Sunday Ladas
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology C-EVEN
26 October 2018
Citation:
St. Fleur, Nicholas. “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First
Evolved.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct.
2018,
Where did the first fish evolve? The Answer may be shallow
By: Nicholas St. Fleur
Believe it or not, there used to be fish with a bony body, spikes, had tails, and lacked jaws. REcently scientists have discovered that more than 400 million years ago, there used to be all different types of fish in the ocean that could have looked like there would be no such thing in today’s world. After researching more about this topic and finding fish fossils, scientists have reason to believe that fish used to swim in areas that were closer to the coastlines of the continents rather than deep in the ocean. Today scientists are wondering where the extinct fishes relatives have evolved. When researching this topic, the fish fossils keep bringing the scientists farther and farther back into time. They have now discovered the origins of the vertebrates who were our ancestors, when they first came to the new land. A vertebrate paleontologist from the university of chicago stated that, with the new fossil database scientists have put together, “Previously we thought the early reef systems would be the cradle of diversification. But no, it seems that these early armored forms were in much nearer shore environments”. Scientists are closer and closer to discovering the where fish today have evolved, they have established two main fish groups, the bony fish and the cartilaginous fish group.
Discovering the evolution of fish and how they have evolved over time is a major discovery that could be made one day. We already have little bits and pieces of the puzzle and are close to figuring out what fish today have evolved from the jawless and spiked fish. From the fish that scientist have discovered that have evolved they have been shocking discoveries, and the continuous discovered is just a reminder of the evolution in the world. EVerything evolve, maybe humans will evolve even more, what will humans look like in 400 million years from now?
I thought that this article was constructed in a exceptional manor, I feel that the author made very good points and the authors tone showed the point of view he favoured. It was evident that the author was interested and really liked the topic he was writing about. However, I felt that Nicholas St. Fleur (the author) could have done a better job looking out the other side of this topic, I felt that he just continued to state how amazing the discovery was and there was nothing to refute it the point or a lot more evidence to back up his argument. Lastly, I thought that he could have included more information about how the new pieces of evidence that has been discovered rather than just touching on a few pieces with not explanation. Overall, I felt this piece was very well written, however, it could have been looking at the other side of the argument.
St. Fleur, Nicholas. “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First
ReplyDeleteEvolved.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct.
2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/science/fish-evolution-shallow-co
asts.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&acti
on=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&v
ersion=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
In Sunday article review, she did a very good job of summarizing the main points of the article. The article clearly focused on a very complex topic, yet I was very easily able to understand her description of how these fish have evolved in miraculous way. Secondly, I was impressed by Sunday's criticism of the writing. In particular, I strongly agree with her point that a weakness of the article was it's mere repetition of how amazing the discovery was, as I felt similarly. Finally, I feel that Sunday's analysis of the impact the discoveries may cause were exceptional. I am fascinated by her point that we never know how much we humans will continue to evolve in the next several million years.
While Sunday did a very good job of summarizing, it may have helped her cause to include slightly more background information about the evolution of fish. While she mentions the types of fish that were once in existence, it may have been helpful to include how they evolved and how they compare to modern fish. Additionally, there were some grammatical errors throughout the review and many awkward phrases, such as "that could have looked like there would be no such thing in today’s world". These errors can have been fixed though revision without too much trouble.
Reading about this topic was very interesting to me. I've always known about the wonders of evolution, but never cease to be amazed at the incredible ways it has caused our world to change over time. However, we still know remarkably little about the topic. We can only imagine how much we will one day understand about the process each species has gone through to evolve to the point it's at. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how much more we humans will evolve in the years to come! As of now, we are still trying to slowly put together the puzzle pieces to build our understanding of this vast but incredible topic.
Although most of the organisms we identify as “fish” today are osteichthyes (bony fish), there are also those that possess bone structures made of cartilage (chondrichthyes) and jawless fish as well. Recently, researchers found that these jawless fish first evolved and originated from shallow waters near the coast, contrary to what many scientists previously believed (i.e. coral reefs, open ocean). Upon reading the article “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First Evolved” by Nicholas St. Fleur and the corresponding review by Sunday Ladas, I found that there were many aspects of her review that were well done. For instance, Sunday uses an effective hook rather than starting her review systematically as most students would. She states, “Believe it or not, there used to be fish with a bony body, spikes, had tails, and lacked jaws.” This vivid imagery and description captures her readers’ attention and has them intrigued and eager to read on. She also aptly describes the enormous impact of the discovery and how it relates to the world scientifically, further offering questions and probing the long-term effects of these findings (“everything evolves… what will humans look like in 400 million years from now?”). Sunday also analyzed a weakness of the article that I had not thought about before reading her explanation: lack of a different side to the finding. Although St. Fleur briefly mentions that the study has some minor flaws, the article is overwhelmingly positive, and it would be interesting to see another perspective on the issue discussing the potential error with the experiment or even describing the experiment in greater detail.
ReplyDeleteSunday’s review conversely has room to improve as well. The largest error that I found with her paper was her command of grammar. Typically, this would not pose a very large problem; however, in her case, Sunday’s grammatical errors actually impede comprehension and smooth reading. For instance, she states that “I thought that this article was constructed in a exceptional manor, I feel that the author made very good points and the authors tone showed the point of view he favoured.” She not only uses the wrong “manor” to describe “manner”, but also uses a run-on sentence, making the sentence convoluted and more difficult to understand. She could fix this issue by proofreading her review more carefully. Additionally, her review is a bit disordered and the some of the topics are in strange positions in the paragraph. She poses the question of where fish had evolved immediately after her discussions of where they had evolved, to offer an example. To correct this error, again, more thorough proofreading is necessary and she should try to pay attention to the order of the subjects that she discusses.
After reading this article and review, I learned that fish evolved far closer to land than we had once thought. This offers the interesting hypothesis that perhaps fish were an ancestor of the species of homo sapiens, something that seems incredibly far-fetched today. I chose this article because I find the idea of evolution fascinating, especially concerning two physically-unrelated species that have a common attribute, gene, or ability. This is a groundbreaking discovery because it opens up myriad possibilities for study in the expanded evolution of fish, humans, and any other species imaginable, linking us all with the common thread of DNA.
Charlotte Cagliostro
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology / Current Event 7
1/2/18
St. Fleur, Nicholas. “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First Evolved.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/science/fish-evolution-shallow-coasts.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfro
Sunday Ladas wrote an impressive review of Nicholas St. Fleur’s New York Times article: “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First Evolved.” The are three things, in specific, that Sunday did exceptionally well. First, she did a great job summarizing St. Fleur’s article. He writes in a sophisticated, complex style that could at times be confusing, but Sunday was able to summarize the main ideas of St. Fleur’s piece in a simple, easy-to-understand manner. Additionally, Sunday did a great job critiquing the Times article in her final paragraph. She mentioned St. Fleur’s shortcomings and what salient information he could add to his piece. Finally, I enjoyed Sunday’s captivating writing style. Sometimes scientific articles can be dry or boring; however, Sunday was able to find a balance between presenting relevant information and writing in an engaging manner.
Although Sunday did a nice job reviewing St. Fleur’s work, I think she could improve her writing in two ways. First, I think Sunday should have gone into more detail in her second paragraph. While I appreciated her thoughts regarding evolution, I think she could have delved in further regarding how the topics in St. Fleur’s article relate to life today. Secondly, I believe Sunday should have integrated more quotes and statistics into her review. While she added a few pieces of evidence, I feel like she included more in order to create a more complete summary for the reader.
Overall, Sunday wrote a great review. Through reading it, I learned a lot about fish and their evolution. One thing I found particularly interesting was how scientists are finding the skeletons of extinct fish and then they are tracing their evolution. I find it quite compelling how fish have adapted to changes in their environments and have physically transformed from their ancestors over the past 400 million years.
Luke Freeman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology Current Events 9 - Comment
November 24, 2018
St. Fleur, Nicholas. “A Shallow Hypothesis for Where Fish First Evolved.” The New York Times,
The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/science/fish-evolution-shallow-coasts.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront.
This article, reviewed masterfully by Chris Hutchins, this article covers an incredibly interesting topic. For starters, Chris did a great job at establishing the purpose of the article and giving the reader context. His summary is near-perfect in capturing the whole article, while keeping it brief. Secondly, in his explanatory section, he does a great job of bringing the reader back to the main premise of the article, as embodied by this statement, “Scientists are closer and closer to discovering the where fish today have evolved, they have established two main fish groups, the bony fish and the cartilaginous fish group.” Thirdly, Chris not only gives evidence, but provides his own analysis with pieces of the article, which makes this review very well done.
There were only two, minorly negative aspects of Chris’s review, the first being the lack of including some specific names or examples of the different types of fish in this particular area. This would have furthered Chris’s credibility, or ethos, with the reader. The second thing which could be improved upon in Chris’s review would be the slight repetitiveness at times. For example, Chris states that, “Discovering the evolution of fish and how they have evolved over time is a major discovery that could be made one day.” You do not have to be an English major to see that this sentence feels clunky and rushed. That being said, the repetitiveness only popped up at times, so the review overall remains spot on.
While this article did not have as a profound impact on me as some of the others I have read, it was still very interesting. Thinking about how animals evolve and change over time has always been fascinating for me, making this article well suited for me. The biggest take-away from the article is that a type a vertebrate can undergo such drastic evolution in such a short time. Questions raised by both Chris and the article, such as, “What will humans look like 400 million years from now?” allow for self reflection and a chance to think of the path which our civilization is going down. Will we end up as a Wall-E type species, or will genetic engineering have advanced far enough that every human will have the physique of Captain America? It’s these questions which prompt readers’ opinions, and allows for original thought. Its for this exact reason that the article is so impressionable and memorable, and that the learning experience gained this article is so unique.