The Taxonomy of Three Homo Species

The Taxonomy of Three military man SpeciesMax Rivera geographic expeditionEvery person today is the same species and genus as individually other, Homo sapiens (4). This species of the Homo genus is what is the modern font man is considered JB1today (4). People were non al ways of this species however, over delinquent to evolution and adaptation. It has been suggested JB2that modern humans evolved from a primal human-like species that came from East Africa (2, 6). It was from this primate ancestor that many species of the Homo genus were born, except except one species has survived up to the current day, which is us. Currently thither have been fourteen different species of hominin that existed in history including Homo Sapiens (7). So how, ge nonypically, with regard to JB3mitochondrial cytochrome b, and phenotypically, with regards to posture and bony structure, do Homo Sapiens allude Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, andHomo sapiens denisova? Using the N CBI website I will look at how aJB4 modern human comp atomic number 18s to all(prenominal) of these speciesHumans belong to the family know as the great apes, or Hominidae. This group includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and humans (2). Each of these species has akin traits, including hands and feet, five digits on each hand and foot, being mammals, etc. However, each of these species and genus are different beca aim of their taxonomy. Homo heidelbergensis was an early hominid species that lived around the 700,000 200,000 years agoJB5 in atomic number 63, Africa, and possibly AsiaJB6. This species was the first early hominid that was adapted JB7to living in colder environments, thank to their smaller bodes conserving to a greater fulfilment heat, and their capabilities of being able to control fire. Evidence is seen JB8from fire tools and burnt wood sites in Israel. They hunted larger game thanks to their wooden spears which is apparent due to remains of animals at the time being discovered JB9with H. heidelbergensis fossils and tools. This species also was the first of the early hominids to use natural structures as a method of shelter as seen by a site called Terra Amata in France. This species also has been found JB10to be the ancestor of both Neanderthals and the modern H. sapiens, which leave stack wondering what was the ancestor for H. heidelbergensis (3, 5). Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or the Neanderthal man, are H. sapiens closest extinct human relative. This can be seen JB11due to the certain facial features and that are similar to JB12those seen in people today, such as defined cheekbones, big noses, and a noticeable brow above the eyes. Living in Europe and Asia nearly JB13400,000 40,000 years ago, this species was able to JB14survive in cold and warm conditions due their use of shelters and building of fires. Unlike H. heidelbergensis, the Neanderthal man made and wore clothing and created emblematic objects. AlsoJB15 there is presen t that this species would bury their dead, often leaving the bodies with mementos such as f down(p)ers making them the earliest species to bury their dead (8, 9). Homo sapiens denisova, or the Denisova hominid, was besides recently discovered finished fossils in a cave in Siberia. Only two molars and a piece of a phalange were discovered JB16leaving this species physical coming into court to remain a mystery morphologically. However, from the DNA evidence, it was found JB17that this species split off from Neanderthals nearlyJB18 600,000 years ago, living in parts of s come forwardheast Asia (1, 10).AnalysisAfter lead each of these species through a taxonomy blast sequence, the terminuss were amazing due to the how big each tree was. The results of each blast can be seen JB19in the images titled attempt 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the blasts resulted in 10 hits during the blast trace, while the remaining three resulted in 50 hits during the blast move. The purpose of this w as to observe the difference in result between blast hit results. make noise 1 Homo sapiens neaderthalensis 10 Blast Hits Blast 2 Homo sapiens neaderthalensis 50 Blast HitsBlast 3 Homo sapiens ssp. Denisova 10 Blast HitsBlast 4 Homo sapiens ssp. Denisova 50 Blast HitsBlast 5 Homo heidelbergensis 10 Blast HitsBlast 6 Homo heidelbergensis 50 Blast HitsThe results of the blast were what expected, showing a result of how each species of Homo evolved from one unwashed ancestor. Each graph was displayed JB20as a radial tree diagram due to it being the most appropriate of the graphs. With the 10 blast JB21hit sequence for H. sapiens neanderthalensis only 4 Neanderthal cytochrome b sequences, including the one chosen for the blast, were seen JB22whereas in the 50 blast JB23hit sequence, 5 Neanderthal sequences appeared. This change in result by the summation of one more Neanderthal sequence was probably due JB24to that one new sequence being of a percent identity that was adequate for a 5 0 blast JB25parameter. It possibly did JB26not show up in the 10 blast hit results because the identity voice was not high enough. A similar notion can be seen JB27with the H. heidelbergensis. Only one result came up in the 10 blast JB28hit, accordingly one more appeared in the results of the 50 blast JB29hit run. However, the result did not happen in the H. denisova for either of the blast trials, due to the cytochrome b on two different accessions being the highest identity percentage of the blast results. In correlation to the identity percentage values being very high on each of the blast trails, the E value for each of these graphs was an incredibly low number, being of a value between 1 x 10-4 and 8 x 10-4. These values were at such a low quantity to show how closely related each of the species in the blast were to one another. This was expected JB30since each of the species in the blast were of the same genus. Unfortunately, there is no in pution available to determine thr ough a blast run what the common ancestor of each species is. Results for seen through the table titled phenotypic comparisons seen at a lower place in Table 1. This table looks at the skeletal structure and posture of each of the 3 species in comparison to that of H. sapiens based on their skeletal structure (cranium, spine, ribs, etc.) and their posture (bipedal, arch, alignment, etc.).SpeciesSkeletal Structure and PostureCompared to H. sapiensJB31H. heidelbergensisJB32RelativelyJB33 short adult males and females (avgJB34 flush 5 11)Cranial capacity for average adult 1,100 1,400 cm3Bipedal due to thick shin bones and leg structureAverage height of H. sapiens today is 6 2 (primarily for men).Cranial capacity of H. sapiens in current day is 1,200 1,700 cm3.Bipedal due to long femur bond, arced foot, and big toe being aligned JB35skeletally with foot structure.H. sapiens neanderthalensisJB36Shorter average size of it for males and females (avg. height 5 3)Cranial capacity for a verage adult 1200 1750 cm3Bipedal due to long femur and arch in footAverage height of H. sapiens today is 6 2 (primarily for men).Cranial capacity of H. sapiens in current day is 1,200 1,700 cm3.Bipedal due to long femur bond, arched foot, and big toe being aligned JB37skeletally with foot structure.H. sapiens denisovaJB38Species was discovered JB39in 2010, so no info to give facts about the Denisovans except that they are more closely related to Neanderthals than H. sapiens.Not enough info to compare this species to H. sapiens.EvaluationThrough the blast trials and skeletal structural evidence found online, the results that were expected JB40from the send-off of the experiment were observedJB41. From low E / high identity percentage value for genotypic results, to evolutionary differences in phenotypic traits. With each of the species that were input JB42into the NCBI blast run were all of JB43the Homo genus, the probability of major differences in genetic distribution would b e low. Along with these low values, the identity percentages that were present in the blast run for each cytochrome b species result was high, often with a value 99 or 100%. Genotypically, each species is slightly different from one another, but this is due to said species evolving to better fit their climate and living conditions. Comparing it to the modern H. sapiens it was possible to see slight connections between each of the species (exception the Denisovan man) in equipment casualty of body posture (spine curvature) and walking ability (arched foot and aligned big toe). From lookJB44 it was devised JB45how closely related modern humans are to when compared to different Homo species through genotypic and phenotypic comparisons.Works CitedDenisovans Harbour Ancestry from an Unknown Archaic Population, Unrelated to Neanderthals, Page 1. AboveTopSecret.com. NY Times, n.d. Web. 23 whitethorn 2016.The Great Apes. The Great Apes. In pution Please, 10 Oct. 2000. Web. 23 whitethorn 2 016.Homo Heidelbergensis. Hominidevolution . Australian Museum, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 23 May 2016.Homo Sapiens. Human Origins Program. The Smithsonian Institution, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.McCarthy, Eugene M. Homo Heidelbergensis. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.O Neil, Dennis. Evolution of Modern Humans Early Modern Homo Sapiens. Evolution of Modern Humans Early Modern Homo Sapiens. N.p., 12 Apr. 1999. Web. 23 May 2016.Scientists Decode DNA of the Oldest Human Ancestor. Jengsos. Jengsos, 05 Aug. 2015. Web. 23 May 2016.Toba Through the Bottleneck and Human Evolution. Andamans. Nature Mag, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.Walking Upright. Walking Upright. The Smithsonian Institution, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.Wenz, John. The Other Neanderthal. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 23 May 2016.Grading or Evaluation RubricPersonal engagement This measuring stick assesses the extent to which the scholar engages in the exploration and makes it their own. One may recognize personal engagement in different attributes and skills. The student could discuss his or her individual interests. Also, the student could show evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the design, implementation, or origination of the probe.MarkDescriptorAwarded0This report does not meet the standards draw.21The student presents especial(a) evidence of personal engagement with the exploration with little independent thinking, initiative, creativity, or insight.The justification submitted by the student for selecting the research question and the takings under probe does not show personal significance, interest, or curiosity.thither is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation, or presentation of the investigation.2The proof of personal engagement with the exploration is evident with important independent thinking, initiative, creativity, or insight.The student showed personal significance, interest or curi osity in the justification given for selecting the research question used.The student demonstrates personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation, or presentation of the investigation.Comments on personal engagement The student showed how the investigation was personal by using several different attributes and skills to achieve the goal. The students personal interests guided the investigation. The student showed independent thinking, creativity, and initiative in the design, implementation, and presentation of the inquiry.Exploration This measure assesses the extent to which the student sets up the scientific context for the work, tells a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques veracious to the Diploma Program level. Where victorian, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical conditions.0The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.41-2The student named the topic o f the investigation, and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused.The punctuate information included is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the savvy of the context of the investigation.The method of the inquiry is only proper to discuss the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into good will few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.1. Independent variable not listed2. Dependent variable not listed3. Controls not listed4. Hypothesis not presented (If , then , because )5. Materials specified, but incomplete6. Procedure specified, but incompleteThe report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*3-4The student named the topic of the investigation and described a relevant but not fully focused research question.The backdrop information include d is proper and pertinent and aids the understanding of the context of the inquiry.The method of the investigation is proper to discuss the research question but has limitations since it takes into regard only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.1. Independent variable considered2. Dependent variable considered3. Controls showed and considered4. Hypothesis presented in incorrect format (If -, then -, because -)5. Materials not specified completely6. Procedure not specified completelyThe report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*5-6The student named the topic of the investigation and described a relevant and fully focused research question.The background information included is entirely proper and pertinent and enhances the understanding of the context of the inquiry.The method of the inquiry is highly proper to discuss the research question because it takes into regard all, or most, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.1. Independent variable named2. Dependent variable named3. Controls shown4. Hypothesis presented in correct format (If , then , because )5. Detailed materials listed6. Detailed procedure listedThe report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the method of the investigation*Comments on exploration The student set up the scientific context for the work, telling a clear and focused research question and using concepts and techniques proper to the program. The student considered and were aware of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations. Student did not list a hypothesis, but the report alludes to the hypothesis. Deeper development of background information would improve the report.Analysis This criteri on assesses the extent to which the students report offers evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed, and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.0The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below51-2The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a sound conclusion to the research question.The student carried out some basic data processing, but it is either too inaccurate or too inadequate to lead to a valid conclusion.The report shows evidence of little consideration of the move of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.The student falsely or insufficiently interpreted the processed data so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete (Lacking statistical analysis)3-4The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.The student carried ou t proper, and enough data that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion, but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.The student processed the data so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question to allow a conclusion (Statistical analysis were proper mean, median, mode, Chi-square, T-test, other)5-6The report includes enough relevant quantitative and raw qualitative data that could support an accurate and valid conclusion to the research question.The student carried out proper and sufficient information processing with the accuracy needed to enable a reader to reach a conclusion to the research question fully consistent with the experimental data.The report shows evidence of full and proper consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.The student flop interpreted the processed data so that one can deduce a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question (Statistical analysis where proper mean, median, mode, Chi-square, T-test, other)Comments on Analysis The students report offers evidence that the student selected, recorded, processed, and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion. More detailed statistical analysis would improve the report.Evaluation This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report offers evidence of rating of the investigation and the results of the research question and the current scientific context.0The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.51-2The student outlined a conclusion which is not relevant to the research question or has no support by the data presented.The conclusion makes a superficial comparison to the current scientific context.The student outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the investig ation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, but restricts the information shown to an account of the hardheaded or procedural issues faced.The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the feeler and extension of the investigation.3-4The student describes a conclusion which is pertinent to the research question and supported by the data presented.The student describes a conclusion which makes some relevant comparison to the current scientific context.The student describes the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, and offer evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in showing the conclusion.The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.5-6The student describes and justifies a definite conclusion which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data p resented.The student correctly describes a conclusion and justifies it through relevant comparison to the current scientific context.The student discusses strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, and offers evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in setting up the conclusion.The student has discussed practical and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.Comments on evaluation The students report offers evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results of the research question and the current scientific context. An in-depth discussion and application of statistical analysis would improve report.Communication This criterion assesses whether the student presents and reports the investigation in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process, and outcomes.0The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors b elow.31-2The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process, and outcomes.The report is not well structured and is unclear the necessary information on focus, process and the student either presented the results in an inconsistent or disorganized manner or are missing.The student obscures an understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes of the investigation by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.There are many errors in the use of subject-specific terminology and conventions**.Sources not properly cited and/or Works Cited page missing, not following Modern Language experience (MLA) expressive style guidance.3-4The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes.The report is well structured and definite the necessary information on focus, process and the results are present and presented in a coherent way.The report is relevant and conc ise thereby helping a ready understanding of the focus, process, and outcomes of the investigation.The use of subject-specific terminology and conventions is proper and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding**.Sources properly cited and Works Cited page included, following Modern Language Association (MLA) style guidance.Comments on Communication The student presented and reported the results of the investigation in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process, and outcomes while having some errors in the correct format and MLA style guidance.Marks achieved19Numeric grade (based on 100%)79.2IB Marks Grade5* One should apply this indicator only when proper to the investigation.** For example, incorrect/missing labeling of graphs, tables, images use of units, decimal places, referencing and citations.Conversion from marks to percentage Pre-lab report1234567891011128.416.625.033.4