7.2.13

ACR paragraph. Olha Vynohradova



Argument
Counterargument
Rebuttal
Neanderthal`s DNA differs from modern human`s in 98%
2 % of Neanderthal`s DNA is similar to modern human`s
It actually confirms that two species had one mutual ancestor, but does not mean, these two were  sequential

According to paleoanthropology and evolutional biology, modern humans belong to the genus Homo, whose evolution continued during the long period of time since 3-2,5 million years ago. However, not all existed human species were involved in evolution–some of them were its deadlock`s branches. The whole genus Homo Neanderthalensis is under the consideration of being the part of modern human evolution. Neanderthals are excluded from the human evolution because of their DNA that is differ from modern human`s in 98 %. Moreover, this information applies to Europeans, while Africans do not have Neanderthal genes at all. Nevertheless, not all scholars accept that point of view. They pay attention to 2 % of Neanderthals` DNA that is similar to modern people`s. They insist that a small part of Neanderthals were involved in human evolution. However, 2 % of Neanderthals` DNA in modern human`s blood only indicates that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens had one mutual ancestor, but were not sequential stages of human evolution, because this line divided into two 600 th. years ago. It should be added that we do not have any evidence of sexual intercourse between Neanderthal and Sapiens, according to archaeological findings. Therefore, discussions about Neanderthals` participation in human evolution should be reasoned strongly.

References:
Segeda, Sergii. Anthropology. Kyiv: Lybid`, 2009. Print.
Sytnyk, Olexandr. Cultural anthropology: human and society origins. Lviv: Lviv polytechnic press, 2012. Print.

1 comment:

Археософия said...

Critical Response. Alisa Demina.

1. The best feature of this paragraph is completeness. It contains all necessary parts, which are on the right places. Arguments are strong and clear.
2. Topic and concluding sentences are well-defined and supplement each other.
3. However, the controlling idea of this discussion is stated in third sentence.
4. Author uses statistics and specific data, which makes us trust in given facts.
5. The choice of topic is successful. It is interesting even for non-specialists in this area.
6. All sentences are grammatically correct (at least I haven’t found any mistakes).