Customer Reviews

Children of the Ice Age: How a Global Catastrophe Allowed Humans to Evolve

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Stanley obviously knows his stuff (and seems, at times, to be somewhat impressed with himself), but the book was too long for what he had to say. However, I did find his ideas interesting. I was especially intrigued by his assessment of the science of anthropology, and how it lags behind broader paleontological theory. Generally, the book was a good read, even though I felt compelled to skim some sections that seemed overly detailed.

In his innovative view of the course of human evolution, Stanley postulates that our species' ancestors essentially followed the course his mentor , Steve Gould proposed - a sudden appearance, followed by a long, stable period, then extinction. Using hominid fossils available at time of publication, he argues that "Lucy" - Australopithecus afarensis - represents a transition between tree-dwelling apes and ground-striding humans. He further contends she is a direct forebear of humans. What brought her and her kin to earth was the impact of global cooling instigated by the suture of North and South America through the Panamanian isthmus. This closure interrupted long-extant wind and ocean current patterns. A new, dry wind swept across Africa dehydrating the land and forests. With fewer trees, full-fledged ground dwelling offered a better option for survival.

Stanley accepts the recent revisionist view of Lucy - that her bipedalism was more opportunistic than her diet and lifestyle dictated. Her long arms suggest a heavy investment in the arboreal environment. Toes appear better suited to climbing than walking. He dismisses the Laetoli footprints as an aberration, unrepresentative of typical daily life. Stanley sees her commuting between scattered woodland and open grassland. The retreat of the forest presented an opportunity for a new species to emerge - Homo erectus. Erectus, of course, was the great wanderer who moved out of East Africa, beginning the great human migration to Asia. With erectus came the move to long-term child care, especially compared to other primates. Large brains meant difficult births. If a child was to survive, it required nurturing. The brain itself, Stanley further suggests, evolved by demanding greater resources.

Stanley's narrative is marred by incessant paeans to Stephen Gould's "evolution by jerks". Punctuated equilibrium has been essentially laid to rest as the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. It's not only disappointing to see Stanley flogging the concept with such ardour, but his reverse projection of the path of human evolution back through the history of life smacks of the worst kind of a priori reasoning. There simply isn't enough fossil evidence to warrant the direct link between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. He spends an unreasonable amount of text arguing why bipedalism preceded large brains, with lengthy accounts of the physiology involved. This is old news, well covered in works by Johanson and others. Worse, it adds little to his thesis. While the basic theme is worth noting, Stanley could have covered the idea without wandering so far afield. A challenging but hardly definitive study. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

It took me a while to slog through this book. Not being an expert in the field, I found myself a bit annoyed at the author's constant reminders of how revolutionary his thinking is. Maybe he is a gianty in his field, I have no idea. But continually being told so was a bit tedious.

Other than that, the thesis is very impressive. The idea that the emergence of the isthmus of Panama could provoke a series of events that resulted in the emergence of our direct anecstors is really staggering. Our species turns out to be fairly accidental, a sobering fact.

The different themes are organized backwards by the author, so that the most fundamental and shocking things come last. I don't think this strategy works too well. It may be more dramatic, but the overall coherence and unity of the book suffers. And the writing style is fairly mediocre. I would enjoy seeing a better writer tackle the same subjects.

All in all, I would hesitatingly recommeend.

For me, the book is marred by the following mistake (Chapter 4, page 95):

: Oxygen comes in two varieties, or isotopes: oxygen 16 and oxygen 18.
: Oxygen 18 has two more protons than oxygen 16. Although protons are
: chemically inert, they add weight to the oxygen atom. ...

Even to this non-physicist non-chemist layman, it should be "neutron" instead of "proton". The fact that the word is used twice indicates that this is not a mere typo.

A mistake like this makes one wonder what else is wrong in the book. Not being a specialist in any of the areas referenced by the text, there is no way of telling short of herculean investigations.

This book proposes an interesting hypothesis for the emergence of Homo Erectus approximately two and an half million years BP coupled with an explanation for the concomitant disappearance of Australpithecus well documented by an array of compelling evidence. I found it riveting.

I liked the book. If I was 17 again, this book would have turned me into an anthropology major. Plus, I like people named Stanley. Great name, don't you think. "HEY, STANLEY!" "Oh, Stanley" "Stanley, can I speak with you a minute?" Has a nice ring to it. Anyway, I just wish he would have addressed why on earth don't people have fur? Most other mammals do, unless they spend a lot of time in the water. We do have a lot of hair on our heads. Maybe we evolved only partially in the water with just our heads stickn' out? Though men have fur on their faces. Figures, poor Lucy had to keep her face in the water looking for fish, Ricky jr. hanging on her hair while Big Ricky prostrates with our other male ansestors staying just out of reach of that nasty sabar tooth tiger. Some things never change! Who knows? Wish I did.