The Taxonomy of Three Homo Species

The Taxonomy of Three human SpeciesMax Riveraexploratione truly person immediately is the analogous species and genus as from each one other, homosexual sapiens (4). This species of the Homo genus is what is the redbrickistic man is considered JB1today (4). People were non al dashs of this species however, over referable to evolution and adaptation. It has been suggested JB2that modern pieces evolved from a primal human-like species that came from East Africa (2, 6). It was from this archpriest ancestor that many species of the Homo genus were born, only if completely one species has survived up to the actual day, which is us. Currently at that place have been fourteen dissimilar species of hominin that existed in history including Homo Sapiens (7). So how, genotypically, with regard to JB3mitochondrial cytochrome b, and phenotypically, with regards to posture and penurious structure, do Homo Sapiens relate Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, andHomo sapiens denisova? Using the NCBI website I will look at how aJB4 modern human comp ares to each of these species gentleman be huge to the family known as the abundant apes, or Hominidae. This group includes chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and humans (2). Each of these species has similar traits, including hands and feet, pentad digits on each hand and home, being mammals, etc. However, each of these species and genus are different because of their taxonomy. Homo heidelbergensis was an early hominid species that lived around the 700,000 200,000 days agoJB5 in Europe, Africa, and possibly AsiaJB6. This species was the first early hominid that was adapted JB7to living in colder environments, thanks to their smaller bodes conserving more heat, and their capabilities of being able to control fire. consequence is seen JB8from fire tools and burnt wood sites in Israel. They hunted larger blue thanks to their wooden spears which is apparent referable to remains of animals at the s uccession being discovered JB9with H. heidelbergensis fossils and tools. This species also was the first of the early hominids to use inhering 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 two Neanderthals and the modern H. sapiens, which leave people 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 sack be seen JB11due to the certain facial features and that are similar to JB12those seen in people today, such as defined cheekbones, colossal noses, and a obtrusive 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 build of fires. Unlike H. heidelbergensis, the Neanderthal man made and wore clothing and created symbolic objects. AlsoJB15 there is state that this species would bury their dead, often leaving the bodies with mementos such as flowers devising them the earliest species to bury their dead (8, 9). Homo sapiens denisova, or the Denisova hominid, was only recently discovered through fossils in a cave in Siberia. Only two molars and a piece of a phalange were discovered JB16leaving this species somatic appearance to remain a mystery morphologically. However, from the deoxyribonucleic acid demonstrate, it was found JB17that this species bump off from Neanderthals nearlyJB18 600,000 years ago, living in parts of southeast Asia (1, 10). abstractAfter running each of these species through a taxonomy thrill sequence, the go aways were dire due to the how big each tree was. The government issues of each film can be seen JB19in the images titled volcanic eruption 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Three of the knocks resulted in 10 murders during the extravasation run, while the remaining three resulted in 50 hits during the blast run. The mapping of this was to observe the difference in result between blast hit results.Blast 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, turn outing a result of how each species of Homo evolved from one putting green 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 addition of one more Neanderthal sequence was likely due JB24to that one new sequence being o f a pct identity that was adequate for a 50 blast JB25parameter. It possibly did JB26not direct up in the 10 blast hit results because the identity character was not high overflowing. A similar notion can be seen JB27with the H. heidelbergensis. Only one result came up in the 10 blast JB28hit, then 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 lot 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 channelise 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, t here is no selective learning available to determine through a blast run what the common ancestor of each species is. Results for seen through the dodge titled phenotypic proportions seen below in Table 1. This table looks at the skeletal structure and posture of each of the 3 species in comparing to that of H. sapiens based on their skeletal structure (cranium, spine, ribs, etc.) and their posture (bipedal, arch, alignment, etc.).Species superfluous Structure and PostureCompared to H. sapiensJB31H. heidelbergensisJB32RelativelyJB33 short adult males and females (avgJB34 height 5 11)cranial mental ability for average adult 1,100 1,400 cm3 biped due to thick shin bone bones and leg structure clean 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 reorient JB35skeletally with foot structure.H. sapiens neanderthalensisJB36Shorter average coat for males and females (avg. height 5 3)Cranial capacity for average 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 almost the Denisovans except that they are more closely related to Neanderthals than H. sapiens.Not enough entropy to compare this species to H. sapiens. paygradeThrough the blast trials and skeletal geomorphologic evidence found online, the results that were expected JB40from the beginning 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 scuttle neverthelesst JB42into the NCBI blast run were all of JB43th e Homo genus, the probability of major differences in genetic distri saveion would be 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 terms of body posture (spine curvature) and walking ability (arched foot and aligned big toe). From exploreJB44 it was devised JB45how closely related modern humans are to when compared to different Homo species through genotypic and phenotypic comparisons.Works CitedDenisovans Harbour filiation from an Unknown Archaic Population, Unrelated to Neanderthals, Page 1. AboveTopSecret.com. NY Times, n.d. Web. 23 may 2016.The bang-up Apes. The Great Apes. Information Please, 10 Oct. 2000. Web. 23 May 2016.Homo Heidelbergensis. Hominidevolution . Australian Museum, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 23 May 2016.Homo Sapiens. Human Origins course. 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 new-made Humans early on 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. spirit Mag, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.Walking Upright. Walking Upright. The Smithsonian Institution, n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.Wenz, John. The new(prenominal) Neanderthal. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 23 May 2016.Grading or military rank RubricPersonal affaire This criterion assesses the exte nt to which the disciple engages in the exploration and makes it their own. One may recognize individualized engagement in different attributes and skills. The scholarly person could discuss his or her individual interests. Also, the disciple could show evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the design, implementation, or presentation of the probe.MarkDescriptorAwarded0This field does not make full the standards described.21The educatee presents particular evidence of personalised engagement with the exploration with little independent thinking, initiative, creativity, or insight.The justification submitted by the student for selecting the research hesitancy and the topic under investigation does not show personal significance, interest, or curiosity.There 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 curiosity in the justification disposed(p) for selecting the research apparent motion 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 utilise 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 criterion assesses the extent to which the student sets up the scientific scope for the work, tells a clear and focused research inquiry and uses concepts and techniques puritanical to the Diploma Program level. Where proper, this criterion also assesses sensory faculty of safety, envi ronmental, and ethical thoughtfulnesss.0The students report does not take a standard described by the descriptors below.41-2The student named the topic of the investigation, and a research question of few relevance is verbalise but not focused.The screen background information included is shallow or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding 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 consideration few of the material factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and enough of the collected data.1. Independent variable not argumented2. babelike variable not listed3. Controls not listed4. Hypothesis not presented (If , then , because )5. Materials specified, but incomplete6. mathematical operation specified, but incompleteThe report shows evidence of limited awareness of the meaning(a) safety, ethical or environmental issues that are applica ble to the method of the investigation*3-4The student named the topic of the investigation and described a germane(predicate) but not fully focused research question.The background information included 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 consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of the collected data.1. Independent variable considered2. subordinate 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 applicable to the method of the investigation*5-6The student named the topic of the investigation and de scribed a relevant and fully focused research question.The background information included is all 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 consideration 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. critical 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 safe ty, environmental, and ethical considerations. Student did not list a hypothesis, but the report alludes to the hypothesis. Deeper development of background information would remedy the report.Analysis This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report offers evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed, and construe the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can funding a conclusion.0The students report does not master a standard described by the descriptors below51-2The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a reasoned conclusion to the research question.The student carried out some basic data processing, but it is either too inaccurate or too curt to lead to a effectual conclusion.The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measure uncertainty in the analysis.The student incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted the processed data so that the conclusion is handicap or very incomple te (Lacking statistical analysis)3-4The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially effectualated conclusion to the research question.The student carried out 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 bear 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 fall upon a conclu sion to the research question fully consistent with the observational data.The report shows evidence of full and proper consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty in the analysis.The student correctly 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 reform the report.Evaluation This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report offers evidence of evaluation 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 outlin ed 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 investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, but restricts the information shown to an account of the practical or adjective issues faced.The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the forward motion 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* concern in showing the conclusion.The student ha s described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.5-6The student describes and justifies a distinct conclusion which is only relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.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 linguistic context 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 re port. conversation This criterion assesses whether the student presents and reports the investigation in a way that supports telling communication of the focus, process, and outcomes.0The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.31-2The presentation of the investigation is undecipherable, 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 unsuitable information.There are many errors in the use of subject-specific terminology and conventions**.Sources not properly cited and/or Works Cited rascal missing, not following Modern Language Association (MLA) flair guidance.3-4The presentation of the investigation is clear. each 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 concise thereby dowery 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.tag achieved19Numeric grade (based on 100%)79.2IB Marks Grade5* One should apply this indicator only when proper to the investigation.** For example, inc orrect/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