where to find reliable info?

[Ted Shoemaker]

I am trying to find reliable information on human evolution. It seems that every time I read a
different book, scientific magazine, or internet page on the subject, the facts are a little
different. Very frustrating.

Alright, so neither you nor I were here 2 million years ago, and we have to reconstruct things the
best we can. Granted. But is there really such a vast range of opinion on human evolution? Today I
discovered (on a webpage) two new species of humans I'd never heard of before: Robustus and Boisei.
I suspect that someone else will tell me that these two species didn't exist.

Where can I find an authoritative outline of the history of the human genus? Or is it all up
for grabs?

If anyone answers, please respond to the newsgroup and not to my email.

Thank you very much, Ted Shoemaker

 

[Mario Petrinovi]

Ted Shoemaker :
> I am trying to find reliable information on human evolution. It seems that every time I read a
> different book, scientific magazine, or internet page on the subject, the facts are a little
> different. Very frustrating.
>
> Alright, so neither you nor I were here 2 million years ago, and we have to reconstruct things the
> best we can. Granted. But is there really such a vast range of opinion on human evolution? Today I
> discovered (on a webpage) two new species of humans I'd never heard of before: Robustus and
> Boisei. I suspect that someone else will tell me that these two species didn't exist.
>
> Where can I find an authoritative outline of the history of the human genus? Or is it all up for
> grabs? Ted Shoemaker

Try these links : www.archaeologyinfo.com/evolution.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ -- Mario

 

[Malcolm]

"Ted Shoemaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I am trying to find reliable information on human evolution. It seems that every time I read a
> different book, scientific magazine, or internet page on the subject, the facts are a little
> different. Very frustrating.
>
There isn't one cut and dried story. You can generally tell which books are serious science (even if
they are popularisations) and which are not, because the non-serious books will quite overtly push
some sort of religious or ideological agenda.
>
> Alright, so neither you nor I were here 2 million years ago, and we have to reconstruct things the
> best we can. Granted. But is there really such a vast range of opinion on human evolution? Today I
> discovered (on a webpage) two new species of humans I'd never heard of before: Robustus and
> Boisei. I suspect that someone else will tell me that these two species didn't exist.
>
The fossils and the type specimens certainly exist. This is the "lumper/spiltter" debate. There is
no agreed definition of a species through

ancestors.
>
> Where can I find an authoritative outline of the history of the human genus? Or is it all up
> for grabs?
>
Try an encylopedia for a reasonable dispassionate overview. There are many books on human evolution,
but unfortunately I can't think of one that doesn't express some opinion or other that is disputed
by other people in the field.

 

[Mario Petrinovi]

Malcolm :
> Ted Shoemaker :
> > Where can I find an authoritative outline of the history of the human genus? Or is it all up for
> > grabs?
> >
> Try an encylopedia for a reasonable dispassionate overview. There are many books on human
> evolution, but unfortunately I can't think of one that doesn't express some opinion or other that
> is disputed by other people in the field.

I would start with "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution". Excellent for layman.
Gives you perspective on the subject, from every possible angle. Excellent, comprehesive-as-
possible, all-in-one book. -- Mario