The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution

by Henry Gee

The idea of a missing link between humanity and our animal ancestors predates evolution and popular science and actually has religious roots in the deist concept of the Great Chain of Being. Yet, the metaphor has lodged itself in the contemporary imagination, and new fossil discoveries are often hailed in headlines as revealing the elusive transitional step, the moment when we stopped being “animal” and started being “human.” In The Accidental Species , Henry Gee, longtime paleontology editor at Nature , takes aim at this misleading notion, arguing that it reflects a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works and, when applied to the evolution of our own species, supports mistaken ideas about our own place in the universe.

 

Gee presents a robust and stark challenge to our tendency to see ourselves as the acme of creation. Far from being a quirk of religious fundamentalism, human exceptionalism, Gee argues, is an error that also infects scientific thought. Touring the many features of human beings that have recurrently been used to distinguish us from the rest of the animal world, Gee shows that our evolutionary outcome is one possibility among many, one that owes more to chance than to an organized progression to supremacy. He starts with bipedality, which he shows could have arisen entirely by accident, as a by-product of sexual selection, moves on to technology, large brain size, intelligence, language, and, finally, sentience. He reveals each of these attributes to be alive and well throughout the animal world—they are not, indeed, unique to our species.

The Accidental Species combines Gee’s firsthand experience on the editorial side of many incredible paleontological findings with healthy skepticism and humor to create a book that aims to overturn popular thinking on human evolution—the key is not what’s missing, but how we’re linked.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Anthropology, Biology, History, Nature

217 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Henry Gee's next book The Wonder of Life on earth, illustrated by Raxenne Maniquiz, is out on 5 February 2026. His other books include The Decline and Fall of the Human Empire, A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth (winner of the 2022 Royal Society Science Book Prize) and The Science of Middle earth. His books have been translated into more than 25 languages. He is represented by Jill Grinberg Literary Management and lives in Cromer, England.

Reviews

[Brian Clegg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one the best popular science books of the year, so I feel a touch of regret that it has been published by an academic press. Don’t get me wrong, Chicago University Press has done an excellent job with it – the book is a thing of beauty – but there are two ways this can get in the way of a wide readership. One is that people might be put off because academic books tend to be stuffy and dull. This one isn’t. And secondly because it is rather expensive.

I’d love to see this book as a mass market paperback because I want lots of people to read it. In fact I’d go so far as to say that a copy should be given to every 16-year-old. Not because it’s aimed at younger readers, but because this is the best book I’ve ever read for putting evolution into perspective, and for giving a real understanding of the nature of the fossil record and what it can and can’t tell us, not to mention explaining the power and limitations of science.

Henry Gee shows eloquently why the concept of a ‘missing link’, while attractive to journalists, is just wrong – along with those popular drawings that have an apparent evolutionary progression from an ape-like creature, through a cave man, to a modern person. With the enthusiasm of someone who knows his bones firsthand, Gee tells us about what we do know from fossil remains, particularly in early and pre-humans, but also about the huge gaps. He explains clearly and precisely just what evolution is – and what it isn’t. And he gives short shrift to creationists who have in the past quote-mined his books to give ‘evidence’ of how ‘even evolutionists’ say that evolution is wrong. As Gee makes clear, evolution is inevitable, not wrong, it is just when we misunderstand its nature or try to read more into the fossil record than it can tell us that we can misuse evolution.

There is only one aspect of the book that I disagree with. Gee spends the last few chapters picking out characteristics that you might think of as unique to human beings and showing that there are other animals with these characteristics. His aim is to show that humans are not special. His reason for doing this is good. He wants to emphasise how we make a mistake if we think in some sense that humans are the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution or that evolution has been in some way directed to create better and better creatures, ending up with us. As he demonstrates very clearly in the rest of the book, this is a total misunderstanding of the nature of evolution. And there is plenty of fascinating stuff about animal abilities. But I do think he throws the baby out with the bathwater here, as humans very clearly are special.

I think there are two ways the book gets this wrong. One is to assume that ‘special’ means ‘unique’ – which it doesn’t. So, for instance, he argues that our technology doesn’t make us special as some animals and birds make use of tools, for instance using a stick to poke into a hole to get to insects. But this is a very limited way of looking at things. I can run, but that doesn’t stop Usain Bolt being special. I can pick out a tune on a keyboard with one finger, but that doesn’t stop a great concert pianist from being special. In almost every comparison made, human beings are orders of magnitude different from every comparator, and as such certainly are special.

I would also say there are clear examples where humans have done things that goes beyond their built-in biological capabilities that no other organism can do. What other species can build technology that requires an understanding of quantum theory to design it? Or see something happening on the other side of the world, or billions of light years out in space? Or enjoy stories written by someone they’ve never met and make use of the thoughts of a member of their species who died hundreds of years ago? Or decide to take a trip to the Moon and make it happen? Humans are both unique and special. Not the pinnacle. Not the last word, or a target – but special nonetheless.

I don’t find this disagreement a problem, because this is the sort of book that provokes thought and that should inspire discussion and debate. And even without those last few chapters this is an excellent piece of popular science writing. You may think there was nothing more to say about evolution, but The Accidental Species proves that there is – and wonderful stuff it is.

[Steve Van Slyke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a relatively short book, and could have been--in my opinion--a lot shorter yet. The author's basic premise is that Man, with the capital M, is not and was not the "goal" of evolution, that man holds no special place at the top of a pointy tree of life, that in fact we are much more like one of the many remaining leaves on a tangled bush in which many branches and leaves have died (species gone extinct), while others have managed to survive.

By the end of chapter 6 I think he had more or less accomplished that objective and I completely agreed with him. But then he adds five more chapters to strengthen his position, however I think he only succeeded in weakening it because those chapters tend to go off on such long tangents that I found myself having to stop to think about what he was originally arguing for.

For example, in Chapter 7 he talks about bipedality. And he basically dismisses all of the various theories based on natural selection in favor of his pet theory based on sexual selection; i.e. that hominims began walking upright as a way of displaying their genitalia to attract mates. I neither agreed with his hypothesis, nor could I see how it had very much to do with his central premise that humans occupy no special position in evolution's history.

The chapters that followed were much the same, far afield from his central idea. I think I was charitable giving it three stars. I would only recommend this book for those who are already well read on the subject of human evolution. It would not be a good choice for someone just getting into it because I feel it would only confuse them.

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was assigned to read this book for an Evolutionary Psychology class. I was dreading having to read a non-text book for a non-literary class. Honestly, it was a great read. The class in general was my favorite, but this book was a perfect compliment to the lecture material. It was interesting, entertaining, and informative. I found it very easy to read and Gee has a brilliant sense of humor. Gee took a complex topic and simplified it perfectly. Aside from being enjoyable, the educational material has stayed with me post class. I can't say the same for most text books. I would recommend this book.

[John Gribbin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was lucky enough to see an advance copy of this. It is quite simply the best book ever written about human evolution. Henry Gee's masterpiece.

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

By way of introduction, let me explain what drew me to this book. First, for a while now I have been researching evolutionary science as a hobby, and I've been struck by the wide variation in interpretations of evolution. Some authors, especially journalists, seem to quick to jump to what evolution means, even to the point of obscuring what it is. The hope of cutting through some of this haze made me pick the book off the Barnes & Noble shelf. Second, I noticed the author was Henry Gee, editor of Nature, the leading interdisciplinary scientific journal. Almost every hot topic in science crosses this man's desk, and has done so for over 20 years. This puts him in an ideal position to give a contemporary evaluation of a broad topic, evolution, in a way that transcends disciplinary idiosyncrasies.

The thesis of the book is that the "meaning" of evolution is socially constructed rather than spontaneously arising from the facts and that some of the constructions have obscured issues more than helped them. One impeding construct is the narrative of science as the triumphant march of Truth and Fact against ever-decreasing and perhaps now minuscule Ignorance. Gee prefers a less triumphalist interpretation of science as a process of circumscribing zones of ignorance, a process prone to reversals, changes of course, and surprises of all kinds. A related construct is evolutionary teleology. This concept views evolution as the inevitable progress from "lower" to "higher" lifeforms, pushing ever closer to Man, the pinnacle of creation. Against this Gee stresses the contingency of evolution, the absence of evolutionary necessity, and the continuity of humankind with the rest of life.

Gee, living up to his day job, brings together many fields to make his case. One chapter examines the actual argument of Darwinism, freeing it from necessitarian and progressive connotations. Then the fossil record is examined to demonstrate the types of interpretive judgment that must enter into the process. Here Gee takes some time out to scold creationists, whom he believes have unfairly and inaccurately appropriated some of his previous work. Finally, Gee tackles human uniqueness, or the lack thereof. He discusses bipedality, technology, language, and intelligence, concluding that none of these are uniquely human or, if uniquely human, not enough to make humans unique in any significant sense.

Gee's argument is a welcome corrective to superficial glosses on evolution, not only in journalism but sometimes among scientists themselves. His own background in journalism predisposes him toward an engaging writing style; indeed, a few times I found it a bit too pandering. This is not an introduction to evolution, nor an apology for it. The ideal reader is someone who accepts the reality of evolution but is searching for a responsible interpretation of the science.

[Kenia Sedler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating read for anyone looking to fine-tune their understanding of evolution by natural selection.

[Carrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought provoking and well researched. I gave it three stars instead of four for three reasons. First the author tended to repeat himself. Second ever so often he would through in a word that a casual reader would be unlikely to know or understand. It gave me the impression that he wanted to prove that he was smarter than me. Third I did not care for his attitude towards Christian's. I understand his outrage at having his comments cherry picked to prove a point far different from what he believes. However, I did not think potshots at other views had a place in a work of this caliber. He is certainly capable of proving his point without denigrating someone else's.

[Calen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Humans aren’t very special or unique and Evolution isn’t linear.

[Kristi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received this book as a door prize at a professional development workshop for science teachers. I teach 8th grade science and with the new NGSS standards I'll soon be teaching adaptations so I was excited to win this book. My mind was altered completely with Henry's explanation of evolution showing that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. I actually feel relief by this concept. Takes the pressure off of being human.

[Elena · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't go past 2 chapters.

[Teresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book. Simplified for non a academics , but not stupidified. .

[Lino Matteo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution

Author: Henry Gee

It seems that we have all seen the evolutionary sequence. Memes galore have been made of the sequence. They are more than likely all wrong. The author, Henry Gee, makes compelling arguments that evolution is not sequential to an ideal. That that the fossil records are incomplete with huge gaps a near certainty.

https://linomatteo.wordpress.com/2022...

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry Gee provides a clearly written, popular science book that puts evolution in general, and human evolution in particular, in perspective. The book also provides the reader with an understanding of science in general, and specifically the spotty nature of the fossil record and what information can and cannot be gleaned from it. I found the occassional dry humour entertaining. This is a book for the interested lay person, packed with relevant and important information, but not stuffed with excessive details or even indepth commentary. The Accidental Species is a book that provides food for thought and encourages (or provokes, as the case may be) discussion.

[Daniele · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quando si parla di evoluzione umana, viene spesso (ab)usato il concetto di “anello mancante”: dalla stampa generalista, che usa questa espressione ogniqualvolta venga scoperto un nuovo fossile di ominino, ai creazionisti, che lo utilizzano, a sproposito, come argomento a sostegno delle loro tesi, e a volte dagli stessi scienziati. Ma, come spiega Henry Gee, senior editor della prestigiosa rivista scientifica Nature, in questo interessantissimo libro, si tratta di un concetto sostanzialmente errato. Il termine “evoluzione” (non usato inizialmente da Darwin, il padre della teoria evoluzionistica, che parlava di “discendenza con modificazioni”) può far pensare a un progresso, un miglioramento, un aumento di complessità, che a sua volta suggerisce una visione finalistica e teleologica del processo evolutivo, in cui il fine ultimo è, ovviamente, Homo sapiens.

Tuttavia, questa “storia” che, un po’ narcisisticamente, ci piace raccontarci non è supportata dall’evidenza scientifica. Il processo evolutivo non può essere rappresentato come una “catena” i cui “anelli” successivi sono ciascuno un miglioramento del precedente, fino ad arrivare al culmine, costituito dalla nostra specie, ma piuttosto come un albero, pieno di ramificazioni. La nostra storia evolutiva è solo una delle moltissime possibili e la nostra esistenza è un fatto puramente contingente. La nostra “eccezionalità” è sostanzialmente un’illusione: tutte le caratteristiche che ci contraddistinguono e che pensiamo ci rendano “speciali” sono in qualche misura presenti in moltissime altre specie, come spiega Gee nel corso della seconda parte del libro. L’apparizione di queste caratteristiche nel corso dell’evoluzione umana non è da vedere come un insieme di tappe che portano necessariamente dalla scimmia all’uomo, in una narrazione di tipo teleologico, ma semplicemente come soluzioni più o meno casuali messe in atto dall’evoluzione per mezzo di mutazioni e selezione naturale. Né più né meno di quanto è avvenuto e avviene per le altre specie viventi.

I fatti dimostrano che una visione che mette l’uomo al di sopra delle altre specie viventi è insostenibile: non sorprende che per le religioni sia così difficile accettare la realtà dell’evoluzione, dato che questa, chiaramente, mina alla base uno dei loro fondamenti, la superiorità umana. I creazionisti hanno attinto a piene mani dagli scritti di Gee, riportando frasi che fuori contesto potrebbero apparire come critiche alla realtà dell’evoluzione. È facile, per esempio, prendere le affermazioni sulla scarsità della documentazione fossile, che ci impedisce di ricostruire in maniera inequivocabile e precisa la storia dell’evoluzione umana, come un modo per mettere in dubbio la realtà stessa di quell’evoluzione. Ma, una volta inserite nel loro contesto queste affermazioni, diventa chiaro che non è così, come l’autore ci tiene a specificare: la realtà dell’evoluzione non è minimamente in discussione.

Il libro è estremamente interessante, scritto in maniera godibile e mai pesante. Decisamente consigliato a chiunque sia appassionato di scienza e in particolare dell’evoluzione.

https://ioateo.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/la-specie-imprevista/

[James Hollomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any book that is fun to read, filled with humor, thought provoking and that manages all of this while explaining the latest advances in a complex field of science is sure to be a terrific read, and Professor Henry Gee's Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution is a terrific read.

There are, however, two things bother me about Dr. Gee's writing. Even though he knows creationists will quote mine his books for sentences they can yank out of context (they did with his earlier works from In Search of Deep Time forward) he continues to oblige them with perfect gems. That, and all too often he seems to make a leap from proving that we do not know that two things are different to declaring that we can say they are the same.

For instance, in chapter ten, he documents how little we do know about animal communication from dogs to chimps to whales to crows. He shows that their milieu is quite different from ours but their need for social order is often similar to ours. He notes that chimps seem to be able to master perhaps half as many "orders of intentionality" (Read Dr. Robin Dunbar's work) as humans. At this point, he has me convinced that we humans can't claim our language abilities are legions above those of some of our animal neighbors. But he stretches the conclusion to "...one could easily say that there is no functional, real-world difference between the complexities of discourse between animals and between humans." I'd prefer to leave it at "We simply do not yet know what level of communication animals employ, or how closely it parallels human communication."

[Jim Fix · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book has two major shortcomings. First, the author writes in a complex style. He says that he was once a journalist, but he certainly doesn't show a journalist's skill at simplifying concepts and enlivening interest. He also claims to be the editor of the Journal Science. Possibly that is why that publication is so difficult to read.
Second, the author spends the last few chapters explaining why humans may not be the ultimate creature ever evolved. OK, so maybe bacteria are. They are massively more numerous, and more likely to survive massive changes that could annihilate humanity. But the author bases his case on the many things animals can do that make us less special. Many animals have languages. Many animals can make tools. Many creatures construct complex edifices, etc. But, to my way of thinking, no creatures except humans are capable of all the qualities he lists.
The first chapters do present an excellent overview of fossils--how they are made and by whom, and why it is so difficult to portray precisely, from fossilized remains, how all of evolution progressed.

[Arafat Rahman · Rating 3 out of 5]

বিবর্তনের বই পড়তে গিয়ে আমরা একটা গল্প আশা করি যেখানে মানুষ হবে কেন্দ্রীয় চরিত্র, আর জীবজগতের উন্নতির শীর্ষে অবস্থান হচ্ছে এই প্রজাতির। আমরা যে আসলে বিবর্তনকে কতটা ভুল বুঝি, তারই প্রকাশ হচ্ছে এই আশাবাদ। হেনরি জি, বিজ্ঞানের গবেষণা জার্নাল নেচারের সিনিয়র সম্পাদক, এই ভুল ভাবনাকে ভেঙেছেন তার "দ্য এক্সিডেন্টাল স্পিশিস" বইটিতে। বইটির ভাষা বেশ কঠিন লেগেছে; লেখকের বক্তব্যগুলোও বেশ জটিল লেগেছে বুঝতে। তবে প্রকৃতি-পাঠের সময় মানব-কেন্দ্রিক যে দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আমরা বজায় রাখি, সেটাতেই মৌলিক প্রশ্ন তুলেছেন তিনি। বলে রাখা ভালো, ক্রিয়েশনিস্টরা যদিও লেখককে উদ্ধৃত করেন বিবর্তনকে ভুল প্রমাণ করার জন্য, লেখক পরিস্কার করে দিয়েছেন যে বিবর্তনের বাস্তবতা নিয়ে জীববিজ্ঞানের জগতে কোন দ্বিধা নেই। সব মিলিয়ে বলবো, পাঠকের মনে জীববিজ্ঞানের বিভিন্ন দার্শনিক চিন্তার উদ্রেক ঘটানোর জন্য বইটা দারুণ।

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Parts of the book are excellent and Gee writes well. He does an adequate job of making his case that viewing human evolution as a continuous path towards Homo sapiens may be an over-reach given the paucity of fossils. However, he lost me completely in his attempt to reject human exceptionalism. Even though he repeatedly states that he has made the case…he doesn't make the case. In fact, in his recitations of various studies and facts, he generally lead me to think that we are exceptional. Then he would finish with a quick rejection of all that he had just presented. He also needlessly digresses into a rant against creationists which appeared to me to be a personal conflict.

[Tomas Tokar · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution by Henry Gee is a thoughtful, engaging exploration of popular misconceptions about human evolution—more about myths than a straightforward evolutionary history. While it’s not as figuratively rich as his other work, A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth, Gee’s writing won't disappoint, still bringing depth and clarity to complex ideas.

[Luca Urbinati · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ho avuto molti dubbi nell’assegnare un voto a questo libro. A una prima parte molto interessante, che offre una prospettiva originale e ben argomentata sull’evoluzione in generale e umana in particolare, segue una seconda parte in cui Gee si avventura in una sorta di valutazione del grado di evoluzione della specie umana attuale, per concludere che non vi è in essa nulla di più rilevante rispetto a qualunque altra specie animale.
I primi cinque capitoli valgono senz’altro la lettura: ci mostrano quale sia lo stato attuale effettivo delle conoscenze scientifiche sull’evoluzione, come siano arbitrari molti tentativi di fissare linee cronologiche e di successione tra specie, data la lacunosità della documentazione fossile, e come in particolare la specie Homo Sapiens non possa essere considerata un punto culminate univoco dell’evoluzione umana.
Nel sesto capitolo Gee si rivolge direttamente ai creazionisti, che hanno utilizzato le sue idee, tratte da libri e articoli precedenti, estrapolandole dal loro contesto, per tentare di screditare la teoria darwiniana in generale, e non solo la sua interpretazione più diffusa, oggetto dell’analisi critica di Gee. Da qui in avanti, sembra che i fumi della rabbia annebbino il proseguire dell’argomentazione di Gee. Spinto, credo, dall’impulso di non offrire alcun possibile appiglio alle teorie dell’origine divina o comunque non esclusivamente fisica dell’uomo, anziché limitarsi a considerarlo come un prodotto un po’ particolare dell’evoluzione, Gee si affanna a dimostrare che nessun attributo umano - il linguaggio, la capacità di pianificazione, l’autocoscienza - ha alcunché di speciale o di diverso da quel che possiamo osservare in altri animali. Giunge così a utilizzare argomenti che sembrano scadere da un lato nelle fumosità del new age e della pseudo-scienza, dall’altro semplicemente nella superficialità. Alcuni esempi:
P.193: “Ho il sospetto che la distinzione tra umanità e resto della creazione sia un fenomeno relativamente recente [...] nel folklore e nelle favole gli animali possono conversare tra loro e anche con gli umani” (solida argomentazione scientifica!).
P.225: “anche le scimmie, gli scimpanzé in particolare, dispongono di rudimentali tecnologie, come usare pietre per aprire le noci […] perché la tecnologia creata dagli esseri umani, così bella e così utile, dovrebbe necessariamente comportare un produttore più intelligente e determinato di, mettiamo, un corvo o un uccello tessitore?” (in effetti, tra una centrale nucleare e un rudimentale schiaccianoci non ci sono poi tutte queste differenze).
A p. 227 Gee, appoggiandosi alle teorie sulla coscienza di Dennet, ne deriva che “se una cosa come il teatro cartesiano non esiste, allora non ci può essere neppure una profondità di pianificazione” (evidentemente Eisenhower pianificò lo sbarco in Normandia usando semplici capacità innate o apprese per imitazione).
P. 261-262: “E’ possibile che i canti delle allodole abbiano, per le allodole che ascoltano, un carico di significato molto superiore a quello che noi potremmo mai riuscire a comprendere […] se sta cantando di sesso e amore, si potrebbe dire la stessa cosa della maggior parte della musica popolare dell’umanità. Se i canti delle allodole non hanno un significato intrinseco, nel senso di parole, grammatica o sintassi, lo stesso si può dire di molta musica strumentale” (in quest’ottica, che operazione avrebbe compiuto Schönberg quando decise di inventare un modo di scrivere musica diverso dal sistema tonale?).
P. 268: “Non è forse la scrittura […] la chiave che ha aperto agli esseri umani il dominio della Terra? Forse. Se si eccettua il fatto che molti animali hanno forme extracorporee di comunicazione […] viene fatto di pensare ai sentieri tracciati dalle formiche con i feromoni e dai topi di campagna con la loro urina” (pensavate che la Divina Commedia fosse la summa di secoli di pensiero umano, cesellata in una forma squisita? Errore di prospettiva, fu la semplice espressione extracorporea di un fiorentino incontinente.)
Giudizio finale, comunque, tre: cinque per la prima parte e uno per la seconda.

[Mark Stidham · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is relatively brief as will be this review. I read the e-book as it was on offer for a low price as an ebook and it had a recommendation from my favorite science writer, Carl Zimmer. Also, I have had interest in understanding more details around the evolution of the human species. In short order, this book helped me lose interest in understanding the details of the emergence of Homo sapiens as a species. Why?
Gee gives some easily understood examples of the difficulties in paleontology and its capacity to illuminate evolutionary history. First and foremost, he redefines the term 'evolution', dissociating it from our concept of progress. For many, this redefinition will be enlightening, but in my case, Gee was preaching to the choir. That is, many of us schooled in biology and evolution understand that natural selection has no purpose and is not oriented towards progressively states of being. Moreover, the long time spans of evolution are required to establish species and extinction of species. This fact helps one understand the folly of evolution being any kind of story about 'progress'.
Understanding this basic principle of evolution, the book lays bare the sketchy nature of the paleontological record. In addition to confronting the task of understanding time frames of millions of years, there are the practical issues about circumstances that generate identifiable fossils. Multiplying the odds of the paleontologist looking in the right places with odds of any specimen leaving traces of itself and then considering again the long time frames, one is impressed that any kind of story at all can be told through the fossil record.
Finally, the author exposes man's tendency to make up stories that seem consistent but are inevitably gross approximations of reality. I paste below one quote along these lines.
My conclusion here is that the relatively brief period of time involved in the emergence of Homo sapiens is not helpful in bringing into focus any kind of story that stand to scrutiny. It is a fool's errand in the end, and because of this, I have quenched my interest in trying to understand the sequence of genetic changes that allowed our species to emerge.

“The fundamental difference between religion and science is that the former is all about the celebration of certainty, whereas the latter is all about the quantification of doubt”

Excerpt From
The Accidental Species
Henry Gee
https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-a...
This material may be protected by copyright.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, this is more like 2.5 than 3 but whatever. Awhile ago I read a book called Why Fish Don't Exist and it was slow but fascinating. It introduced me to the word cladistics and I went searching for books that might offer more for the every man. I found this book and well after I had forgotten the word cladistics finally but this on listen.

It was not quick to get into, but the ideas rounded into form about a quarter of the way into the book and I understood what it was talking about, it made sense and I liked it. Basically, using fossil remains to create a "true" map and history is misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. Because fossils are rare and some things just don't fossilize. Added on top of this was that beings did not evolve with foresight to become what they are, they just went wherever nature took them and we ended up here. 4 stars.

Then, about halfway through the book the author starts talking about creationist that do not like him, his past work, etc. Everything went off the rails here. The book was less than one star from here on out up until the very last sentence. It was just a mish mash of big words and ideas that might be really smart, but just seemed confusing and getting away from the actual point. Really in the weeds trying to explain his idea to people that will just not ever be there with him. Then, finally, just a brilliant closing paragraph or sentence that really helped wrap up his argument.

Basically humans arent special because of what we perceive our strengths are. Other animals are more special than us based on their gifts. Dogs can tell each other apart based on smell or taste, most humans probably cant do that and do not place a high value on that precisely because we cannot do that.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow! This was a big one for me (seeing as how I'm a science geek). The thesis here is life-altering. Somewhat like it must have been to have first read Copernicus' research on the rotation of the earth around the sun. Homo sapiens are not the result of some expected or natural progression of the species. They are just an accident of evolution along (what Darwin called) the tangled bank.

Having been influenced by a Christian upbringing that taught that man was a superior species. Being part of that species and watching us "rule" this planet, it is tempting to view us as a superior species that was intended to be at the top. However Henry Gee puts forward a very convincing argument that we are self-centeredly deluding ourselves. And that we have a critical misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution if we are to assume we are any more special or superior than any of the other species to have evolved on earth over time.

The author of Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain referred to this book. Thank goodness I read the notes! :) The author's approachable and often funny tone made the book easy to read. And although I learned of Darwin's theories in high school, this has led me to put The Origin of Species on my reading list...at last!

[Paul Foley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short and elegantly written book makes the important point that evolution is not a purpose-driven system progressing to any ultimate goal, and that Man is certainly not that goal. It's a common mistake to make that assumption and Gee shows just how common and mistaken it is. Each successive generation in the fossil line is not a new and improved version of the one before, like the most recent Ford.

I found that the book stumbles in the later chapters, where Gee tries too hard to show that mankind is nothing special, a perfectly valid point when it bursts the bubble of human exceptionalism. Crows (to use his example) are very clever creatures, and to can be argued that they even make "tools", but their use of peeled twigs really isn't the same as what we have on display at Home Depot. And while their vocalisation as they settle in for the night may sound from a distance like the chatter of human gossips, it isn't language. His line of argument is similar to claiming the invention of radio wasn't really anything new, it's basically the same as standing on a hill and yelling really loud.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this was an excellent read. Henry Gee does a great job of explaining what exactly the fossil record represents and how popular culture and science has sometimes misinterpreted that record. He provides interesting examples of characteristics we might think define humans and examples on why they aren't so special. He does an excellent job of driving home "humans are not the pinnacle of evolution." There are a couple points where I feel the book falls flat. He doesn't seem all that interested in discussing all the valid theories for a particular traits evolutionary advantage and occasionally seems to pick his favorite (sexual selection for bipedalism). He also doesn't even attempt to tackle what set of traits led to human domination of the landscape. We aren't special and we aren't the culmination of evolution. But something or some somethings have allowed humans to adapt to their environment at an unprecedented rate. Why does our technology change so much faster than other species? I think that's a core question he hints at but never fully addresses. Still a great read, but don't go in expecting him to tackle all the tough questions.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The Accidental Species, Henry Gee systematically demolishes every notion of human exceptionalism in the animal kingdom. He also debunks widespread teleological, Hegelian distortions of the theory of natural selection.

Something from this book that is going to stick with me is the picture it paints of the unknowable nature of earth’s natural history. Before reading this book, I did not know that there is no fossil record of gorillas ever existing on planet earth, and that the same is true of chimpanzees, with the exception of a few teeth. The past is a vast darkness, and the fossils we do find only illuminate small pinpricks of light.

I didn’t love the left turn into behaviourism at the end of the book, and the author stops short of explicitly drawing the rational conclusion that many animals likely have experiences similar to ours, and need to be extended moral consideration and personhood. There were also a couple passages that got flowery and repetitive.

I highly recommend this book, it is short and to the point and it brings some much needed perspective to popular understandings of natural history, the place of humans on earth, evolution and the nature of science itself.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This reminded me of a scholarly monograph for a few reasons, not least of which was how it was typeset and even the font that was used. It was published by an academic press, and it literally shows! I had to restrain myself from taking a pencil, underlining key sentences, and scribbling marginalia.
It is also structured like a scholarly monograph with an introduction, the arguments developed clearly over several chapters, and then a conclusion (well, an afterword).
A stylistically-lively and thought-provoking read with some, to the lay reader, novel ideas in there, e.g.; for all that we are in the Anthropocene now, photosynthesis also created massive climate change. My takeaways from this book are that the fossil record is partial and fragmentary, and homo sapiens are not so much the pinnacle of evolution as one of many hominids that have been or will be.
My quibble is that Gee delights a little too much in his own rhetorical flourishes sometimes (the academic equivalent of 'dad jokes') - can I go so far as to suggest there is a touch of smugness, perhaps?

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aimed at the general educated reader, this is an interesting approach to discussing evolution, and human evolution in particular. The author addresses eleven common misconceptions about evolution. These misconceptions are not just held by the public, but also frequently by biologists themselves. The biggest one is that evolution is directed, that species are forever trying to make themselves better. Several of the chapters involve human exceptionalism (the belief that humans are not subject to the same rules as other species, and that humans are an exceptional species). I was interested in newer research into how humans and animals think, since I left the field almost 40 years ago.

I think it would have been better if he had concluded with a chapter on how humans really are different from other species. After all we are the only species driving a massive climate change and we alter the environment even more than beavers and elephants. I know it is not just one thing, it’s a combination of many factors and it would have ended the book nicely.

3 stars – good for those interested in the topic

[Satid · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author writes in a conversational style with some jokes mixed in. The core messages from the author are useful and practical but this book suffers from writing of repetitive iterations of the key messages. The author needs to improve his art of narratives more.

One bad effect from reading this book for me is that evolutionary anthropology and paleontology become much less firm areas of scientific studies (and therefore less interesting for me) just because of its ambiguous nature of evidences - fossil. In some parts of the book, the author repeats this message to the point that these studies almost becomes pseudo-science to me while he in fact tries to point that its some imprudent scientists' professional opinions (trying to make a mountain out of a molehill - or in some cases making an outright forgery) that make it appear so. Media journalists who cover and report on these scientific advancement areas are also to blame for their flimsy use of their intellectual interpretation of such scientific reports.

[Lolo · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was a good read and started very interesting. I like the scientific and objective point of view for the first 3/4 of the book. After all this investment, I expected to book to sum up all the scientific facts analyzed in the first half of the book and end with a bang, a definite conclusion... Nope!

It seems that the author stopped just a step before reaching the conclusion and turned the whole reasoning into rhetorical questions and philosophical hypothesis. Maybe the author wanted to make the reader reach his/her own conclusions, but I didn't like it at all.

If I'm listening/reading a person that expresses his/her own unique point of view, I WANT TO HEAR THE CONCLUSION. Even if this conclusion is personal bias, belief, hope or anything. You can't keep anyone happy, so just express yourself, you might learn something new. Don't be vague or political correct or philosophical.

In conclusion, an awesome journey, with an awful destination into vagueness.