Skip to main content

Human Origins, a short history - Sarah Wild ***

It's inevitable that us humans have a distinct interest in where we come from as a species, and in this book Sarah Wild takes us through the latest state of knowledge on the origin of our species and of the various extinct species that broadly fall within the 'hominin' descriptor.

There's plenty of compact information here, with occasional boxes filling in basics, such as how fossils form and what a hominin is. Some of the facts are eminently quotable - my favourite was that of all the species mentioned, only Homo sapiens has a chin (not sure what this says about chinless wonders). I particularly liked the chapters on 'the first sapiens' - what we know about the earliest members of our species - and on 'the big questions', notably what happened to all the other related-ish species and the ways in which we are still evolving.

Unfortunately, though, the book does suffer from Rutherford stamp collecting syndrome. The great physicist commented (roughly) that all science is either physics or stamp collecting - suggesting that other scientific disciplines focus too much on collecting and collating data, where physics is more about deducing laws and explanation of phenomena (hence far more interesting). Wild gives us a plethora of data and species, with many different hominins named, and their distinguishing features reeled off. What's missing is a sense of storytelling and narrative - it's just too fact-heavy.

Just to give one example: in a section labelled 'Homo mysteries', Wild introduced the famous 'hobbit' of the Indonesian island of Flores. We hear about where the remains were found, the excavations, the species' strange mix of characteristics and the debate over whether the remains were of a new species or of individuals with birth defects. But nowhere is there a mention of the best bit of the story (appearing in Henry Gee's The Accidental Species), that the discoverers originally suggested naming the species Homo florianus, but hastily renamed it Homo floresiensis when they discovered their original name means a flowery part of the anatomy. It might be trivial, but a story like this adds human interest. Similarly we hear very little other about the discoverers than their names - ironically, it would have been great to give more human context.

I was also uncomfortable with Wild's use of the word 'ancestor'. As far as I'm concerned, an ancestor is in a species' direct lineage. But at one point we are told 'For many years [Ardipithecus ramidus] was the oldest human ancestor we knew of.' Yet, as we are correctly told some pages later, 'We do not know how the human lineage evolved from early hominins' - all we have is fragments of different earlier hominins, many of which will not be our ancestors, and we have no way of being clear when dealing with specimens too old for genetic identifiers.

The book was absolutely fine as a textbook light, and I was happy to endorse it as such. If you need to get information about the context of human evolution, it will give a good collection of facts (if we overlook the ancestor thing) - but it hasn't got the readability of good popular science.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more