Jeff McKee has written an excellent and important book on the topic of global biodiversity loss. By drawing on his experience as professor and nature enthusiast, he provides an overview of the issues in an easy to read writing style. He takes the reader from the soil in their backyard to the biodiversity trends in countries around the world while maintaining a positive spin on things. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in the current and possible future state of the earth's biosphere.

Finally, a human has come out and blatantly stated that our only real problem is our size. I'm a senior and valedictorian at a high school in upstate New York. All year I have been telling my classmates and teachers exactly what Mckee does without any consensus forming. After reading Sparing Nature, I feel that married couples in Western Society cannot afford to have more than, or maybe not even, 1 child each during this century. I can't understand why it seems that no one cares about our home and how important all the life is in it. PLEASE READ THIS BOOK, along with Martin Rees' Our Final Hour, and E. O. Wilson's The Future of Life.

Poirier and McKee present a wealth of information on the history of human evolution. They outline the methods of dating, identifying and assembling hominid fossils. Dating is shown to be, within the ranges of accuracy, nearly an absolute with today's technology. With the age of the fossil[s] established and the parts identified, the fossil may then be placed in its proper location on the human family tree. Poirier and McKee spend the remainder of the book describing the concepts, controversies and resolutions associated with that final step. The material requires attentive perusal, but the interested reader will be richly rewarded.

Early hominid fossils were chronologically located by stratigraphy - the position of the fossil in the rocks in relation to other, known, remnants. The early finds were often located in poorly identified areas, or mistakenly dated for a variety of reasons. Paleoanthropologists of an earlier day lacked the technology available today. Worse, they were often unaware of the need to examine the likely environment of the time the fossil was laid down. As the authors point out, this misunderstanding led to misinterpretation of how evolutionary relationships were structured. Today's "digs" are the subject of multi-discipline effort, with botanists, geologists and other fields represented. The more comprehensive picture laid out by these environment associated with the find allow a firmer footing on our ancestral lineage.

While that assertion sounds promising and our heritage is now viewed with confidence, nothing could be further from the truth. Where the human evolutionary tree once looked rather simple, with but a few offshoots extending from the central trunk, the improved accuracy of dating shows many branches. How many of these truly belong on the main branch and how many led to the dead end of extinction is what gives this book its real value.

Paleoanthropology has been among the liveliest of sciences. The debates and controversies have left academic halls and achieved public exposure. Poirier and McKee present the contentions of most of the major figures in the field with circumspection and clarity. With each new find, various interpretations arose, researchers attacking and defending positions from various foundations. The authors give each assertion its due, with resolution occasionally based on their own assessment. They have no hesitation in stating their own position, but it's given with justifications. Counter arguments are made with confirming data. Evidence is shown, but not nearly as strongly as the need for new results. This book, in many respects, reads like an academic work, but that in no small part is due to the authors'
call for more work in the field.

It would be unfair to say that every hominid fossil is given the authors' personal scrutiny, but the impression is proximate. Nearly every major site, with many of the associated prime fossils are described, sometimes with maps and photographs. The illustrative material, maps, diagrams and photographs are invaluable. About the only missing element is a single skeleton and skull with the bones frequently discussed in the book labeled. While many are, they must be examined out of context in many cases. If you have the anatomy, you won't need the information, but the rest of us require the crutch.

For anyone wishing to keep abreast of the research in determining where humanity comes from, this book is a treasure. Given the amount of information the authors had to cope with, the work is clear, unequivocal and immensely valuable. While not a light read, there's little to obstruct even the novice reader. The material is well organized and presented with a clear, straightforward style. Since the authors' aim is to explain [and recruit!] without perplexing the reader or seeking adherence to positions, they have produced a book that will endure.

The Riddled Chain has problems that impact the message of the author. The first problem is math. In the book the author states his chance of being born a boy was 12.5 percent. He reasons that the first child has a 50/50 chance of being a boy, and - if it is a boy - the next child has a 25 percent chance of being a boy etc. This is totally wrong as at each stage the chance of a boy is 50 percent. Like tossing a coin, after 100 heads the chances of the next toss being a head is 50/50. Thus, the author makes a basic error in math and this causes one to think he may have made other serious errors.

His computer program for example. How can we be sure he programmed the machine correctly if he makes such basic math errors?

Another problem is his "proof" that evolution is choas based. His computer models "prove" the elimination of even one person from the gene pool may result in the elimination of the entire population. Then he points out that evolution is much more complex than the computer models because two or more modifications may have to take place in the organism at the same time (human brain enlargement and pelvis enlargement in women for berth purposes). After all this he says we know it occurred because we are here. This is blind acceptance of a theory. His own models show how unlikely it is that we are here and how unlikely it is that evolution explains our presence, yet he goes no further in his reasoning.

This type of reasoning is why little advance is being made in evolutionary thinking. One cannot look at the results and then say something must have happened according to a theory because we can look at the results. Ancient societies had good explanations for how the solar system worked. They were wrong, but if all they had to say was "look up at the sun, it is there, so you can see we are right" no challenge would ever have come along.

What is really needed is some scientific study on new pathways to explain how we got here. Evolution is filled with problems that "science" fails to explain. Dogma is not an explanation. Perhaps nature itself has invented man to fill a void other mechanisms have not filled. Nature abhores a vacuum. Go to Death Valley and even there life abounds. Perhaps nature has a built in mechanism that will try to create a living creature that will build machines to leave this planet and fill the void of space. Like a plant reaching for the sun, nature may reach for the stars and the sole purpose of human beings may be to fill the planets that are avilable and able to sustain life. If such a mechanizm exists I doubt anyone is looking for it because it does not fit evolutionary models.

Who knows? As long as no one is looking for other explanations no research or analysis will take place that may lead to a better understanding of how we arrived at our current set of circumstances. Darwin may have been wrong. The debate on other solutions has been mired in the evolution vs creation debate for too long. This book does not advance any really new solutions or ideas, and that is its major failing.

"The Riddled Chain" is an excellent book for non-experts who wish to get an overall view of human evolution. I emphasize "human" because it does not go into any microbiology that might explain the evolution of first life. It does begin with the basic notions of human evolution; chance, chaos, and natural selection. McKee then devotes a large portion of the book to his own experiences in Africa digging, mostly fruitlessly, for early Hominids. Finally, he addresses some issues that evolution has, by his own admission, not addressed very well: such as the development of the human brain. In doing so he discusses autocatalysis, a concept new to me, as well as chaos and coincidence. He is an exceptionally good writer for a scientist. He uses analogies and examples that are very well chosen to clarify his points.

It is in his explanation of how it is (by his theory) autocatalysis, rather than natural selection, that accounts for many human characteristics that, in my opinion, McKee's explanation is not as complete as it might be. In his explanation of autocatalysis he almost implies that one mutation, e.g. the reduction of face size, causes another, e.g. increase in brain size. I know (I think) that is not what he meant. The changes are always the result of chance mutations. I believe he meant that the one mutation accommodates the other rather than actually causing it. However, I think it could be misread as a cause and effect relationship.

Reading from a physicist's view, I found that his concept of good science differed somewhat from mine. Speaking of a conference he attended, he makes the following statement:

"We were struggling to decipher fossil clues about how evolution works, or at least how it used to work..." "Sitting around a table for five days, we discussed and argued and thought, and changed our minds a lot. This was real science at its best."

Discussing, arguing, and changing people's minds is not my idea of science at its best. I seem to see more rationalism and less empiricism than I find acceptable in science. I realize that evolutionists do not have the benefit of being able to reproduce the processes they are studying as a physicist or chemist might. Nonetheless, intuition can never replace observation in science. Anthropologists seem to state their conclusions with a lot of certainty and authority considering the inordinate role played in their science by interpretation and intuition.

To McKee's credit, he is quite open in admitting that there is an almost inescapable tendency for anthropologists to "find what they are looking for" in studying fossils. At least he is aware that great care must be exercised in drawing conclusions from the generally ambiguous data anthropologists have to work with.

The last part of the book is devoted, unfortunately, to the claims that because of the actions of mankind species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. I say unfortunately because McKee does not do much to corroborate the accuracy of the numbers he uses.

I do not wish my view of the book to seem negative, however. Jeffrey McKee has written an understandable book on some very complex ideas. I enjoyed the book and learned much from it. I highly recommend it.

The Riddled Chain, by Jeffrey McKee provides the layman reader with insights into human evolution, fossil hunting, and scientific methods. In addition, the author provides novel explanations of the process involved in human evolution. He argues very eloquently and convincingly that chance, coincidence, and chaos have been the driving forces behind human evolution. These forces feed back on themselves, which McKee calls autocatalysis, driving blindly the whole process forward.

This book is written in an excellent prose, with enjoyable anecdotes that seem to express the good-natured personality of the author.

Anyone interested in human evolution, or the complexities of evolution theory should read The Riddled Chain. One does not have to be versed in biology, paleoanthropology, or the like to enjoy this book. The Riddled Chain provides an interesting thought provoking perspective into the process that lead to a fascinating and incredibly complex species, ourselves. Unless you have predispositions regarding how humans emerged, or with evolution theory itself, I bet you will not be able to put this book down.