Sophia Sulimirski
Mr. Ippolito
Bio D Odd
12 December 2016
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/science/monkeys-speech.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront>.
The article “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It,” by Carl Zimmer, describes the new studies seen recently through which conclusions have been made regarding the reason why monkeys are unable to speak like humans. Dr. Lieberman, a professor at Brown University, Dr. Fitch, a student of Dr. Lieberman, and Dr. Ghazanfar, a neuroscientist collaborated to look further into the specific movements of a monkey’s vocal tract. Using three dimensional rendering, the scientists were able to map out the sounds monkey’s could make if air was pushed through this area. It was determined that monkeys could make vowel sounds, however do not have the brains to do it, as in, their brains are wired differently to that of a human. Dr. Ghazanfar states that “If they had the brain, they could produce intelligible speech,” however this ability is one only seen in humans as a result of thousands of years of evolution. If they had the brains to do it, monkeys would be able to speak using vowels, however not consonants. Without the use of certain sounds, such as a long e, the language monkeys could have would be a lot less elaborate than that of a human, however vowels alone are a good starting point.
Although this information applies to a different species altogether, this discovery may allow for a deeper understanding of the human evolution process. Learning about how monkey vocal chords have developed differently to those of a human can allow us to trace the human species back in time, to see how we branched away from our monkey ancestors. Speech is one of our most extraordinary features, and understanding why primitive species are unable to talk may allow us to understand how humans were able to develop the ability to speak.
This article was very well written, and written using simple language, allowing for all readers to understand its topic. It provided background into various experiments conducted by scientists that tested the ways in which monkey vocal chords work, in order to provide a detailed argument for why monkeys can't talk like people. Although this was good, the organization of the article was slightly confusing. The order in which the experiments were described made it confusing to understand the overall point being made in the article. It the article itself were a little longer, with more information given about each experiment, it would be a lot less confusing.
Thomas Bender
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology
12/11/16
Sulimirski, Sophia. "Http://bhscorebio.blogspot.com/2016/12/sophia-sulimirski-mr.html#comment-form." Blogger. N.p., 11 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
This week for i am commenting on the enlightening analysis by Sophia Sulimirski on the recent New York Times article titled, “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It”. this review was fantastic in almost every way. For starters, the article that was chosen if from a reputable source, so there is no risk of it being false. Secondly, Sophia did an amazing job of finding and incorporating a meaningful quote. Not only did was this quote insightful, but it was also well placed. Last but not least, Sophia was appropriately critical of the article, this critique showed that she was employing great analytical skills whilst reading this article.
Although this article was good overall, it did have its downfalls. An example of this, is that the document is poorly formatted, this is because the line spacing and font size is inconsistent throughout the review. Also, i feel that some of the sentences were phrased awkwardly. Both of these two facts take away from what was overall a great reading experience.
The contents of this review are quite enlightening and i don't believe i will forget the subject of the article on the near future. I chose this review because i had read the article that it was based on only a day prior. I believe that from this point forth, i will have a greater appreciation for monkeys and their abilities.
Kirsten Ircha 12/19/16
ReplyDeleteCore Biology Honors
Current Event #11
Citation:
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
My fellow classmate Sophia Sulimirski wrote an insightful review on the article, “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It,” by Carl Zimmer. This article centers around how studies have been performed in trying to figure out why monkeys do not speak like humans. These studies were researched by Dr. Lieberman, a professor at Brown University, Dr. Fitch, a student of Dr. Lieberman, and Dr. Ghazanfar, a neuroscientist. They were able to map out the sounds to be created if air was pushed through monkey vocal tracts. They found that the animals were able to create vowel sounds but simply did not have the brain to do so. This summarization of the article was done well as it was stated basically and with a good amount of crucial information without being overcomplex. Also, the language choice allowed the review to read easily as the vocabulary did not involve unneeded complication. Lastly, the topic was chosen well as it is very interesting yet is often not heard of or unpopular. I found the research to be fascinating and am glad I now possess the knowledge gained through reading the review.
Although the article content was superb, a couple areas could be improved simply. To start, the sentence structure was at times awkward making the review sound quite odd. This was only in a few areas and could be easily improved through editing and peer editing to make sure that the structure flows well. Also, I feel the review lacked more specific examples from the original article. In the future assignments this can be refined through more quotes or factual information for the text being reviewed.
From this article my perception of animals has changed as I now see them as more of equals. Thinking that monkeys have the capability but not the intelligence to create vowel sounds shocks me as they could eventually create a less elaborate language through evolution. Before reading this article I was unaware of the mind and body power of such animals. Now, I am fully aware of the potential powers in each animals and will actively have more respect for these beings.
Bridget Sands
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio H
12/20/16
Hyperlink / Citation found on Report:
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
I read my classmate Sophia’s report on “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It”, published by Carl Zimmer in The New York Times. Throughout her report, there were many different sections in which she excelled. This includes when she created the seriousness of the problem, and its relevance to today’s time. She explained that humans’ capability to speak is very unique and specific to our species. Although monkeys have similar DNA, there was not been any direct study to explore why they cannot speak like humans, prior to this. That’s why, even though it turned out to be impossible mentally, it was shocking that monkeys might have the physical ability to speak like humans. Sophia also excelled at the explanation of why monkeys could not talk. She goes on to say that although monkeys have the physical capability to talk, they don’t have the mental capability, as humans and monkeys brains are wired differently. Finally, Sophia backed up her data properly. She was able to quote the author of the research, and therefore validate her research, instead of just making assumptions or inferences based on it, her opinions were backed by professional ones.
Although Sophia excelled in many different sections of her report, there are also areas that need improvement. She briefly explained that the monkeys weren’t able to talk like humans because their brains were wired differently. However, it would have been better if she had done more research on evolution and the differences between monkeys and humans, for it would have brought clarification and more order to her paper. Also, she continued to use colloquial language throughout her report. These words include phases such as, “it would be” and “although this was good”.
While reading her report, I had an “ah-ha” moment. This was when I realized that although not mentally, monkeys have the physical ability to talk like humans. It is shocking, for as the way evolution progressed, I had no idea that this was even possible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexander New
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology H
12/20/16
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/science/monkeys-speech.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
My classmate, Sophia, wrote an intriguing review of the article, “Monkeys Could Talk but They Don’t Have the Brains For It”, by Carl Zimmer from the New York Times. The article mainly focuses on the studies that scientists performed on monkeys to see why they do not form speech like humans can. Dr. Lieberman, a professor at Brown University, Dr. Fitch, and Dr. Ghazanfar were the scientists performing this experiments. Sophia excelled in many different parts of her review. The first thing I liked was that she explained very clearly that a human’s capability to speak is very unique to our species, even though monkeys have similar DNA to us. Sophia also managed to summarize the article very clearly, while keeping it concise so the reader was not confused. Finally, I thought Sophia’s choice of topic was very good because it is not touched on very often but as a human, it is always fun to think about if you could speak to animals.
Even though Sophia’s review is very well done, there is some room for improvement in certain areas. First, I think it would have added to the authenticity of the review if Sophia had included a few more examples from the article. Using more quotes would further reinforce what she wrote. Second, she could have been more formal with her review, so that it felt professional, but that is simply editing a few words in the review.
Overall, I learned that monkeys may have the physical capability to speak like humans, but unfortunately they do not contain the mental requirements to form words and sentences like humans can. However, it is very interesting to know that monkeys could potentially speak like humans if they ever evolve to have larger brains.
Ellie Parson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Bio D Odd
19 December 2016
Sophia Sulimirski wrote a wonderful review on the article “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It” by Carl Zimmer. This article focuses on a primate’s mental ability to speak and how well they could form certain sounds with their vocal tracts and mouth shapes. Scientists have concluded that they do have the ability to talk, but they were still limited in vowels and are missing a link in the brain. Human speech today was created by the evolution of vocal tracts as well as parts of the brain. Sophia had excelled in three parts aside from the other successes she had in her review. The first was the connection to importance and relevance the article and the topic offer in the present day. Sophia mentions that even though the test was done to monkeys, it can help scientists understand the evolution of vocal advancements in human history. This may have been slightly mentioned in the article, but it is an insightful noteworthy point nonetheless. To further prove the idea, Sophia had expanded on it to highlight its significance. Even though the outcome was that monkeys lack the full ability to speak like human beings, the information can be used to support other hypotheses or ideas, such as the evolution of humans from our monkey relatives. Sophia used a quote from one of the scientists in addition to introducing them which was beneficial. She uses this quote to back up a claim in the sentence prior to it. The quote as said by a doctor in the studies conducted by a number of other doctors, and was appropriate to use as it added true information right from the article. Introducing the doctor beforehand, even though it was not a long introduction, can help the reader understand that the quote is valid to the context of her review. Another factor Sophia excelled in was in her summary. She was able to analyze the article and take out information to summarize what she deemed more important than other information, causing her summary to be small yet compact with a decent amount of details. This article, as Sophia pointed out in her critique, could be seen as disorganized. Still, Sophia fought this difficulty and summarized the article, proving she has the capability to work through difficult articles and extract proper details.
Sophia’s article was profound, but there are some parts that could have been advised. There is a repetition of the word “however” in multiple sentences, and this may distract the reader as it can take away from the article. The total amount of times it was used in the summary was four times. A solution would be to use words such as “yet” or “still,” or use a thesaurus to find words of better fit if she cannot think of alternatives. Another section that could have been improved was the positive critique. It was vague and had barely had examples from the text that supported the claims being made. Sophia referred to experiments that contained information in her critique, but was not specific about which experiments and the information she was complimenting.
From the article and review, it can be learned how special and intricate evolutions have to be in order for traits like the ability of speech to be bestowed onto a species. Monkeys are still missing a few of the elements necessary for humanistic vocal language, yet our own species is capable of communicating vocally and does everyday. Communication through multiple languages is an extremely important tool, and is somewhat unique to our own species. Therefore, a greater appreciation for human characteristics can be gained. In examples like monkeys, they may be able to form some sounds but not as clearly or fully as human beings. There is some connections I can make to this article from my own life. One is that talking and speaking may have been taken for granted many times in my life by myself. It does not always occur to me how amazing language and the human voice is.
Citations
ReplyDeleteZimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
Sulimirski, Sophia. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don't Have the Brains for It." Rev. of The New York Times, by Carl Zimmer. The New York Times n.d.: n. pag. The New YorkTimes. 9 Dec. 2016. Web. .
Samantha Huss
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
D Odd
20 December 2016
Current Event 11 (Comment)
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
Sophia’s review of the article, “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It,” was very well done. Specifically, she did a great job of providing efficient evidence to support her claims. Also, she did provided a lot of detail about the article to ensure that the reader fully understood the content. Finally, Sophia used impressive language which ensured that the review remained interesting and was not repetitive.
Although her review was very well done, she could have improved a few aspects of the review to make it better. For example, although she did talk about the evidence from the article, she did not include many quotes to directly provide information from the article. This would have helped to add to the authenticity of the review. In order to fix this, Sophia could add more direct quotes to her review. Also, Sophia could have organized the structure of some sentences better to make them clearer. Her word choice was very good, but the actual layout of some of her sentences felt slightly forced and could confused the reader. In order to fix this, she could reread her review after she finished it looking for ways to restructure her sentences so the entire review flows more.
Overall, Sophia did a great job of writing an interesting and easy to understand review. Her review taught me a lot about the topic which I previously did not know very much about. Specifically, it was very interesting for me to learn that monkeys have the same physical ability to talk to humans. However, they cannot talk because they don’t have the mental ability to do so. This was shocking because people always think of humans being the only creatures able to talk to each other, however, monkeys are not as far away from being able to do so as we thought.
Sarah Whitney
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Bio D Odd
19 December 2016
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
My classmate, Sophia Sulimirski wrote a review on the article, “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It,” by Carl Zimmer. There were many great aspects to this review. First, she introduced each person mentioned in the Article and explained what they did, which explains how that can contribute. This is important to include because we can better understand the review than if the scientists weren’t introduced. Next, Sophia gave a clear summary that was easy to understand and had a constant flow of information. Lastly, Sophia stated, “Although this information applies to a different species altogether, this discovery may allow for a deeper understanding of the human evolution process.” This is a fantastic sentence to include because it gets the reader thinking, even after finishing reading the review. It may also inspire them to go out and do some research on their own.
Though there were many good aspects, there were 2 points that could be fixed to strengthen the reader’s understanding and perspective. First, the structure of sentences could be changed for some to help give the reader a clearer understanding. Also, it would be better to give some direct quotes from the article to make sure some of the original information is getting across.
After reading this review, my view on animal studies has greatly changed because this shows how much more we could find from doing tests like the one explained in the article and more. I am amazed that monkeys could have been able to talk of their brains were changed just the right way and this leaves me wondering what it would be like if humans couldn’t talk. This will change my perception because it also leaves me wondering if we could somehow program the brain of a monkey with developing technology to allow it to talk.
Andres Saralegui
ReplyDelete12/19/16
Biology 10H
Current Event #11
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. .
My classmate Sophia Sulimirski wrote a current event article on “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." by Carl Zimmer. This article discusses new studies of why monkeys are unable to speak like humans. In her first paragraph, Sophia does a great job at explaining who the key researchers are in this experiment. She states that Dr. Lieberman, a professor at Brown University, Dr. Fitch, a student of Dr. Lieberman, and Dr. Ghazanfar, a neuroscientist collaborated to research why monkey are unable to speak. This is helpful for her assignment because it lets the reader be aware who is conducting this type of experiment. Sophia continues to do a great job at explaining the experiment that was done, “Using three dimensional rendering, the scientists were able to map out the sounds monkey’s could make if air was pushed through this area.” using this they were able to figure out that the monkey’s brain isn't used when monkeys speak unlike humans. Sophia even adds if monkeys had an increase in brain size it would be able to speak vowels but not consonants. This adds extra information to the reader and solidified the experiment as a whole.
One element Sophia lacked in is the sentence structure was at times awkward making the review sound quite odd. This was only in a few areas and could be easily improved through editing and peer editing to make sure that the structure flows well. Another element that Sophia could have improved in is how she briefly explained that the monkeys weren’t able to talk like humans because their brains were wired differently. If she spent more time explaining it would make more sense to the reader. Lastly, I think it would have added to the authenticity of the review if Sophia had included a few more examples from the article. Using more quotes would further reinforce what she wrote.
In conclusion, I thought this article was very intriguing and I was surprised to read that monkey’s brain isn't used when monkey speak unlike humans.
Caitlin Mooney 1/2/16
ReplyDeleteCore Bio Current event 12
My classmate Sophia wrote a review on the article, “ Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times, by Carl Zimmer. The article talked about how researchers were studying why monkeys couldn't talk like humans. I thought my classmate Sophia did a great job writing her review. One reason I think this is because she did a good job relating her topic to society when she told the readers about how Learning about how monkey vocal chords have developed differently than those of a human can allow us to trace the human species back in time. Another thing I think Sophia did well was was how she was able to critique the author by saying that “the organization of the article was slightly confusing” . Also Sophia did a great job explaining how they tested the monkeys, she explained how the scientists used 3D rendering to map out the sounds the monkeys were able to make.
Although I think Sophia did a great job overall on her current event review, I still think there are some things she could do to improve her review. One thing I think Sophia would have done to improve her review is she could have included more specific quotes from the article instead of just explaining the topic to the reader. If she had done this I think that the review would be given more credibility because the quotes could have backed up her claims. Another way for Sophia to improve her review is that she could have explained her positive critique better, it would have helped the reader if there were specific examples of experiments that she gave positive feedback to.
Overall, I think Sophia’s review was very good and she covered an important and relevant topic. Now that I have read this article I am surprised because monkeys have the ability to talk like humans, which means that maybe other animals are capable of more than we thought.
Citation:
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/science/monkeys-speech.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront.
Sulimirski, Sophia. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don't Have the Brains for It." Rev. of The New York Times, by Carl Zimmer. The New York Times n.d.: n. pag. The New YorkTimes. 9 Dec. 2016. Web. .
http://bhscorebio.blogspot.com/2016/12/sophia-sulimirski-mr.html#comment-form
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Dec. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
ReplyDelete.
Jay Burstein
1/4/16
Mr. Ippolito
My fellow classmate Sophia Sulimirski wrote a very interesting and insightful article on “Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don’t Have the Brains for It.” This particular article written by Carl Zimmer in the New York Times address why monkeys do not have the ability to talk. Furthermore, some aspects in Sophia's review were solid. For example, she included the scientists name who were conducting this study. Therefore, little things like including the name of scientists involved in the research makes the review more legitimate. Another thing that I liked about Sophia's review is that how she incorporated a quote from Dr. Ghazanfar who was one of the scientists involved with this research. Because of this, I can understand the review a little bit better and it is more insightful. Finally, the last thing that I liked about Sophia's review is that she stated the process that the scientists went through to arrive at their conclusion. From this, this is another way that the review is more insightful. Also, the review is more understandable.
While there are certain aspects of her review that are strong, Sophia's review has a few flaws. As an example, Sophia's sentence structure was awkward. What I mean is that some of her sentences were long so it had me a tiny bit confused at times. She could easily fix this by making some of her sentences shorter because then the review will be more clear and concise. Another flaw from the review is that there was a lack of examples from the article which makes the review less authentic. To fix this, she should incorporate a few more examples, at least 2 to this particular review. If she fixes this, the review is more legit, meaningful, and stronger.
Overall, I found Sophia's review to be informative and very interesting. Before reading this article, I did not know that monkeys had the capability to talk like humans. Moreover, I hope that more research can be done on this particular study so that the people can be informed of this extremely interesting fact.
Catie Burnell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology D-Block Odd
February 1, 2017
Sophia wrote an excellent review of the article “Monkeys Could Talk, But They Don’t Have the Brains For It” by Carl Zimmer. The article explores one of the fundamental differences between humans and primates: the ability to articulate words. Sophia did a great job in making this interesting but complex topic simple to understand by explaining in an eloquent way how monkeys could possibly speak. She also provided specific examples from the article, such as the scientists who contributed to the research and the research techniques they used, to further back the claims in her review. I also enjoyed how Sophia used the information she gained from the article to make inferences about how said information can help scientists further understand evolution, thus proving how the article is relevant today. While Sophia’s review is overall great, there are still a few aspects of her writing she could improve upon. For example, it would have been great if she had included some other recent discoveries made along the lines of the ones mentioned in the article she reviewed to give readers some context. Additionally, I think some more examples of how monkeys could talk would have augmented the review by making it even more filled with evidence. However, other than that, the review of this great article was very well-written and interesting.
The most interesting point I gained from reading the article was that, contrary to what I had believed previously, primates actually would have the ability to talk if their brains were “wired” correctly. W. Tecumseh Fitch, a scientist at the University of Vienna and a contributor to the research explored in the article, states that “A monkey’s vocal tract would be perfectly adequate to produce hundreds, thousands of words.” Monkeys’ vocal cords are actually well-equipped to produce speech similar to that of humans, but the differences in their brains from humans simply do not allow them to form words.
Zimmer, Carl. "Monkeys Could Talk, but They Don't Have the Brains for It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/science/monkeys-speech.html?action=click&contentCollection=science%C2%AEion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0