Thursday, December 5, 2013

Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins

The article “Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins” by Carl Zimmer, talks about how a fossil, a thigh bone, could lead to new discoveries on evolution. In Spain in a cave called Sima de los Huesos (“the pit of bones”), a 400,000 year old femur was found. By testing the extracting DNA, scientists were able to test to see whether the DNA would match that of the Neanderthals. Unexpectedly I didn’t match, but rather was closely related to the DNA belonging Denisovans, which had been discovered in Siberia in 2010. This group is thought to be limited to East Asia, and they are also not thought to look like the Neanderthals. Based on this new discovery, scientists believe that humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans all shared a common ancestor from a half a million years ago. It is believed that these ancestors split off, with Humans staying in Africa, Neanderthals heading west and Denisovans moving eastward. Many scientists also believe that humans interbreed with the Neanderthals and Denisovans, later causing these two groups to become extinct.   Scientists have come up with many explanations. One explanation stated that the humans of the Sima de los Huesos weren’t really Neanderthals but belonged to ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans. Another says that this new DNA was passed to the Neanderthals and Denisovans disappearing from Neanderthals and becoming replaced by alternative forms (variants.) The most radical theory is that the humans in that region belong to a different branch of humans, a species called Hom erectus, from 1.8 million years ago. Although this new discovery shed light on newfound information, it has also raised lots of questions.
This discovery may not be important to humans today, but we can get a better look at evolution. This discovery is really astounding at how far back this DNA was found, it is 300,000 years older than the previously oldest DNA. This finding rises many questions that many scientists will know be on the hunt to find about the Denisovans. I think that this discovery is important to finding more clues to our ancient past and clues to finding the whole story of evolution. There are some pieces that we know, but so many things are still currently unknown.
I thought that this article was very informative and included lots of information from different scientists and colleges who had information on this topic. There was also a lot of background information which helped to better understand where is was taking place. I thought that the author could have done a better job organizing the article because it wasn’t in a very neat order. I thought that it talked about the discovery and then talked about some background and then about future things and it got very confusing. It would have been easier to read if everything had been in a chronological order. Overall, I found this article very interesting, and I think that this will be very important in both science and history.

Zimmer, Carl. "Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins." Nytimes.com. N.p., 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?ref=science&_r=0>.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html?ref=science&_r=0

8 comments:

  1. This review was extremely good. Kaitlin seemed to understand what was happening and seemed really interested in the find of the 400,000-year-old femur bone. One thing Kaitlin did very well was give enough background on the topic for the reader to understand what she was talking about. If she had just said the info straight out the reader would be lost and want to stop reading the review; she avoided that easily. Another thing Kaitlin did well was explain thoroughly why she enjoyed the article and what she thought the author did well. She explained that the article had lots of input from scientists and colleges which means the article is reliable to use. Lastly Kaitlin used words that were easy to read. She didn't use any big scientific words that you would have to go look up. It made it easy to follow along,
    As well as Kaitlin wrote this review there were a few things she could have improved. First I think she added a little too much summary in her first paragraph. A review is supposed to show what the author did well and didn't do well and give a little summary of the article written. However she pretty much wrote the whole article over again within her review. Another thing she could have improved on was her spelling mistakes. It seemed like she rushed a little and didn't go back and re-read her review. Overall though this review was outstanding.
    I was very impressed by this finding. It shows that any day we could find something about our evolution of human beings. Kaitlin's review also clearly displayed the info and made me realize that there are clues everywhere about our evolution. Overall this review was very interesting and very well written.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that Kaitlin did a really good job in her review. Few things that I think Kaitlin did really well was that she included a lot of information and details, which helped the reader understand what she was writing about. She gave background information as well, which helped the reader understand the review and article better. Another thing that I think Kaitlin well was that she explained why she liked this article, and she gave a very strong opinion about this article. She gave good reasons on which the author could maybe improve this article, and also give reasons on what the author did well, which lead her to choose this article. One more thing that Kaitlin did well was that she gave a lot of examples, like the different explanations that the different scientists said which gave us different outlooks on each of the scientists’ theories.
    Although Kaitlin’s review was well written, I think that she could improve a few things. One thing I think that she could improve would be that she could have written less information in the first paragraph, because slowly after a while it kept on dragging on, and I was loosing my focus. There were a few unnecessary things that were said, which jumbled me up a little bit. Another thing that I think Kaitlin could improve would be to maybe give more statistics.
    Overall, I think that this article seems very interesting, and it is more interesting because it is to do with the evolution with our species. I think that Kaitlin did a good job explaining this article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaitlin did an amazing job on her review. She clearly got to the point of the article, and immediately backed it up with details. She included a lot of information regarding what her topic was about, and how it differed from topics like this. Kaitlin also stated what her opinion/ point was and stuck with it the entire article and to back up her argument, she used statistics and background information to prove the point she was trying to make. I also liked how Kaitlin honestly critiqued this article. She explained what she liked and what she disliked regarding the article, and things she thinks the author could have done to review. I also really like how Kaitlin gave different examples regarding her article. she explained how scientists are coming to a certain conclusion about evolution, and how this changes our opinions on evolution.
    Kaitlin had a well written article, but she soon ran into run on sentences (no pun intended) and soon started to write information that was important, but not necessarily needed. Some things Kaitlin wrote were completely un-necessary also. I could have dealt with an article that had less information, although it did stick into my head about what Kaitlin was really trying to come across. Another thing I think Kaitlin could have improved on, was proof reading her review. I noticed while reading that some words were misspelled or in the wrong tense
    other than that, Kaitlin wrote a very nice article that taught me something new about evolution, and I am glad I now know this because this is a discovery that will be well know in science and history.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that the review that Kaitlin Ryan wrote for the article “Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origin” by Carl Zimmer was very well done. One aspect that I liked about Kaitlin’s review was how much detail went into the summary alone. Because of this I got a good understanding when it came to the issue that the article discussed about how a 400,000 year old thigh bone was discovered and might prove to be helpful when it comes to understanding the evolution of Humans. Another aspect of the review that I believe was done well was with how the critique of the article was well written. Unlike most recent reviews I have commented on, the critique section of the review always seemed to be mediocre. However Kaitlin did a very critique that complemented the article while also bringing its faults to light. A third aspect of the review that was well done was how the review itself was written very well. This allowed me to smoothly read the article without becoming uninterested in what the review had to say.
    Even though Kaitlin wrote a very good review there is still room for improvement that I believe would make the review even better. One suggestion I have for Kaitlin is to maybe add to the other parts of her review that are much shorter than her summary. This imbalance makes the rest of the review seem short and the summary too long. Another suggestion I have for Kaitlin is to include how the issue of the article personally affected her. This would have allowed us to see her point of view.
    Something in that impressed me after reading the review was how old the thigh bone actually is. The oldest DNA that had been previously been acquired in the field of human evolution was 300,000 years old. This thigh bone however is 400,000 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Katie’s summary of the article was very easy to understand since it was thorough and contained descriptive details; she did a very good job on abridging the main concepts of the article. Her connections in her second paragraph also had well-thought connections not to effects of present day society, but to the aiding in the study of evolution for scientists. She was able to form a constructive response to her article as well.
    Although her summary was complete and comprehensive, she may have included too many unnecessary facts. The flow of her sentences could have also been improved, for some words were redundant and it could have read a bit better.
    I think studying human origins is significant for our race because we may then be able to determine how our bodies will evolve in the future and make requisite changes in constituents of society (technology, architecture, food, etc.) to ensure first rate survival.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is really a nice and useful piece of info. I'm
    glad that you just shared this useful information with
    us. Please kep us infformed like this. Thanks for sharing.


    Review my web-site ... rug cleaners rentals

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think this is one of the most vital info for me. And i am glad readng youur
    article. But should remark on some general things, The web site style is perfect, the
    articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

    Look at my web-site; top houston divorce attorney

    ReplyDelete
  8. I appreciate, cause I found jusat what I used to
    be looking for. You've ended mmy four dday lengthy hunt!

    Good Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

    Also visit my weblog ... asbestos mesothelioma life expectancy

    ReplyDelete