April 30, 2017
Mr. Ippolito
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095021.htm>.
I read the article “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps” by ScienceDaily and it talks about a new study examining the muscular system of bonobos that provides first hand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees. Previous research suggested this theory at the molecular level, but this is the first study to compare in detail the anatomy of the three species. Scientists believe that modern human and common chimpanzee/bonobo lineages split about 8 million years ago with the two great ape species splitting about 2 million years ago. As common chimpanzees and bonobos evolved after their split, they developed different traits and physical characteristics, even though they remained geographically relatively close, with their main division being the Congo River. Because of this, researchers have been curious as to what those differences are and how they compare to humans. By studying the muscles of bonobos (which indicates how they physically function), the team was able to discover that they are more closely related to human anatomy than common chimpanzees, in the sense that their muscles have changed less than they have in common chimpanzees.
This article will greatly affect society because it shuts down a common belief many people in society have about us being the closest related to chimpanzees. Also, the scientists note that having a clear understanding of what makes humans different from our closest living relatives might lead to new breakthroughs or understandings of human health. Overall, this finding will greatly affect what teachers teach and school and what scientists will study when studying animal anatomy.
This article provided many good background details about the belief that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees and then transitioned into counterarguing that belief very well. Also, I liked how the author discussed how this discovery will impact the beliefs of scientists and what they plan to study in the future. However, I did not like how the author did not explain what scientists plan to do with this information and how this will exactly affect each experiment. Also, it would have been better if the author gave more statistics, comparing the anatomy from a chimpanzee to a bonobo and not just from the human point of view. Overall, the article provided a lot of good information and details supporting this finding and I look forward to hearing more about this discovery in the near future.
Sophia wrote an excellent response to the article “Bonobos May Be Better Representation of Last Common Ancestor with Humans than Chimps” by George Washington University. She begins with a succinct and informative summary that provides the reader with all of the necessary information. She is able to sum up the entire study in a couple of sentences so that the reader understands the conclusion that the researchers made. I thought that Sophia also did a really great job of providing important background information. She explains the evidence that already existed linking bonobos and humans as well as details about the common chimpanzee/ bonobo lineage split. This information helps the reader to establish a greater understanding of the topic and the reason that the study was conducted in the first place. I also loved how she defined specific terms that were mentioned in the article that were imperative to the reader’s understanding of this issue. For example, she explained that studying the muscles of bonobos indicates how they function physically.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sophia wrote a well-written and thorough current event report, there are two places that she could improve upon. I think that she could have included more contextual information about how exactly the scientists compared the muscles of the bonobos and the humans and the specific elements of each that indicated the connection. These details would have provided the reader with a more well-rounded understanding of the study and the link between the two species. I would have also liked if she had included a quote from an expert or a researcher. This would have made her current event more credible and it would have provided a fresh and interesting perspective to her response.
After reading Sophia’s response to George Washington University’s article, I have learned about an important scientific discovery that has revealed that bonobos may be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees. I now have a deeper understanding of an aspect of evolution and another possibility of the path from primate to human. I will definitely stay updated on any new breakthroughs or possible developments or new studies that may arise.
Allison Barker
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event Comment
May 1, 2017
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor
with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more
closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017. .
I greatly enjoyed Sophia’s review of the article, “Bonobos may be Better Representation of Last Common Ancestor with Humans than Chimps: Study Examined Muscles of Bonobos and Found they are More Closely Related to Humans than Common Chimpanzees” and found it very informative. I liked that Sophia related the importance of the article to society by refuting a common belief that many hold about the relation of humans to primates. I also liked that Sophia acknowledged the lack of statistics in the article, as I agree with her that this detracted from my understanding of the topic at hand. I also appreciated Sophia’s discussion of the topic, which I felt was comprehensive and easy to understand.
If I could change two things about the review, I would first include quotes from the article, as I believe that these would aid the reader’s understanding of the issue. Further, I would have discussed in further detail the studies that the scientists performed, as this would have allowed me to form my own opinion on the topic.
Overall, I really enjoyed Sophia’s review, and I was surprised to learn that humans and chimps are not as closely related as I thought.
Mia Gradelski
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event Comment #1
September 3, 2017
George Washington University. “Bonobos May Be Better Representation of
Last Common Ancestor with Humans than Chimps: Study Examined
Muscles of Bonobos and Found They Are More Closely Related to
Humans than Common Chimpanzees.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 29
Apr. 2017,www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095021.htm.
After reading Sophia Dibbini’s review to George Washington University's article, “Bonobos may be Better Representation of Last Common Ancestor with Humans than Chimps: Study Examined Muscles of Bonobos and Found They Are More Closely Related to Humans than Common Chimpanzees,” I thought she did excellent on providing evidence on essential research that she found from the article and explaining thoroughly about the significance of this new study regarding chimpanzees and bonobos. This article discusses the recently new study on the muscular system of bonobos, chimpanzees and how this provides evidence on how “the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors that to common chimpanzees.” When I began reading, I noticed she gave a well planned out and concise first paragraph, providing the reader with background information about the evolution of the primates split and how researchers are uncovering this mystery. She begins explaining about the evolution of the chimpanzees and how “researchers have been curious as to what those differences are and how they compare to humans.” This gives readers a sense of curiosity of the article. In addition, I admired the way she incorporated details and facts together, without seeming repetitive or boring. For example, “What makes humans different from our closest living relatives might lead to new breakthroughs or understanding of human health.” In her last paragraph, I support the claim she made because I think she draws readers in, into the new findings she reveals and how it will affect studies in the future regarding how the “Team was able to discover that they are more closely related to human anatomy than common chimpanzees” which was surprising. As a result, these three parts I thought she put key evidence in to make her whole claim more supportive and factual.
Even though reading Sophia’s review was informative, I did believe it could’ve been improved. I noticed lots of generalization regarding statistical information given. There wasn’t enough outside source information and textual evidence that backed up what the scientists discovered. She didn’t cite any scientists and researchers such as, Bernard Wood, who had a different position. In order to accomplish this, she should've written more in depth about some of the authors and outside sources such as the research team from the Antwerp Zoo and Rui Diogo. I would’ve liked to read more about what scientists can expect to see in the future regarding their studies. Instead of incorporating that, Sophia left the readers questioning when she mentions, “Breakthroughs or understanding of human health.” I would advise she expand upon this idea by sharing different points of views from researchers I mentioned above, rather than quoting the last sentence of the article.
Overall, I thought Sophia’s review was very informative and showed a general understanding of how research on chimpanzees and bonobos have evolved and how it relates to the aspect of evolution relating to humans. I not only learned something new, that bonobos may be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees, but I now know that this can spark other ideas for scientists to research the evolution pathway between different species.. I chose this review to comment upon because I was curious in the general evolution of humans. I never knew that two animals that look alike weren’t always related, which makes me question the evolution of life regarding animals and how further advanced research concerning ancestry is a step closer to performing this research on other species of life.
Kirsten Ircha 9/13/17
ReplyDeleteAP Biology E/F Even Current Event #1
Citation:
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor
with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017. .
My fellow colleague, Sophia Dibbini, wrote an insightful review on the article, “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps,” by ScienceDaily. This article centers around how, “ a new study examining the muscular system of bonobos that provides first hand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees.” Throughout the review, Dibbini completely explains this claim and offers evidence from the initial article to support her statements. Such statements include, “As common chimpanzees and bonobos evolved after their split, they developed different traits and physical characteristics, even though they remained geographically relatively close, with their main division being the Congo River.” I feel providing this evidence makes the review feel well analysed and allows the topic to be understood simply. Furthermore, Dibbini uses a constant academic tone throughout the review. I feel this allows the review to feel very legitimate and professional. This is seen through her word choice and use of language through phrases such as, “common belief,” and “modern human and common chimpanzee/bonobo lineages.” Also, the review did an amazing job of explaining how these scientific breakthroughs can affect society as a whole. This is done through suggesting that the new knowledge will determine what teachers teach in school and what scientists study when examining animal anatomy. I find this aspect of the review to be very helpful as it paints a bigger picture of how society can be changed due to the discovery.
Although I enjoyed Dibbini review, I feel a couple of areas can be changed slightly to make the work even better. To begin, I did feel that some of the vocabulary chosen was quite simple and did not match the overall tone of the piece. This can be seen through the choice to use words such as, “good,” as opposed to more advanced words such as superior or fine. I feel this can be corrected through the use of synonyms to avoid basic words. Also, at times, the sentences were too long. This can been seen most through the first line of the review stating, “I read the article “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps” by ScienceDaily and it talks about a new study examining the muscular system of bonobos that provides first hand evidence that the rare great ape species may be more closely linked, anatomically, to human ancestors than common chimpanzees.” This sentence could have been split up to give it better overall flow. This error can be corrected in the future through peer editing in order to try to avoid run-on sentences.
After reading this review, I am extremely shocked as to how bonobos may be a better representation of the last common ancestor with humans than chimps. This surprises me greatly as I previously held the belief that chimps were very closely related to humans and I had never looked into the possibility that bonobos share a more common ancestor. I choose this as the learning takeaway from the review as it is the main objective, and all other evidence supports the statement. Furthermore, I feel that it is the most interesting aspect of the review. Based on the article, I will be more sceptical in classes or conversations that mention chimps as our most common ancestor, as I now possess the knowledge that bonobos are more closely related to the human race. I will also make sure to stay updated on new developments of the topic as it is both extremely interesting and a topic that I enjoy reading about.
Alexander New
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
9/13/17
Citation:
George Washington University. “Bonobos May Be Better Representation of Last Common
Ancestor with Humans than Chimps: Study Examined Muscles of Bonobos and Found
They Are More Closely Related to Humans than Common Chimpanzees.” ScienceDaily,
ScienceDaily, 29 Apr. 2017,www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170429095021.htm.
A fellow classmate of mine, Sophia Dibbini, wrote a very interesting review of the article titled, “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps”, by Science Daily. She begins her review by giving the reader a brief summary of how scientists discovered this. I really liked how Sophia defined specific terms that were necessary to understand the article. It allowed for me to become more engaged in the reading. Sophia also did a great job of reminding us of the effects of this discovery on the world. This new knowledge may change how teachers will teach in school, which I think is very eye-opening. Finally, I liked how she was able to incorporate many facts and details and made them engaging. Normally, these facts by themselves would have seemed repetitive or useless. Using these facts helped to bring authenticity to the article, even though it lacked a lot of statistics.
Although Sophia did a great job with her review, there were some areas that could use improvement. I felt that there were times where the vocabulary used seemed very simplistic for the topic at hand. This took away from the nature of the article and left me thinking of what word she could have used to replace the word in the review. I also think that Sophia should have added more quotes in the review, so that we can see what the author had to say, and not just Sophia’s interpretation of the article.
Overall, I enjoyed reading Sophia’s review of the article, despite its minor flaws. I thought it was really incredible that we have learned that chimps are our closest primate since kindergarten. Now, I have learned that we are actually more closely related to Bonobos. I think this says a lot about how in science, there is nothing that is etched in stone.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
9/13/17
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017. .
Current Event #1:
For this current event, I decided to read Sophia Dibbini’s review of the article “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps” from ScienceDaily. This article discusses a recent study which examined the evolutions of humans, chimps, and bonobos and compared the anatomies to determine whether humans are more closely related to chimps or bonobos. In this review, Sophia formed a great summary of the information. She used just enough details to allow the readers to fully comprehend the concepts without being overloaded with facts. She also wrote well about the importance of the study on our society. Readers can understand why we need to talk about this. Sophia analyzed and described the good and bad aspects of the writing and the structure of the article.
Despite all of the good aspects of this article, there are some parts that could be fixed. First of all, Sophia could have added a quote to her summary of the article. At least one would be beneficial for her as it would add to the credibility of her writing. I also think that she could have expanded on her critiques of the article. She did a great job analyzing the article, but she didn’t explain much about her statements. However, overall, her review was informational and well-written. It was also interesting to read as it wasn’t just facts so I enjoyed reading her work.
I chose to read this review because I was interested in the topic of the article. For all of our lives, we have been told that chimps are our closest ancestors, but this information might change that perception. This will be very interesting to watch as scientists continue to investigate these relationships. I will check in on this topic to see the developments that have been made.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippilito
AP Biology
13 September 2017
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017.
Sophia's Response to the article "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." is very organized as well as informative. One thing I really enjoyed about it is the fact that she gives facts about the chimpanzee and bonobo lineage, which further supports her claims. Through this, we can see the facts rather than solely her opinion. I also like how she describes the importance of countering a common belief that humans are most directly linked to chimpanzees. By doing this, she is defying popular knowledge, which is very intriguing. Also, this increases the magnitude of the impact of this study, which she does an excellent job of making this clear. Lastly, she gives some background information on bonobos by saying, “scientists believe that modern human and common chimpanzee/bonobo lineages split about 8 million years ago with the two great ape species splitting about 2 million years ago. As common chimpanzees and bonobos evolved after their split, they developed different traits and physical characteristics, even though they remained geographically relatively close, with their main division being the Congo River.” By doing this it further contextulizes the inforation making it easier for the reader to understand and process the information.
Although this review was very well-written, there were a couple things Sophia could have done to make it better. Her article had many background facts, but it did not contain any data or evidence from the experiments conducted. Therefore, it did not allow for the reader to formulate their own opinion, but rather they were only presented with Sophia's opinion. It would of been better if Sophia had talked about possible future experiments that could further this conclusion or counter it. Again, we are only presented with one opinion of the article, which therefore weakens the argument. Secondly, it would of been better if she described how the experiments were conducted and how new technology led to this. This information was not revealed clearly in her review, which led to some confusion.
The most interesting part of Sophia’s review was that the common belief of chimps being most simillar to human is being refuted. Instead, bonobos are being argued to have a closer relationship to humans. This is extremely interesting, because it provides a new insight into evolution and how humans developed. This information is exciting to hear and with new advancements in technology, it will be interesting to uncover other information related to evoloution.
Cindy Kwok
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Bio
Current Events
George Washington University. "Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2017. .
I read Sophia’s critique of the article “Bonobos may be better representation of last common ancestor with humans than chimps: Study examined muscles of bonobos and found they are more closely related to humans than common chimpanzees." I thought that Sophia did a great job explaining the results of the findings and how they affect us as humans. In her critique, Sophia mentioned the way it changed everybody’s common misconception that humans are more closely related to chimps than bonobos. Another aspect I liked about her critique was her well-thought out review of the article she read. She clearly explained about reasons she thought the article was good, but also pointed out several issues she had as well. Lastly, one thing I enjoyed about the article in general was its use of quotes by professors and others who were central to the study.
I feel that because the quotes were extremely useful in explaining the events in the article, it would have improved Sophia’s review if she were to add them in as well. This would help further enhance her critique and give the readers a better understanding of the experiments. Another issue I had was with the article. Based on reading it, I feel that the article was too vague for my liking. It described general what scientists studied but did not go into depth about any of the experiments. Like Sophia had pointed out, I feel like the article would have been better if the scientists had a plan or idea of what to do with this new knowledge.
In general, the whole article came as a surprise to me. I had not even known what a bonobo was before reading this, only to learn that they are a human’s most common ancestor based on muscle usage. I was one of many who also believed that chimps were closest to the human ancestry because it was what I was taught. I think this information is extremely important because it gives us a better sense of who we are. It also shows how interesting science is, with new discoveries being able to discredit something that people thought true for so many years.