Reviews from Amazon

The touchstone of life

The advent of computers has led to a new way of looking at scientific subjects - in terms of the flow of information. In The Touchstone of Life Werner Loewenstein uses this viewpoint to look at the behaviour of cells and so the nature of living things. The book is in three parts. The first introduces the concepts required, and then goes on to look at the origin of life in terms of networks of chemical reactions. The second part looks at information flow within living cells - at how the instructions coded for in DNA are carried out, and at the workings of enzymes.

The third part looks at information flow between cells, and how this made possible the existence of multicellular organisms. The book makes much use of analogy and metaphor, putting across the subject in terms of stories about (Maxwellian) demons and the like. I wasn't so keen on this - I felt that sometimes it obscured the important content, and made the book overlong and wordy. However, if you can put up with this then you are likely to get a lot of benefit from this book, as it makes an advanced subject accessible to less technically minded readers.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 384 pages
ISBN: 0195140575
Salesrank: 660355
Weight:1.23 lbs

Published: 2000 Oxford University Press, USA

Amazon price $29.95

Marketplace:New from $8.99:Used from $1.98

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 496 pages
ISBN: 0140289496
Salesrank: 2479916
Weight:0.71 lbs

Published: 2000 Penguin Books Ltd

Marketplace:New from £7.00:Used from £3.00

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 384 pages
ISBN: 0195140575
Salesrank: 738484
Weight:1.23 lbs

Published: 2000 Oxford University Press

Amazon price CDN$ 16.02

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 8.99:Used from CDN$ 4.94

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
No one can escape a sense of wonder when looking at an organism from within. From the humblest amoeba to man, from the smallest cell organelle to the amazing human brain, life presents us with example after example of highly ordered cellular matter, precisely organized and shaped to perform coordinated functions. But where does this order spring from? How does a living organism manage to do what nonliving things cannot do--bring forth and maintain all that order against the unrelenting, disordering pressures of the universe? In The Touchstone of Life, world-renowned biophysicist Werner Loewenstein seeks answers to these ancient riddles by applying information theory to recent discoveries in molecular biology. Taking us into a fascinating microscopic world, he lays bare an all-pervading communication network inside and between our cells--a web of extraordinary beauty, where molecular information flows in gracefully interlaced circles. Loewenstein then takes us on an exhilarating journey along that web and we meet its leading actors, the macromolecules, and see how they extract order out of the erratic quantum world; and through the powerful lens of information theory, we are let in on their trick, the most dazzling of magician's acts, whereby they steal form out of formlessness. The Touchstone of Life flashes with fresh insights into the mystery of life. Boldly straddling the line between biology and physics, the book offers a breathtaking view of that hidden world where molecular information turns the wheels of life. Loewenstein makes these complex scientific subjects lucid and fascinating, as he sheds light on the most fundamental aspects of our existence.

Product Description

No one can escape a sense of wonder when looking at an organism from within. From the humblest amoeba to man, from the smallest cell organelle to the amazing human brain, life presents us with example after example of highly ordered cellular matter, precisely organized and shaped to perform coordinated functions. But where does this order spring from? How does a living organism manage to do what nonliving things cannot do--bring forth and maintain all that order against the unrelenting, disordering pressures of the universe?
In The Touchstone of Life, world-renowned biophysicist Werner Loewenstein seeks answers to these ancient riddles by applying information theory to recent discoveries in molecular biology. Taking us into a fascinating microscopic world, he lays bare an all-pervading communication network inside and between our cells--a web of extraordinary beauty, where molecular information flows in gracefully interlaced circles. Loewenstein then takes us on an exhilarating journey along that web and we meet its leading actors, the macromolecules, and see how they extract order out of the erratic quantum world; and through the powerful lens of information theory, we are let in on their trick, the most dazzling of magician's acts, whereby they steal form out of formlessness.
The Touchstone of Life flashes with fresh insights into the mystery of life. Boldly straddling the line between biology and physics, the book offers a breathtaking view of that hidden world where molecular information turns the wheels of life. Loewenstein makes these complex scientific subjects lucid and fascinating, as he sheds light on the most fundamental aspects of our existence.

Disappointing portrayal of thermodynamics **
Trying to find good books to review on cell biology just isn't easy, but I've been looking. Werner Loewenstein had an interestingly titled one published in 1999, that I thought sounded interesting: The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life. An intriguing combination of topics, I thought - especially the issues of cellular biochemistry and their origins. Molecular "information" was dubious however. I gave Loewenstein the benefit of the doubt - maybe he could do better than the inept attempts to use concepts from information theory to explain biological phenomenon I had seen previously (e.g. Dembski's No Free Lunch). Could he explain how one could quantify the information content of an organic molecule better than the prevailing paradigm of organic chemistry, and in particular, the kinetics and thermodynamics of biochemical interactions and their effects? Sadly, no. Don't get me wrong, he portrays cell biology and evolutionary history accurately enough, but the concept of molecular information doesn't contribute anything. In fact, on page 9 and surrounding pages, he explicitly defines molecular information as a dimensionless inverse of entropy. And by taking away the scaling factor of entropy he sets the stage for a book-full of hand-waiving and sub-par qualitative explanations, when quantification would be much more precise. For instance, on page 31, having gotten to the topic of "The Advantages of Molecular Complementarity," Loewenstein says: "When we speak about the transmission of information from one molecule to another, we mean a transfer of information inherent in the molecular configuration - in the linear sequence of the unit structure or in the three-dimensional disposition of the atoms. Since molecules cannot talk or engage in other human forms of communication, their method of transmitting information is straightforward: the emitter molecule makes the atoms of the receiver deploy themselves in an analogue spatial pattern." Anthropomorphize much? At best, this is an overuse of symbolism; at worst, it could fuel the naive interpretation that biomolecules possess some sort of intent or agency with which to decide to communicate (one step away from the invocation of deus ex machina or an intelligent capacity of molecules). Loewenstein is also focused upon the thought experiment known as Maxwell's demon. While much has been said about that as a thought experiment, it has little grounding in the world of experimental biology. For instance, he compares Maxwell's demon to ion channels, cell surface receptors, and enzymes, yet has to resort to classical thermodynamics and kinetics in biochemistry to describe the functions of such proteins. There's no `choice' in such reactions, only chemical transition states and affinities, energy flow (often by ATP hydrolysis), and cascades of such reactions. So yes, I'm rather disappointed with this book.

Disappointing portrayal of thermodynamics **

Trying to find good books to review on cell biology just isn't easy, but I've been looking. Werner Loewenstein had an interestingly titled one published in 1999, that I thought sounded interesting: The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life. An intriguing combination of topics, I thought - especially the issues of cellular biochemistry and their origins.

Molecular "information" was dubious however. I gave Loewenstein the benefit of the doubt - maybe he could do better than the inept attempts to use concepts from information theory to explain biological phenomenon I had seen previously (e.g. Dembski's No Free Lunch). Could he explain how one could quantify the information content of an organic molecule better than the prevailing paradigm of organic chemistry, and in particular, the kinetics and thermodynamics of biochemical interactions and their effects?

Sadly, no.

Don't get me wrong, he portrays cell biology and evolutionary history accurately enough, but the concept of molecular information doesn't contribute anything. In fact, on page 9 and surrounding pages, he explicitly defines molecular information as a dimensionless inverse of entropy. And by taking away the scaling factor of entropy he sets the stage for a book-full of hand-waiving and sub-par qualitative explanations, when quantification would be much more precise.

For instance, on page 31, having gotten to the topic of "The Advantages of Molecular Complementarity," Loewenstein says:

"When we speak about the transmission of information from one molecule to another, we mean a transfer of information inherent in the molecular configuration - in the linear sequence of the unit structure or in the three-dimensional disposition of the atoms. Since molecules cannot talk or engage in other human forms of communication, their method of transmitting information is straightforward: the emitter molecule makes the atoms of the receiver deploy themselves in an analogue spatial pattern."

Anthropomorphize much? At best, this is an overuse of symbolism; at worst, it could fuel the naive interpretation that biomolecules possess some sort of intent or agency with which to decide to communicate (one step away from the invocation of deus ex machina or an intelligent capacity of molecules).

Loewenstein is also focused upon the thought experiment known as Maxwell's demon. While much has been said about that as a thought experiment, it has little grounding in the world of experimental biology. For instance, he compares Maxwell's demon to ion channels, cell surface receptors, and enzymes, yet has to resort to classical thermodynamics and kinetics in biochemistry to describe the functions of such proteins. There's no `choice' in such reactions, only chemical transition states and affinities, energy flow (often by ATP hydrolysis), and cascades of such reactions.

So yes, I'm rather disappointed with this book.

Flawed but interesting ****
I personally found this book very interesting because it was the first time I had seen the idea of information in biological systems discussed in a popular science book. Usually when laymen think of information in biological systems, they are thinking of the way the brain processes information or the the way DNA stores it. But that is a different topic. This book is about the rest of the information in any organism, which is stored in the arrangement of the complex molecules in the body which allows the organism to function. At some level, the body must "know" where all this stuff should be, and whether it is where it should be. Otherwise it couldn't repair itself or grow. The amount of information involved is huge. This book is about where the information comes from and how it is collected. The information is gathered in tiny parcels in a massively parallel process consisting of chemical reactions. One of the most interesting points of the book is that life is more interested in conserving information than anything else, including energy. It's all very interesting, so why not five stars? Well, I am afraid the editors of this book really fell down on the job. First, Loewenstein is a German, and it really shows. I am fluent in German, and I really wonder how people who aren't can even figure out what he is trying to say. A lot of the book reads like an amatuerish translation of German - which in fact it probably is. Second, Loewenstein often loses track of the point he is trying to make, so that a sentence with an parenthetical remark is converted into a whole paragraph about something unimportant, with the original remark buried somewhere in it. What makes this worse is the fact that Loewenstein is often preoccupied with things that Germans talk about, but that English speakers need some backgraound information on to make sense of. I sort of feel sorry for the author. With the right editor this could have been a pop sci blockbuster.

Flawed but interesting ****

I personally found this book very interesting because it was the first time I had seen the idea of information in biological systems discussed in a popular science book.

Usually when laymen think of information in biological systems, they are thinking of the way the brain processes information or the the way DNA stores it. But that is a different topic.

This book is about the rest of the information in any organism, which is stored in the arrangement of the complex molecules in the body which allows the organism to function. At some level, the body must "know" where all this stuff should be, and whether it is where it should be. Otherwise it couldn't repair itself or grow.

The amount of information involved is huge. This book is about where the information comes from and how it is collected. The information is gathered in tiny parcels in a massively parallel process consisting of chemical reactions.

One of the most interesting points of the book is that life is more interested in conserving information than anything else, including energy.

It's all very interesting, so why not five stars? Well, I am afraid the editors of this book really fell down on the job.

First, Loewenstein is a German, and it really shows. I am fluent in German, and I really wonder how people who aren't can even figure out what he is trying to say. A lot of the book reads like an amatuerish translation of German - which in fact it probably is.

Second, Loewenstein often loses track of the point he is trying to make, so that a sentence with an parenthetical remark is converted into a whole paragraph about something unimportant, with the original remark buried somewhere in it. What makes this worse is the fact that Loewenstein is often preoccupied with things that Germans talk about, but that English speakers need some backgraound information on to make sense of.

I sort of feel sorry for the author. With the right editor this could have been a pop sci blockbuster.

A popular myth **
is perpetuated by this author that information is some sort of absolute as opposed to an effect measured by humans. This author, like many, starts with the wrong formula and this leads to the fundamental error in his theory that 'in the beginning there was information' (something like physicist John Wheeler's 'it from bit'). He writes "As for the origin of information, the fountainhead, this must lie somewhere in the territory close to the bang...Here things are still shrouded in the mist." Therefore the author explains the mystery of life by moving the mystery back to the 'Big Bang' and deeming everything to be consequential from there. By substituting one mystery for another however we are no further ahead. In addition he is wrong; he begins with the wrong (though popular) formula: S = -(k.ln2).I where S is the entropy [-kSum(p.lnp)], k is Boltzman's thermodynamic constant and I is supposedly the information which he has therefore defined as an absolute. However Shannon's syntatic information measure for communication theory is relative, it is a state function difference being the reduction of uncertainty to a receptor between a before and after measure of a change of system state. The word 'measure' means a human is involved somewhere along the steps. [e.g. if a computer is the measurer then guess who built it? This is not to deny that there is what we call information transfers at the molecular level which is better described as genetic instructions, a fact, whereas the mathematical measurer is human or human made. One must not confuse semantical information or meaning with syntatic probability measures, which the author notoriously does by describing information as a force.] What the author refers to as information is actually the uncertainty and that Shannon designation is H, an entropy-like formula without the k (which is just a measure of units) and his (proper) information measure is R = Hbefore - Hafter (bits per operation). Many authors make this mistake (of using an absolute) and then argue that the most random state, such as an equilibrium state, has the most information. In fact it has the most uncertainty. This author makes the opposite argument and at least gets the potential comparison right when he writes that the equilibrium state has zero information whereas for instance particles crowded together out of equilibrium (such as gas first entering a container, or the Big Bang) have more information to an observer. However there is actually no information inherent in the 2 situations which is a state function difference as measured by an observer. This puts the mystery back with life itself, i.e. where did the observer come from? and not with information as being some mysterious force. So all such authors have it wrong which leads to hopeless philosophical debates. The proper state function difference equation is critical to the issue and not popularly known. However some authors who have it right have articles available on the web, such as the late 'father of communication theory', Claude Shannon and also biologist Richard Dawkins and molecular biologist Tom Schneider. One of the reviewers also critical of the book says there is no way to apply information theory to molecular biology as you would have to know all of the system's potential states. Dr Schneider explains in great depth at his website how by using the state difference formula, this is not true; you only need to know the system's changes with a logrithmatic measure. A proper way to describe the author's comparative diagrams would be to say that if an observer measures the difference between the uncertainty to him/her at equilibrium vs the initial state then he will have a determined an amount of syntatic information because the equilibrium state has greater potential choices and hence uncertainty. If we move from the crowded particle initial state to an equilibrium state we do not lose information, the universe is not losing information since the Big Bang while overall entropy increases. Local observers of various phenomena are 'merrily' measuring positive information changes every day. There is no initial 'fountainhead of information' steadily dissipating, although there were instead unique conditions to the early universe and emergent properties to life. As author Irun Cohen writes in his book 'Tending Adam's Garden': "It is the spontaneous flow of energy that makes life (and our world) possible...Only a fraction of the energy is free energy that can be harnessed for work. Evolution is a contrivance for harnessing the energy of the dying sun..." Why does this happen? Author P.W. Atkins clarifies in his book 'The Second Law' that "the tendancy to fall to lower free energy must not be interpreted literally in terms of the falling down of energy. The Universe falls upward in entropy: that is the only law of spontaneous change. The free energy is, in fact, just a disguised form of the total entropy of the universe." But why is that? Author Roger Penrose has explained this a number of times including in his book 'The Road to Reality' that this is due to the unique initial gravitational conditions, perhaps an extremely unusual condition but not a 'fountainhead' of some 'all knowing' force. (This author borders on creationism with his faulty information measure; like some other authors such as W. Dembski.) Cohen continues: The clearest example of an emergent property is life itself. Life is not inherent in any single element constituing the living cell... What distinguishes the living from the dead? Nothing more than actions and interactions. Life emerges from inert matter as a consequence of metabolism, the continuous transfer of energy and information [instructions, we're not talking about the measure here] systematically packaged in cells in a way that leads to self-perpetuation...In a piece of amber there existed lifelessly for 35 million years, all of the components needed for life, but there was no life until the machinery actually began to interact...The process of evolution [on the other hand] is an emergent property of life." Obviously however we still do not have enough knowledge to understand how all of this works, maybe we never will.

A popular myth **

is perpetuated by this author that information is some sort of absolute as opposed to an effect measured by humans. This author, like many, starts with the wrong formula and this leads to the fundamental error in his theory that 'in the beginning there was information' (something like physicist John Wheeler's 'it from bit'). He writes "As for the origin of information, the fountainhead, this must lie somewhere in the territory close to the bang...Here things are still shrouded in the mist." Therefore the author explains the mystery of life by moving the mystery back to the 'Big Bang' and deeming everything to be consequential from there. By substituting one mystery for another however we are no further ahead. In addition he is wrong; he begins with the wrong (though popular) formula:
S = -(k.ln2).I
where S is the entropy [-kSum(p.lnp)], k is Boltzman's thermodynamic constant and I is supposedly the information which he has therefore defined as an absolute. However Shannon's syntatic information measure for communication theory is relative, it is a state function difference being the reduction of uncertainty to a receptor between a before and after measure of a change of system state. The word 'measure' means a human is involved somewhere along the steps. [e.g. if a computer is the measurer then guess who built it? This is not to deny that there is what we call information transfers at the molecular level which is better described as genetic instructions, a fact, whereas the mathematical measurer is human or human made. One must not confuse semantical information or meaning with syntatic probability measures, which the author notoriously does by describing information as a force.]
What the author refers to as information is actually the uncertainty and that Shannon designation is H, an entropy-like formula without the k (which is just a measure of units) and his (proper) information measure is R = Hbefore - Hafter (bits per operation). Many authors make this mistake (of using an absolute) and then argue that the most random state, such as an equilibrium state, has the most information. In fact it has the most uncertainty. This author makes the opposite argument and at least gets the potential comparison right when he writes that the equilibrium state has zero information whereas for instance particles crowded together out of equilibrium (such as gas first entering a container, or the Big Bang) have more information to an observer. However there is actually no information inherent in the 2 situations which is a state function difference as measured by an observer. This puts the mystery back with life itself, i.e. where did the observer come from? and not with information as being some mysterious force. So all such authors have it wrong which leads to hopeless philosophical debates. The proper state function difference equation is critical to the issue and not popularly known. However some authors who have it right have articles available on the web, such as the late 'father of communication theory', Claude Shannon and also biologist Richard Dawkins and molecular biologist Tom Schneider. One of the reviewers also critical of the book says there is no way to apply information theory to molecular biology as you would have to know all of the system's potential states. Dr Schneider explains in great depth at his website how by using the state difference formula, this is not true; you only need to know the system's changes with a logrithmatic measure.
A proper way to describe the author's comparative diagrams would be to say that if an observer measures the difference between the uncertainty to him/her at equilibrium vs the initial state then he will have a determined an amount of syntatic information because the equilibrium state has greater potential choices and hence uncertainty. If we move from the crowded particle initial state to an equilibrium state we do not lose information, the universe is not losing information since the Big Bang while overall entropy increases. Local observers of various phenomena are 'merrily' measuring positive information changes every day. There is no initial 'fountainhead of information' steadily dissipating, although there were instead unique conditions to the early universe and emergent properties to life. As author Irun Cohen writes in his book 'Tending Adam's Garden': "It is the spontaneous flow of energy that makes life (and our world) possible...Only a fraction of the energy is free energy that can be harnessed for work. Evolution is a contrivance for harnessing the energy of the dying sun..." Why does this happen? Author P.W. Atkins clarifies in his book 'The Second Law' that "the tendancy to fall to lower free energy must not be interpreted literally in terms of the falling down of energy. The Universe falls upward in entropy: that is the only law of spontaneous change. The free energy is, in fact, just a disguised form of the total entropy of the universe." But why is that? Author Roger Penrose has explained this a number of times including in his book 'The Road to Reality' that this is due to the unique initial gravitational conditions, perhaps an extremely unusual condition but not a 'fountainhead' of some 'all knowing' force. (This author borders on creationism with his faulty information measure; like some other authors such as W. Dembski.) Cohen continues: The clearest example of an emergent property is life itself. Life is not inherent in any single element constituing the living cell... What distinguishes the living from the dead? Nothing more than actions and interactions. Life emerges from inert matter as a consequence of metabolism, the continuous transfer of energy and information [instructions, we're not talking about the measure here] systematically packaged in cells in a way that leads to self-perpetuation...In a piece of amber there existed lifelessly for 35 million years, all of the components needed for life, but there was no life until the machinery actually began to interact...The process of evolution [on the other hand] is an emergent property of life." Obviously however we still do not have enough knowledge to understand how all of this works, maybe we never will.

The book about information economy of self-developing system **
It has 16 pages of reference section, 7 pages of subject index. Many figures, but almost all of them are from regular textbook (structure of DNA, protein etc). The book is about the information economy of self-developing system, and intercellular communication network. Like many other authors in this field, Loewenstein is fascinated by the "information" in biological world. He says there is fundamentally deeper, connoting a cosmic principle of oraganization and order. The book is way too long, but contains few novel idea. 333 pages with very small fonts. I didn't have time to finish it. Good editor could condense it to 1/10 of this volume.

The book about information economy of self-developing system **

It has 16 pages of reference section, 7 pages of subject index.
Many figures, but almost all of them are from regular textbook (structure of DNA, protein etc). The book is about the information economy of self-developing system, and intercellular communication network.
Like many other authors in this field, Loewenstein is fascinated by the "information" in biological world. He says there is fundamentally deeper, connoting a cosmic principle of oraganization and order.
The book is way too long, but contains few novel idea. 333 pages with very small fonts. I didn't have time to finish it. Good editor could condense it to 1/10 of this volume.

A Snow Job *
Full of prolix verbiage, intellectual snobbery, interesting similes and metaphors, and too many cliches, The Touchstone of Life is a "snow job". After struggling to read it even after the benefit of attending many seminars on molecular recognition which had the real biochemistry set out, I did not learn anything new. Maxwell's Demon is presented (p4) as a contradiction of the second law of thermodydamics. A better description was easily found: http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm This also explains that the demon could not really succeed. Also, this website goves the better explanation of entropy as randomness, not disorder, which is the 19th century German explanation. I do not agree that Figure 1.4.4 contains less information than any of the others. The author can certainly see the forest for the trees, in attempting a grand synthesis of string theory, quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and molecular recognition. However, there was a serious set of failures to see the trees for the forest. For example, on p30, in the caption for Figure 3.1b, the carboxyl group is identified as COO-. Actually this is the carboxylate anion. A carboxyl group is COOH. An amino group is given as NH3+. In fact this is an ammonium group missing a bond. An amino group is -NH2. In Figure 4.1 on p59 the glutamine is shown with a C-NH3 group with the + charge missing. In this reaction there is ADP on the left with no ADP and Pi on the right. The plus signs are missing. In the caption the ammonium ion is given as NH3. This is quite wrong; it should have been NH4+. On p60 in Figure 4.2 blue light is shown at 500 nm; in fact, 500 nm looks green. Ultraviolet light is shown as going from 0-290 nm; in fact, the usual definition is that it extends from 150-390 nm. The shorter wavelengths actually encompass Xrays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. The Figure 9.5 on p180 does a much better job with a logarithmic scale, but the ranges of UV and visible light are still odd. The explanation for the DNA codes for amino acids, the 3-base groups, was very involved. The combinations of 4 DNA bases taken 3 at a time may be simply seen as the minimum information needed to distinguish between about 20 amino acids. Thus 4x3x2x1 = 24. There must be a better source of understanding on molecular recognition than this.

A Snow Job *

Full of prolix verbiage, intellectual snobbery, interesting similes and metaphors, and too many cliches, The Touchstone of Life is a "snow job". After struggling to read it even after the benefit of attending many seminars on molecular recognition which had the real biochemistry set out, I did not learn anything new.

Maxwell's Demon is presented (p4) as a contradiction of the second law of thermodydamics. A better description was easily found: http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
This also explains that the demon could not really succeed. Also, this website goves the better explanation of entropy as randomness, not disorder, which is the 19th century German explanation. I do not agree that Figure 1.4.4 contains less information than any of the others.
The author can certainly see the forest for the trees, in attempting a grand synthesis of string theory, quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and molecular recognition. However, there was a serious set of failures to see the trees for the forest. For example, on p30, in the caption for Figure 3.1b, the carboxyl group is identified as COO-. Actually this is the carboxylate anion. A carboxyl group is COOH. An amino group is given as NH3+. In fact this is an ammonium group missing a bond. An amino group is -NH2. In Figure 4.1 on p59 the glutamine is shown with a C-NH3 group with the + charge missing. In this reaction there is ADP on the left with no ADP and Pi on the right. The plus signs are missing. In the caption the ammonium ion is given as NH3. This is quite wrong; it should have been NH4+.
On p60 in Figure 4.2 blue light is shown at 500 nm; in fact, 500 nm looks green. Ultraviolet light is shown as going from 0-290 nm; in fact, the usual definition is that it extends from 150-390 nm. The shorter wavelengths actually encompass Xrays, gamma rays and cosmic rays. The Figure 9.5 on p180 does a much better job with a logarithmic scale, but the ranges of UV and visible light are still odd.
The explanation for the DNA codes for amino acids, the 3-base groups, was very involved. The combinations of 4 DNA bases taken 3 at a time may be simply seen as the minimum information needed to distinguish between about 20 amino acids. Thus 4x3x2x1 = 24.
There must be a better source of understanding on molecular recognition than this.

A clear and welcome explanation of life's origins. *****
There have been many creationist books published of late that argue against the possibility of evolution, both at the macro level (completed biological structures) and molecular level (DNA from an information theoretic view). Enjoying great popularity among the former group is Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Attacking the later issue and the "spontaneous evolution of DNA" is William Dembski and his new book, "The Design Inference". Both of these books are available here on Amazon and both are popular among those with creationist beliefs. However both of these authors ignore the fundamental issues of entropy, information theory, and the juggling between the two that occurs all the time in living organisms, and even in simple organic and inorganic molecules. Loewenstein's "The Touchstone of Life" is a breath of fresh air. Many scientists have quietly gone about their business assuming DNA evolved from simpler molecules and that, once self-replicating organic molecules DO form, natural selection of random mutations (so many creationists forget the first part) takes it from there, resulting in the incredible diversity of life we see today. I don't know if Loewenstien was specifically targeting Behe, Dembski or anyone else, but he certainly addresses the issue of how life started in an exciting, clear, and readable manor. While Dembski's book may intimidate the reader with a poor understanding of probability theory and mathematical notation, Loewenstien will not. Furthermore, Loewenstien actually focuses in on the relevant issue: the information entropy trade off and how this interplay results in the formation and evolution of complex organic molecules, organic molecular systems, and eventually, life itself. All of this without violating the principles of thermodynamics or the information theory of Claude Shannon. Creationists seeking an exact chemical procedure that creates life in a test tube will not find one here. Some of them would thus feel vindicated. But the issue is NOT the discovery or reenactment of the exact event and sequence of molecules that eventually evolved to today's self replicating organisms. Rather, this book is concerned with the self-organizing aspects of matter and the carbon molecules that DID result in life. There could have been numerous other forms of life had it all occurred differently. The exact recipe is not the issue. The issue is that carbon exhibits some amazing properties of self-organization and replication. And Loewenstien shows how this does not violate the laws of thermodynamics or information theory. A basic undergraduate understanding of mathematics (even if a bit forgotten) would be helpful, as would a bit of basic organic chemistry. But the interested and motivated reader could probably get by without it.

A clear and welcome explanation of life's origins. *****

There have been many creationist books published of late that argue against the possibility of evolution, both at the macro level (completed biological structures) and molecular level (DNA from an information theoretic view). Enjoying great popularity among the former group is Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Attacking the later issue and the "spontaneous evolution of DNA" is William Dembski and his new book, "The Design Inference".

Both of these books are available here on Amazon and both are popular among those with creationist beliefs. However both of these authors ignore the fundamental issues of entropy, information theory, and the juggling between the two that occurs all the time in living organisms, and even in simple organic and inorganic molecules.

Loewenstein's "The Touchstone of Life" is a breath of fresh air. Many scientists have quietly gone about their business assuming DNA evolved from simpler molecules and that, once self-replicating organic molecules DO form, natural selection of random mutations (so many creationists forget the first part) takes it from there, resulting in the incredible diversity of life we see today. I don't know if Loewenstien was specifically targeting Behe, Dembski or anyone else, but he certainly addresses the issue of how life started in an exciting, clear, and readable manor.

While Dembski's book may intimidate the reader with a poor understanding of probability theory and mathematical notation, Loewenstien will not. Furthermore, Loewenstien actually focuses in on the relevant issue: the information entropy trade off and how this interplay results in the formation and evolution of complex organic molecules, organic molecular systems, and eventually, life itself. All of this without violating the principles of thermodynamics or the information theory of Claude Shannon.

Creationists seeking an exact chemical procedure that creates life in a test tube will not find one here. Some of them would thus feel vindicated. But the issue is NOT the discovery or reenactment of the exact event and sequence of molecules that eventually evolved to today's self replicating organisms. Rather, this book is concerned with the self-organizing aspects of matter and the carbon molecules that DID result in life. There could have been numerous other forms of life had it all occurred differently. The exact recipe is not the issue. The issue is that carbon exhibits some amazing properties of self-organization and replication. And Loewenstien shows how this does not violate the laws of thermodynamics or information theory.

A basic undergraduate understanding of mathematics (even if a bit forgotten) would be helpful, as would a bit of basic organic chemistry. But the interested and motivated reader could probably get by without it.

Gleaning information ...? I did. ****
I am interested in topics pertaining to (someday I want to devise) systems mimicking biological cognition. As I do this (recreational) research I wander into many different areas. Questions like, 'How did life begin on earth?' have me reading Lowenstein's book and don't ask me how or why but my own personal opinion at this point in time is a primordial prebiotic earthly soup first brought virions which led to the explosion of prokaryotic/eukaryotic life forms to emerge. After reading Lowenstein's book, the information aspect he kept hammering at and with to explain his views, the pure information of and from archaean viral organisms probably were the first "aspects" to arise, and that led to all the life forms on earth today. The thought didn't enter my mind until after a reading of Touchstone. The persistence of the word -information- that Lowenstein kept using, and during my first readings and occurences, the use of that word -information- seemed so out of context to the thought I thought he was trying to convey at any time, but ... I enjoyed Werner's writing; very colorful. Any book I read I expect to sift through any idiosyncratics to discover the ideas an author wishes to convey, then reformulating an authors ideas into my own framework and philosophy.

Gleaning information ...? I did. ****

I am interested in topics pertaining to (someday I want to devise) systems mimicking biological cognition. As I do this (recreational) research I wander into many different areas. Questions like, 'How did life begin on earth?' have me reading Lowenstein's book and don't ask me how or why but my own personal opinion at this point in time is a primordial prebiotic earthly soup first brought virions which led to the explosion of prokaryotic/eukaryotic life forms to emerge. After reading Lowenstein's book, the information aspect he kept hammering at and with to explain his views, the pure information of and from archaean viral organisms probably were the first "aspects" to arise, and that led to all the life forms on earth today. The thought didn't enter my mind until after a reading of Touchstone. The persistence of the word -information- that Lowenstein kept using, and during my first readings and occurences, the use of that word -information- seemed so out of context to the thought I thought he was trying to convey at any time, but ...

I enjoyed Werner's writing; very colorful. Any book I read I expect to sift through any idiosyncratics to discover the ideas an author wishes to convey, then reformulating an authors ideas into my own framework and philosophy.

Assumptions of Simplicity *
Two years after being recognized as the 1988 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Sir James Black was asked by a reporter for a national newspaper in England to share his opinions on the evolution of scientific inquiry. He reportedly said that we could expect to witness: "The progressive triumph of physiology over molecular biology." Regrettably, eleven years later, Werner Lowenstein published a book that attempts to do the exact opposite. Lowenstein makes it crystal clear that no signs of progress toward such a triumph of physiology over molecular biology will ever be found in his work. In his response to the reporter, Sir James reflected the view that physiology is the same basic science as the "physis" studied by Hippocrates and his colleagues--a non-linear science of great complexity, not reducible to linear concepts or terms such as those now prevalent in molecular biology--concepts and terms that have been derived from Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualism, and now from contemporary information theory. Consider the observations published in 1993 by F. Eugene Yates, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles: "Physics is about simple beings and becomings, characterized by uniformity and generality: all electrons in the universe are alike; there are few kinds of quarks and only four basic forces--perhaps only one. Biology, in contrast, presents diversity and specialness of form and function, and sometimes a striking localness of distribution of its objects. Biological systems are complex by any definition of the term. Physics is a strongly reductionistic science, and has prospered in that style; but conceptually biological sciences now suffer from permeation by a mechanistic reductionism in the guise of two limiting and inappropriate metaphors: (1) the dynamic metaphor of organisms as machines and (2) the 'information' metaphor, of life as a text written on DNA. ...[B]oth metaphors are false and destructive of conceptual advances in the fundamental understanding of complex living systems that self-organize, grow, develop, adapt, reproduce, repair and maintain form and function, age, and die. ...Physicists make the Assumption of Simplicity--that in spite of the mathematical and other complications that may veil our vision, Nature is simple, both in composition of material objects and in rules for change. Biologists, on the other hand, take complexity as a given for the systems of interest to them. Although there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes a complex system, at the heart of the concept is some kind of non-reducibility--the behaviour we are interested in evaporates when we try to reduce the system to a simpler, better understood one (Stein 1989; Yates 1993). Furthermore, biological systems are inherently, fundamentally, and profoundly non-linear. ...The physical basis of life involves at least six attributes of non-linearity, broken symmetry, dissipation of free energy, complexity, orderly disorder, and marginal dynamic stability. Perhaps these attributes collectively constitute a sufficiently unique set to justify considering living systems as a fourth state of matter." (Logic of Life, pp.189-206). (Emphasis is in the original). Yates has provided us with a good list of examples of the vast and pivotal differences between diametrically opposite ways of looking at nature and of thinking about the most complex natural organism yet to evolve, the human body with its "unique set" of attributes,--that is, the organismic way, or the mechanistic, deterministic, and reductionistic way: "Living systems are predominantly not state-determined Living systems are predominantly not DNA-determined Living systems are predominantly not structurally stable Living systems are predominantly not far-from- equilibrium Living systems are predominantly not highly ordered or 'negentropic' Living systems are predominantly not far from noise communicationally Living systems are predominantly not program driven Living systems are predominantly not digital-computational" In direct contradiction to Yates's trenchant examples of the processive attributes of human organisms, Lowenstein's thinking rests upon an "assumption of simplicity," and thus on an unbelievable notion that human bodies are structurally stable; are DNA-determined; are program driven; and are digital-computational. At cellular and molecular levels, the language of intercellular and intracellular recognition and communication processes is written in carbohydrates, sugars. One will look in vain to find either term in Lowenstein's Index. Carbohydrates are complex, far more complex than proteins, therefore let us speak of proteins and ignore the crucial, sine qua non role and function of eight or more sugars in cell-to-cell communication. The following words of Robert Rosen are relevant to the point at issue: "If somatically an organism is a machine to be understood in purely syntactic, reductionistic terms, then life is only a matter of putting its fractions back together. But as we all know, it is literally not that simple. ...No (finite) concatenation of syntactic models of an organism yields something which must be an organism. ...Organisms are not in this class of systems. ...Just as we cannot concatenate syntactic models to obtain an organism, we cannot, for that same reason, concatenate reductionistic fractions to get an organism. ...Something else is needed to characterize what is alive from what is complex. Rachevsky provided this in his idea that biology was relational, and that relational meant (as we stated it) throwing away the physics and keeping the organization. Organization in its turn inherently involves functions and their interrelations; the abandonment of fractionability, however, means that there is no kind of 1 to 1 relationship between such relational, functional organizations and the structures that realize them. These are the basic differences between organisms and mechanisms or machines." (Logic of Life, p.213). Lowenstein evidently wants to keep the reductionistic physics and ignore the complexity of organismic organization, as the only means possible to buttress an assumption that human bodies really are simple. In my judgment, Werner Lowenstein is as far from defining the "touchstone of life" as it is possible for a thinker to be.

Assumptions of Simplicity *

Two years after being recognized as the 1988 Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Sir James Black was asked by a reporter for a national newspaper in England to share his opinions on the evolution of scientific inquiry. He reportedly said that we could expect to witness: "The progressive triumph of physiology over molecular biology." Regrettably, eleven years later, Werner Lowenstein published a book that attempts to do the exact opposite. Lowenstein makes it crystal clear that no signs of progress toward such a triumph of physiology over molecular biology will ever be found in his work.

In his response to the reporter, Sir James reflected the view that physiology is the same basic science as the "physis" studied by Hippocrates and his colleagues--a non-linear science of great complexity, not reducible to linear concepts or terms such as those now prevalent in molecular biology--concepts and terms that have been derived from Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualism, and now from contemporary information theory.

Consider the observations published in 1993 by F. Eugene Yates, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles:

"Physics is about simple beings and becomings, characterized by uniformity and generality: all electrons in the universe are alike; there are few kinds of quarks and only four basic forces--perhaps only one. Biology, in contrast, presents diversity and specialness of form and function, and sometimes a striking localness of distribution of its objects. Biological systems are complex by any definition of the term. Physics is a strongly reductionistic science, and has prospered in that style; but conceptually biological sciences now suffer from permeation by a mechanistic reductionism in the guise of two limiting and inappropriate metaphors: (1) the dynamic metaphor of organisms as machines and (2) the 'information' metaphor, of life as a text written on DNA. ...[B]oth metaphors are false and destructive of conceptual advances in the fundamental understanding of complex living systems that self-organize, grow, develop, adapt, reproduce, repair and maintain form and function, age, and die. ...Physicists make the Assumption of Simplicity--that in spite of the mathematical and other complications that may veil our vision, Nature is simple, both in composition of material objects and in rules for change. Biologists, on the other hand, take complexity as a given for the systems of interest to them. Although there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes a complex system, at the heart of the concept is some kind of non-reducibility--the behaviour we are interested in evaporates when we try to reduce the system to a simpler, better understood one (Stein 1989; Yates 1993). Furthermore, biological systems are inherently, fundamentally, and profoundly non-linear. ...The physical basis of life involves at least six attributes of non-linearity, broken symmetry, dissipation of free energy, complexity, orderly disorder, and marginal dynamic stability. Perhaps these attributes collectively constitute a sufficiently unique set to justify considering living systems as a fourth state of matter." (Logic of Life, pp.189-206). (Emphasis is in the original).

Yates has provided us with a good list of examples of the vast and pivotal differences between diametrically opposite ways of looking at nature and of thinking about the most complex natural organism yet to evolve, the human body with its "unique set" of attributes,--that is, the organismic way, or the mechanistic, deterministic, and reductionistic way:

"Living systems are predominantly not state-determined
Living systems are predominantly not DNA-determined
Living systems are predominantly not structurally stable
Living systems are predominantly not far-from- equilibrium
Living systems are predominantly not highly ordered or 'negentropic'
Living systems are predominantly not far from noise communicationally
Living systems are predominantly not program driven
Living systems are predominantly not digital-computational"

In direct contradiction to Yates's trenchant examples of the processive attributes of human organisms, Lowenstein's thinking rests upon an "assumption of simplicity," and thus on an unbelievable notion that human bodies are structurally stable; are DNA-determined; are program driven; and are digital-computational. At cellular and molecular levels, the language of intercellular and intracellular recognition and communication processes is written in carbohydrates, sugars. One will look in vain to find either term in Lowenstein's Index. Carbohydrates are complex, far more complex than proteins, therefore let us speak of proteins and ignore the crucial, sine qua non role and function of eight or more sugars in cell-to-cell communication.

The following words of Robert Rosen are relevant to the point at issue:

"If somatically an organism is a machine to be understood in purely syntactic, reductionistic terms, then life is only a matter of putting its fractions back together. But as we all know, it is literally not that simple. ...No (finite) concatenation of syntactic models of an organism yields something which must be an organism. ...Organisms are not in this class of systems. ...Just as we cannot concatenate syntactic models to obtain an organism, we cannot, for that same reason, concatenate reductionistic fractions to get an organism. ...Something else is needed to characterize what is alive from what is complex. Rachevsky provided this in his idea that biology was relational, and that relational meant (as we stated it) throwing away the physics and keeping the organization. Organization in its turn inherently involves functions and their interrelations; the abandonment of fractionability, however, means that there is no kind of 1 to 1 relationship between such relational, functional organizations and the structures that realize them. These are the basic differences between organisms and mechanisms or machines." (Logic of Life, p.213).

Lowenstein evidently wants to keep the reductionistic physics and ignore the complexity of organismic organization, as the only means possible to buttress an assumption that human bodies really are simple. In my judgment, Werner Lowenstein is as far from defining the "touchstone of life" as it is possible for a thinker to be.

Cutting edge science...but fruity prose ***
There are two books wriggling between the covers of this volume. On the one hand, there is a superb exposition of cell biology and molecular biology, mainly towards the end of the book. This is as it should be, given that the author was a leading figure in cell biology and biophysics. On the other hand, there is a spectacularly lame attempt to write a Book of Ages, yes, with Capitalisation of Words involved and some of the most fruity prose you will see this side of a Creationist text. Let me give you an example "These modest assymetric molecular geneses were nursed with information from photons coming in from the cosmos. The nascent molecules suckled photons, as it were." Nursed? Suckled? Do you have a picture of a nascent molecules with breasts? Probably a diatomic molecule. Here's another, "In our journey down the information stream, we shunted our boat, by a little sleight of hand, to the 'mainstream' in the DNA-to-protein segment. Had we sailed down by the book, we might have been sucked in sideways and gone in dizzying circles" Follow? Follow the stream, I mean? I would have thought that metaphors be treated gently with good writing, but they're rife in this book. Nevertheless, when Lowenstein isn't trying to be Keats, this is quite a majesterial survey of molecular biology. This is particular evident in the discussion of inter-cellular communication, of which Lowenstein is one of the undisputed masters. Indeed, when discussing his own work, the prose is suddenly emptied of metaphors and sharpens into tight well-written scientific prose. However, I find a serious problem with one of the central tenets of the book - that all of molecular biology can be united into the central idea of information. The problem is, no one knows how to calculate information in molecular or cellular systems. True the equation of Shannon's information and Boltzmann's entropy is the same. But to calculate the information of, say a DNA molecule, which Lowenstein argues you can in principle do, one must specify all of the other states from which the DNA molecule is constructed out of. That is, you must find the boundary condition. But this is hopelessly ambiguous. Is it the atoms stripped apart in a soup? Or is it the sum of all possible DNA sequences of all possible lengths? And I haven't even considered the difficulties of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The problems multiply once you consider interactions between DNA and any, or all other molecules. Given there is no way to calculate or algorithmically unambiguously pin down information, it is simply a rhetoric ploy to talk about the transfer of information. Anyway, I ignored all the musings on the Power of Information and what remains is a substantial meditation on the state of the art molecular biology. If you're willing to work through the dense material, some of the most cutting edge ideas on DNA, RNA, replication, structural biology of cells are here.

Cutting edge science...but fruity prose ***

There are two books wriggling between the covers of this volume. On the one hand, there is a superb exposition of cell biology and molecular biology, mainly towards the end of the book. This is as it should be, given that the author was a leading figure in cell biology and biophysics.

On the other hand, there is a spectacularly lame attempt to write a Book of Ages, yes, with Capitalisation of Words involved and some of the most fruity prose you will see this side of a Creationist text. Let me give you an example

"These modest assymetric molecular geneses were nursed with information from photons coming in from the cosmos. The nascent molecules suckled photons, as it were."

Nursed? Suckled? Do you have a picture of a nascent molecules with breasts? Probably a diatomic molecule. Here's another,

"In our journey down the information stream, we shunted our boat, by a little sleight of hand, to the 'mainstream' in the DNA-to-protein segment. Had we sailed down by the book, we might have been sucked in sideways and gone in dizzying circles"

Follow? Follow the stream, I mean? I would have thought that metaphors be treated gently with good writing, but they're rife in this book.

Nevertheless, when Lowenstein isn't trying to be Keats, this is quite a majesterial survey of molecular biology. This is particular evident in the discussion of inter-cellular communication, of which Lowenstein is one of the undisputed masters. Indeed, when discussing his own work, the prose is suddenly emptied of metaphors and sharpens into tight well-written scientific prose.

However, I find a serious problem with one of the central tenets of the book - that all of molecular biology can be united into the central idea of information. The problem is, no one knows how to calculate information in molecular or cellular systems. True the equation of Shannon's information and Boltzmann's entropy is the same. But to calculate the information of, say a DNA molecule, which Lowenstein argues you can in principle do, one must specify all of the other states from which the DNA molecule is constructed out of. That is, you must find the boundary condition.

But this is hopelessly ambiguous. Is it the atoms stripped apart in a soup? Or is it the sum of all possible DNA sequences of all possible lengths? And I haven't even considered the difficulties of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The problems multiply once you consider interactions between DNA and any, or all other molecules. Given there is no way to calculate or algorithmically unambiguously pin down information, it is simply a rhetoric ploy to talk about the transfer of information.

Anyway, I ignored all the musings on the Power of Information and what remains is a substantial meditation on the state of the art molecular biology. If you're willing to work through the dense material, some of the most cutting edge ideas on DNA, RNA, replication, structural biology of cells are here.

"Lady evolution" at her best ****
The book is really a must read for anyone interested in the subject of biological information and cell communication. Dr Loewenstein treats the subject from an evolutionary perspective and so I think a good book to read in conjunction with this one is "In The Beginning Was Information" by Werner Gitt. Loewenstein takes us from a simple problem that was not answered until the concept of information was discovered by science. This field of information will no doubt be the proof that either spoils or makes the pudding in the evolution vs. creation debate. The communication within a living organism and the information exchange mechanism is quite fascinating as Loewenstein points out quite thoroughly by the use of analogy. The book is difficult to read in places and he gets quite technical so the reader should not expect to sail through it but it is definitely worth the effort. After reading Gitt's book I was left with the impression that Loewenstein did not understand the full nature of meaningful information. Claude Shannon deals with information from a mostly statistical and mechanical perspective and Loewenstein does not go beyond that level in the book. The mechanics are fascinating but I am afraid that Dr Loewenstein has failed to explain where the 'foundations of life' comes from. His constant answer when he reaches a gap in knowledge is to say that 'Lady evolution' did it. Werner Gitt on the other hand goes way beyond the statistical level and shows the true nature of the coded information contained in DNA. Loewenstein's book however is invaluable especially as it explores cell communication. I am quite happy that I purchased the book and I will probably use it as a reference tool for years to come. I only rated it with four stars because I think he over did it a little in his constant references to 'Lady evolution' and what 'she' supposedly did. This is a rather typical 'evolution in the gaps' argument and it is to be expected now days but I had to chuckle a few times when he inserted 'her' into the discussion as if we all know that 'she' can do just about anything if she is given enough time and if the reader has enough faith. Read Gitt's book and his and decide for yourself who or what is the foundation of life. I am the author of "The Blind Atheist".

"Lady evolution" at her best ****

The book is really a must read for anyone interested in the subject of biological information and cell communication. Dr Loewenstein treats the subject from an evolutionary perspective and so I think a good book to read in conjunction with this one is "In The Beginning Was Information" by Werner Gitt.

Loewenstein takes us from a simple problem that was not answered until the concept of information was discovered by science. This field of information will no doubt be the proof that either spoils or makes the pudding in the evolution vs. creation debate. The communication within a living organism and the information exchange mechanism is quite fascinating as Loewenstein points out quite thoroughly by the use of analogy. The book is difficult to read in places and he gets quite technical so the reader should not expect to sail through it but it is definitely worth the effort.

After reading Gitt's book I was left with the impression that Loewenstein did not understand the full nature of meaningful information. Claude Shannon deals with information from a mostly statistical and mechanical perspective and Loewenstein does not go beyond that level in the book. The mechanics are fascinating but I am afraid that Dr Loewenstein has failed to explain where the 'foundations of life' comes from. His constant answer when he reaches a gap in knowledge is to say that 'Lady evolution' did it. Werner Gitt on the other hand goes way beyond the statistical level and shows the true nature of the coded information contained in DNA.

Loewenstein's book however is invaluable especially as it explores cell communication. I am quite happy that I purchased the book and I will probably use it as a reference tool for years to come. I only rated it with four stars because I think he over did it a little in his constant references to 'Lady evolution' and what 'she' supposedly did. This is a rather typical 'evolution in the gaps' argument and it is to be expected now days but I had to chuckle a few times when he inserted 'her' into the discussion as if we all know that 'she' can do just about anything if she is given enough time and if the reader has enough faith. Read Gitt's book and his and decide for yourself who or what is the foundation of life. I am the author of "The Blind Atheist".

Loewenstein's philosophy *
The concepts put forward in "The Touchstone of Life" seem reasonable on an intuitive level. However, a significant amount of the underlying science is mis-interpreted and the logical arguments are not internally consistent. In particular, the concept of information presented here is nothing like that defined by Shannon, despite what the book claims. For similar ideas, but in an historically important book with correct science, I recommend Schrodinger's "What is Life?". For information theory, Shannon and Weaver's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" is surprisingly readable.

Loewenstein's philosophy *

The concepts put forward in "The Touchstone of Life" seem reasonable on an intuitive level. However, a significant amount of the underlying science is mis-interpreted and the logical arguments are not internally consistent. In particular, the concept of information presented here is nothing like that defined by Shannon, despite what the book claims. For similar ideas, but in an historically important book with correct science, I recommend Schrodinger's "What is Life?". For information theory, Shannon and Weaver's "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" is surprisingly readable.