I read Wolf
to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but Not Where by Carl Zimmer. In the article,
the author discussed the confusion scientists had and still have on the location
where dogs developed from wolves. Scientists know that dogs developed from
wolves because their genes are the most closely related. Originally, scientists
believed that dogs developed in South China because Chinese dogs have the
closet DNA to wolves. But, this would mean that dogs developed over 30,000
years ago, which some scientists very much disagree on. New studies have shown
that dogs may have been bred in Western Europe due to new gene extraction from
fossils. This article does not conclude where dogs were developed, but it does
not give insight to the possible places where wolves were domesticated leading
to new dog breeds.
This article is important to the
real world because of the resources being discovered to find the answer to this
long debated question. Scientists have found a way to take fossils of ancient
wolves and dogs and replicate those genes into actual gene strands. This will
also have the future to possibility study other ancient bones to find how
species evolved over time.
I thought the author only did an ok
job in writing his article. I was very confused when I first read it, and had
to read it several times to wrap my head around the fact that there was no
concluding answer. I thought the author could have made it clearer that there
is no answer to this ambiguous question. And he should have specified the different
sides more clearly.
Zimmer, Carl.
"Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but Not Where." New
York Times. New York Times, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/science/wolf-to-dog-scientists-agree-on-how-but-not-where.html?ref=science>.
I read Gabby’s review of the New York Times article “Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but Not Where.” First, she summarized the article very well, incorporating all of the most important points that the author, Carl Zimmer, covered. This synopsis was clear and interesting for the reader. Gabby also did a great job of relating the article to the audience, showing why it’s an important topic for society as a whole. I enjoyed hearing about how fossils were used to conduct this new research on where dogs originally developed from wolves. Another thing I liked about Gabby’s review was that she made it realistic. Instead of sugarcoating it, she gave a good analysis of the article’s shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of ways Gabby could have made her review even better. I might have liked to have a little bit more detailed information on how the actual studies were conducted. She could have elaborated a bit more on the research techniques used if possible. I also would have liked to hear more about the controversy among scientists on this subject. She mentioned that this made up the bulk of the article, so it would have been nice to have some more details on the varying opinions of scientists.
I was amazed by how researchers can still be finding new information today that can help expand their knowledge of what was happening on Earth tens of thousands of years ago. After so much time, you would think that such evidence would have been wiped out somewhere along the way, but as technology progresses and scientific studies delve deeper, we are able to make important discoveries about the past and get much more accurate information on biological history and evolution than humans living during these times in the past. It’s incredible that at this point in time we can still be uncovering evidence of events so far in the past.
I read Gabby Diaz’s review on the article, “Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but not Where” by Carl Zimmer. This article touched on the idea of the descendants of dogs and their location of origin. When writing up her summary of the article, I thought that Gabby did I nice job with selecting information that was needed to help the reader of her review understand the context of the event without having to go back to the original article. I also enjoyed the topic she picked to read about, since it is not something that you would normally see reviewed on the blog. The overall concept of the article related back to what we are currently doing in class, genetics, so the article choice was appropriate at this time. Lastly, I thought it was great that Gabby criticized the article she read and pointed out its flaws even though it was taken from the” New York Times”, a source that is usually trusted and knowledgeable. When she wrote down her critic, she noted what was missing and that overall helps me understand why her summary was sparse in some areas. One thing, however, that she can improve is correct the view grammar mistakes that were made. An example of one was not putting quotation marks around the title of the article. Revising and rereading her review can easily correct this error. Secondly, even though the article seemed very interesting, I think it was a poor choice because it didn’t fill the reader or herself with much background information. Also, because it is a topic currently being studied there wasn’t much information at all to really be given. Overall, the idea of the article was very fascinating and it makes me want to read more about this current study on the evolution of wolves to dogs and expand on the information I know about this topic.
ReplyDeleteI read Gabby’s review on “Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but Not Where,” by Carol Zimmer. I felt that one aspect of this review that was well presented was Gabby’s ability to give background on what scientists used to believe about this topic, and then go into explaining their new viewpoint. Supposedly new studies show that dogs may have been bred in Western Europe. Another thing that Gabby presented successfully was when she exposed a new innovation that scientists are now able to do. She said that they have found a new way to take fossils of ancient wolves and dogs and replicate those genes into actual gene strands. Lastly, Gabby did a great job in displaying the truth, and saying that the author was difficult to understand because there was no concluding answer to this whole study. Although this was an excellent review, it could have been made a little better by giving a little more explanation as to why there was no conclusion to where dogs were developed. I know that Gabby was confused by this as well, so it would have been nice to be given a little more information on that. Next, one more thing that could have been improved was the grammar in the last sentence of the second paragraph. I couldn’t tell if there was a mistake within the sentence, or if that was how she intended to phrase it, but it just didn’t make sense to me. Although this was an interesting article, I felt that since there weren’t any conclusions made by this new discovery, it wasn’t very impressive. I wish the scientists could have concluded something in the end.
ReplyDeleteI read Gabbies’ review of the article, “Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but not Where” by Carl Zimmer. I thought that Gabby summarized the article well. She mentioned all of the key points that were made in the article, including all of the important information, while also condensing it. She did a good job of making all of the information in the packet simple and easy to understand, instead of being complicated and difficult to read. I thought that she did a good job of using examples form the article, putting specific facts into her argument strengthening it and overall making it a better review. She made her review interesting, which is very important. She didn’t just restate the article, but wrote an interesting analysis of it.
ReplyDeleteOverall I thought that her review was very good, although there was room for change. First of all there were a few grammatical errors that could have been fixed. Also she could have added quotes. Although she had many good facts from the article, the addition of quotes could have helped to make her review better. Lastly I think that her review was a bit short, she could have added more, possibly through quotes.
As I said before I thought that the review was overall good, with few errors. I though that her review was very interesting, and I also thought that the topic she chose was interesting. Before reading this I had no idea about the evolution of dogs from wolves, none the less where it was in the world that this evolution occurred.
I read Gabby Diaz’s current event report on the article entitled “Wolf to Dog: Scientists Agree on How, but Not Where.” Gabby’s current event report was very well written. She did a good job at summarizing what the article said. She did not leave out key facts. However, she also did not include too much information that would be overwhelming for the reader. She explained the information from the article in a way that was very easy to understand. In addition, I thought that Gabby did a good job explaining why the article is important to the world today. For example, she wrote that through this long debate “scientists have found a way to take fossils of ancient wolves and dogs and replicate those genes into actual gene strands.” Connecting her article to the world today helps make the article more relatable for the audience. Likewise, I thought Gabby did a nice job of analyzing the article and explaining what the article did badly. For example, she said that the article really confused her so she had to read it several times before she could understand what it was saying. Overall, I think that Gabby made the report interesting while providing a nice summary of the article.
ReplyDeleteThe blog contained many good facts and interesting analysis. Although Gabby did a nice job addressing what the article did badly, I thought that she could have stated what she did not like about the article as well. In addition, I wish Gabby went into more detail about the actual studies that were conducted. She mentions that new studies have been conducted but does not give any information regarding those studies. For example, the article talks a lot about a study that was conducted in 2002 by Dr. Peter Savolainen, however Gabby never mentions this study in her report. Also, I wish Gabby included a few quotes from scientists in her review. In the article, there are numerous quotes from scientists, such as Dr. Savolainen and Dr. Wayne, however Gabby does not include any of these quotes. Likewise, there were a few grammatical errors in Gabby’s blog post. For example, Gabby did not have quotation marks around the title of the article she read. Gabby should have reread her work thoroughly to make sure there were no mistakes before posting it on the blog. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the blog since I learned a lot from it concerning the development of dogs.
I think that Gabby’s current event report was well done and included many interesting facts. I was surprised that in 2013 scientists are still finding new evidence of what was happening on Earth thousands of years ago. In addition, I thought that it was very interesting how scientists have such distinct views on this subject. Overall, I think that Gabby did a very nice job.