transition.

Kaufman extrapolates some of these implicit biological laws and applies them to human cultural and technological advancement. The "fit" is remarkably uncanny, helping us to understand some of the dynamics of technological improvements (and diminishing returns), innovation, extinction, and spontaneity of the economy. Perhaps the most salient features are the concepts of "dynamic" and "spontaneous."

Moreover, if an analogy can be drawn from the biosphere and ecology to the social and political realms, the overwhelming preponderance of biological evidence screams complexity, diversity, and interdependence of organisms and their environments, which arise spontaneously and reciprocally to each other, in a constant dynamic that is vibrant, active, and always on the threshold of "chaos," but retains some stability through change. It is only those social and political forms that are "adaptive" that are socially and politically the "fittest," and democracy and market economies are obviously the most adaptive mechanisms to adapt to changing human needs.

Frederick Hayek addressed himself to these very issues over 50 years ago, and called the market economy and democracies "spontaneous" associations, in contradistinction to "planned" economies and governments. The former "adapt" to changing environments and circumstances, while the latter lack flexibility, and thus do not easily yield to adaptive mechanisms. "Planned" economies attempt to calculate rationally human desires, motivations, and needs in either an abstract or a priori fashion, then calculate the mode of production, the degree, and whether to accommodate, as if some "Absolute Human Mind" could anticipate all contingencies and changes by a simple mathematical formula. The problem is that bureaucrats are notoriously theory-laden and too calculating to include, much less advance, diversity (think Medicare Part D for "planned" absurdity). In practice, socialisms impede innovation and stifle ingenuity. With no means of adaptation, there is no "fittest," much less any mechanism to adapt to the actual dynamics of the world.

Communism's planned economy is an extreme case of an irrational calculus asserting what the government will allow, applying the lowest-common denominator as a criterion of sufficiency. We all know of the U.S.S.R.'s food lines, limited products, forced housing, inferior merchandise, and minimal labor investment. But even weaker forms of the rational calculus, such as socialism, does not do much better. At least their democracies allow policies to change, even if it becomes years for government to adapt to the new exigencies. Even the most socialized societies have "capitalist" outlets, to provide some barometer of social wants and meeting them. Social insurance makes sense on many fronts, but social or state "planning" of economics has rotted state and worker. Kaufman's biological analogies explain why.

Postscript: Kaufman's book is a provocative, challenging, and fascinating (sometime heady) read. Even if all of his hypotheses in the abstract are found to be untrue, at least he captures the reader's imagination, and asks the questions that most of us non-dogmatic Darwinians have raised for some time. In a time when the "easy" and "orthodox" are all too convenient for slipping under the rug, Kaufman's questions (and suggested answers) go the the very nexus of the difficulties. His suggested answers are at once perhaps too simple, on the other hand, perhaps too complex. What is refreshing, above all, is that he's not afraid to ask, and even less fearful of suggesting solutions. Thank gawd for the Sante Fe Institute, where brave and curious minds still ask questions.

Stuart brings the science of complexity and complex adaptive systems to a broad range of topics from evolution to business to learning curves. The book is masterly written to allow you to skim over the formulas without lossing the excitement or to dig into the technology to understand its broad application.

Stuart brings the science of complexity and complex adaptive systems to a broad range of topics from evolution to business to learning curves. The book is masterly written to allow you to skim over the formulas without lossing the excitement or to dig into the technology to understand its broad application.

We see a great deal of order in living systems. Where does this order come from? Is it entirely from natural selection? The author says no. He explains that much of the order we see in the world is spontaneous, such as in the symmetry of snowflakes, and that much of the order needed for the origination of life and in living organisms is of this spontaneous nature.

Kauffman is making a non-trivial point here, as the extent to which spontaneous order is more important than selected order is not entirely obvious. While a snowflake is indeed an example of a system that is highly ordered as it gets synthesized, that's not true of, say, a solar system, in which short-lived bodies quickly depart the scene in favor of long-lived ones. It's clearly significant that disordered entities tend to be shorter-lived and unable to replicate.

The author then addresses theories of the origin of life. Could it have started with RNA? After all, replicating RNA could then produce the needed proteins. Kauffman says no. The amino acid chains one would need would be too long to replicate accurately enough (the "error catastrophe"). I tend to agree. Besides, RNA is awfully fragile (DNA is not fragile). And once one hypothesizes that RNA has a template to keep it safe, one's theory is that templates came first.

Of course, the "error catastrophe" is devastating if the minimum complexity of a living cell is rather large. Kauffman argues that this minimum complexity is indeed large, and that it is no accident that there are hundreds of genes in pleuromona, perhaps the simplest free-living (non-virus) organism.

Spontaneous order also refutes the argument of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life could not have arisen on Earth because the chance of creating the 2000 functioning enzymes would be too small: 1 in 10 to the 40,000. Well, given that life does exist here, the Hoyle argument is almost certainly wrong anyway (with a chance that small, the odds would be overwhelmingly small for life to arise anywhere, ever, so the chance that the argument is wrong must be huge, since a correct argument might then give a much higher probability for life to appear).

The author then asks how we get the large polymers we need. After all, life is basically autocatalysis (that's what I was taught in the 1960s, and that's what Kauffman says as well). How does this big autocatalytic set get into gear? The author makes an analogy to putting connectors between random pairs of entities. At first the length of a connected chain will be small. But once the number of connections is about half the number of entities, the longest chain quickly becomes almost as large as the number of entities. That raises the question of how all these entities can interact, but Kaufmann says that having reactions on a substrate, effectively reducing the region to two dimensions, helps. So does having less water around.

We then get to the question of homeostasis. That requires plenty of order. Is there a way to get that order "for free?" The author says there is, and here is where he makes his most dramatic point. He points out that a network with 100,000 entities (call them "light bulbs") with two states each, has 10 to the 30,000 possible states. One might expect such a network to cycle through the square root of the number of states, or 10 to the 15,000. But it actually tends to cycle through the square root of the number of binary variables, which is only the square root of 100,000 or about 317. That is a huge amount of "order for free!" And it argues strongly for life's origination to be unsurprising. As Kauffman puts it, this changes life on Earth from being "We, the improbable," to "We the expected."

There's plenty more in this fine book. The author discusses order in ontogeny. And he has a chapter on the relationship between the diversity of species in an ecosystem and the diversity of organic molecules added from outside. And there's also plenty of material on "fitness landscapes."

One question that arises in this book is statistical: how long does a species tend to last? That has implications for the question of how long humans will last. It may not be that long. But that doesn't bother me, as long as we're replaced with something better. After all, I'm for progress!

We see a great deal of order in living systems. Where does this order come from? Is it entirely from natural selection? The author says no. He explains that much of the order we see in the world is spontaneous, such as in the symmetry of snowflakes, and that much of the order needed for the origination of life and in living organisms is of this spontaneous nature.

Kauffman is making a non-trivial point here, as the extent to which spontaneous order is more important than selected order is not entirely obvious. While a snowflake is indeed an example of a system that is highly ordered as it gets synthesized, that's not true of, say, a solar system, in which short-lived bodies quickly depart the scene in favor of long-lived ones. It's clearly significant that disordered entities tend to be shorter-lived and unable to replicate.

The author then addresses theories of the origin of life. Could it have started with RNA? After all, replicating RNA could then produce the needed proteins. Kauffman says no. The amino acid chains one would need would be too long to replicate accurately enough (the "error catastrophe"). I tend to agree. Besides, RNA is awfully fragile (DNA is not fragile). And once one hypothesizes that RNA has a template to keep it safe, one's theory is that templates came first.

Of course, the "error catastrophe" is devastating if the minimum complexity of a living cell is rather large. Kauffman argues that this minimum complexity is indeed large, and that it is no accident that there are hundreds of genes in pleuromona, perhaps the simplest free-living (non-virus) organism.

Spontaneous order also refutes the argument of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life could not have arisen on Earth because the chance of creating the 2000 functioning enzymes would be too small: 1 in 10 to the 40,000. Well, given that life does exist here, the Hoyle argument is almost certainly wrong anyway (with a chance that small, the odds would be overwhelmingly small for life to arise anywhere, ever, so the chance that the argument is wrong must be huge, since a correct argument might then give a much higher probability for life to appear).

The author then asks how we get the large polymers we need. After all, life is basically autocatalysis (that's what I was taught in the 1960s, and that's what Kauffman says as well). How does this big autocatalytic set get into gear? The author makes an analogy to putting connectors between random pairs of entities. At first the length of a connected chain will be small. But once the number of connections is about half the number of entities, the longest chain quickly becomes almost as large as the number of entities. That raises the question of how all these entities can interact, but Kaufmann says that having reactions on a substrate, effectively reducing the region to two dimensions, helps. So does having less water around.

We then get to the question of homeostasis. That requires plenty of order. Is there a way to get that order "for free?" The author says there is, and here is where he makes his most dramatic point. He points out that a network with 100,000 entities (call them "light bulbs") with two states each, has 10 to the 30,000 possible states. One might expect such a network to cycle through the square root of the number of states, or 10 to the 15,000. But it actually tends to cycle through the square root of the number of binary variables, which is only the square root of 100,000 or about 317. That is a huge amount of "order for free!" And it argues strongly for life's origination to be unsurprising. As Kauffman puts it, this changes life on Earth from being "We, the improbable," to "We the expected."

There's plenty more in this fine book. The author discusses order in ontogeny. And he has a chapter on the relationship between the diversity of species in an ecosystem and the diversity of organic molecules added from outside. And there's also plenty of material on "fitness landscapes."

One question that arises in this book is statistical: how long does a species tend to last? That has implications for the question of how long humans will last. It may not be that long. But that doesn't bother me, as long as we're replaced with something better. After all, I'm for progress!

We see a great deal of order in living systems. Where does this order come from? Is it entirely from natural selection? The author says no. He explains that much of the order we see in the world is spontaneous, such as in the symmetry of snowflakes, and that much of the order needed for the origination of life and in living organisms is of this spontaneous nature.

Kauffman is making a non-trivial point here, as the extent to which spontaneous order is more important than selected order is not entirely obvious. While a snowflake is indeed an example of a system that is highly ordered as it gets synthesized, that's not true of, say, a solar system, in which short-lived bodies quickly depart the scene in favor of long-lived ones. It's clearly significant that disordered entities tend to be shorter-lived and unable to replicate.

The author then addresses theories of the origin of life. Could it have started with RNA? After all, replicating RNA could then produce the needed proteins. Kauffman says no. The amino acid chains one would need would be too long to replicate accurately enough (the "error catastrophe"). I tend to agree. Besides, RNA is awfully fragile (DNA is not fragile). And once one hypothesizes that RNA has a template to keep it safe, one's theory is that templates came first.

Of course, the "error catastrophe" is devastating if the minimum complexity of a living cell is rather large. Kauffman argues that this minimum complexity is indeed large, and that it is no accident that there are hundreds of genes in pleuromona, perhaps the simplest free-living (non-virus) organism.

Spontaneous order also refutes the argument of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life could not have arisen on Earth because the chance of creating the 2000 functioning enzymes would be too small: 1 in 10 to the 40,000. Well, given that life does exist here, the Hoyle argument is almost certainly wrong anyway (with a chance that small, the odds would be overwhelmingly small for life to arise anywhere, ever, so the chance that the argument is wrong must be huge, since a correct argument might then give a much higher probability for life to appear).

The author then asks how we get the large polymers we need. After all, life is basically autocatalysis (that's what I was taught in the 1960s, and that's what Kauffman says as well). How does this big autocatalytic set get into gear? The author makes an analogy to putting connectors between random pairs of entities. At first the length of a connected chain will be small. But once the number of connections is about half the number of entities, the longest chain quickly becomes almost as large as the number of entities. That raises the question of how all these entities can interact, but Kaufmann says that having reactions on a substrate, effectively reducing the region to two dimensions, helps. So does having less water around.

We then get to the question of homeostasis. That requires plenty of order. Is there a way to get that order "for free?" The author says there is, and here is where he makes his most dramatic point. He points out that a network with 100,000 entities (call them "light bulbs") with two states each, has 10 to the 30,000 possible states. One might expect such a network to cycle through the square root of the number of states, or 10 to the 15,000. But it actually tends to cycle through the square root of the number of binary variables, which is only the square root of 100,000 or about 317. That is a huge amount of "order for free!" And it argues strongly for life's origination to be unsurprising. As Kauffman puts it, this changes life on Earth from being "We, the improbable," to "We the expected."

There's plenty more in this fine book. The author discusses order in ontogeny. And he has a chapter on the relationship between the diversity of species in an ecosystem and the diversity of organic molecules added from outside. And there's also plenty of material on "fitness landscapes."

One question that arises in this book is statistical: how long does a species tend to last? That has implications for the question of how long humans will last. It may not be that long. But that doesn't bother me, as long as we're replaced with something better. After all, I'm for progress!

This particular book is a fantastic revelation and study of the boundary between order and chaos as it applies to the evolution of life, culture, technology and anything else in the universe. Its goal is to seek a universal law regarding the emergence of order in what we've traditionally considered unordered or random sets of fundamental stuff. For example, one of the observations that it makes is that evolution as Darwin revealed it is by itself not a sufficient explanation (scientifically) for why and how creatures like us could be here at all. In other words, natural selection is not sufficient to accomplish what life has accomplished in this world of ours. It needed the help of a very important other "force"... the life force, I might call it, and to which I've alluded many times in many forms through my writings. It's that special something about the nature of the universe that brings about the cooperation of systems, the autocatalytic closure which makes "hanging together" and "existing" some sort of "goal" deeply encoded in the nature of it all. You might be able to see how I might identify these ideas very closely with that term "lifetoward". What goal-oriented force brought life to be and continues to make life strive for ever more order and complexity? This book answers I think very well with: it's not a force, per se, but rather a fundamental aspect of the basic nature of the universe. To quote the book, "We the expected." We as living beings belong here and are an integral part of an incredibly awe inspiring process of creation of meaning and order in a world aching to give birth to it. The book closes with a nice summary, which much like a message I had posted to the lifetoward@yahoogroups.com list some time ago, extols the development of a new and enlightened faith, based on a realization of the wonder of the way the universe deeply is and how we are in it.

In terms of the meaning and importance of this book, I would recommend it to everyone. However, I will warn you that it may be a significant challenge to read. It calls on a deeply considered understanding of a variety of disciplines, including most notably evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, mathematics, anthropology, and economics. It proceeds with an assumption that the reader has realized or can quickly recognize the common ground between these different areas of study. It uses a lot of mathematical models and visualizations of 2, 3 and hyperdimensional spaces to discuss the nature of this common law and its emergence in the world around us.

This particular book is a fantastic revelation and study of the boundary between order and chaos as it applies to the evolution of life, culture, technology and anything else in the universe. Its goal is to seek a universal law regarding the emergence of order in what we've traditionally considered unordered or random sets of fundamental stuff. For example, one of the observations that it makes is that evolution as Darwin revealed it is by itself not a sufficient explanation (scientifically) for why and how creatures like us could be here at all. In other words, natural selection is not sufficient to accomplish what life has accomplished in this world of ours. It needed the help of a very important other "force"... the life force, I might call it, and to which I've alluded many times in many forms through my writings. It's that special something about the nature of the universe that brings about the cooperation of systems, the autocatalytic closure which makes "hanging together" and "existing" some sort of "goal" deeply encoded in the nature of it all. You might be able to see how I might identify these ideas very closely with that term "lifetoward". What goal-oriented force brought life to be and continues to make life strive for ever more order and complexity? This book answers I think very well with: it's not a force, per se, but rather a fundamental aspect of the basic nature of the universe. To quote the book, "We the expected." We as living beings belong here and are an integral part of an incredibly awe inspiring process of creation of meaning and order in a world aching to give birth to it. The book closes with a nice summary, which much like a message I had posted to the lifetoward@yahoogroups.com list some time ago, extols the development of a new and enlightened faith, based on a realization of the wonder of the way the universe deeply is and how we are in it.

In terms of the meaning and importance of this book, I would recommend it to everyone. However, I will warn you that it may be a significant challenge to read. It calls on a deeply considered understanding of a variety of disciplines, including most notably evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, mathematics, anthropology, and economics. It proceeds with an assumption that the reader has realized or can quickly recognize the common ground between these different areas of study. It uses a lot of mathematical models and visualizations of 2, 3 and hyperdimensional spaces to discuss the nature of this common law and its emergence in the world around us.

Kauffman is a complexity theorist/mathematical biologist. The most intriguing concept in this book is that of an autocatalytic set: put enough kinds of organic molecules, which possibly could be developed by non-organic means, in a self contained space, which can arise in various ways, and a system with the properties of life will emerge with reasonable probability. This is just one example of a self-organizing system. Another important idea is the importance of the boundary between sub-critical and super-critical regions of a dynamic system: if super-critical there is chaotic change, if sub-critical there may not be enough flexibility to adapt. Organisms have evolved so mutation rates lay near the boundary, but still in the sub-critical area, and it is characteristic of successful ecosystems. There is an explanation of why it is natural and logical that all the current phyla, and many more extinct ones, arose in the Cambrian period or "immediately" after, even though in the subsequent Permian extinction, for example, 96% of species became extinct, to be replaced by new ones. While sometimes repetitious, Kaufman's prose would often do a novelist proud, and he is excellent in explaining abstract concepts, using images and graphs to good effect. He is particularly good at explaining the work of others. He has a very likable personality and is great in giving credit to others, eminent scientists as well as Emily Dickinson (a computer scientist who worked for him). Why then did I not like this book even more than I did? A major problem for me is that Kauffman's passion is for the logic, not the biology, and I would have appreciated additional fleshing out of his models in their biological context. His application of his models to other areas such as technology are sometimes interesting, but not always; sometimes, what he thinks is a new insight is hardly new at all: cf. his discussion of the use of a set of sub-optimizations to solve one large optimization problem. Finally, I found his discussion of ontogeny very confusing: recalling his image, I understood that there were a number of sub-systems of flashing green lights of varying size(corresponding to cell types), so how does the total number of green lights relates to the time for cell division?

Kauffman is a complexity theorist/mathematical biologist. The most intriguing concept in this book is that of an autocatalytic set: put enough kinds of organic molecules, which possibly could be developed by non-organic means, in a self contained space, which can arise in various ways, and a system with the properties of life will emerge with reasonable probability. This is just one example of a self-organizing system. Another important idea is the importance of the boundary between sub-critical and super-critical regions of a dynamic system: if super-critical there is chaotic change, if sub-critical there may not be enough flexibility to adapt. Organisms have evolved so mutation rates lay near the boundary, but still in the sub-critical area, and it is characteristic of successful ecosystems. There is an explanation of why it is natural and logical that all the current phyla, and many more extinct ones, arose in the Cambrian period or "immediately" after, even though in the subsequent Permian extinction, for example, 96% of species became extinct, to be replaced by new ones. While sometimes repetitious, Kaufman's prose would often do a novelist proud, and he is excellent in explaining abstract concepts, using images and graphs to good effect. He is particularly good at explaining the work of others. He has a very likable personality and is great in giving credit to others, eminent scientists as well as Emily Dickinson (a computer scientist who worked for him). Why then did I not like this book even more than I did? A major problem for me is that Kauffman's passion is for the logic, not the biology, and I would have appreciated additional fleshing out of his models in their biological context. His application of his models to other areas such as technology are sometimes interesting, but not always; sometimes, what he thinks is a new insight is hardly new at all: cf. his discussion of the use of a set of sub-optimizations to solve one large optimization problem. Finally, I found his discussion of ontogeny very confusing: recalling his image, I understood that there were a number of sub-systems of flashing green lights of varying size(corresponding to cell types), so how does the total number of green lights relates to the time for cell division?

Kauffman is a complexity theorist/mathematical biologist. The most intriguing concept in this book is that of an autocatalytic set: put enough kinds of organic molecules, which possibly could be developed by non-organic means, in a self contained space, which can arise in various ways, and a system with the properties of life will emerge with reasonable probability. This is just one example of a self-organizing system. Another important idea is the importance of the boundary between sub-critical and super-critical regions of a dynamic system: if super-critical there is chaotic change, if sub-critical there may not be enough flexibility to adapt. Organisms have evolved so mutation rates lay near the boundary, but still in the sub-critical area, and it is characteristic of successful ecosystems. There is an explanation of why it is natural and logical that all the current phyla, and many more extinct ones, arose in the Cambrian period or "immediately" after, even though in the subsequent Permian extinction, for example, 96% of species became extinct, to be replaced by new ones. While sometimes repetitious, Kaufman's prose would often do a novelist proud, and he is excellent in explaining abstract concepts, using images and graphs to good effect. He is particularly good at explaining the work of others. He has a very likable personality and is great in giving credit to others, eminent scientists as well as Emily Dickinson (a computer scientist who worked for him). Why then did I not like this book even more than I did? A major problem for me is that Kauffman's passion is for the logic, not the biology, and I would have appreciated additional fleshing out of his models in their biological context. His application of his models to other areas such as technology are sometimes interesting, but not always; sometimes, what he thinks is a new insight is hardly new at all: cf. his discussion of the use of a set of sub-optimizations to solve one large optimization problem. Finally, I found his discussion of ontogeny very confusing: recalling his image, I understood that there were a number of sub-systems of flashing green lights of varying size(corresponding to cell types), so how does the total number of green lights relates to the time for cell division?

This book is written from a biological perspective, which is not where my interests lie. Perhaps if my background were different, I would have given it an additional star.

The greatest benefit I received from this book was exposure to a whole new subject area (self organization). After reading the book, I moved on to read several other books about emergent behaviour which is more along the lines of my interests.

It served me well to open my eyes to a different way of thinking. The other books I have read have served me better as they are not primarily biologically based.

This book is written from a biological perspective, which is not where my interests lie. Perhaps if my background were different, I would have given it an additional star.

The greatest benefit I received from this book was exposure to a whole new subject area (self organization). After reading the book, I moved on to read several other books about emergent behaviour which is more along the lines of my interests.

It served me well to open my eyes to a different way of thinking. The other books I have read have served me better as they are not primarily biologically based.

Kauffman's book provides a clear description of self-organizing systems, the emergence of life, fitness landscapes, and evolution. It is written for the well-educated layperson, but if you want to see some of the associated math, refer to Kauffman's other book, or simply google e.g. "NK-landscape". I highly recommend this book. And if you like this book, see also Rare Earth and Chaisson's Cosmic Evolution.

Kauffman's book provides a clear description of self-organizing systems, the emergence of life, fitness landscapes, and evolution. It is written for the well-educated layperson, but if you want to see some of the associated math, refer to Kauffman's other book, or simply google e.g. "NK-landscape". I highly recommend this book. And if you like this book, see also Rare Earth and Chaisson's Cosmic Evolution.

This book takes a hard look at how life on earth came to be. Rather than buy into the idea that somehow life evolved via the "blind watchmaker" scenario (i.e., similar to the argument that an army of monkeys sitting at typewriters would eventually compose a great novel), Stuart Kauffman builds a terrific case that the ingredients essential to life are bound to the rules that govern complex adaptive systems. And the very presence of these rules send a strong signal that "we the living", are "we the intended."

The author's conviction to both his argument and the science of complex systems is evident throughout the book. If you are coming to this book without much background in complex adaptive systems, you will not be short-changed here. In fact, Kauffman provides extremely rich examples with numerous simple diagrams to educate the reader as he builds his case. Considering the book was published some 7 years ago, I was surprised to see the concept of gene networks given so much attention in the text. Seeing how the latest trend in genomics research is looking at genes and proteins as a regulatory network and attempting to identify specific disease pathways, the science in this book is extremely relevant.

This book takes a hard look at how life on earth came to be. Rather than buy into the idea that somehow life evolved via the "blind watchmaker" scenario (i.e., similar to the argument that an army of monkeys sitting at typewriters would eventually compose a great novel), Stuart Kauffman builds a terrific case that the ingredients essential to life are bound to the rules that govern complex adaptive systems. And the very presence of these rules send a strong signal that "we the living", are "we the intended."

The author's conviction to both his argument and the science of complex systems is evident throughout the book. If you are coming to this book without much background in complex adaptive systems, you will not be short-changed here. In fact, Kauffman provides extremely rich examples with numerous simple diagrams to educate the reader as he builds his case. Considering the book was published some 7 years ago, I was surprised to see the concept of gene networks given so much attention in the text. Seeing how the latest trend in genomics research is looking at genes and proteins as a regulatory network and attempting to identify specific disease pathways, the science in this book is extremely relevant.

I will not attempt to summarize "At Home" since many other highly rated Amazon reviews have already done so. My main purpose is to offer some additional comments and to add a five star rating.

I don't know how completely and totally original Kauffman's ideas are since I am not actively involved in the research areas Kauffman addresses. I do know that he gives effusive credit to many other individuals. And I'm not sure debating the issue of proper and exhaustive attribution, like some prior reviews have done, has much to do with the intriguing and revolutionary ideas Kauffman presents. However, for what it's worth, I suspect that many of the ideas are his own. If not in their entirety, at least in the novelty of their application. I am a popular science junkie and numerous ideas, or at least the way they were discussed, were new and exciting to me. I think they will be to many others readers as well. I say this after having read several other newer, related books. In fact, I plan to read Kauffman's older and more technical book, "Origins of Order", rather than reading more recent but lighter fare from other authors.

I was not bothered by Kauffman's enthusiasm or his grandiloquence, as one reviewer put it. Rather, I found his enthusiasm infectious, rewarding, and most of all, legitimate. For example, when Kauffman says to the reader, "Your antennae should be twitching", I found the comment to be both amusing and rewarding. My guess is that Kauffman will make your antennae twitch too. The ideas he presents are revolutionary and may even change your worldview. They have mine.

They also touch on the spiritual. An image that sticks in my mind, although I don't remember the source, is of a huge old oak tree surrounded by layers of dead leaves. As we approach the time when we will be one of those dead leaves we may take comfort in the fact that we were instrumental in maintaining the life of the magnificent tree, if even for a short while and in a small way. Kauffman offers a scientific justification for such a view. A justification, I might add, that I find consistent with certain Buddhist notions. And, an apt justification for the book's title.

I will not attempt to summarize "At Home" since many other highly rated Amazon reviews have already done so. My main purpose is to offer some additional comments and to add a five star rating.

I don't know how completely and totally original Kauffman's ideas are since I am not actively involved in the research areas Kauffman addresses. I do know that he gives effusive credit to many other individuals. And I'm not sure debating the issue of proper and exhaustive attribution, like some prior reviews have done, has much to do with the intriguing and revolutionary ideas Kauffman presents. However, for what it's worth, I suspect that many of the ideas are his own. If not in their entirety, at least in the novelty of their application. I am a popular science junkie and numerous ideas, or at least the way they were discussed, were new and exciting to me. I think they will be to many others readers as well. I say this after having read several other newer, related books. In fact, I plan to read Kauffman's older and more technical book, "Origins of Order", rather than reading more recent but lighter fare from other authors.

I was not bothered by Kauffman's enthusiasm or his grandiloquence, as one reviewer put it. Rather, I found his enthusiasm infectious, rewarding, and most of all, legitimate. For example, when Kauffman says to the reader, "Your antennae should be twitching", I found the comment to be both amusing and rewarding. My guess is that Kauffman will make your antennae twitch too. The ideas he presents are revolutionary and may even change your worldview. They have mine.

They also touch on the spiritual. An image that sticks in my mind, although I don't remember the source, is of a huge old oak tree surrounded by layers of dead leaves. As we approach the time when we will be one of those dead leaves we may take comfort in the fact that we were instrumental in maintaining the life of the magnificent tree, if even for a short while and in a small way. Kauffman offers a scientific justification for such a view. A justification, I might add, that I find consistent with certain Buddhist notions. And, an apt justification for the book's title.

If I was to rate this book as a scientific one then I will
give it 2 stars. However, this book is very intriguing and
exiting if one reads it with the intent of broadening their
outlook in life.

The best thing I like about it is the abstraction and
demonstration of life as exhibiting order in the simplest of
explanations. Several central ideas of the book like 'edge of
chaos', 'order for free' and the 'NK model' are very interesting
because one can relate them to real life intuitively.

Overall, the book is weak on scientific explanation but a joy
in its intuitive appeal.

If I was to rate this book as a scientific one then I will
give it 2 stars. However, this book is very intriguing and
exiting if one reads it with the intent of broadening their
outlook in life.

The best thing I like about it is the abstraction and
demonstration of life as exhibiting order in the simplest of
explanations. Several central ideas of the book like 'edge of
chaos', 'order for free' and the 'NK model' are very interesting
because one can relate them to real life intuitively.

Overall, the book is weak on scientific explanation but a joy
in its intuitive appeal.

Stuart Kauffman's book presents some exciting and apparently new and original ideas (though since I'm a layman I can't tell how new and original) about molecular biology and other complex "autocatalytic" systems that have the features of life. A central idea of the book is that when the diversity of molecules (or other components) in a system (such as a cell) becomes sufficiently large, the system becomes a self sustaining interlinked web of reactions, i.e. it becomes "alive". The general idea can be proved mathematically in some model systems.

What remains unclear to me is how this theory applies in detail to cell biology, whose chemistry is wildly complicated. Also unclear is how the system evolved from the simplest building blocks to reach the sufficient level of complexity needed to become alive. In other words, I'd like to see a full picture of evolution including the first steps of molecular evolution. But I suppose Kauffman's theory is possible and worth considering futher.

The main detraction of the book is its ecstatic writing style. Even this wouldn't be so bad except that the author repeats the same ecstatic visions many times throughout, by re-phrasing them a slightly different way. One expects a certain amount of salesmanship in a book for a popular audience, but it is over done. The book needed a tough editor. If I find another book explaining the same fascinating ideas, the present book will probably get demoted a couple stars.

Stuart Kauffman's book presents some exciting and apparently new and original ideas (though since I'm a layman I can't tell how new and original) about molecular biology and other complex "autocatalytic" systems that have the features of life. A central idea of the book is that when the diversity of molecules (or other components) in a system (such as a cell) becomes sufficiently large, the system becomes a self sustaining interlinked web of reactions, i.e. it becomes "alive". The general idea can be proved mathematically in some model systems.

What remains unclear to me is how this theory applies in detail to cell biology, whose chemistry is wildly complicated. Also unclear is how the system evolved from the simplest building blocks to reach the sufficient level of complexity needed to become alive. In other words, I'd like to see a full picture of evolution including the first steps of molecular evolution. But I suppose Kauffman's theory is possible and worth considering futher.

The main detraction of the book is its ecstatic writing style. Even this wouldn't be so bad except that the author repeats the same ecstatic visions many times throughout, by re-phrasing them a slightly different way. One expects a certain amount of salesmanship in a book for a popular audience, but it is over done. The book needed a tough editor. If I find another book explaining the same fascinating ideas, the present book will probably get demoted a couple stars.

Kauffman undoubtedly has something important to say, but what? Writing skill is unfortunately not a part of his impressive credentials. Spare us the inappropriate anecdotes, biased historical perspective and creationist apologia.

Those seeking a cogent synthesis of some of the ideas buried in this tome are advised to get _Creation_ , by Steve Grand. Steve programmed the Creatures computer game. His book gives a stimulating, well-written look at persistant, emergent phenomena.

Kauffman undoubtedly has something important to say, but what? Writing skill is unfortunately not a part of his impressive credentials. Spare us the inappropriate anecdotes, biased historical perspective and creationist apologia.

Those seeking a cogent synthesis of some of the ideas buried in this tome are advised to get _Creation_ , by Steve Grand. Steve programmed the Creatures computer game. His book gives a stimulating, well-written look at persistant, emergent phenomena.

I am always happy when I finish a book. The first reason could be that the book was good, and it left somewhat smarter than before. The other case is because the book was not so good and I am happy no to read it any longer. Unfortunately, this book belongs to the second category. Unfortunately, really, because the subject and the hypothesis developped in "At Home In The Universe" definitly deserve a better treatment.

I was brought to this book by the excellent "Here Be Dragons" (by S. Levay and D. Koerner ), which had a complete chapter on self-organization theories and the origins of life. Based on this captivating first glimpse into the world of artificial life experiments, I decided that the book by Kauffman was worth a try. Well...

First, the good news: the book does explain all the generalities and details on self-organization and the possible applications, from the origins of life to economics and politics. The ideas are very innovative, and even if those theories may not correctly explain everything (a possibility wisely pointed out by the author), they do add something new and worth exploring. The chapters on autocatalytic chemical sets are the most interesting, and convinced me that luck and Darwinian evolution do not completely explain why life exists, and how it achieved such a complexity.

Now, the bad news. The writing style is a killer: egocentric, prophetic, repetitive, grandiloquent and lyrical. Egocentric, because the author keeps on talking at the first person, which is annoying and useless. Prophetic, because the author believes too much in the ultimate success of his own theories. Repetitive because having ten or more paragraphs in a row explaining the exact same thing again and again cannot be qualified differently. Grandiloquent and lyrical can be good when Sagan does it, but most of the time it's just clumsy. With this book, you will go even lower: ridicule.

Conclusion: 3 stars: 4 stars for the ideas and 1 star for the style. The subject deserves a better treatment. So, if someone knows of another book on the subject, please, contact me.

This is man with something to say. Perhaps not the best writer in the world, but if we are to confine our knowledge to that expressed only by journalists, it would be a sorry world indeed. His use of the word "God" is actually what is raising the hackles of his detractors. I am an atheist who doesn't feel that only the ideas of my own kind are legitimate. You will never learn anything if you only listen to people who you already agree with. His observations are sound and the questions he asks need explanation. The current dogma doesn't do it. Let's hear all the voices.

The rating of this book should consider two things. One is the ideas presented along with the evidence to support them. The second is the writing style.

Let me address the second consideration first. The book is terribly written. I know many friends who loved this book for its ideas, but even they agree that the writing style was annoying and immature. With frequent references to God, countless poor analogies, and some really laughable metaphors (I burst out laughing about a page from the end when I read the sentence "Prometheus let loose fire"), I constantly wanted to put the book down and read something on the same material by someone who had some writing talent.

Now to the ideas. There are a few worthy of giving thought. Kauffman argues that complexity necessary for life is more probably than people think. He argues this with analogies, for instance, explaining that with finite state machines, many starting positions will lead to certain self-sustaining loops, and that this is likely when the number of edges surpasses a certain threshold. In almost all his analogies, however, I found him completely unconvincing that the matter he is discussing should follow the analogy. I consider many portions of his book "proof by poor analogy".

I don't have the book in front of me right now, but there were sections in which he discussed computer science and topics involving analysis of algorithms, and made outright factual mistakes. I discussed these sections with some other computer scientists who fully agreed with me that the mistakes were there, and that he used incorrect facts to help support his arguments.

In the end, when I finally finished reading this book, I was completely unimpressed with it, to the point that I have a very hard time understanding what so many very smart people see in it. I understand that they like it for the ideas rather than the writing, but I think that the ideas are not as new as Kauffman makes them out to be (I really get the feeling that he is full of himself), and that he presents very little evidence in support of them. I've heard people compare the importance of this book to Darwin's "The Origin of Species". I think this is so absurd. Darwin's book presented not only the idea of Evolution (which existed way before Darwin), but an unbelievable amount of evidence to support the view that it happened, much of which I didn't know 150 years later until reading his book! I can't imagine any scientifically minded person reading that book and not feeling that evolution happens, even if the way it happens may not be exactly what Darwin expected. Here, on the other hand, we have a book that I consider pseudo-science. It's a few interesting ideas without much evidence; just poor analogies, some erroneous information, poetic nonsense (I'll never forget how frustrated I began to feel each of the many times I read the the phrase "We, the expected"), etc. I would have much rather read a 10 to 20 page paper summarizing the ideas in a well-written manner.

A book that has changed my "weltanschaung". If you can read this book without getting shivers you're not for real. Stuart is a genius, a little bit like Galileo trying to get people to look into the telescope...... As an italian I think it is a shame and a tragedy that no book of Kauffman is translated into italian: I would therefore like to take charge of the publishing in my language. I have also been deeply impacted by the reading of Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life", which I recommend to all wanderers in the holistic search: actually I believe people should read Capra first, then Margulis, then we are ready for Stuart Kauffman. A last remark (although not least). I have no PHD in science, and as I am now also reading the extraordinary "Investigations" I would really like Kauffmann to understand the importance of the reach of his wanderings: it is really difficult to read, in spite of the fact that maybe not all the scientific stuff has to be put so crudely. I am the president of a media company, I have no scientific background and suspect that the case could have been put in more simple terms. Anyway, Mr. Kauffman, I believe you have written the most important book ever written. Serious. Rodolfo@galactica.it or hecht@mediapartners.it

An interesting book: full of ideas and new concepts, but curiously unmotivated. Kauffman's POV is that natural selection is insufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life, and, therefore, some new laws have to be invoked. However, he fails to prove his claims. As an unabashed selectionist, I find them unconvincing (in fact, most of them boil down to a simple statement that "selection is not enough"). That, in itself, does not prove him wrong: for all I know his ideas are exactly right; he simply fails the scientific parsimony test. If natural selection is enough (a POV that I happen to hold), then, certainly, natural selection plus some laws of complexity will be sufficient. Abiogenesis is the only case where some application of self-organization seems to be necessary.

Another problem I've found with the book is a seeming lack of background research. While quite a goodly part of the book deals with the idea of fitness landscapes, the name of Sewall Wright--the person responsible for the original concept--is not mentioned. The bibliography is curiously devoid of most of the evolutionary biologists: Gould and Dawkins are mentioned, but Mayr, Maynard Smith, Haldane, and many others aren't. I am not talking about an appeal to authority here, but it seems to me that Kauffman should have spent more time dealing and, possibly, refuting the actual selectionist ideas, rather than setting up and destroying straw men. Dennett's cogent arguments from Darwin's Dangerous Idea are not dealt with at all...

All in all, I found the book quite interesting, despite the everpresent paeans to complexity and self-organization, but, ultimately, quite unconvincing. His previous work, The Origins of Order, claimed far less and was far more interesting (although more difficult).

This recent work explains for the general reader many of Kauffman's ideas of his 1993 The Origins of Order. However, besides being simplified, it appears that many of Kauffman's concepts are more refined in this later reference. The thread/button analogy (as the ratio of connecting edges to nodes increases past .5, the size of the largest connected cluster very rapidly increases, much like a phase transition of ice becoming water as the temperature increases through 0 degrees Celsius) is applied to a large collection of chemicals such that when there are a large enough number of catalyzed reactions a web of catalyzed reactions will suddenly emerge. The order given by such autocatalytic chemical sets is then further explored, with the development of simplifying N (number of elements) - K (number of input connections per element) mathematics describing properties of such sets. While the obvious application of this NK mathematics would be the origin of the first cells from the chemical brew of the primordial Earth, much of the remainder of this reference is the application of the NK model to numerous other areas of biology and even economics. The theme of Kauffman's work, "..then life is not a highly improbable chance event, but almost inevitable...", is opposite of my own. This may possibly be due to the reality that Kauffman's NK-like organization, like many other phenomena, is, within the dynamics of the Universe being considered, a necessary condition, but nowhere close to a sufficient condition, for the emergence of life.

The argument of this book is very interesting: complex systems spontaneously exhibit order; life may be the inevitable result of complexity and not a mere chance occurrence in the vastness of space. Other reviewers have summarized this stuff nicely.

But let me complain: this book is poorly written. Kauffman is drunk with complexity. Every single sentence seems crafted to convey just how weighty this business is. Sentences are overelaborate, examples are chocked with irrelevant details, technical terms are used when they could be left out...and he keeps saying things like "The marvelously simple result is this..." or "A little simple algebra reveals the very easy conclusion that...". The need to call things simple should warn the writer that he has not made things simple at all.

Apparently, Kauffman is the leading theorist in this area. No doubt his work is interesting to a broad audience. But this effort at simplifying complexity theory for a broad audience just fails. Surely there is a better guide to this terrain.