Ted Forst
AP Biology
I read the article, “Skull Fossil
Suggests Simpler Human Lineage” by John Noble Wilford in the New York
Times. The article is all about how the
discovery of a 1.8 million-year-old skull, called Skull 5, may completely
change previous ideas about human ancestors. The original belief was that
modern day humans came from a long line of distinct species like the Homo
habilis and the Homo erectus. The
information discovered from this new skull suggests that these distinct species
may in fact all be variations of one species.
In our world today, people from around the world look very
different. This article suggests that
the same thing would be true millions of years ago. Our ancestors most likely differed from each
other depending on their location.
Skull 5 was originally discovered
in 2005, and after eight years of studying it, a group of scientists led by
David Lordkipanidze was able to determine this revelation in human
ancestry. The group called Skull 5 “the world’s first completely preserved adult
hominid skull.” The skull had a long,
apelike face, big teeth, and a small case for its brain. In fact, the braincase was about one-third of
the size of those of modern human beings, which also disproves that larger
brains were necessary for the hominids to leave Africa, as the skull was found
in the Republic of Georgia. The
discovery that proves all of these beliefs is that four other skulls were found
near the site of Skull 5. These four
other skulls lived around the same time as Skull 5 and in the same area. The interesting thing is that they differed
no more than any five modern humans or chimpanzees. This means that they were one species, which
led the scientists to the conclusion, based on the minimal variation, that
there was also a single homo species at that time in Africa too.
Skull 5 also shows what the species was like 1.8 million years ago. It was deduced based on surrounding bones
that the hominids were short, but able to walk long distances standing upright. In their report, Lordkipanidze and the
other scientists wrote that Skull 5 “provides
the first evidence that early Homo comprised adult individuals with small
brains but body mass, stature and limb proportions reaching the lower range
limit of modern variation.”
I think that this is a really great article, as it completely changes our
thinking about our ancestors. I had
little knowledge about the topic before reading the article, and I thought that
John Noble Wilford did a great job simplifying the material, making it easy to understand
while keeping it interesting.
After reading Ted Forst’s review on the article, “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage”, I felt that a whole new perspective and understand about the human race was brought up me. The format that Ted presented his review in flowed very nicely and didn’t seem to be filled with excessive information that wouldn’t benefit his readers and audience. By giving a full analysis of the article, I felt that I didn’t need to read the article itself because important details were selected for his review. I also enjoyed the topic chosen for his review, seeing that I knew nothing previously about the finding of Skull 5. Skull 5 is the fifth fully intact human skull scientists have discovered from almost 2 million years ago, something that is hard to grasp our mind around. I liked how Ted focused on a topic he knew others would enjoy reading, especially since it can easily relate to students, teachers, and anyone else his targeted audience was. Lastly, I thought it was useful in giving direct quotes from the article in order to support the description of the events that have taken place over the past eight years. By using the exact words from the article, it helped paint the picture of what was going on. This is very important especially since this was a new for most people to learn about and I felt that even a play on words could have made it more difficult to comprehend. Although his analysis of the article was presented very well, I would have liked to have a link to the article to make sure he was including all of the important information and correct details. Secondly, I would have also liked there to be a paragraph focused on how this affects us as humans. Even though the answer to this is somewhat obvious, it would have been nice to see a separate section for this question. I really enjoyed reading Ted’s review about the skulls and how this is improving our knowledge about our past. I find that humans love learning about themselves more and more, so this was an excellent topic to review.
ReplyDeleteTed’s article was very interesting, i learned many new thing from reading his article “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage” by John Noble Wilford. I thought that ted did a very good job summarizing the article. he included all of the important information, not leaving out any key facts. Also I think that Ted did a good job of condensing all of the information in the article. He made his review simple and easy for the reader to understand, that is very important when writing a review.The third thing that i thought did well was choosing his topic. I thought that he chose a very interesting topic, one that i would like to learn more about.I found this topic to be particularly interesting, before reading this I had no knowledge of skull five or of any different theories of human evolution.
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought that Ted’s review was very good. although there were a few places where it could be improved. first off there were a few grammatical errors that could be easily corrected. Also I think that he could have gone into more detail about what skull five taught us, although he did talk about it.
I thought that Ted’s review was very good, i found it to be both interesting an informative. before reading this I had no previous knowledge of skull five or of any different theories on human evolution. In the future I hope to hear more about thins and new discoveries.
I read Ted Forst’s article summary on the article “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage”. The tone of the summary flowed very well and it did not become boring at any point. There wasn’t extra information that was unnecessary and instead was succinct and to the point. The reader was kept interested through the style and form of the writing. Ted successfully picked the most important facts and points from the original article and used them in his making it a very good summary. I thought this was a very interesting topic and congratulate Ted for this excellent topic. One of the facts that Ted used well to make his article better was that “Skull 5 is the fifth fully intact human skull scientists have discovered from almost 2 million years ago, something that is hard to grasp our mind around”, which was really amazing. This topic was really interesting and could not possibly bore any of its readers. The third thing I liked was that Ted used direct quotes from the article that further enhanced the overall summary. Direct wording can be very helpful in making it seem more real and as if you’re actually reading the article itself. Sometimes it can be confusing if the quote is difficult to understand, but was used well in this particular situation.
ReplyDeleteTed’s article summary was very good however some things could have been done better. For example there were some grammatical errors that could have been easily corrected and made reading more pleasant. The second thing that could have been done better was a greater connection to how this affects humans. This is not only required as part of the assignment but would also bring out the true importance of the article.
I thought that Ted’s article was very interesting and outstanding. It is really cool to know that human technology is advancing everyday and new discoveries are also being made, leading the world to complexity.
In Ted’s review, he did a splendid job in explaining and summarizing the article, “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage.” The first aspect that was successfully presented in this review was Ted’s ability to explain and analyze the information that was discovered after researching this skull. For instance, he claims that the new skull suggests that these distinct species may in fact all be variations of one species. After this statement, he goes on to explain how this information makes sense because in our world today, people from around the world all look different. Next, Ted does a great job in emphasizing how important this new discovery truly is. For example, he claims that it took a group of scientists since 2005 to finally come up with this information. Lastly, Ted did a nice job in exposing what the species was like 1.8 million years ago. He claims that it was short, but able to walk long distances standing upright.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Ted did an excellent job in reviewing this article, I would have liked to be given a more descriptive summary on our views prior to this discovery. He claims that our original belief was that modern day humans came from a long line of distinct species, but he doesn’t go into further detail and elaborate more on this statement. I feel that this would have really displayed the significance of this skull and how it has altered our previous beliefs.
I am extremely impressed after reading this article and this review. I find it to be very exciting when we are able to discover a breakthrough in our research. It is so interesting to think that it took one skull, Skull 5, to change the ideas that we have been going by for years and years.
Ted did a very good job summarizing the importance of the discovery, which may, or may not correct a very big misconception about the evolution on humans that we’ve accepted for so long. It made me think about what a big mistake it would be if this were to be true and how easy it would’ve been to make that mistake. The review flowed smoothly and was not filled with excessive information which made reading it much more enjoyable. His paragraphs on Skull 5 outlined important points scientist were concentrating on, and I was grateful for that.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wish Ted had done was to state how this discovery could directly affect us, if it even would. Also, I wish he would’ve elaborated on perhaps which few “species” of humans the scientists think they’ve been confusing for entirely different ones. Other than that, there were a few grammatical errors, but they did not affect the flow so I don’t think that it was too much of a problem.
I had happened to read a newspaper article on this finding and I feel as if Ted review has cleared up many points I was confused on. His paragraphs on Skull 5 made me understand what scientists were actually looking at and what led them to their conclusion. It made me want to read more about this, after all, this new discovery could change quite a lot about what we know of our ancestors and how they developed to be how they are today.
Ted did a very good job summarizing the importance of the discovery, which may, or may not correct a very big misconception about the evolution on humans that we’ve accepted for so long. It made me think about what a big mistake it would be if this were to be true and how easy it would’ve been to make that mistake. The review flowed smoothly and was not filled with excessive information which made reading it much more enjoyable. His paragraphs on Skull 5 outlined important points scientist were concentrating on, and I was grateful for that.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wish Ted had done was to state how this discovery could directly affect us, if it even would. Also, I wish he would’ve elaborated on perhaps which few “species” of humans the scientists think they’ve been confusing for entirely different ones. Other than that, there were a few grammatical errors, but they did not affect the flow so I don’t think that it was too much of a problem.
I had happened to read a newspaper article on this finding and I feel as if Ted review has cleared up many points I was confused on. His paragraphs on Skull 5 made me understand what scientists were actually looking at and what led them to their conclusion. It made me want to read more about this, after all, this new discovery could change quite a lot about what we know of our ancestors and how they developed to be how they are today.
My classmate Ted Forst was able to create a very well written review on the article “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage” by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times. The article is about new discoveries based on a human ancestor found in Georgia. It completely changed our ideas of our origins by bringing new ideas of what we evolved from. Ted did a very good job of explaining everything the article said in simple terms. He was able to do it in a way everyone can understand and appreciate. Ted also did a very good job of quoting the article correctly. He both directly quoted the article itself and quoted the scientists related to the discovery. Quoting is a very useful skill that Ted was able to use effectively. Ted also did a good job on his article and topic choice. Everyone is interested in the topic of evolution because it brings us one step closer to understanding humanity and life. The NY Times is also a very good source that is not used much. Ted had a good idea of using it. Even though Ted’s review was very well written, it could use some improvements. For example, Ted should have had a link to the article. I would have liked to read the article itself to help my understanding. It does not really affect his review, but stops my interest. Ted could have also explained more about Skull 5 itself. He explained its location and a very general description, but did not explain how it was different form the other hominid species. These mistakes however do not affect the effectiveness of the review as a whole. I was extremely interested by Ted’s article because of how much it changes our understanding of human origin. Especially the part that explains how Skull 5 has a brain 1/3rd the size of a human’s brain and how that refutes the idea that a larger brain was necessary to leave Africa. It completely changes how we look at man’s origins. Ted’s review was very well written and effective.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage” by John Noble Wilford was thought provoking and scientifically interesting. Ted did an excellent job of reviewing such a polemical article and handled his review of this astounding issue quite well. This article was pretty straight forward and Ted did a great job of making this article sound exciting and interesting. I think Ted did a great job of simplifying the overall idea of the article to make the main concepts of the article stand out. Furthermore, Ted’s writing was clear and effective. He got to the heart of the article quite eloquently. Lastly, Ted’s connection of this article to the world today and what this discovery means for scientists around the world made me question what science really means and got me thinking.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Ted’s review was great there are some things that he could improve on. For instance, Ted didn’t really go into detail about the different skulls that compose the collection of known skulls so some background information on that would have been helpful. In addition, there were some minor grammatical errors in his writing that could be corrected to make the reading even smoother.
From this article I learned that the discovery of Skull 5, a 1.8 million-year-old skull, has completely changed how scientists will approach the concept of evolution and descent from a common ancestor.
ReplyDeleteI read Ted Forst’s current event report on the article entitled “Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage.” Ted’s current event report was very well done. He did a good job at summarizing what the article said. He did not leave out key facts. However, he also did not include too much information that would be overwhelming for the reader. He explained the information from the article in a way that was very easy to understand. In addition, I thought that Ted did a good job choosing which quotes to include in his review and integrated them nicely. For example, he wrote “the group called Skull 5 ‘the world’s first completely preserved adult hominid skull.’” Also, the blog post included very few grammatical errors. It was clear that Ted proofed over his work thoroughly to make sure there were no mistakes. Overall, I think that Ted made the report interesting while providing a nice summary of the article.
The blog contained many good facts and interesting analysis. Although Ted did a nice job addressing what the article did well, I thought that he could have stated what he did not like about the article as well. Likewise, I think Ted could have explained our previous view of our human ancestors in his report. This would have made it clearer how our view changed since the reader would be able to compare the current view to our original view. In addition, I think Ted could have done a better job explaining how the information in the article affects humans today. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the blog since I learned a lot from it concerning this new discovery.
I think that Ted’s current event report was well done and included many interesting facts. I was surprised that in 2013 our ideas about human ancestors could totally be changed by the discovery of a 1.8 million-year-old skull. In addition, I thought that it was very interesting how the distinct species may in fact all be variations of one species. Likewise, I thought it was interesting that location caused the diversity between our ancestors. Overall, I think that Ted did a very nice job.
Ted's article "Skull Fossil Suggests Simpler Human Lineage" was very interesting as it makes us question our human lineage. Ted presented all of this information very well as he recalled on very specific facts and displayed them in a clear manner, that was in no way confusing. Ted invited us to question the variation of life 1.8 milllion years ago. Although Ted presents the facts and data very well his review lacks his own personal views on the topic. I personally find it amazing that there was variations in species even 1.8 milllion years ago and would like to know what Ted's own point of view would be. Ted chose a very interesting article as it could change our view on evolution as a whole, thus showing us how science is constantly changing because of the many new discoveries happening all over the world.
ReplyDelete