Charlotte Prior
December 7 2014
Chemistry Block D
Citation:
"Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29832046>.
The article I read explains the effect of oxygen levels on earth had on the rate of evolution. These new studies of rocks show that oxygen levels a billion years ago had 0.1% of the oxygen present today. The lack of oxygen prevented the evolution of complex life forms. 800 million years ago the components found in rocks began to change and oxygen became more abundant, the quick rise in oxygen levels led to the Cambrian explosion. This explosion is a sudden increase in the development and evolution of complex life forms, they did not change overnight or every generation, but the change was faster than it has been before. This is only a theory and it has been a question in science for so long, the reason that our animal ancestors took so long to develop lies in the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. This is a new development and some scientists are skeptical but by repeating these tests scientist can conclude more solid results.
This discovery does not affect our lives directly, but it provides an answer to a question that has been debated for a while. The question of how we got here is a difficult one, and the answer is not solid or straight forward. This discovery is just another piece in the puzzle of evolution. A billion years ago only simple life forms existed, modern animals, which led to human evolution had not formed. Scientists wondered why this was the case, and then suddenly 500 million years ago there was a spike in this evolution. By using this new technology scientists can use it to look at these oxygen levels in old rocks and find the reason for this spike. This evidence is a big piece of our puzzle and it means we are one step closer to the answer and full understanding.
This article has very skeptical evidence, whether or not the dating of these rocks and the measuring of the oxygen in them, is valid is a question of the technology. This article was well written and everything made sense. The language in the article was not to complex so that a person would not be able to understand, and the author did a good job explaining the discoveries from the experiment. The author also gives a view of both sides of the argument of the validity of this data, the author is not biased and gives facts not opinions. Overall this article was intriguing and it has a great impact of our knowledge of how we came to be on this planet and with this form.
Caroline Kirby
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event #8
Comment (on Charlotte Prior’s report)
"Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. .
I thought Charlotte did an excellent job on her report of this article. First of all, she chose a very interesting topic that I, as well as probably most of my classmates, have never heard about before. She clearly describes the content of the article, writing about how oxygen levels on Earth may have prevented the overall rate of evolution. Additionally, her writing flows very easily. The facts that Charlotte found in the article are stated well, and she provides a very concise summary of the article that allows the reader to get a grasp on the information. However, I think she could have talked a bit more about the how the components found in rocks began to change (if the information was included in the article, of course) because it would give valuable facts that could support the reader’s overall understanding of the article. I also think that a small piece of her conclusion was a bit contradictory of itself, as she said the article had “very skeptical evidence” but also stated that the article “made sense” at the same time. Overall, though, I thought it was very informative and I'm glad I read about this topic. It is very interesting to think about how the lack of oxygen on earth could have prevented evolution - basically about how we happened to get here on Earth.
Citation: "Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. .
ReplyDeleteCharlotte’s review provided a philosophical glance at our evolution’s past and what may have caused us to evolve at the speeds we did. Charlotte did a great job of summarizing her article, “These new studies of rocks show that oxygen levels a billion years ago had 0.1% of the oxygen present today. The lack of oxygen prevented the evolution of complex life forms.” These early few sentences educate the reader of the studies that were done and what they mean. The reader easily and simply learns that a rock’s oxygen level can tell us about evolution and ancient atmospheres. Charlotte’s explanation of this article’s importance was also well done. When she stated, “this discovery is just another piece of the puzzle in evolution,” I really understood this important scientific development. It is an age-old question and although this is not the full answer, it is only part of it, over time we will, going with Charlotte’s puzzle idea, complete the puzzle of evolution. Lastly, Charlotte defined key terms making her overall review easily understandable. For example, most students do not know what the “Cambrian explosion” was. By defining this essential term as “a sudden increase in the development and evolution of complex life forms,” I as well as other readers understood her review with ease.
However, there were two aspects of Charlotte’s review that could use an improvement. The primary one being that she makes sure to proofread her article review before submitting it. I say this because of a few errors such as changing is to was as some things were written in the past and should have been in the present/future. She also left off s at the end of clearly plural words which just demonstrates the necessity of a proofread and that one was not done. These were just a couple of the few errors Charlotte made, but thankfully they did not take away greatly from her informative review. Charlotte also could have improved her critique. Although, she stated what she enjoyed, such as the “language was not so complex,” there seemed to be no actual critique. There was no “this article could be improved by…” or “It was difficult to understand why the author…” If this was done it would have been a true review. Without this critique it is just a summary and importance of an article essay. Next time Charlotte should explain how the original article should have been improved to further enhance the readers perception of her review.
Overall, Charlotte’s review was well written. I learned how we can read oxygen levels from ancient rocks which can tell us about the early atmosphere of Earth. I never realized how essential the chemical makeup of the atmosphere is to evolution. I find it interesting that the earth at first had low oxygen, but over time the levels of oxygen rose until they could support complex life forms such as you and I. I found it interesting to learn there is much skepticism around this research and that it is much debated.
I read Charlotte’s review of “Low Oxygen ‘delayed Life on Earth’”. I thought that overall she did a really good job reviewing this article. I thing I really liked about her review was how well Charlotte explained the explosion and the cause of it. She made it easy to understand the explosion. Another thing I think Charlotte did well was makes it clear that the whole explosion is a theory and it not yet proven. A third thing I really liked about Charlotte’s review was how she describes how this article affects our lives and our views on the past.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I thought that Charlotte did a really good job reviewing this article, I think that there are a few things she could have don’t better. For example, she could have talked about what experts developed this theory. This makes the idea seem more legit and the article seem more real. Another thing Charlotte could have done was talked more about the components in the rocks. She says they began to change, but she didn’t say how.
One thing that amazed me about the article was how a rise in oxygen might have actually stimulated the evolution of our earliest animal ancestors. In conclusion, I believe that both Charlotte’s review and the article were well written but still had room for improvement.
"Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. .
ReplyDeleteI chose to review Charlottes review “Low Oxygen ‘delayed life on Earth’” . I thought that she did a good good of reviewing the article and provided insight into it’s details. Some things that I liked about her review was that she talked about why life wasn’t able to evolve for so long and that is because of the oxygen levels. I also thought she did a good job of talking about the Cambrian Explosion and how this impacted evolution. I also found it interesting that rocks had such a big role in all of this. A few things that could have been done better are give some examples of the scientists who developed this theory. She also talks a lot about the rocks but never really says what happened to them besides the fact that they change.One thing that stood out to me was that this is mankind's past and this is how we became what we are today. Overall I thought this was a good review of this article.
"Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014
ReplyDeleteCharlotte's review of her article was very good. One thing I thought was particularly well presented was how she quickly hooks the reader in. As she says in the second sentence of her review, “These new studies of rocks show that oxygen levels a billion years ago had 0.1% of the oxygen present today.” This is a great opener that draws the reader in, causing them to wonder if life was possible on Earth 1 billion years ago. A second thing I thought was well presented was how she was able to explain what caused the increase in oxygen. As she states in the review, “ 800 million years ago the components found in rocks began to change and oxygen became more abundant, the quick rise in oxygen levels led to the Cambrian explosion.” This information tells us how the Earth was able to have the amount of oxygen we have today. A final reason I thought her article was well presented was because she offered a way in her review to decide whether the theory should be accepted. As she states in the review, “This is a new development and some scientists are skeptical but by repeating these tests scientist can conclude more solid results.” in this excerpt from the review, she tells us that if the scientists get more evidence, the results will be more solid.
While I thought Charlotte's article was good, there were several things she could improve upon. One thing she could improve upon is not having any grammatical mistakes. As she says in the article, “A billion years ago only simple life forms existed, modern animals, which led to human evolution had not formed.” This sentence does not make any sense, yet if she made her first comma a period and then capatalized Modern, this sentence would have been fine. A good way to fix grammatical mistakes is just by checking over your work. A second thing I thought she could improve upon were adding in quotes from the article. This is because it helps the reader get a better sense of the topic, and gives her review a sense of credibility.
One thing that really impressed me was how humans couldn’t have survived on Earth a billion years ago. This is important because it shows just how lucky we humans are that we even evolved as a species, and that we should be grateful for that, instead about worrying about our own possessions.
"Low Oxygen 'delayed Life on Earth'" BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. .
ReplyDeleteFor my comment on a current events response, I chose to comment on Charlotte’s review of the article “Low Oxygen Delayed Life on Earth.” Charlotte did a very good job on her response, and one thing I thought she did a very good job of was relating the topic of the article to something important in our lives even though it has no direct effect of our lives. Instead of just leaving this section of her response blank because the answer was not right in front of her, she made a good connection which shows her strength as a reader. Charlotte also did a very good job of organizing her ideas. Her different trains of thought did not overlap, and this made her response easy to understand. Lastly, Charlotte’s response used very specific facts that really helped to support her main topic. Because there were actual facts, and not just her saying random words, it made the response more believable. Although Charlotte did these things well, there were some things she could have improved on. For example, she could have improved on her grammar and proofreading because there were a couple sentences in her response that didn’t make much sense. Also, she could have done a better job of checking her facts because she contradicted herself by giving different data for the same fact in two separate places. Although these things could have been improved, the response was still very good overall. The last thing that I noticed about Charlotte’s response was something that really surprised me. This is the fact that oxygen might have had something to do with the way that my earliest ancestors developed. This was something I had never thought of before, and this new perspective was very interesting.