In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans
This article discussed how a tooth fossil was found in a siberian cave and that has yielded DNA from a separate part of the tree of human evolution, these “mysterious cousins” are classified as Denisovans. This species, as shown by the analysis of scientists, has evidence pushing back to 60,000 years ago, thus showing that they had the ability to live in harsh climates, considering their geographical location as well. These results also show that these Denisovans could have potentially breeded with other ancient hominins, “relatives of modern humans whom science has yet to discover.” The cave in which the traces of the Denisovans have been found is checked every summer. The cave is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia. Previous to this recent discovery regarding the Denisovans, they were known only from DNA in another tooth and a finger bone found in the cave in 2008. Analysis had shown them to be at least 50,000 years old, and with more study and analysis, they have arrived where they are today regarding this topic. Since there are virtually no bones to study, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out what these Denisovans were like, but they do know that their closest relatives were the neanderthals. Scientists estimate that Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged on the human family tree 400,000 years ago. This “new” batch of analysis comes from a tooth discovered in 2010 in the cave in Siberia, and it, called Denisova 8, yielded only a modest amount of DNA. Although there wasn't much DNA, the scientists were still able to draw some important conclusions. This tooth is much older than the other discovered remains, approximately 110,000 years old.
This article has a profound effect on our society because it sheds much more light on possible relatives of humans and we can examine these Denisovans to draw some conclusions about things such as evolution. This article also adds to increasing evidence that our species kept company with many near relatives over the past million years. Also, by examining the diverse DNA of the Denisovans, we can draw comparisons between these and the Neanderthals, touching on how the Denisovans were much more complex, and much more similar genetically to the people in Europe right now. The DNA in the tooth can also lead to conclusions about the possibility of inbreeding of species. Although most of the genetic material in the tooth has a close relationship with the genetic material Neanderthals, some of it seems only distantly related to Neanderthal or human DNA.
One thing that I think this article succeeding in doing was in how the author (Carl Zimmer) included so much on how this recently discovered tooth is relevant and important, discussing the way we can examine the DNA of these Denisovans and compare it to that of Humans today. One thing I did not like about this article was in how Zimmer didn’t go into much detail about the other fossils found at all. This would be helpful because then the reader could see how the other discoveries compare to the tooth, and what this means for the human tree. One thing that could be improved would be if Carl Zimmer included more information about the other fossils found for the Denisovans, shedding much more light on the topic and the Denisovans themselves.
Zimmer, Carl. "In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/science/in-a-tooth-dna-from-some-very-old-cousins-the-denisovans.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront>.
I read John’s review on “In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans”. I thought he did a good job of summarizing the article and stating important facts, explaining about the Siberian cave that the tooth was found in and how the Denisovans compared to other ancient human ancestors. John also did a good job of stating why the discovery of DNA in this tooth helped us draw more conclusions about evolution by comparing the Denisovans to other ancestors like Neanderthals. Lastly, I think he did a good job of stating what he liked about how the author wrote the article, but also pointed out the holes in Zimmer’s article like not mentioning anything about the other fossils the scientists found.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this review was very well written, there was a few aspects that could have been improved on. First, it would have helped if he included some quotes from the article to help the reader of the review to get a greater sense of the article. Second, some of the sentence structure did not make much sense and could have been edited more thoroughly.
I believe this article is very important in terms of impacting society. By releasing more information about fossils and evolution, the public can be better informed about where we come from and what other species we are slightly related to. Even if most of the public does not read this article about DNA in a tooth, the scientist's discovery of this on its own can help better inform people writing research papers and textbooks on evolution.
I thought John’s review on the article “In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans” by Carl Zimmer, was very interesting and well written. I thought he did a great job with structuring the review so that it was organized and flowed well. He began with an interesting hook which brought in my attention and made me curious about the subject specifically calling this new species “mysterious cousins.” Secondly, he also did a nice job setting up a foundation, explaining the situation and each point; his background information was clear and easy to understand. For example, he explained why this discover is unique, how this species lived in a harsh climate, and possibly competed with another species who scientists have not discovered yet. Lastly, he did a great job of explaining the significance. He had a straightforward answer as to why this topic is so important, which really added to the review. He brought up points that I hadn’t thought about, such as how this discovery reveals the relationship with other species present at the same time.
ReplyDeleteOverall, he did a great job explaining and shortening the article so that we could comprehend what was happening. However, I think he could have added a bit more facts and more data, which may or may not have been in the original article. As I said above, he did add in a strong foundation to help us understand what was happening. He did mentioned the body parts that were discovered and how old they were, but a sentence or two more abou about the procedure used to discover them would have really added to the review. I also thought he could have added more meaningful quotes. He did have one, but I think a quote about the scientist’s personal opinion would have been nice and connected the review with the articles a bit more.
This article was very interesting, and I think it's equally frightening and amazing that we actually found a possible ancestor from 60,000 years ago. This can reveal a lot more information about our evolution: how we developed and migrated around the world, adapting to harsh climates and environments.
I was seriously impressed by John’s amazing review of this article. Right off the bat, I found that one of the many things I loved about John’s review was the clear description of the setting, in which this article took place. He clearly states, “The cave in which the traces of the Denisovans have been found is checked every summer. The cave is in the Altai Mountains in Siberia.” John gives the perfect amount of detail about both the location of the cave and how often it is examined, so that we can immediately become acquainted with when and where the research being talked about takes place. Additionally, I liked the way John would recite a fact and then explain its significance in a logical, sequential manner. For example, he stated, “This species, as shown by the analysis of scientists, has evidence pushing back to 60,000 years ago, thus showing that they had the ability to live in harsh climates, considering their geographical location as well.” Here, he stated the fact that the species most likely lived up to 60,000 years ago, and then he showed how inferences made about living conditions could be made. Finally, I liked the way John explained the importance of this discovery in the field of evolution, which fascinated me greatly. He stated, “This article has a profound effect on our society because it sheds much more light on possible relatives of humans and we can examine these Denisovans to draw some conclusions about things such as evolution.” By tying this one article to a topic as broad as evolution is something that immensely increases the importance of these Denisovans; I found that by doing this, John was able to tell the reader, “What you’re reading actually matters.”
ReplyDeleteWhile I could ramble off countless other the things I liked about John’s review, there were also a couple of things in it that didn’t appeal to me. For example, I found that John was self-contradictory with his facts. When describing the Denisovans, he used phrases like “at least 50,000 years old,” “diverged on the human family tree 400,000 years ago,” and “evidence pushing back to 60,000 years ago” to describe different artifacts and the species as a whole. Though these numbers were referring to the ages of different things, they all jumbled together in the reader’s head, making it seem contradictory. Therefore, I think it would be beneficial to include fewer statistics about fewer fossils. Another thing I didn’t love about this review was that he didn’t fully explain what the “tree of human evolution” was. While I was able to understand what he meant by this because I had studied this in my previous years of schooling, someone who didn’t learn about the topic of evolution might have a hard time understanding how the relationships between different species are part of one much bigger picture, tracing back to a common ancestor. Consequently, if I were John, I would have given a brief background on the topic of evolution.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed John’s review of this article and learned a tremendous amount. Specifically, I learned that “Denisovans were much more complex, and much more similar genetically to the people in Europe right now.” This started to make me think about how people in Europe can have a different genome than people in the United States. I thought that all of the humans found today were today were just about identical, but, after reading this article, it has affected the way I view the homo sapien species as a whole. Now, when I look at people with different colored skin, different facial structure, and even different heights/weights, I can begin to think about how the place they live in can affect these traits. This article has caused me to ponder upon questions like: Why do Africans have black skin? Why do Irish people have orange hair? Overall, I loved this article and learned a lot from it, and the main reason that I chose John’s review was because I was intrigued by the concept of “Some Very Old Cousins,” as stated in the title of the article.
I felt that John did a great job reviewing this article. First, I enjoyed how he gave background information on the denisovans. When he stated that prior to the new discovery the only DNA was from a tooth and a finger bone, it really put into perspective how little we know about this species. I also enjoyed how he explained the importance of this discovery in connecting us today to our evolutionary past. This helped me understand why this should mean something to me. Lastly, I enjoyed how he stated that neanderthals and denisovans split off from each other around 400,000 years ago. This helped me understand where the difference started and just how different the two species could be.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would have liked is to see the names of the scientists who made these discoveries. I feel that including the scientists gives them credit and can lead to further research in the area. However, if the article did not state their names, there is nothing that can be done about that aspect. Another thing that I would have liked to know is what the climate is like in the Altai Mountains. John simply states that it is harsh, not going into any detail. Simply listing what kind of harsh it is would be sufficient. However, once again, if the article did not include these details, there is nothing that can be done.
I thought it was amazing how there could be so many human relatives that once roamed the earth. Today it is hard to imagine a species similar enough to interbreed with, and it truly changed my perspective on humanity’s past.
John did a great job of reviewing his article, “In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans.” His writing was clear and informative, and helped me to gain a better understanding of the importance of the DNA recently recovered from a 60,000 year old fossil. I found especially interesting the connection between our analysis of DNA today and possible links to evolution. The information on the Denisovan species helped me to understand how old the tooth that was discovered actually was, and gave context to the discovery. John also did a nice job of critiquing the author; he highlighted the lack of a discussion of other fossils by the author, and I agree that that would make the article more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI thought that John could have included other similar discoveries that have been noted recently; comparing these studies would help to enhance my understanding of the findings of different time periods. Including more specific evidence that would support the claim that this discovery was so important would have been helpful in gaining a more complete understanding of the topic.
John did a great job of discussing this new finding. Previously, I did not know that discoveries like this could be so important, and that they could uncover information of a species thousands of years old. This was an interesting article to read, and I enjoyed John’s analysis and discussion of the Denisovan tooth.
John, I really enjoyed your review of the article “In a Tooth, DNA from Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans.” There were many aspects of your review that stood out. One, I think you did a great job summarizing the article. Your summary cited the important facts from the article which gave me the basic idea of what the author was trying to get across. Two, I liked your critique of the article. You clearly stated your own opinion of the author’s article and provided suggestions of ways to improve. Three, I liked how you explained why this discovery is so relevant to society. You mentioned how it “sheds more light” on the relatives of humans.
ReplyDeleteAlthough your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, I wish you added a few quotes from experts on this discovery. This would have made your review much stronger. Two, your summary was full of facts, so I wish you smoothed it out a little more. This would have made the review easier to read.
I am fascinated by these discoveries because it shows how much scientists still don’t know or understand. These discoveries complete another piece of the puzzle and allow experts to learn more about human’s relatives. Again John, I really enjoyed reading your review.
You gave a very thorough and understandable review of your article. Specifically, you did a good job of only including the necessary information so the reader had a good grasp on the topic but was not bored by insignificant details. You also did a great job of keeping your opinions separate from the article; giving the reader both the unbiased facts and your own personal critique on the article. Additionally, I liked the way that you tied your article back to the real world and made it relevant. While all of these things were done well, there were a couple of aspects that you could have improved on. First you could have cited the article more directly thus giving your words more credibility. Secondly, your review seemed like a laundry list of facts. It would have been nice to have seen a little more coherence between ideas. The most intriguing idea from this article is the wonder of how much people really know. There seems to be no limit to how much there is out there to discover and things like this keep the curiosity alive.
ReplyDeleteZimmer, Carl. "In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. .