ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1689|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[考古] 一月推到二月,结果寂静更不给李,天要亡村长啊!(关于2.07疑似阅读考古)

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2014-2-7 20:35:02 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
兄弟姐妹们,就让俺发发牢骚吧,花了250刀,考前临时把一月底的考试推到二月(就是因为狗狗不给李),结果今天都7天了,二月狗狗阅读才。。。。。个位数。。。 有木有!?有木有!?

狗狗,狗狗,你们去哪里了啊
CD,CD,你是我大叔。

好了,楼主果断看书去,  顺便今天看到了有好心人放的阅读狗狗,关于鉴定澳洲环境是不是被人类破坏的还是被自然破坏,这篇,楼主“背”的很清楚,必须是一月狗儿,放狗:
3.新西兰老鼠骨骼化石的研究
通过用carbondate技术的研究老鼠骨骼化石→确定新西兰早期人类出现的时间→从而确定早期环境的破坏是否为人类活动导致(因为气候而非人类活动)
P1:早期carbon dating技术推算人类出现时间---遭到质疑
一开始有科学家从老鼠的骨骼化验中(用carbon dating技术)推出在公元前2000年就有人把老鼠带到了新西兰。因为没有任何其他证据可以表明人类arrive soearly, 这个实验结果受到批判,被认为一定是实验中出了问题(errors added in thelab)。
P2: 新研究表明人类没有那么早出现(新carbon dating技术)---确定了新的时间
Recently, 某team/科学家O用更好的carbon dating技术去研究the rat bone found in the same siteof 1996 (同一地点,但与P1的实验不是同一个sample),结果发现是从12世纪末才有人到新西兰,从而说明P1的实验确实有问题。In addition, 他们还发现the oldest site有一些种子是4000年前的,但是那些有老鼠咬痕的都是1280年的。
P3:反驳由于人类活动导致环境恶化的观点---人类的到达没有旧观点说的那么早
旧观点:有人说人类和老鼠在XX年(早于被确定的时间)的出现造成了森林破坏(deforest),还导致了几种鸟类的灭亡。反驳旧观点:实验证明了人类真正到达新西兰的时间(晚于XX年),这个结果摧毁(devastate)了旧观点。
P4:对人类是否影响环境做进一步说明(可能是变体,注意加上主旨略变)
Dr. Wilmshurst的研究可以得知新西兰的deforestation等一系列环境是近六百年才受人类影响的,而非以前认为的2000多年。---意思是其实是受人类影响的,只不过没那么早
题目:
1)主旨题
2)细节题:第三段中的research说明一下哪个是对的
3)结构题:第三段的作用
我选的是这个研究结果对其他领域研究的影响
---应用在判断新西兰早起生态环境与人类活动的关系,正解
4)削弱题:怎样能使某team的说法不成立P2段
5)细节题:第一段里面说这个实验有问题的人持什么观点P1段
6)结构题:第四段作用
说明人们以前对新西兰环境问题的看法不准确之类的。(V36狗主)
参考文章
Rats caught a free ride to New Zealand when they hopped aboardthe boats ofearly Polynesian explorers. Now, their ancient bones
mayhelp pinpoint when humans first set foot on the island.Carbon-dating of bonesfrom the rodents(啮齿动物) indicates that people reachedNew Zealand around 1280 or later, rejecting previous research that suggested humans may have landed there more than1400years earlier. Although most anthropologists think that humans firstarrived in NewZealandaround 1250 to 1300, a minority holds that people mighthave set foot on theisland as early as 200 B.C.E. That conclusionis based on 1996 research thatcarbon-dated bones of rats, which are thought to have been brought to New Zealand byhumans either asstowaways or for food. But this study has been controversial becausethere's no evidence of human settlements at that time. Somecritics have suggested that the carbon dateswere due to a lab error in preparing the bones.
To help clear up the confusion, a team led by Janet Wilmshurst,a paleoecologistat environmental research organization LandcareResearch in Lincoln, NewZealand, used a different preparation technique that is thought to be moreaccurate. The researchers obtained 17 bones from the two excavation sites wherethe oldest rat remains had been found. Carbon-dating with the improved method indicatedthat the new bones were from 1280 or later. When the researchers tried the newtechnique on some of thebones from the previous study, all of them dated to later than 1280, indicating that the earlierresearch was flawed. The dating of the rat bones was also supported bythe dating of over a hundred woodyseeds, many of which had distinctive tell-tale rat bite marks, preservedin peat and swamp sites from the North and South Islands. The results gave adate of 1290 or later, confirming that humans did not arrive until 1280 at the earliest,the researchers report in the 3 June issue of theProceedings of theNationalAcademy of Sciences.
Ian Smith, an anthropologist at the University of Otago in NewZealand, says thefinding "provides convincing evidence against the assertion that eitherrats or people reached New Zealand prior to the 13th century A.D." He addsthat the later arrival indicates that humans' devastating impact on New Zealand, whichhas included deforestation and the extinction of birds and marine mammals,happened in only 600 years,versus more than 2000 years if the initial bone dating had been confirmed.
David Lowe, a soil scientist at the University of Waikatoin Hamilton, NewZealand, says the findings also indicate that "the destruction caused bythe rats in New Zealand has been pronounced and very fast indeed." The rats wiped out severalspecies, including some birds and frogs. Wilmshurst adds that the speedof destruction "makes the risk to currently declining population so frat-sensitivespecies more pressing as they could be diminishing faster than previouslyassumed."

楼主无力,只求CHASEDREAM!!
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2014-2-7 22:09:18 | 只看该作者
同是2月可怜人。。。。。。。。。加油 靠自己
板凳
发表于 2014-2-11 16:55:42 | 只看该作者
谢谢你狗主 主要是赶到过年 都没什么人考试 都不来放狗
地板
发表于 2014-2-15 22:56:51 | 只看该作者
同时2月,
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-2-23 13:24
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部