The Origin of Humankind

This is Richard Leakey's Contribution to the "Science Masters Series." It is the rather incredible story of his finding of an intact almost four million year old skeletal fossil, in the Turkana region of Kenya. The details of which are like a juicy detective story: as full of twists and turns, dead-ends and reversals, as a Sherlock Holmes mystery. What is most curious about this story, however, is the analytical mystery that lies exposed in its subtext. Reading between (and above) the lines, it is easy enough for the reader to see the utter poverty of the Archaeologist's inductive methodology, which even in this magnificent instance seems to have been severely tested and exposed as being analytically impoverished. Respectfully, as much as I wish to avoid doing so, one nevertheless has to pose some embarrassingly obvious questions about the modern Archaeologist's methodology. For instance: Is weaving a theory of discovery based solely on areas where fossils are found, not unlike searching for the lost origins of man under the nearest lamppost? Are we to assume that since no fossils are found in regions less hospitable to fossil preservation, that none ever existed there? And in this same vein, is it not entirely possible that the oldest and more impressive finds are yet to be found, or indeed may never be found? Even though I realize that the Archaeologist's quest always amounts to trying to prove a negative, and that they are almost always accompanied by a suite of elaborately constructed collateral checks and balances, this is not the only question the Leakey methodology raises: What, for instance, are we to do about the long time gaps that exist between archaeological finds, some of which are long enough for undetected species to have evolved, lived, and then become extinct and traces of them to have disappeared, several times over? Are we to assume in such instances, that since we have discovered no empirical evidence of the existence of these unknown species that they in fact never existed? The larger point is of course that this lack of closure in the finds of the Archaeologist's empirical but nevertheless inductive method, points directly to the logical hole that lies embarrassingly at the center of this method. And while indirect evidence of the existence of a species is useful, and indeed unfortunately is all we have, it is hardly ever the full story. The fact that in the end, we know "that we do not know the full story," is more reason for modesty than for making lavish claims about finds, which, however impressive, we all know in the end, are profoundly meager. While we must be eternally grateful to the Leakey family for it's many important finds over several generations, the utter meagerness of these finds must always remain at the forefront of our minds. To use an inept and perhaps an inappropriate metaphor: we have not yet even scratched the surface of uncovering the origins of mankind. Five stars

Origin of humankind is a great book. It tells people about evolution of humankind from its very beginning approximately 2 millions years ago. It covers many aspect from anatomy, biology, social, psychology, etc. So, in my opinion this book is quite enlightening for layman such I am.

Very interesting synopsis of many aspects of human evolution. Discussion of the evolution of bipedal locomotion is particularly interesting. Also, of note, Leakey explains the hypothesized explanations for slow growth and development of human children compared to their primate counterparts. I guess more than explanations for the mechanisms of evolution of human growth and development patterns, he does a good job of illustrating how such slow growth and development of human children provide survival and innovation superiority over other species. Very interesting book; however, much of what Leakey elaborates on does not rest on hard evidence (in my OPINION). Many explanations provided are based on logical conjecture. This in no way detracts from the thought provoking nature of the book. Great book for the interested non-anthropologist. As a scientist in a different discipline, I found the book to be very easy to read and assimilate, as Leakey writes to a lay audience.

If I were an expert on anthropology and human evolution I probably wouldn't be reading a book on it from the Science Masters Series. This is really something of a primer on human evolution for people like me (I'm a Sociology graduate student) that are interested in the topic but really have very little background in biology or anthropology. Admittedly, I did find some of his topics overly interesting because of their apparent relationship to topics addressed by Sociology. One of these was the notion of consciousness. He attributes the idea of the Inner Eye/Inner 'I' to Humphrey, 1986. Perhaps Humphrey pulled a fast one on anthropologists because his interpretation is a rehash of George Herbert Mead's Symbolic Interactionism and his conceptions of consciousness and the 'I' and the 'Me'. Aside from that criticism, I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. I have something of a background in biology (no expert by any stretch), but with what little background I do have the concepts discussed were not over my head. For individuals that have a good high school and perhaps college education, this book shouldn't be too difficult to digest and should be rather informative. I think I was most intrigued by the discussion of the human mind and consciousness, but the entire book was interesting (in a positive way) to me and I would highly recommend it. There was one quote from Richard Dawkins in the book that I found particularly insightful (whether true or not, I don't claim to know), "Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself." (p. 142).And another quote which isn't so much the quote but the content, "Skilled players of the game-those equipped with a more acute mental model, a sharper consciousness-would have enjoyed greater social and reproductive success. This is grist for natural selection, which would have raised consciousness to higher and higher levels. This gradually unfolding consciousness changed us into a new kind of animal. It transformed us into an animal who sets arbitrary standards of behavior based on what is considered to be right and wrong." (p. 154).Overall, there are undoubtedly other books out there with more up-to-date information. The presentation of the material in this book also reveals that with every passing year the information in the book will become more and more outdated - so it is with science. But for an introduction to human evolution, I very much enjoyed it.

This book was extremely interesting and far easier to understand than I first expected. It's well laid out and not overly wordy. Even those with little to no science background will find this book very readable and thought-provoking. Definitely one of the best science texts I've read in a long time!