What a book..."The Book of life." Why it's a modern cartoon book of paleontology. Though its wonderful life-like illustrations and tree-of-life charts are delivered as scientific facts, they are simply graphic theories that illustrators doll up into hypothetical reality. If you like science and fiction, here is a book for you. The realistic pictures belie the text, which says: "We do not even know how to conceptualize, much less to draw the worldview that would place Homo sapiens into proper relationship with the history of life."

Its authors caveat is that "science can only operate as a work in progress without perfect knowledge, and we much therefore leave a great deal out from ignorance --- especially in a historical field like paleontology, where we must work with the strictly limited evidence of a very imperfect fossil record." It's that fossil record, that the book presumes is accurate in its layer-by-layer record through time, that requires scrutiny. The oldest fossils are found in the bottom layers and the youngest in the top layers of rock, but little or no evidence is presented to provide skeptical readers information they can decipher for themselves as to the accuracy of fossil dating by rock layers. Are we to believe, without exception, that the fossil record is progressive from bottom to top? What about fossilized trees that protrude through millions of years of time? They are conveniently omitted. Michael Benton of England's Bristol University, one of the book's contributors, says "All the periods in the geological time scale receive their names in recognition of obvious changes in the fossil record." Yet, to the contrary, Benton adds, "the history of Earth's crust has been far too violent to preserve much more than a random sample."

Its general editor, Stephen Jay Gould, is magnanimous in his promotion of a single theory of man's origins, from monkeys he and most other fossil hunters say.

There may be missing pieces to the paleontological puzzle, but the bone diggers cliam they have finally filled in the evolutional blanks and can conclusively attest to the idea that life evolved from simpler single-celled organisms into modern man. The book's most ardent opponents are taken head on by Gould: "The lack of fossil intermediates had often been cited by creationists as a supposedly prime example for their contention that intermediate forms not only haven't been found in the fossil record but can even be conceived." But Gould holds a trump card. He says: "a lovely series of intermediary steps have now been found in rocks.... in Pakistan. This elegant series, giving lie to the creationist claims, includes the almost perfectly intermediate Ambulocetus (literally, the walking whale), a form with substantial rear legs to complement the front legs already known from many fossil whales, and clearly well adapted both for swimming and for adequate, if limited, movement on land." Oddly, the book never shows a drawing of Ambulocetus, but does have an illustration of a skeleton of a 400-million year old fish with a small underside fin bone the authors claim "must have evolved" into legs in four-legged animals. Man's imagination is not found wanting here. Out of millions of fossils collected and stored in museums, is Ambulocetus the main piece of evidence for evolutionary theory?

Richard Benton says that Charles Darwin had hoped the fossil record would eventually confirm his theory of evolution, but "this has not happened," says Benton. Darwin hoped newly-discovered fossils would connect the dots into a clear evolutionary pattern. The book attempts to do that with its fictional drawings of apes evolving into pre-humans (hominids) and then modern man. Yet the book is not without contradictions. It says: "It remains uncertain whether chimpanzees are more closely related to modern humans or to the gorilla."

The horse is shown as evolving from a small, four-toed to a large one-toed animal over millions of years. There are different varieties of horses, yet there is no evidence that a horse ever evolved from another lower form of animal, nor that horses evolved into any other form of animal.

Another evolutionary puzzle that goes unexplained in the book is the pollination of flowers. How did bees and flowers arrive simultaneously in nature? What directed the appearance of one separate kingdom of life (insects) with that of another?

The book describes 6 1/2-foot millipedes and dragonflies with the wing span of a seagull, but gives no explanation for them. Life was unusual in the past and not all forms fit evolutionary patterns. Consider the popular supposition that life evolved from the sea onto land. That would make more advanced forms of intelligence land bearing. But the aquatic dolphins defy that model, since they are among the smartest mammals.

The book maintains an "out of Africa" scenario for the geographical origins of man, but recent fossil finds in Australia challenge that theory and even the book's authors admit that "a single new skull in an unexpected time or place could still rewrite the primate story." Consider Java man (Homo erectus), once considered the "missing link" and dated at 1.8 million years old. Modern dating methods now estimate Java man to be no more than 50,000 years of age, a fact that was omitted from this text.

Creativity, invention and language are brought out as unique human characteristics. Yet the true uniqueness of man is not emphasized. Humans biologically stand apart from animals in so many ways. Humans can be tickled whereas animals cannot. Humans shed emotional tears, animals do not. The book does not dare venture beyond structure and function, beyond cells and DNA, to ask the question posed by philosophers --- does man have a soul? The Bible speaks of a soul 533 times, this "book of life," not once.

Gould's temple is science. He calls the scientific method "that infallible guide to empirical truth." Science works by elimination. It can only work from experiment to experiment, eliminating what is not true. It can say what is probable, it can never say what is true. Gould appears to begrudge the shackles of science by stepping outside its boundaries in overstating what it can accomplish. Whereas creationists await the day they will stand in judgment before God, for the evolutionists Gould says "Someday, perhaps, we shall me our ancestors face to face." Imagine, standing there looking at a man-like monkey skeleton.

One cannot fault the flaws in this book. After all, it was written by highly evolved apes.

You would have expected more time and detail to the ermergence of the nervous system and the Cambrian Explosion. A more up-to-date section on human evolution (no mention of Ardipithecus Ramidus) but on the whole the book is a good synthesis of the state of the knowledge in this field.

This singular book gives a very nice popular overview of the state-of-the-art in paleontology, chronologically covering everything from the Archean to the evolution of man. It is a beautifully illustrated and well-written book, although the text is perhaps sometimes a bit too technical and dense for the paleontological novice.
And please don't buy some creationists' claims that this is science fiction. The contents of this book is based on material from thousands of scientific articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as "Nature" and "Science", representing the fruits of the hard labour of paleontologists from all over the world. And the fossil record, even if it is convincing in itself, is far from the only support for evolution. Independent evidence for evolution can also be found in biogeography, development, molecular analyses (gene DNA, junk DNA, mtDNA etc), anatomical analyses, and even field observations of new species evolving. This large amount of evidence is why evolution is considered an established and undisputable fact. Of course, if one rather than facts wants comic book fantasies such as humans coexisting with dinosaurs and evil scientists conspiring to hide the truth, then one should look for creationist books instead. Or comic books.

As an executive trainee for a large retail company, I was required to read this book. Benton gives pointers on how to be a clone, a sell out, a working stiff with no sense of individuality or concern for others.

It was poorly written and thoroughly disgusting.

Bleh.

Debra A. Benton's book is a guide for making a better impression, exercising power effectively, and developing improved personal relationships at work. In any corporate culture, the goal is paradoxical: you want to fit in and stand out, at the same time. Based on her experience in working with business leaders as a coach, trainer, and consultant, Benton offers a variety of techniques that emphasize personal presentation and communication skills. While the book will appeal primarily to managers, these skills are useful to anyone who wants to get ahead. Benton combines a lively writing style with effective examples. The book includes useful summaries at the end of each chapter and a brief appendix. We [...] recommend it as an excellent book for anyone in a corporate culture, although there is some overlap with topics from Benton's more recent work, How to Think Like a CEO.

Better than the Bible...this book is the replacement.

All we need is a place of worship.

MM

I personally feel Benton's book leaves an abundant more it be answered. The book does have such good points like as to the photo's and diagrams presented in the text, but the book is written with a higher learning in mind that might leave the common reader wondering what they just read. I have read far better books than this one , and I recommend it only for students of paleology or seasoned veterans in the field.

I thought this book was one of the best Dinosuar books I have ever read.......this book had lots of really neat info about the different kinds of dinosuars and how to be a paleontologist in your own time. I give this excellent dino book four stars!!!!

Great, fantastic book for general knowlege of fossilation and geology back ground. highly reccomend

This is a great book.It is impossible to put down once you've started reading it. The author writes very well,and the theme is captivating.If you like books about real life, read this one!

Sophia Casas

Hello!I love this book because it is very nice and it talks about stuff that really could happen any day. The reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that it was too short! love, Sophia

In the introduction to this work, Mr. Patterson tells us a few things that apparently do not bias his viewpoint - namely that he is a descendant of the long-deceased King Harold of the 11th century AD, and that the wrong man won at Hastings on that fateful October day in 1066. Needless to say - I was a little surprised and turned off immediately. He goes on to say that huge gaps occur in the historical record, and his novel-esque narrative will have the holes filled by his best guess of what happened. Okay - perhaps it's not a crime, but we're trying to peddle this as history, when, if you do read the text, it is not.

I am familiar with most of the sources used as references (although strangely enough there is NO CITING AT ALL), and the incredible amount of detail into which Patterson occassionally delves is quite astonishing. In all - this is entertaining, but dont' take the man's word for law. His is a story tainted heavily by bias and a great deal of guess-work where it is not necessary. As the old axim goes (and I use it to argue that "history" need be neutral): Don't try to be a great man, just be a man, and let history make its own judgments. Mr. Patterson - present us with the happenings, but don't tell us who "should" have won. You are quick to pass judgment upon something you profess is largely lost in the abyss of the past.

The reason history is so fascinating is because, quite often, momentous, world-altering events occur as the result of smaller, trivial ones. England, one of the greatest world powers in history, would not have evolved as it did without William's successful Norman invasion of the island in 1066. William's invasion may not have been successful but for the fact that his enemy, Harold, the king of England, was required to fight a desperate battle at Stamford Bridge three days earlier against a large invading army from Norway. And Harold would not have had to fight these Norwegians but for the falling out he had with his brother, Tostig, who left the country in a jealous fit one year earlier, and returned with this army to exact revenge.

It is a fascinating story, and recounted expertly in this straightforward but all-too-brief history. Brief, I should add, because there are simply not enough sources from which to draw, but the author does a fine job with what is available.

The reason that there was a conflict in the first place was that the former king of England, Edward, did not leave an heir. For inexplicable reasons--although he was unusually enamoured of the Normans--he decided that the best person to succeed him would be William. He sent Harold, his wife's brother-in-law and his most likely successor, to Normandy to solicit William, and somewhere in there--the author persuasively argues that he was coerced--Harold swore an oath of allegiance to William. But two years later Edward--on his deathbed--requested Harold be his successor, and Harold was subsequently approved by the witan, England's national council. William, enraged, immediately began preparations to invade.

In the meantime, Tostig, Harold's brother and ruler of Northumbria, was having a tough time ruling his subjects. It was so brutal, in fact, that the entire area was on the verge of rebellion. It says something about his rule that the demands of the Northumbrians were in fact met. Tostig was removed, by his brother no less, and became thereafter and until his death, a scourge of England, leading eventually to his alliance with a foreign power, and his accompaniment of this power on their invasion of England.

Perhaps the most fascinating character in the book is Harald Hardraada, the Norwegian leader. After fleeing the country for his life as a young man, he went to Russia where he won the favor of the Novgorodian King. He then enlisted as a mercenary for the Byzantine empire, where for eight years he fought their battles in Sicily, North Africa and the Middle East. He then returned to Novgorod where he married is love, returned to Denmark where he formed an alliance, used this power to forge an alliance with a Norwegian usurper, and eventually became King of Norway himself.

In the summer of 1066 we find him an eager participant in Tostig's plan to invade northern England, but after an initial success, he is surprised by Harold at Stamford Bridge, and both he and Tostig are killed after a long, bloody battle. Three days later--three days--William's forces land in England, and Harold, with his depleted army, makes the long march south. The rest, as they say, is history, and poor Harold has become nothing more than a footnote.

This is really remarkable, fascinating history, and retold here in a methodical, straightforward, and entertaining way.

The book Banned in the Media is a very important resource for students who are interested in doing a report on any kind of censorship. It gave me a wonderful accounting as to what the media does not tell you. It also let me know about how the Internet is censored and what the future has in store for the internet. Definitely a great knowledge base.

Perhaps you're familiar with the name Benton MacKaye (1879-1975); at the very least, you've heard of the Appalachian Trail. You might see the title of this book and say, "Oh, OK, he was the guy who thought up the idea for a footpath from Maine to Georgia. Big deal. I've never stepped on it, so why should I care about him?" Well, without Benton MacKaye, we probably wouldn't have the Trail. We might not have a Wilderness Society, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the National Trail Systems Act of 1968, or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We might not have Shenandoah National Park in Virginia or the Great Smoky Mountains National Park straddling the Tennessee-North Carolina border. We could instead have just interstate highways crowning the entire length of the eastern mountain range. We could conceivably have uninterrupted suburbia from the Atlantic coastline to the Midwest, with little consideration given to the mountains or any natural area in between. Benton MacKaye might very well be one of the most influential 20th-century American environmentalists you've never heard of.

A New Englander with a Harvard graduate degree in forestry, MacKaye spent most of his professional life taking a variety of short-term government or association jobs that dealt with conservation issues. Eventually he carved a niche for himself as an outspoken regional planner. He was adept at writing articles and proposing legislation that included catchy words or concepts: geotechnics, new exploration, townless highways, highwayless towns, watershed democracies, wildland belts, and habitability. For MacKaye was at heart a boy who loved to wander through the natural landscape of central Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. In the early 1900s, he was already worried about increasing numbers of motorists invading those wild spaces, particularly into the region's mountainous areas. He spent the majority of his life fighting to keep those places "sound-proof as well as sight-proof" from the intrusion of contemporary civilization. In some ways, he was the Thoreau of his day.

The formal publication of "The Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning" (included here as an appendix) came to fruition in 1921, and it laid the foundation for the rest of his articles and essays. We who consider ourselves environmentalists today find his words still striking an inner chord. MacKaye wrote in the 1950s: "Verily, the first and simplest rule on earth: Give back to the earth that which we take from her. Return the good we have borrowed; in short, pay our ecological bills. Pay them in dirt, not dollars. It's the only currency the good earth accepts. Too long have we lived on dollar ecology." (p. 336) Yes, Mr. MacKaye, yes. Let's shout that one from the mountaintops, if we can still find them.

Anderson is admirably neutral in presenting the facts and interpreting MacKaye's connections with and influences on more "famous" individuals like Lewis Mumford, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, and Olaus Murie. That must have been a tough job indeed, since the author obviously spent a huge amount of time with his subject. The resulting details are valuable to have compiled into one volume but might limit readership to scholars of the AT or of the environmental movement. With every turn of a page, though, his chronicle of MacKaye's endeavors brings home a basic truth that still holds today: that every environmental debate is a political one. We can be either encouraged or chagrined by that knowledge.

This book covers a very good selection of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. They have very good pictures and interesting facts. I especially like the graphic that shows the size compared to the size of man. I found this book to be very accurate and for the most part up to date. I would recommend it for children with an advanced interest in dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. CSE

Kids love dinosaurs and are always wanting to learn more about the great "terrible" lizards that once roamed the Earth. This book is a dinosaur encyclopedia filled with information on all sorts of dinosaurs. The book is over a decade old, so some of the recently "discovered" dinosaurs aren't in here and some of the illustrations are dated. However, most of the information in the book is surprisingly still current and accurate. This would make a great gift for any elementary child who has an interest in dinosaurs.

Kotlowitz set out to investigate the mysterious death of Eric McGinnis, and ended up writing a superb narrative on the American racial divide. The setting is adjacent but mutually suspicious communities in southwestern Michigan. St. Joseph (population 9,300) is mostly white and middle class, while across the narrow river Benton Harbor (13,000) is largely black, poor, and crime-ridden. McGinnis, a black teen from Benton Harbor, vanished one evening in 1991 after fleeing from a man in downtown St. Joseph whose car he'd allegedly broken into. Days later McGinnis turned up in the river. Perhaps he was beaten, but this fleet young man could easily outrace his hefty pursuer. As the author investigates what happened, he finds opinions hardened by race and community bias rather than by the facts (shades of O.J. Simpson). Kotlowitz also finds allegations of police misconduct and biased housing patterns, plus smug indifference by some whites, and certain blacks that cry racism at every turn.

Kotlowitz writes about tragedy and race without casting blame or seeking favor. For that reason alone one should read his outstanding narrative. Sadly, the author never discovers how McGinnis died, or the key to healing our racial divide.

I had to read "The Other Side of the River" for a class in school called Conversations on Race. In this class we discuss different parts of racial barriers and disscuss how we can make a difference in errasing racial stereotypes. This book, about a death that seperated two towns even more than they already are, reveals many of these racial stereotypes. I think that Alex Kotlowitz did a really great job in presenting both sides to this story. It is hard to write a non-bias story when you have your own views on the situation. I really hope that those who read this book became aware that racial prejudisim is still present in our country. I hope that those who read this book will encourage their friends and loved ones to read it as well so that the eyes of America may be opened everywhere!

As a resident of Benton Harbor, I read with great interest Alex Kotlowitz's "The Other Side of the River". As a white person who spent my entire childhood in Stevensville (the community directly adjacent to St. Joseph), was educated there, was insulated there, and who was influenced by the subtle but constant undercurrent of racism there... only to find myself moving to the "other side" of the river for the last 16 years, I can tell you that Alex Kotlowitz absolutely captured the state of race relations in and around the "Twin Cities"... and probably most of the country. The author does not climb up on a soapbox, agenda in hand, and tell the reader what they should think. Instead, he lets the facts speak for themselves. The result that this book has caused many in the white St. Joseph community to go howling in protest, railing against this "unfair" portrayal, only goes to show that bare facts apparently don't leave much cover for those who would like to hide their fear, loathing, and head-in-the-sand refusal to believe there's a problem, behind a pretty tourist brochure facade. Painfully even-handed, the book does not exactly paint a pretty picture of either the white OR the black communities involved. Rather, it offers a map of several incidents and betrayals that have led these two towns to such a sorry state. That there can be no real conclusion to this book leaves the reader to think about their own prejudices and assumptions. It also leads you to wonder if there can ever be a conclusion to the race problems in our country as a whole... which is perhaps at least a first step to getting there -- just THINKING about it at all! I do wish Alex Kotlowitz would return to the area and look into the community of Fairplain - the only truly integrated area between the two towns. How does this community survive? Because it is made up of working people, all of the same basic socio-economic make-up? Because the people have adopted a "live & let live" attitude? Or because they know the problems of either side of the river, and have tried to make a place where they may not live like kings, but at least they're allowed to live with some dignity. Do read "The Other Side of the River". It will make you think!