Olivia Doyle
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
20 September 2017
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
This week, I read an article entitled “500 million year old creature looks like space alien in recreation”, which discusses the development of new images of a now-extinct arthropod. Called the agnostus pisiformis, this creature was merely a centimeter long and lived in what is today Scandinavia during the Cambrian period, a time called by scientists as “one of the most exciting times in Earth’s history”. It was a period that gave rise to a rapid diversification of life, which produced odd creatures such as the agnostus pisiformis. Researchers found that it started its life as a larva and “developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton”. The shell of the creature resembles that of a clam. It is believed that the A. Pisiformis fed off of organic matter out of the ocean water. Included in the article are images, which were able to be created because of the well-preserved fossils. Artists made sculptures of the creatures, including a partially unrolled sculpture to mimic the arthropod's likely position while swimming and a rolled sculpture to show how its exoskeletal shell would protect it.
The discovery and modeling of this fossil pertains to the scientific world as a whole because the species serves as an index fossil, which is used to date layers of rock. Because the fossils of the A. Pisiformis were found so well preserved in shale and limestone rock, “we can grasp the entire anatomy of the animal, which, in turn, reveals a lot about its ecology and mode of life”, geology professor Mats. E. Eriksson says. Studying the anatomical structure of the fossil allows us to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.
The article, for what it included, was well-written in that it gave an understandable overview of the study and creation of these models. Additionally, the pictures that were included gave the reader a better understanding of what this creature looked like. However, it lacked a detailed, thorough analysis of the structure of the creature, as well as what its significance in the Cambrian period. The author could have discussed aspects of the Cambrian period and other animals that lived during that time in order to enable the reader to fully understand how this animal lived and interacted with its surroundings and environment. It would have been better if the author had gone in depth also about how this fossil is important in dating layers of rock, and what that means for the study of life before humanity.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
21 September, 2017
Current Event #2
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in
Re-Creation.” LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html
This week, I read Olivia Doyle’s review of the article “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation” by Stephanie Pappas from Live Science. In her review, she did a great job describing Pappas’ topic in detail and making it more easily understandable for her audience. With the information given, Olivia was able to provide a full picture of the fossils found and the arthropod that was discovered. Olivia also used quotes that were directly from Pappas’ original article, helping establish herself as a credible critic. In doing so, Olivia proves to her audience that her claims are backed by evidence and she can be trusted as an author. Finally, Olivia provided her readers with a thorough critique of Pappas’ article with supported evidence. This allows her audience to understand the topic of the article and to be informed about Pappas.
Although Olivia’s review was very informative, she could have including a couple other details to further her arguments. Firstly, Olivia could have discussed where scientists may go from here. For example, she could have included her ideas and opinions on possible future experiments and tests scientists could perform. By doing so, her readers would be left with fewer questions, and would also prompt them to reflect on her thoughts. Also, Olivia could have touched upon where this fossil was specifically found by doing more research. She also could have included more details on this arthropod’s living environment and its habitat during its time on Earth. By providing her audience with these facts, we would have a better understanding of these findings and their effects on our world.
Olivia’s review helped me realize that discoveries such as the one discussed in this article affect our present lives despite dealing with issues from many years ago. Specifically, this topic relates to our evolutionary timelines and gives clues about our history as a whole. This can then lead to further findings and investigations around the areas where fossils are found or on certain topics. Olivia wanted her audience to know that it is especially important for us to understand our beginnings and our past in order for us to fully make sense of our present and our future.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
September 25 2017
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
This week I chose to comment on Olivia Doyle’s review of “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.” Olivia gave the audience a short and concise summary. She did this by giving the audience a background of the agnostus pisiformis which is the subject of the article. She gives supporting information of its size, exoskeleton, and where it was found cited from the article. “Called the agnostus pisiformis, this creature was merely a centimeter long and lived in what is today Scandinavia during the Cambrian period… Researchers found that it started its life as a larva and ‘developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton.’” As well as giving a good background as the subject of the article, Olivia’s relevance paragraph truly provides sound information as to why this article is so relevant. This discovery of agnostus pisiformis “allows us [humans] to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.” This proves an immense amount of relevance to our society today. The last thing I would like to mention is that Olivia did a good job identifying the weaknesses of the article which clearly did lack a “detailed, thorough analysis of the structure of the creature, as well as what its significance in the Cambrian period.” All three of the things I mentioned led Olivia to a successful review.
Although Olivia generally wrote an overall good review, she did not do such a great job with two things. One, her word choice. In her first sentence, she uses entitled instead of titled when trying to say “This week, I read an article [titled,] “500 million year old creature looks like space alien in recreation[,]” which discusses the development of new images of a now extinct arthropod.” This hurts her review and some readers will want to stop reading after this mistake. It hurts the reader’s head and kills the rest of the review because the reader will keep thinking about little mistakes like this. I would recommend that Olivia researches words before she uses them so she can use them appropriately in the future. If you read her review she constantly uses punctuation incorrectly. For example, in the same first sentence of her review, she incorrectly hyphenated now extinct, forgot a comma after what should be titled, and put a comma after the cited quotation instead of in front of the quotation. I would recommend her to get her writings proof read and peer edited to avoid these mistakes in the future since I find her writing to have incorrect use of words and punctuation error.
The reason I chose this to review was because of the catching title the article had, “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.” This immediately caught my eye because I am interested in extraterrestrial life. This taught me about not only the rare agnostus pisiformis, but I learned a little about the Cambrian Period which I have never heard of before this. This review and article will change my perception that extraterrestrial life is such a crazy thought that it may as well be disregarded. This shows that this life is within reach for humans to interact.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
September 25 2017
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
This week I chose to comment on Olivia Doyle’s review of “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.” Olivia gave the audience a short and concise summary. She did this by giving the audience a background of the agnostus pisiformis which is the subject of the article. She gives supporting information of its size, exoskeleton, and where it was found cited from the article. “Called the agnostus pisiformis, this creature was merely a centimeter long and lived in what is today Scandinavia during the Cambrian period… Researchers found that it started its life as a larva and ‘developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton.’” As well as giving a good background as the subject of the article, Olivia’s relevance paragraph truly provides sound information as to why this article is so relevant. This discovery of agnostus pisiformis “allows us [humans] to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.” This proves an immense amount of relevance to our society today. The last thing I would like to mention is that Olivia did a good job identifying the weaknesses of the article which clearly did lack a “detailed, thorough analysis of the structure of the creature, as well as what its significance in the Cambrian period.” All three of the things I mentioned led Olivia to a successful review.
Although Olivia generally wrote an overall good review, she did not do such a great job with two things. One, her word choice. In her first sentence, she uses entitled instead of titled when trying to say “This week, I read an article [titled,] “500 million year old creature looks like space alien in recreation[,]” which discusses the development of new images of a now extinct arthropod.” This hurts her review and some readers will want to stop reading after this mistake. It hurts the reader’s head and kills the rest of the review because the reader will keep thinking about little mistakes like this. I would recommend that Olivia researches words before she uses them so she can use them appropriately in the future. If you read her review she constantly uses punctuation incorrectly. For example, in the same first sentence of her review, she incorrectly hyphenated now extinct, forgot a comma after what should be titled, and put a comma after the cited quotation instead of in front of the quotation. I would recommend her to get her writings proof read and peer edited to avoid these mistakes in the future since I find her writing to have incorrect use of words and punctuation error.
The reason I chose this to review was because of the catching title the article had, “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.” This immediately caught my eye because I am interested in extraterrestrial life. This taught me about not only the rare agnostus pisiformis, but I learned a little about the Cambrian Period which I have never heard of before this. This review and article will change my perception that extraterrestrial life is such a crazy thought that it may as well be disregarded. This shows that this life is within reach for humans to interact.
Current Events Reflection: “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation”
ReplyDeleteIsabel Sondey
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in
Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017.
www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html
Olivia’s article centered around the development of new images of a 500 million-year-old creature called the agnostus pisiformis. Olivia did a great job of introducing the topic in an interesting manner, as she opens her review by discussing how the period during which the arthropod lived is considered to be the most exciting time in our planet’s history by scientists. The structure of Olivia’s review makes her writing understandable and easy to follow. She first briefly introduces the focus of her review, the agnostus pisiformis, and then goes on to provide some background on the time period in which the creature lived in order to allow the reader to develop a better understanding of the arthropod. Olivia also does a very nice job of discussing the significance of the new finding. She mentions since the fossils were so well preserved, the scientists can develop an understanding of the creature’s anatomy, which will lead to insights into the organism’s interaction with its environment and other creatures. Olivia states that this information will allow scientists to better understand our planet prior to human existence.
One thing Olivia could potentially improve upon is the depth of context provided. Olivia does a very nice job of setting up the time period before delving into the shape and function of the creature itself. However, her background summary included no information on other creatures in existence at that time. Inclusion of this information would allow the reader to better understand the agnostus pisiformis and its environment. Next, Olivia lacks any information on previous discoveries of important fossils. Inclusion of some basic background on the discovery of a few other fossils from that time period, if there have been any, would allow the reader to get a better sense for the significance of the new fossil finding finding. Additionally, Olivia could have included a few pictures. She mentions that her article included several images of the fossils that were well-preserved in shale and limestone rock. While Olivia does a nice job of describing the creature’s features without pictures, inclusion of a few images alongside her description would enhance the reader’s understanding of the creature.
Overall, the article Olivia selected was quite interesting and informative. It will allow scientists to draw new conclusions on Earth’s environment prior to human existence, which is crucial for us to understand as it speaks to how our world has changed and will continue to change. Understanding our planet’s features before human existence can also reveal to us how we as a species have altered our planet since the beginning of our existence, and can also tell us about the kinds of creatures that existed before us. Personally, I know relatively little on the topic of Earth’s environment pre-humans, so I selected Olivia’s review to read in hopes of learning about the subject. Her review got me very interested in our planet’s history, and this new discovery could tell us a little more about that.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
24 September 2017
Current Events #2
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
Olivia wrote a wonderful review. She did a good job presenting the information in a way that was easy to follow. Starting out with where the creature was found and then proceeding to tell about how the creature evolved and then how and what was being studied. Secondly, Olivia incorporated great quotes from the article. These quotes gave a secondary insight or opinion on specific things that allowed the reader to learn more. For example, her quote talking about the growth of the arthropod, “developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton.” This specific quote gave the authors description of how the creature grew which we know was backed by data from studies. Olivia also gave great ideas on how the article could be improved in her opinion, “it lacked a detailed, thorough analysis of the structure of the creature.” It was good that she was able to identify this and make a comment about it in her review. Olivia did a great job in writing her review, making it interesting and informative.
Despite the many good aspects of Olivia’s review, there were a few things that could be improved. In her summary of the article, she states that scientists believe the Cambrian period was, “one of the most exciting times in Earth’s history.” She never explained why scientists thought that. If she had given some other information about other species, weather, or event that makes it very interesting it would help the reader understand why the scientists call it that. My second idea for improvement was also in the summary. Olivia talks about how scientists are using, “new images of a now-extinct arthropod,” however, she never states where the images came from. Olivia talks about where the creature used to live and gave specifics about the structure of the arthropod. It was confusing to me about when the actual arthropod was found and what was used for the images and the sculptures. These two additional pieces of information would allow the reader to better follow and understand the article and the research being done.
I chose to read Olivia's review because of the title. The title talked about a 500 million year old creature and that intrigued me and made me want to look into what the creature was and how it is affecting our lives today. From reading this article I learned how things from the past are still enabling us to better understand that time period and our time period and how we became what we are today.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippilito
AP Biology
25 September 2017
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
In Olivia Doyle's review of the article “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation”, she provides an intriguing in depth analysis of Stephanie Pappas article. Olivia does many good things in this review, but in particular, it was helpful that she explained how scientists were able to uncover the agnostus pisiformis. She discussed that it was through perseverance of the fossil in limestone and shale, and because of this explanation it negates any unanswered questions regarding how it was able to be discovered. Furthermore her use of quotation from the article caused for the reader to trust the review more, which therefore increases credibility. Through doing this she supports her review more and allows for the reader to be less sceptical. Lastly, Olivia does a wonderful job of presenting the magnitude of this discovery. To an average Joe, one might read this article and not think much of it, but Olivia does a great job of this through stating, “allows us to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.” Through this, the reader is able to grasp the true importance of this article and the discovery’s impact of evolution and life before humans.
Although Olivia did many good thing in her review, there were a couple things that could have been improved on. She talks about the images that were found in the article even stating, “Additionally, the pictures that were included gave the reader a better understanding of what this creature looked like.” She states that the pictures were extremely informative, but she does not thoroughly describe the pictures to the reader, which can lead to some confusion. An in depth analysis or description is necessary if the pictures are important as she states they are. Secondly, she does a good job of giving context to the agnostus pisiformis, but she fails to give much context to the environment and ecosystem the agnostus pisiformis lived. She does not discuss any organism that the agnostus pisiformis lived with or how the environment or other organism influenced the agnostus pisiformis. This information would have given a more clear understanding of the agnostus pisiformis and the time period it lived in.
The most interesting fact that I learned from Olivia Doyle’s review was the fact that scientists discovered a 500 million year old creature that even predates humans. The fact that we have the technology to discover life that existed 500 million years ago is truly amazing and it is interesting to ponder how much will technology allow for scientists to discover. This alters my perspective on history of life and what is still able to be uncovered from 500 million years ago, and with more advancements to come in technology, we will soon be able to study even older creatures. This potential for discovery and exploring the unknown is inspiring, and the founding of the agnostus pisiformis is an example of this.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippilito
AP Biology
25 September 2017
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
In Olivia Doyle's review of the article “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation”, she provides an intriguing in depth analysis of Stephanie Pappas article. Olivia does many good things in this review, but in particular, it was helpful that she explained how scientists were able to uncover the agnostus pisiformis. She discussed that it was through perseverance of the fossil in limestone and shale, and because of this explanation it negates any unanswered questions regarding how it was able to be discovered. Furthermore her use of quotation from the article caused for the reader to trust the review more, which therefore increases credibility. Through doing this she supports her review more and allows for the reader to be less sceptical. Lastly, Olivia does a wonderful job of presenting the magnitude of this discovery. To an average Joe, one might read this article and not think much of it, but Olivia does a great job of this through stating, “allows us to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, thereby enabling us to comprehend evolution as a whole. Scientists are able to better understand the animal and its surroundings with this information, and thus able to analyze the living world before humans arrived.” Through this, the reader is able to grasp the true importance of this article and the discovery’s impact of evolution and life before humans.
Although Olivia did many good thing in her review, there were a couple things that could have been improved on. She talks about the images that were found in the article even stating, “Additionally, the pictures that were included gave the reader a better understanding of what this creature looked like.” She states that the pictures were extremely informative, but she does not thoroughly describe the pictures to the reader, which can lead to some confusion. An in depth analysis or description is necessary if the pictures are important as she states they are. Secondly, she does a good job of giving context to the agnostus pisiformis, but she fails to give much context to the environment and ecosystem the agnostus pisiformis lived. She does not discuss any organism that the agnostus pisiformis lived with or how the environment or other organism influenced the agnostus pisiformis. This information would have given a more clear understanding of the agnostus pisiformis and the time period it lived in.
The most interesting fact that I learned from Olivia Doyle’s review was the fact that scientists discovered a 500 million year old creature that even predates humans. The fact that we have the technology to discover life that existed 500 million years ago is truly amazing and it is interesting to ponder how much will technology allow for scientists to discover. This alters my perspective on history of life and what is still able to be uncovered from 500 million years ago, and with more advancements to come in technology, we will soon be able to study even older creatures. This potential for discovery and exploring the unknown is inspiring, and the founding of the agnostus pisiformis is an example of this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Shkreli
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event Review #3
October 2, 2017
“500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”
Pappas, Stephanie. “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation.”LiveScience, Purch, 18 Sept. 2017. www.livescience.com/60434-bizarre-cambrian-creature-gets-detailed-reconstruction.html.
Olivia Doyle’s review of “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation” summarizes the history behind the agnostus pisiformis, a now-extinct arthropod. In this review, Doyle includes three aspects that make her review well written. Firstly, Doyle describes what the arthropod would look like, where it was from, and what period it existed in. By including this information, Doyle is establishing context to help the reader understand the arthropod. Doyle explains that the creature was nearly a centimeter wrong, and lived in the area that is now known as Scandinavia. The arthropod lived during the Cambrian Period, which gave rise to a rapid diversification of life, which produced odd creatures such as the agnostus pisiformis. Secondly, Doyle includes information about how the arthropod lived its life. For example, she includes, “it started its life as a larva and ‘developed into adulthood by repeatedly shedding and regrowing its hard exoskeleton’” (Doyle, 1). She also includes that the shell of the creature resembles that of a clam, and that it fed off of organic matter out of the ocean water. By including this information, she helps the reader understand how the creature grows and matures, how it appeared, and it’s diet. Lastly, Doyle states how these findings relate to the scientific world. By doing this, she helps the reader understand why the new information is of importance. Doyle explains that the species serves as an index fossil, which is used to date layers of rock. Since the fossils were so well preserved in the rock, scientists are able to understand the anatomy of the animal, which in turn reveals a lot about its ecology and mode of life. By studying the anatomical structure of the fossil, it allows scientists to speculate about how other arthropods evolved, and thereby allowing scientists to understand their evolution as a whole.
Though Doyle’s review is well written, there are certain areas where there is room for improvement. For example, in the first paragraph, she fails to define what an arthropod is, though the entire review centers around this creature. Doyle could easily fix this issue by including the definition of arthropod, and explaining what the difference between an arthropod and the agnostus pisiformis. Another area that leaves room for improvement is the length of of her first paragraph. I believe that if Doyle included more detail while summarizing the article, it would strengthen her review. This issue could be resolved by including more detail about arthropods, how the scientists discovered the fossil, and comparing the arthropods to other creatures that the reader would most likely be familiar with.
As a result of reading this review, I understand that because we have discovered the well preserved fossils, we are able to understand the whole anatomy of the arthropods, its ecology, and mode of life. This finding is very important because with this information, we are able to further our discoveries speculating how other arthropods evolved, contributing to the understanding of evolution as a whole. The reason why I chose to read this review is because the title, “500-Million-Year-Old Creature Looks Like Space Alien in Re-Creation,” is very compelling, and it reminded me of the discoveries of the early hominids. This review has reminded me that it is very likely that there are so many different fossils of unknown creatures that hold a piece of the history that are waiting to be discovered.