http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/science/25human.html?ref=science
A new species of human may have been discovered recently. A species so rare that all that is left is the fragment of the bone of a child. The child who carried the DNA lineage was probably 5 to 7 years old, but it is not yet known if it was a boy or a girl. The finger bone was excavated by Russian archaeologists in 2008 from a place known as the Denisova cave. Researchers extracted DNA from the bone and reported Wednesday that it differed from that of both modern humans and of Neanderthals. By extraction of mitochondrial DNA, scientists can come to the conclusion that the bone belonged to a distinct human lineage that migrated out of Africa at a different time from the two known archaic human species.
One researcher said at a news conference that before confirming that the child was a new species, he needed to rule out the possibility that it belonged to a population formed by interbreeding between the new lineage and a known species. He said he was analyzing the rest of the child’s DNA, from the main or nuclear genome, to test this possibility.
The artifacts found in the cave in the same layer as the finger bone include ornaments and a bracelet that are typical of modern human sites from the Upper Paleolithic age in Europe. These are puzzling artifacts to be found with a nonmodern human species. But bones can move up and down in archaeological sites, and it is hard to know if the finger bone is truly associated with these artifacts even though there was little sign of mixing in the cave’s layers.
This article relates to forensic science because it uses DNA analysis, anthropology, and dirt analysis to find out more about a particular person.
14 comments:
I found that Cassandra’s review of the article was very well done. It was perfectly brief yet elaborative, leaving little to the imagination (in the best way possible). I was able to grasp all the details of this most interesting case with ease and pleasure due to Cassandra’s writing style. I additionally enjoyed her topic choice; it is these kinds of cases that make me curious about the world of forensics—the unsolved mysteries that perplex the common scientists. Such cases are much more interesting to read about instead of the usual ones about technological advances. Finally, it was interesting in the way that Cassandra tied in what the article was about to what we have just studied in class. Relevance is always appreciated.
However, I would have like a little more consideration to grammar. A great piece of writing can always be hindered by a disregard for grammar and this is no exception. Would have liked to have seen a bit more of that. Also, I would have liked to have known (if possible) any hypothesis on what such a new species of human would look like, or any types of hypothesis for that matter. The great minds of science must have some ideas, and that piques my curiosity.
It is always interesting to know that the hunt for missing links is still going strong, and that we have not yet discovered all there is to know in the world. This archeological find may open up the door to a whole new field of enlightenment, and just that is a beautiful concept.
The article, “Bone May Reveal A New Human Group,” was a very interesting article. One well-presented aspect was the way the review was broken up making it very easy to follow and understand. Another factor was how the mystery of the bone fragment leads to several possibilities based off the extraction of mitochondrial DNA. Finally, it is very interesting to know that there was mixing in the cave layers, which may indicate someone tampering with the evidence.
While the article review was good, I have several suggestions. First of all, I would have liked a better guess on what species the bone fragment is from because I am confused as to whether it may be animal or a mutant human breed. As well, there could have been more detail about the anthropology and dirt analysis used to actually find the bone fragment. Overall, I liked the article and found it interesting how the artifacts that were present along with the bone fragment do not really match.
3 aspects that were well presented:
The way in which Cassandra presented the evidence made it easy to understand, she had all the facts straight off, and the opening sentence immediately grabbed my attention.
2 suggestions:
For this article I would suggest she had further researched the dirt analysis and the anthropology relevant to the article istself. I would also say to see if any more current theories about the bone had been formed since it's 2008 discovery.
1 aspect that impressed you:
The fact that this human could be tied to the artifacts which, up until now that had only been used by archaic human speices from a more modern time.
The aspects of this review that were well presented were how much detail she went into, how she related it to forensic science, and how she made it clear that it is not definite that it is a new species of human. This review could have been made better by perhaps explaining why it took so long for the news to come out (the bone was found in 2008), and perhaps including how the bone was found. From this review I learned that DNA can be extracted from bones that are thousands of years old.
This topic is fascinating. The fact that there could be a third or more species of human lineage is no longer unbelievable. I thought it was great that she provided a past history of the discovery as well as a present view. I commend Cassandra on adding detail about the site in which it was found such as the modern bracelets.
I would have liked to know about any future plans which would involve this discovery if the author could find it, but besides that there isn't anything else I would change other than maybe adding a new paragraph.
I learned that even though we may think we have a handle on everything that has happened in our past genetic history, there are still many mysterious things that leave scientists left wondering.
I thought that Cassandra’s article was very interesting, I particularly enjoyed the overall topic of the article, a new species of human is a very appealing topic. I also thought the Cassandra went into a great amount of detail which made the article very understandable. Finally, my favorite aspect was the relation to forensic science and how this “species” remains a mystery because not much is known about it other than it was between 5 and 7 years old. Personally I thought that this article could have perhaps given some more information on the suspected species or how the bone was come across because many people could have mistaken this rare bone. Overall I was unaware that such a bone had been found that could reveal another human group so I learned that.
Cassandra summarized the article "Bone May Reveal A New Human Group." The way Cassandra broke up the article made it easy to understand. Another good aspect about this review is that it was brief, yet informed readers of everything they needed to know. Finally, the topic of this article was extremely interesting.
To improve this summary, Cassandra could have been more specific on the type of remains were found: animal or human. Also, it would have been interesting to hear about why these findings are just now being shared with the public.
Overall, I found this article very interesting especially because of the fact that the artifacts found along with the bones do not have a large/if any connection to the bones themselves.
This article was very intersting and i found that Cassandra's review of the article was very well summarized. Her review was well put together and easy to understand. The article was interesting when explaining how the bone fragment leads to several possible results based off extraction of the mitochondrial DNA. I also liked how she made it clear that it could not be a new species of human.
Some suggestions I had for the article review are that i would have appreciated a better hypothesis on where the bone fragment could have come from cause i wasn't sure whether it could have been animal or human. It also could have included where the bone was found to make a better hypothesis of the bone fragment's origin.
I did appreciate this article because it was very interesting how the artifacts which were present with the bone fragment did not match.
3 aspects that were well presented:
I personally found Cassandra's article and review very interesting and the way the evidence was presented made it easy to understand.I also enjoyed the topic and subject of this article =.
2 suggestions:
One suggestion i have for this article is I would research further to see if any more current theories about the bone had been formed since discovery, Secondly I would suggest she further researched the dirt analysis and the anthropology relevant to the article and overall summary.
1 aspect that impressed you:
1 aspect that impressed me was the fact that this human could be tied to the artifacts which, up until now had only been used by archaic human speices from a more modern time.
I thought that Cassandra's review of this article was well done and was brief but did a good job of explaining the article. I especially liked how Cassandra tied the article into what we are currently learning about in our forensics class. I also liked Cassandra's topic choice, the unsolved forensic mysteries are very interesting I think. These cases are much more interesting to read about instead of the usual ones that talk about technological advances in forensic science. Finally, I thought that the details were all very well explained and expanded well on the article.
I first would have enjoyed for Cassandra to use more quotes maybe from forensic experts in the field. I also would have liked for her to talk more about what she thinks the ramifications would be if the new species of human actually came to be.
I think that this is a very interesting article topic because I always like to hear about the unsolved stories in forensics and it is very cool to hear about things like this.
Three aspects of the review I liked were how she presented this new bone as from a completely new and rare species of human. I also liked how they were able to identify the age of the species and how it relates to forensic science.
Two suggestions I would make were that I was unsure if this was a new race such as negroid or caucasoid classification or if the bone was from an unknown ancestor of humans. I would also suggest to talk a little more about how this can help forensic science.
One aspect I thought was very interesting was the idea of a rare human lineage that nobody has yet to found and we are still finding links today.
The way in which Cassandra presented the evidence made it easy to understand, she had all the facts straight off, and the opening sentence immediately grabbed my attention.
One suggestion i have for this article is I would research further to see if any more current theories about the bone had been formed since discovery, Secondly I would suggest she further researched the dirt analysis and the anthropology relevant to the article and overall summary.
One aspect I thought was very interesting was the idea of a rare human lineage that nobody has yet to found and we are still finding links today.
The aspects of this review that were well presented were how much detail she went into, how she related it to forensic science. I was able to follow all the details of this most interesting case. I thought it was great that she provided a past history of the discovery as well as a present view.
For this article I would suggest she had further researched the dirt analysis. it would have been interesting to hear about why these findings are just now being shared with the public.
Overall, I found this article very interesting especially because of the fact that the artifacts found along with the bones.
“Bone May Reveal A New Human Group,” was a very intriguing article about DNA. One aspect I enjoyed was the way the review was broken up, which made it very understandable. Another thing I found well presented was how the mystery of the bone fragment led to several possibilities based off the extraction of mitochondrial DNA. As well as that, it is very interesting to know that there was mixing in the cave layers, indicating someone had tampered with the evidence.
While I thought that the article review was well done, there were still some flaws. First of all, I would have liked a better estimate on what species the bone fragment came from because I am unsure as to whether it is an animal or a mutant human breed. Also, there could have been more detail about the anthropology and dirt analysis used to actually find the bone fragment. However, I enjoyed this article and found it interesting how the artifacts that were present along with the bone fragment do not really match.
Post a Comment