Alisa Fominykh
Mr. Ippolito
Biology 10H D Odd
February 17, 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017, <www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/science/great-dying-permian-extinction-fossils.html> Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
This article, published by The New York Times, states about how recent discoveries of particular fossils have allowed for scientists to come to the conclusion that life rebounded quickly following a mass extinction. The investigation into this began when L. J. Krumenacker found seven or eight fossilized shark teeth in southeastern Idaho. After studying the fossils scientists dated them to be roughly 250 million years old, setting the creature to be alive shortly after the largest mass extinction on Earth which occurred 252 million years ago. This extinction was more destructive than the one which caused the extinction of dinosaurs 70 million years later, giving it the name “the Great Dying”. During this period 90% of species became extinct which states how difficult it would have been for life to be restored to the planet. By dating the shark teeth, shrimp, fish and squid fossils along with rocks found at the site, researchers determined the region used to be an underwater ecosystem 250 million years ago, making it 1.3 million years after the Great Dying. This contradicted the previous belief that ecosystems took 10 to 20 million years to flourish once more.
Although this occurred millions of years ago it helps scientists better understand how an ecosystem recovers after a mass extinction. This is especially beneficial to us now, since statistics suggest the Earth is due for another mass extinction.
This article did a good job explaining the findings on a level that would be understandable to an everyday person and was not too long in length that it bored the reader. However, it failed to explain the reasons that had previously suggested to scientists that a recovery from a mass extinction took much longer. Additionally, it would have been useful if the author had explained more about mass extinctions and how frequently they occurred, since I had to research this for myself to connect the dots as to why this scientific discovery would impact me if it related to something which occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Overall, some more background information regarding mass extinctions would have been useful.
Catie Burnell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology Honors
March 8, 2017
My classmate Alisa Fominykh wrote a great review on the article “After Earth’s Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” by Nicholas St. Fleur of the New York Times. Alisa did an excellent job summarizing this fascinating article in a way that is understandable for the reader. Additionally, I enjoyed how Alisa detailed how the new information gained on the aftermath of the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history is relevant to scientists and the general public today by mentioning that “statistics suggest that the Earth is due for another mass extinction.” I also thought that it was great how Alisa shared her ideas of how Nicholas St. Fleur could have improved upon the article. For example, Alisa suggests that St. Fleur “failed to explain the reasons that had previously suggested to scientists that a recovery from a mass extinction took much longer.” This shows that Alisa really paid attention to the article and wants to seek more information related to the article.
However, I think it would have been beneficial to include a few quotes from the article to prove the evidence she includes in her review, such as the statistics she provides. It also would have been great if Alisa had explained in a bit more detail the bustling marine life that would have been found soon after the Great Dying - I personally found this very interesting and think it would have added some detail to Alisa’s review. Overall, though, Alisa wrote a very comprehensive and informative review that I enjoyed reading.
The main aspect that stood out to me from the article was that scientists had previously inaccurately estimated the time that ecosystems recovered from the Great Dying by 9 to 19 million years! This point surprised me because such extensive research has been conducted on the Great Dying in the past, so I would have thought that more accurate estimations had been made. This article was a fascinating read and gave some great new insight into a heavily studied topic.
St. Fleur, Nicholas. "After Earth’s Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/science/great-dying-permian-extinction-fossils.html
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio: Current Event Comment #4
3 March, 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils
Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/science/great-dying-permian-extinction-fossils.html?_r=0
My classmate, Alisa Fominykh, wrote a review on the article titled “After Earth’s Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” by Nicholas St. Fleur from The New York Times. First off, Alisa did a wonderful job providing sufficient background information on the “Great Dying” extinction from 252 millions years ago. By doing this, she perfectly sets up for the rest of the article, while also being able to provide comparisons to other extinctions, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs 70 million years later. Another aspect that Alisa did well was making her article understandable for the readers. In addition to completing extra research on this topic, Alisa simplified the article, even though she says, “this article did a good job explaining the findings on a level that would be understandable to an everyday person…” This makes sure that Alisa’s readers will be able to fully understand her article and her purpose in writing it. Finally, Alisa also told us why this research is important for us and for our future on Earth. She writes about how this article “contradicted the previous belief that ecosystems took 10 to 20 million years to flourish” again after a mass extinction, then proceeded to say how this “helps scientists better understand how an ecosystem recovers after a mass extinction.” Then writes, “this is especially beneficial to us now, since statistics suggest the Earth is due for another mass extinction.” This allows her readers to connect to her article, her purpose in writing the review, and it allows them to understand its importance.
Alisa’s article was very well-written and organized, however, there were two aspects in which could have been improved. The first flaw regards her use of quotes. Alisa’s article would have been greatly improved and would have been much more credible if she had used quotes from her article. Alisa could have included at least two quotes, for example from Mr. L. J. Krumenacker and Dr. Daniel Stephen. Additionally, Alisa also could have explained how this research on the fossils themselves was conducted and she could have addressed specifically what types of animals had flourished in this area after the mass extinction. She could have included this information and analysis where she discusses dating the shark teeth and other marine fossils to determine how quickly the ecosystem formed or she could have mentioned this where she writes about how the ecosystem recovers after a mass extinction.
To conclude, Alisa’s article and analysis challenged me to think about the importance of fossils and about recognizing mass extinctions. Her article had a huge impact on me and how I view Earth’s past and what that can say about our future. I chose Alisa’s article because I am very interested in our Earth, animal life, and what fossils can provide us in terms of extinction. This experience has already changed my perception on how impactful fossils are to the scientific world, showing how they can provide information that will prove previous theories wrong and analyzing how history may repeat itself.
Olivia Doyle
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology
4 March 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017, Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
My classmate’s article entitled “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” discusses the discovery of certain fossils that suggest that life could have rebounded merely 1.3 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs, versus previous research that states it took between 10 to 20 million years for life to rebound. Alisa did a good job structuring her summary in a way that readers could easily follow it. She began with an overall statement on what the article was about, and then discussed what lead to the findings resulting from the discovery of these fossils. She even discusses why it is such a surprise that life rebounded so quickly, saying, “During this period 90% of species became extinct which states how difficult it would have been for life to be restored to the planet.” Alisa also provided a solid analysis on the article, stating how it succeeded, and how it could be improved. For example, she says, “Additionally, it would have been useful if the author had explained more about mass extinctions and how frequently they occurred…” By including this, Alisa allowed me to question the background of mass extinctions and how they affect us today. I am now interested in researching theories on future extinctions. Lastly, Alisa provided adequate insight into how mass extinctions affect us today, saying, “This is especially beneficial to us now, since statistics suggest the Earth is due for another mass extinction.” Again, this heightened my interest in the topic and in mass extinctions as a whole.
Although Alisa provided a very well structured summary, it needed to be more detailed. I would have liked for her to include details on the marine life that would have been found in this location, which the article discussed in depth. The article includes extensive imagery on this, stating, “ The ocean floor would have been covered in scavenging shrimp and lobsters, as well as sponges, clams and ancient starfish relatives that stood on stems and resembled underwater flowers.” This would have further improved Alisa’s review as it gives the reader more contextual information. Additionally, Alisa should have incorporated quotes into her review. It would have been interesting for her to include Mr. Krumenacker’s (the man who discovered the shark fossils) views on his discovery, as well as quotes from other scientists that were included in the article.
Overall, this article made me very interested in the topic of mass extinctions. What was most interesting to me was the fact that life could have rebounded almost 9 million years earlier than we had previously thought, which changes what we had believed to be true about ecosystems. The article and Alisa’s review of it made me want to delve further into how ecosystems work and the effects of past extinctions on our future.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology
3/6/17
St. Fleur, Nicholas. "After Earth’s Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/science/great-dying-permian-extinction-fossils.html
Current Events 4
My classmate Alisa Fominykh, wrote a very well-written review on the article “After Earth’s Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” by Nicholas St. Fleur. Alisa did a great job summarizing the article. She didn’t include too many details that would confuse the reader. Alisa also used words that were easy to understand, so her readers could understand the importance of what was discovered. Alisa provided multiple criticisms of the article. She writes, “However, it failed to explain the reasons that had previously suggested to scientists that a recovery from a mass extinction took much longer. Additionally, it would have been useful if the author had explained more about mass extinctions and how frequently they occurred…” This is a very important part of the review, one I think many people don’t spend enough time on. Readers can tell that she paid attention while the reading the article and analyzed the writing.
Alisa authored a great review, however there could be some adjustments made to improve this review. I think that Alisa should have used quotes from the article, either the author or the L.J. Krumenacker. The quotes would back up her claims and statements. She also could have added a description of what tests were inflicted upon the fossils in order to collect the findings. It would have been helpful to know the procedures of dating the shark teeth and the other fossils to understand what occurred.
Before reading this review, the only mass extinction I had heard of was the one that killed the dinosaurs, which occurred 70 million years after the one discussed. This was really interesting for me to learn about. I also learned how significant fossils are to discovering the truth about the Earth’s past and what we can look for in the future. Previously, I didn’t understand the information we can discover from fossils. I will now look differently at fossils and learn what other kinds of information we can find from them.
In the article, “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest,” my classmate Alisa analyses the authors findings. The thing that I found most surprising was the biggest find, that life rebounded rapidly after the asteroid hit the Earth. In my core earth science class, we discussed how bad this event was. There was ash covering the sun, and huge worldwide fires. However, we never discussed how rapid life's rebound was. I like how Alisa was able to conduct the facts of this event. She also conveyed the research and findings by the researchers in a manner that was very easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of this, I do feel Alisa could've used some quotes from the study to help boost the reader's understanding of this, but none the less she did a great job making the research easy to understand. I also feel that she could have expanded upon the topic of marine animals, and how this helped researchers conclude this study.
Finally, the thing about this article that shocked me the most, was that researchers were able to find out ALL of this by analysing fossils. I think it’s very important to be updated on new findings about the past, especially past extinction events because the article did say we are overdue for one. I will definitely be looking into more articles about this topic not only for my own research, but to help predict the future.
Julian Thomet
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Bio IH D135
06 March, 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils
Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017, Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
Current Events 4
My classmate, Alisa, wrote an review about the article “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest.” The article was about how the discovery of shark’s teeth has led scientists to conclude that life quickly regenerated after the most significant mass extinction event in history. One thing that Alisa did well was the detailed summary she gave about the findings by the scientists. She dedicated a significant portion of her review towards explaining what the scientists had actually discovered, which helps the reader have a strong understanding of the article being reviewed. Another thing that this review does well is to give a thorough critique of the article in question. Because the review explained that there was not enough background information, readers can know where further research may be required to gain a more complete understanding of this issue before they read the article. Finally, Alisa did a good job explaining what the significance of the findings are to science. The review contained an explanation as to how the finding have contradicted previous scientific beliefs. This is helpful, because it allows readers to see why the findings matter to anyone.
One flaw with the review was that there were some typographical errors. On the whole, this was not a huge deal-- most of the sentences were still comprehensible. However, in one or two of them, it required several readings and some guesswork to figure out what was meant in a given sentence. An easy way to fix this would be to do a more thorough proofreading, to ensure that all of the sentences make complete sense. Another area that could have been improved upon is the explanation as to why this article is important to everyone. Although Alisa did explain it, she did so in only two sentences, leaving the reader with the dramatic claim that “statistics suggest the Earth is due for another mass extinction.” This bold statement was not backed up with any explanation. The obvious solution would be to include one more sentence explaining the previous one.
This review, and the article being reviewed, gave me a sense of optimism about the future of life on this planet. I realized that life has nearly been wiped out on this planet before, and life managed to continue. As this article pointed out, life was able to return relatively quickly after a mass extinction event. I realized that, even if humans become extinct, a very real possibility over the next few centuries, there is still a decent chance that intelligent life will manage to exist on earth again, one day far in the future.
Bailey Barton
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology; Current Event #5
March 12, 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017, Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
Fominykh, Alisa. "After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest." After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest. N.p., 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.
http://bhscorebio.blogspot.com/2017/02/after-earths-worst-mass-extinction-life.html#comment-form
Alisa Fominykh recently wrote a summary on the article “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest”. Alisa represented an overall great understanding of the article by giving a good background and understanding of the current topic, which was fossil evidence giving scientists new information of their ecosystem and how quickly it was able to recover since the Great Dying. Recent discoveries by L.J. Krumenacker of particular fossils allow scientists to infer that life rebounded after mass extinction. Alisa stated the importance of this new evidence, by dating shark teeth and more aquatic life remains and fossils, researchers determine region to be an underwater ecosystem 250 million years ago, 1.3 million years after the great dying. This contradicts belief that ecosystems need 10 to 20 million years before flourishing. By finding this new evidence, scientists are able to reread and revise their past predictions in order to offer some relief about the statistics that suggest earth will have another mass extinction.
I found Alisa’s article well written however she wrote that the original article fell short when providing additional information which caused her to take it upon herself to further research the topic, however this new information from a new source was not shown or clearly separated from the original article. Another aspect which I feel should be corrected is the lack of depth when talking about these statistics suggestion a soon mass extinction. I feel the mentioned statistics should have been included to give the reader some perspective on the idea of another mass extinction.
From this summary, I have learned more about predictions and their process which consists of many years of digging for evidence and creating a very clear prediction - ecosystems recovery time after mass extinction - using this large amount of knowledge on the subject. I found that the article widened my knowledge on fossils and their importance especially in understanding how earth operates and grows.
Andrew Howson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology Core Honors
13/3/17
My classmate Alisa wrote a review of “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” by Nicholas Fleur. Her summary of the article was very good, as were her explanations of the different terms in the article. Her critiques were also very well written.
I found that there were few errors in Alisa’s review. She stated that she had to do extra research concerning prior mass extinctions, however, she neglected to explain what she found with this. She also did not state which method of dating the scientists used to determine the age of fossils and rocks. This could, however, be due to the article not stating these things.
This article was very interesting. It showed the resilience of life on earth and how quickly it can recover from an environmental catastrophe, even one as large of the Great Dying which killed off approximately 90% of all species on earth at the time.
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017, Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
Zip Malley
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
CoreBioH / Current Review #7 Comment
31 March 2017
Fleur, Nicholas St. “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils
Suggest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2017,
Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.
This review of Nicholas St. Fleur’s New York Times article titled, “After Earth's Worst Mass Extinction, Life Rebounded Rapidly, Fossils Suggest” by classmate Alisa Fominykh, was thoroughly explained and examined. One well thought out aspect of Alisa’s review was her understanding of the article. I liked how she summarized the article, making it interesting for the reader. Alisa also explained the findings of the scientists, making the issue discussed in the article from a scientific matter to a world matter. Alisa told us why the information discussed in the article is significant. Finally, I appreciated how she noted ways in which the author could have improved this New York Times article.
Even though this was a well written review, I believe it could have been improved in a couple of spots. A couple of her sentences needed to be read a second time, not quite grasping the concept from the first read through. Another area she could have improved was using quotes from the article to back up the researcher’s claims.
While reading this review, I was shocked as to how quickly the world was able to rebound. I did not realize how quickly the world got back on its feet after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.