Although it is not clear whether the bones are more closely related to humans or to apes, it has been made clear that the discovery is noteworthy. The fossils provide evidence that at the time of their existence, a lot of evolutionary change was occurring with the australopithecine group. Dr. Wood reported that the fossils are also significant because they demonstrate that human evolution is very complex. It is important to understand that scientists continue to make discoveries about the origin of modern human beings and that, when provided with new evidence, changes are made to prior concepts and ideas, such as when and where certain early humanlike species roamed the earth. Scientists have differing views on certain aspects of evolution, for instance one man named Dr. Tattersall believes that the prehistoric species that are more closely related to humans likely arose suddenly, possible a result of a few genetic changes that proved to be critical in the evolution of human beings. He theorizes that this fact is why it is so difficult to trace the transition through the fossil record. As more fossils are discovered, new inferences are constantly being made about the origin of humans.
I found this article very educational and it was fascinating to read. However, as the article was printed in the NY times, I think that the author could have explained some of the vocabulary better. The article described complex ideas and used advanced vocabulary that was, at times, difficult to comprehend. Overall, the article was engaging and very informative.
Wade, Nicholas. "New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry." New York Times Website. NY Times, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Sept. 2011.
I thought that Clara did an excellent job reviewing the article “New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry.” Although Clara claimed that the original article used tricky terms that were not defined, I though she did an excellent job of describing the discovery in a way that was tangible for the average reader and made perfect sense to me. In addition, I liked how she incorporated the key pieces of evidence proving the discovery in her review, so that we could understand not only what scientists had discovered, but also how. In addition, Clara’s emphasis on the idea of what a dynamic field science is, and how this new discovery and this article show this, was very insightful and I really appreciated it. To improve upon this article, I think Clara could have further included and then commented on the idea of this discovery in terms of its relation to evolution, which was mentioned in the article. To increase the impact of her words, I think Clara should have used some of the direct quotes from the article, such as” If you take sediba as a metaphor for evolutionary change, it is a whole lot more powerful than the claim for direct ancestry” which was said by Dr. Tattersall. Before reading this article, I was completely unaware that such a significant discovery had been made. While I was aware that science is dynamic, and always subject to change when new discoveries are made, I was under the impression that we had a pretty good grip on the history of human evolution. This article showed me that no matter what we read in textbooks, the information is what we currently believe, and while it is still worth learning, it is always subject to change.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Clara's review, this article written by Nicholas Wade seems very interesting. I like how she explained the article in a detail oriented matter without having to cite the article at all. I agree with Rosalie above that Clara did a good job of explaining the article without losing the reader to big words. She does a great job of highlighting the key ideas to relate the fossils to their discoverers. This helps the reader understand the importance of individual scientists in the archeological community. To help the reader understand the article more, maybe Clara could have added some insight or analysis of the discoveries. This could provide us a better-detailed description of what was happening. Also, although not many are needed, maybe 1 or 2 quotes would add to the paragraph. Doing this could add interesting facts or statements to the review. However, I defiantly learned something from this review. I was really impressed that the fossil Berger found was the apelike and humanlike. It seems as if it were a further example of how apes and humans are so closely related. It was also interesting that Dr. Wood was able to learn details of human evolution b means of the fossil. He says the evolution of humans is very complex.
ReplyDeleteI thought the Review Clara gave was an excellent one, on a very interesting and intriguing topic. I thought Clara did a very good job of outlining the different views held by each individual scientist. All of these different opinions by each scientist help to contribute to one inference that is made on the basis of this finding, so knowing and understanding all of the points of views is essential. Furthermore I think Clara was successful in giving us some very advanced detail while at the same time she made sure to carefully explain what these things meant in order to ensure all the readers could understand the point of the article. In addition Clara did a great job of highlighting an opposing view, such as the one held by Dr. Wood which was that human evolution was caused by very short and quick genetic changes, which had vast genetic responses, forming the human being. This point was very interesting because it showed that each step we find in new fossils was a truly essential piece of human development according to this scholar. I think one thing that would have made this review better would have been an illustration or photograph of the Australopithecus Sediba if they were available. Also I think adding the dates of these findings would really just complete the summary that Clara has provided. In this article I was impressed by the number of scholars mentioned, the idea that so many people were participating and giving input about the findings of one fossil is truly amazing.
ReplyDeleteI find Clara’s review of the article, “New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry,” to be interesting and well written. She obviously has a clear understanding of this article because she is able to accurately relay the article’s information in way that is both educational and easy to follow. Clara also does a good job in choosing the most significant details about Dr. Berger and his fossil findings to put into her review. Illustrating the controversies of Dr. Berger’s conclusions about his discoveries is another key aspect that is incorporated well. Although most of Clara’s writing is thorough, adding more information about the background of the different people brought up in the article would improve it. In particular, further mentioning whom Dr. Berger and Dr. Wood are would give readers a better understanding of the article’s setting. Adding a link from the review on the Bronxville AP Biology Blog to the original article could be helpful, as well because it would make the article easier to find. These changes I would suggest making, however, are only minor. Overall, I learned a lot from this article and her review. Before, I did not know about this newly revealed species, and now after reading up on it I want to learn more about its fossils. Furthermore, I find it fascinating how this discovery can redefine human ancestry. “New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry” is one of many examples of how quickly the science world changes around us.
ReplyDeleteI had previously read “New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry” but was unable to grasp a very clear understanding of it. Clara's review gave me well summarized view of why Australopithecus sediba may be a possible ancestor to humans. Though there were many advanced terms in the article, Clara was able to present them in a clear and precise way. Also, more than one viewpoint was given regarding the relation of Australopithecus sediba to modern humans. This opens the reader's mind to other possibilities. Clara also mentioned that the study of human evolution is something that is constantly changing as new fossils are found, with new conclusions being drawn from them. This is an important fact to remember when looking at human evolution and it was a good choice on Clara's part to incorporate it into her review.
ReplyDeleteThough Clara did mention different viewpoints, the review could have provided a little more information on them since this is such a controversial find. Also, she could have provided a link to the original article so that the reader could easily refer to the it.
Human evolution is an interesting topic. People are fascinated by their roots—how did we, modern humans, manage to become what we are today? When and how did we become different from other animals? This article was a good read and Clara's review was concise and thoughtful, giving the reader more insight into the world of human evolution and its happenings.