Second, one must also understand that all scientists, but
particularly those studying the genetics of man, are under great social pressure to conform their
findings to the myths of the day. The predominant myth of the day is that the races of mankind don't
exist; or that if they do, the differences between the races are only "skin deep." In reality,
racial differences are not only morphological, but intellectual and temperamental. It is simply
ridiculous to claim that racial differences are superficial because they are relatively recent (and
I doubt they are as recent as the author believes, in any case). Proof of this is easily found in
another species: the domesticated dog, the current races of which are all more recent than the races
of mankind. Dogs are even more genetically similar than man, and yet the various races (breeds)
exhibit great differences in morphology, intellegince and temperament. A few allele variations here
and there can make a huge difference.

It is amusing to see that the very people are so desperate
to minimize racial differences are usually the same people who claim to celebrate "diversity." If
race doesn't really exist, or is only "skin deep," then there is actually no diversity to celebrate.
But, of course, race DOES exist; and even those who claim not to believe this actually do, or they
would swoon with rapture over the (silly) idea of the world's Homo Sapiens gene pool blending into
one huge "Tiger Woods" race. So much for diversity!

Now, as for the "Out of Africa" versus
"Multiregional" debate. First, genetic evidence alone cannot prove on what continent a species or
subspecies arose. Fossil evidence indicates that Homo Erectus arose in Africa, but it also indicates
that Homo Sapiens arose in Eurasia. The eventual concensus theory will probably be that the Homo
Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens in Eurasia, and then spread out and interbred with existing Homo
Erectus groups in Africa and Asia, thus giving rise to the present races of man. This is the theory
that best fits the current fossil AND genetic evidence.

In any case, and in the final analysis,
the entire debate about WHERE mankind arose is important only as an intellectual puzzle, and is
completely irrelvant to help resolve any of today's social issues. There appears to be an strong
irrational urge on the part of many people to want to believe that some genetic "Adam" or "Eve" was
African. Perhaps this urge is a vestige of European guilt for culturally dominating the world;
whether this is true or not, it should be understood that an African ancestor would not have been
Negroid, because Negroid racial characteristics are an adaptation to a specific rain forest habitat
that did not exist in mankind's postulated East African playpen.

In summation, this is another of
the dismal books being churned out these days in which science is misused to achieve social ends or
to conform to social ideals. The state of genetics is NOT at the point today that we can state when
or where Homo Sapiens came into existence (even provided would could agree on the dividing line
between Erectus and Sapiens). We CAN state that racial differences are more than "skin deep." These
facts are anathema to the author of this book, and obviously to most of the other reviewers, but in
fact none of these facts implies any value judgements. It is quite true that people will always seek
to use science to achieve social change, but the misuse of science for such purposes can objectively
be only called propaganda, not science. I, like many people, hope that mankind can some day build a
worldwide social structure that will ensure justice and bread for every single person on earth,
regardless of race or any social factors; but such a structure, if it is to endure, must be built
upon the solid bedrock of truth rather than upon the shifting sands of propaganda.

Wells has
written a cogent and persuasive book that looks at every phase and aspect of the human odyssey from
these African origins to modern times. If I have any criticism, however, it's that the book tends
to slow down a bit after the settlement of the Americas is discussed. The chapters on the spread of
agriculture and the evolution of language were less coherent than the others and seemed to digress
from the central thesis. Still, I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the recent
origins of modern man. It shows that only 2000 generations ago, we were all one family living in
one place. The racial differences we all note today are thus very recent and very superficial.
This is all the more important to understand now that the world is heading toward genetic
convergence rather than genetic divergence. In another couple thousand years, we will probably all
look like Tiger Woods (one of the multi-racial examples Wells cites in his book).

The key to
the tracking, as Wells makes abundantly clear, are various polymorphisms [changes] in the Y
chromosome. These mutations are reflected in today's populations and the rate of their diversity
indicates the approximate age of the various regional groups. These changes, nearly all prefixed
"M" [male?] are used as ingredients in recipes Wells offers as illustrative metaphor. It's a clever
ploy, so long as you remember ingredients may only be added, never removed nor replaced. That's how
genetics works, he reminds us. He portrays the build-up of recipe ingredients with maps and
diagrams. The diagrams are almost redundant as the clarity of his prose enables you to envision
them.

Following the paths of migration, Wells shows how some archaeological finds offer support
for the patterns he sees. Fossils are rare, elusive and sometimes misunderstood. Genetics, buried
deep in our cells, are unequivocal in providing their evidence. Dating methods are briefly
described and their shortcomings mercilessly paraded. Wells doesn't give the paleoanthropologists
much voice. His story needs telling and the reader may go elsewhere for countering information.
Yet he acknowledges the importance of confirming information from various digs around the
world.

Wells firmly addresses a great anomaly - if modern humans arose from the evolutionary
bouillabaisse about 60 millennia ago, how did the Aborigines arrive in Australia at nearly the same
time? His answer is that the track followed shore routes, not inland ones. Hunter-gatherer groups,
subject to the whims of climate, food resources and population pressure took the softest trail.
Africa to Australia during ice ages was a gentle, if lengthy, stroll.

Nit-picking department:
Wells' opening gun is turned on the racial "expert" Carleton Coon, who asserted the human races each
followed a separate evolutionary path. Coon has been refuted in so many ways by so many
researchers, Wells' effort seems superfluous. There are more competent scientists adhering to the
"Multiregional" thesis. Some of these researchers might have been given a small voice in an
annotated bibliography. While Wells offers a reading list for each chapter, a full bibliography
would be an enhancement. Many of his references are remote. That doesn't tarnish the value of this
book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

The book begins with a short historical sketch of the scientific
notions of man's beginnings. Did Homo sapiens evolve independently in several different parts of
the globe, as some anthropologists believed, or do all men have a common beginning, a single root?
After surveying the early scientific opinions, Wells looks at what genes have to say about man's
origins and how he populated the planet.

Wells covers some archaeological finds and, later in the
book, uses linguistics to buttress his genetic evidence, but he primarily looks at DNA patterns
found today in local populations believed to have existed in their areas for millennia. The results
are fascinating. An early coastal migration from Africa to Australia, for example, is hypothesized
to take into account remnant black populations spread throughout Southeast Asia, a relatively early
settlement of Australia compared to other places on the globe, and the lack of archaeological finds,
which suggests the migration stayed close to the water's edge and was later swallowed up by the
rising oceans after the end of the ice age.

But it is not the results that make this book so
much as Wells' brilliant, short descriptions of the science behind the answers. He has a concrete
way of describing everything from the statistics behind DNA sampling to why the conceptual Adam and
Eve did not co-exist at the same time.