Customer Reviews

Eco Homo: How The Human Being Emerged From The Cataclysmic History Of The Earth

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

 

 

The above editorial reviews of Eco Homo are all more insightful and articulate than any review that I can write so what can I address that the others don't? A reason why you should read this book. "Did you ever wonder why people walk upright? Why some people have dark skin and some have light? Why our early ancestors left Africa and started wandering the globe?..." The author examines the forces that shaped humanity and writes interestingly about his conclusions and methods for reaching them.

This book is fantastic, Boaz elequently tells of the history of human beings. Read this book if interested in this sort of stuff.

This book is excellent. I have a decent general-science background, with no prior exposure to anthropology or paleontology, and I found this completely accessible. I'd even go further and say that this book was very well written. Whoever trashed it in his review must be a Creationist trying to spread seeds of doubt. Aside from the quality of the writing, Msr. Creationist lambasts Boaz for a lack of objectivity. I find this absurd, since the goal of the book is to present conflicting theories about human evolution and the arguments for each. His goal, as I took it, appears to be acquainting the reader with the fundamental evolutionary processes and the mechanisms by which climate and ecology would have most likely influenced/driven our emergence from apes. It's a great book - well worth reading.

It was hard to absorb (or, to be honest, to believe) the scientific information in this book as the writing was so incredibly bad it became distracting. And it's clear the author has a chip on his shoulder (one reviewer said 'cranky' but I'd say more 'petulant' or 'whining') and deals with it by presenting his data in a somewhat smug, black& white manner that really takes away from his credibility. He criticizes other scientists whose theories I've read and are well backed by proof, experimental evidence and logic, saying that his own theories are superior, yet this author supplies only the flimsiest of evidence for his theories. I would get excited by the odd sentence whose subject and object were close enough to impart information, only to find myself mystified by the imperfectly explained concepts and poorly supported ideas. I was really disappointed in this book and, after two tries at reading it, gave it away. There are so many better natural history books out there, it would be a shame to waste time with this one.