This book is the definition of circular reasoning and begging the question. First, he creates his own hypothesis of the origin of life and the emergence of humans. So far so good. But then he creates “evidence” by relying on his hypothesis, as in “If my hypothesis is true, then it stands to reason that this ‘evidence’ is also true, because otherwise my hypothesis couldn’t be true, so obviously it must all be true.” Even his comments about real things, such as bacteria, phages, and retroviruses, are simply wrong.
No footnotes, minimal list of references. And who is this guy, anyway? An archeologist? Astrophysicist? Does he have any training in this field? No, he’s an “independent researcher.” Good luck finding his bio.
Pure fantasy, and not very good fantasy. If you want really tight fantasy, read China Miéville.
Interesting ideas that homo sapiens civilization have been around longer than what mainstream anthropology is currently suggesting. Bisceglia has linked together more recent research and findings to help support this and has presented it in a concise and readable format. I did find that his references were somewhat lacking considering the subject matter.
I began reading this book expecting a comprehensive, evidence-based account of the last 75,000 years of human evolution and history. Unfortunately, it fell far short of those expectations.
Rather than presenting a rigorous synthesis of established scientific knowledge, the book often reads like a speculative narrative that blurs the line between evidence and conjecture. At times, the author appears to construct sweeping historical explanations from limited evidence, inviting readers on a journey that feels more imaginative than scholarly.
One of my primary concerns is the treatment of sources. Many claims seem to rest on abstracts, selective interpretations of research, or the opinions of individual specialists rather than on a broad and robust body of evidence. Complex scientific questions are frequently discussed with a level of certainty that the underlying research may not warrant.
The book also appears to overlook a fundamental principle of scientific inquiry: extraordinary claims require rigorous testing against alternative explanations. Concepts such as the null hypothesis, falsifiability, and the careful evaluation of competing hypotheses receive little attention, yet they are essential for drawing reliable scientific conclusions. As a result, many of the book’s most memorable assertions feel insufficiently supported.
To be fair, the book is engagingly written and succeeds in provoking thought and discussion. However, readers seeking a careful, methodologically rigorous account of human evolution and history may find themselves frustrated by the frequent leaps from evidence to speculation.
In my view, the book is best approached as an ambitious and thought-provoking interpretation of humanity’s past rather than as a definitive or strictly scientific account of the last 75,000 years.
Surprisingly ,considering I'm a cynic, I quite liked this book. The theories about an earlier civilisation or civilisations pre or during the ice age seemed quite real, and used scientific research to back him up .The Ahkenatem / Moses theory I've read before and somewhat liked . The Jesus alien thing ,no don't go for that ,it's just silly but there's a definite split between the new testament God and the old testament psychopathic God .I liked it,there's some interesting theories and research there and it's an easy read to.So I think it's worth a but
I found this book very informative, especially how much older antiquities are now that there are more accurate measures than carbon dating. The climate of the world has changed dramatically so many times over the eons. We are really helpless when it comes to the elements affecting our earth. Very interesting read for the most part. It did get bogged down here and there with minutiae. However, it did make me want to read more of this type of ancient history.
I enjoyed this book, but it leaves the reader hanging with questions. That is the hallmark of a good book, but I'm somewhat disappointed. I'll have to read the next one to see where it leads
It is history from a different angle, yet it covers many important facts and offers different hypotheses as options to de tested. Recommend to read it and discuss it.