Ellie Briskin AP Bio C Even
September 11, 2015 Current Event 1
Study: Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative
This article tells about an exciting new development in the archaeological world; the unearthing of a new humanlike species. Found in a cave in Magaliesburg, South Africa, the bones revealing this discovery showed a mix of human-like and also primitive characteristics. Researchers named this creature Homo naledi, which both reflects our “Homo” revolutionary group and the word for “star” in the local African language. The bones did not make a totally complete picture of the species, but got fairly close, considering they found a complete jawbone, teeth, fragments of small skulls, and various pieces of limb, fingers, and lines. Scientists already can discern that the Homo naledi walked upright, and had the hands and feet of a Homo, but had soldiers and a small brain most similar to modern day apes. Right now, researchers know this creature lived roughly 2.5-2.8 million years ago. Despite the strong similarities, researcher are not claiming, and do not believe, that the Homo naledi was a direct ancestor of modern-day humans. But since a more exact date cannot be determined, it’s much more difficult for scientists to deeply examine its impact, for they have no idea what other existing beings were alive at this time. Overall, since this discovery is so new, not too much about the species is known for certain, but as more and more knowledge is uncovered we get closer and closer to painting a more complete picture of this formerly unknown organism.
I was initially drawn in with this article because I find the topic of evolutionary archaeology extremely intriguing. I think it is beyond impressive that using only pieces of a skeleton, researchers can describe an entire species’ way of life. But more than that, this discovery is definitely still relevant to people today. For starters, the fact that we are just now discovering an entire new humanlike species proves that no progress in any field is every truly completed, and that development in all areas is always possible. But more than that, the controversies surrounding what kind of species this truly is highlight the importance of varying opinions in science. If only a small group of researchers were studying this, they may come to one conclusion and declare it as fact, with no one to argue it; thus, it could become accepted as fact. But considering so many scientists are examining this and coming to so many different conclusions, none are being accepted too readily, leaving time for the truth to be discovered. Although it’s slightly irksome that we know so little about the Homo naledi, at least we’re sure that anything announced is as close to true as modern knowledge allows.
Overall, I was impressed by the presentation of this article. Its paragraphs flowed and were ordered in a way that made sense, making it extremely easy for me to follow along. I also felt that it was strengthened by the substantial number of expert quotes, which legitimized the arguments. I also enjoyed the little details that the author included to keep the readers captive, such as the fact that VIP scientists took turns kissing the reconstructed skull of the Homo naledi. However, the one criticism I have of the article is that it didn’t give the reader much knowledge about the evolutionary process, or about any other humanlike species. At the end of the article I was still wondering whether or not it was usual to have a human relative evolving alongside what would eventually become a Homo erectus, considering scientists are fairly certain that the two lines of ancestry are not directly connected. I would suggest to the author to take into account the kind of audience that would be reading his article, and possibly think to include more background information that would assist the common person in understanding the bigger evolutionary picture. But overall, I thought this article was very well put together, and maintained my interest throughout.
Press, Associated. "Study: Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/09/10/science/ap-af-sci-human-ancestor.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.
This is an interesting article! You did a great job expressing why the new discovery of the Homo nadeli was so revolutionary in the archaeological world; because the revealed species was surprisingly human-like. I like how you described how even though the bones didn’t make a complete skeleton, the archaeologists were still able to determine specific features of the species like the how they had the hands and feet of a Homo but had brains similar to apes. You also did a good job criticising the article; I completely agree with you in that the author should have included more information on evolution process. I think that you could have improved your review by adding a direct quote from the article. Including a quote ties your review directly to the article and makes it more authentic. I also think you should have added a little more information on how the researchers knew that the creature lived 2.5-2.8 million years ago; what kind of dating/proof do they have? One thing I learned from your review and the article was that even though new evidence is presented, it is still too difficult to tell if the creature found is in fact a new creature. Many scientists are disputing the matter and hopefully new technology will present itself to settle the dispute.
ReplyDeletePress, Associated. "Study: Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. .
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/09/10/science/ap-af-sci-human-ancestor.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=1
Nick Saluti
ReplyDelete9/13/15
Comment on Current Event Report
One aspect of the report that I thought was done well was the amount of specific information given about the discovery of Homo Naledi. Great care was taken to explain the location and characteristics of the bones. Individually listing what complete and incomplete bones were found helps the reader to better visualize the discovery. I also appreciated the explanation of the name for Homo Naledi. In other current events about the topic the significance of the name was no explained. The analysis of the conflicting viewpoints in the scientific community surrounding the discovery of Homo Naledi was very intelligent. It effectively stated how competition leads to a greater end result. The report would have been stronger if another example was given of conflicting viewpoints. Evidence is always an effective way to add credibility to your statements. The report could also be improved if an analysis of the structure of the cave was given. The placement of the bones and the depth in the cave indicates an ability to produce artificial light with torches and a ritualistic burial behavior. I was really surprised that the scientists kissed the reconstructed skull.
Great job! I thought your topic was very interesting and you did a great job of explaining what the scientists found. It is difficult to write about a topic that already has so little information and you did a good job of specifically explaining what information you did have and making it easier to understand for the reader. I also really liked how you explained that homo naledi does not mean they are a direct ancestor of the human. Without your explanation I would automatically assume that. I am shocked as you about how much information scientist can find from just a few bones. I think you could have improved your article by informing us why the homo naledi was not believed to be an ancestor of humans because that was an important point that was not explained. I also think your article would have been better if you had a short description about what was is going on in the field at this time so we have a better understanding of everything overall. I agree with you it is very impressive that scientists can learn so much from just bones. I was shocked to learn they can find about how old the animal was and how it functioned just from the bones.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! I thought your topic was very interesting and you did a great job of explaining what the scientists found. It is difficult to write about a topic that already has so little information and you did a good job of specifically explaining what information you did have and making it easier to understand for the reader. I also really liked how you explained that homo naledi does not mean they are a direct ancestor of the human. Without your explanation I would automatically assume that. I am shocked as you about how much information scientist can find from just a few bones. I think you could have improved your article by informing us why the homo naledi was not believed to be an ancestor of humans because that was an important point that was not explained. I also think your article would have been better if you had a short description about what was is going on in the field at this time so we have a better understanding of everything overall. I agree with you it is very impressive that scientists can learn so much from just bones. I was shocked to learn they can find about how old the animal was and how it functioned just from the bones.
ReplyDeleteYou did a fantastic job on this review! I was very impressed with the summary of the article and was able to learn quite a bit though a brief description. It was very interesting to read as well. I also have to say that the organization of your review was easy to follow and allowed me to have a better understanding as to what you were specifically talking about in each. It is very tedious to read one long paragraph, but you avoided this issue well! Finally, I think that your second paragraph, regarding to how this article matters in the scientific world, was both thoughtful and thorough. It gave me a deeper insight as to what evolutionary archeology really means and why new discoveries such as the Homo naledi are important to our knowledge. There are a few things that I would suggest including in your review for the next current event. I feel that you could have added a quote into your summary paragraph, maybe from an expert in the subject. I feel that quotes add a little more legitimacy to reviews, and make the reader feel that the article is legitimate. I also think that there could have been a little more information about the Homo naledi and what life was like 2.5 million years ago. Though you did a great job of focusing in on the scientists examining the find, some evidence from the article on the life of the Homo nadeli would’ve been helpful.I was very interested to learn that the scientists investigating this were having difficulties identifying whether it is more closely related to humans or is a completely different species. I would think that with our innovative technology today, they would at least be able to do so.
ReplyDeleteCitation of article:
Press, Associated. "Study: Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. .
I found this article to be quite interesting, and I think you did an excellent job in summarizing it. For example, you explained thoroughly how archaeologists were able to determine certain features of this newly discovered human relative, even though they were not able to recover the majority of its bones. I also liked how you gave your honest opinion about the article in that the author definitely should have included more concerning the evolution process. Lastly, I thought the explanation of the named Homo Naledi you gave was quite informative and was a key aspect of the summary as a whole. In terms of ways in which you could have improved your summation, I feel you could have added additional evidence from the article to help support its claims (quotes, paraphrasing, etc…). Also, it would have been beneficial for you to add more information regarding the Homo Naledi and its traits. One thing I learned from reading your summary was the amount of data archaeologists can compile based on an assortment of bones, and from there make inferences as to their specific functions and the traits of the species as a whole. Overall, great job!
ReplyDeleteFord Neild 9/19/15
ReplyDeleteAP Biology CE 2 Comment
Dear Ellie,
Your analysis of the study, Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative, was overall well written and was explained in a concise manner that still contained all of the critical information. Your description of the naming process for this creature and the reasoning behind the title, homo naledi, gave interesting backstory for the origin of the name. Additionally, your astute analysis of opposing viewpoints shed light on a topic I had not considered. I agree that if one person were to declare something as fact, and no one would challenge them, our world would be quite narrow minded. Finally, I like your critique of the article because, after reading, I found that we were left wondering the same thing: Is it common for a homo species to not be a direct ancestor of ours and if so, why do these different species die off?
However, I critique the analysis in that, after wondering this question yourself, I would have enjoyed if you had researched the topic yourself and given more background on the evolutionary process. Additionally, I felt that you could have expanded on the topic of what was needed to do a facial reconstruction. This intrigued me and I was disappointed that you did not expand on it further.
Finally, from this article I learned that often times, as with the homo naledi, a new species will not always survive and there any many species of which we are related that eventually became extinct. This expanded my knowledge of evolution and put into perspective how rare it is that a species survives.
Citation of article:
Press, Associated. "Study: Bones in South African Cave Reveal New Human Relative." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. .