Question
hey bot, can you help organize this text im writing?
I need you to help me get a thesis statement and reorganize my essay, here is my essay.
De-Extinction: The Why, the How, and the Should.
By James S.F. Mulcahey
Should extinct creatures be brought back ‘from the dead’? Should new species’ be made from mixtures of Genes from different types of creatures? Should these creatures, if created, be allowed to roam freely? Why would we want them alive? How could we even START the recreation projects, if we wanted to?
Anyone who has seen the film ‘Jurassic Park’ and the following films in the franchise know what kind of risks these creatures would post to people in real life. Many people remember the iconic scene of the Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking free from its containment area, and begin wreaking havoc almost immediately. The film gives us a hint at a resonating horror: Don’t revive what is dead for a reason.
However, this message does not stop modern scientists from trying to bring back these great creatures. Many are trying to manipulate genes and DNA to recreate the mighty beasts of old.
According to Would bringing back extinct animals turn out as it did in "Jurassic Park"? By Jason Nark, Washington Post, The Washington Post, adapted by Newsela staff,
“That is the goal of the Revive & Restore project, a California nonprofit co-founded by Brand that seeks to use new methods of "genetic rescue for endangered and extinct species." The group is working to reintroduce the extinct passenger pigeon into the wild. The process would remove genes from modern band-tailed pigeons and replace them with passenger-pigeon genes.
Revive & Restore would like to do something similar with woolly mammoths, editing the extinct creature's genes into those of modern Asian elephants. In that case, the goal is to increase the population of endangered Asian elephants, which has declined because of a virus. "We're not just curing extinction," Brand told the audience. "The technology that de-extinction is leading the way in is now being used by us and by others to prevent extinction."
This shows us that people are trying to bring back extinct creatures, even as we speak. From Woolly mammoths to even simple pigeons. What could this mean for the future? One genetic mistake and the whole operation could go askew; perhaps even unleash unknown horrors upon humanity!
People are even trying to change ecosystems to put these creations in, which are (possibly) good actions, as these creatures need a habitat, but what about all the creatures that already live there? These actions might misplace many local species.
The article explains such a scenario:
“In 2018, Brand and Church traveled to Siberia, where Russian scientists are attempting to re-create the grassland ecosystem where woolly mammoths once lived. As the number of mammoths declined, foliage took over grassland. To restore it, scientists have knocked down trees and shrubs and brought in plant eaters, including elk and moose, to graze and keep back the foliage.
Church said mammoth-and-Asian-elephant hybrids could once again inhabit Russia. He also urged everyone to "loosen up" about the prospect of hybrids. There's a lot of hybridization that occurs in mammals, he said. "I am partially Neanderthal," he said, referring to estimates by scientists that about 20 percent of Neanderthal genes are in modern humans. Neanderthals are an extinct species of human.
Jack Horner, a Montana State University scientist and adviser on the first "Jurassic Park" film, is also working on a hybrid called "chickenosaurus." No one mentioned this during the debate.
A hybrid mammoth, roaming Russia today, raises all sorts of questions, Rothschild and MacPhee said. Would this hybrid be released into a world with no natural predators? How would a mammoth know how to be a mammoth without other mammoths around? "You've got all the problems of not having a mom" and not having other animals to learn from, Rothschild said. These animals "will be suffering for something that we could be solving a different way," she said.”
Obviously, besides the misplacing of species, the creatures would need something to learn from, which is perhaps why everything in the JP films went wrong: Because some creatures had nothing to learn from, and thus decided to make it up as they went.
People are even getting sick ideas to use such creatures, such as extinct predators, for commercial purposes, such as using saber-toothed tigers for ‘hunting purposes’, should they be revived.
An audience member asked if someone wealthy could be moving forward with the technology, possibly for commercial purposes, while scientists were debating whether they should. Brand said there was nothing happening in the de-extinction world that had commercial purposes. MacPhee, in response, asked, "You don't think there's a future in having saber-toothed tigers that you can use for hunting purposes?"
This was proven not to be a good idea many times. We also see this in the JP and JW franchises. Where companies try to capture the dinosaurs for war and commercial purposes, or how in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, they show that the GENETICALLY ENGINEERED Indoraptor became more than what they expected, going so far as to devouring even the very people responsible for its creation.
Not to mention the Moral problems presented in a situation like this.
“Rothschild took the argument further, wondering whether someone could attempt to de-extinct a Neanderthal for commerce or simply in the name of science. The idea, Rothschild said, was morally wrong. "We have enough trouble with humanity recognizing that we have roughly equal intellects across the races. And to purposefully re-create a species that we know is going to be inferior in some way is just asking for enormous trouble," she said.
In the end, based on the votes tallied before and after the debate, more people came around to MacPhee and Rothschild's side than Church and Brand's. For once, Jeff Goldblum's won.”
(Jeff Goldblum was a character in Jurassic Park, who said 'Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.')
People talk about how bringing back species could be good in certain cases such as the Passenger Pigeon. Tis may seem good, as pigeons are usually harmless, but what about the fact that, should they be produced into the environment, poachers and others would not try to capture these birds and sell or kill them for profit? Then it would be worse for the bird than if it had never lived.
People are trying to use the DNA to recode the creatures, since DNA is like an instruction manual for building something. Think of it like this: DNA is like a construction manual for your body, as the construction book in your LEGO set allows you to build the model.
According to "Jurassic Park" for the birds? By David Biello, Scientific American, Scientific American, adapted by Newsela staff,
“But what if the passenger pigeon could be brought back?
After all, specimens of long-dead animals still contain DNA, genetic material that can be thought of as a set of instructions on how to form a particular species. Packets of DNA combine to form genes associated with a particular trait. If enough of those genes can be recreated, perhaps a long-gone species could be brought back to life.
That's the idea behind something called de-extinction.
It works like this: Take DNA harvested from specimens stuffed in museum drawers, like Martha. Figure out which genes matter and then use genetic engineering to edit the DNA of a closely related species into some version of the extinct species. If all goes well, a copy of the long-lost Martha could be born and, one day, flocks of passenger pigeons could be restored.”
But what about this other species who’s DNA they are manipulating? Couldn’t this cause a disruption in that species’ lifestyle? And what about the genetic change that will take place when the DNA is altered? It could cause mutations to occur, which may cause pain and agony for the creature involved. Has it ever occurred to scientists that conducting experiments like this on these creatures could be considered cruelty to animals?
“Ben Novak is doing pioneering work to make this exact scenario come true. Novak's effort is focused on acquiring genetic information from stuffed passenger pigeons, while simultaneously studying the genetic makeup of the closely related band-tailed pigeon.
So far, 32 passenger pigeon samples have had their genomes sequenced. "Genome" is simply the word for the complete set of genes found in an individual animal, while "sequencing" refers to the process of figuring out the order of the genome's parts — that is, the order of its DNA bases. Just as the words in a sentence need to be in a certain order to make sense, so too do DNA bases need to be ordered in a particular way for genetic information to be conveyed. A unique sequence is what creates an animal's particular genetic profile.
All of Novak's passenger pigeon samples come from birds killed between 1860 and 1898. "That's right in the range when the bird was going extinct," he notes.
Novak has also been helped by outside efforts, including the nearly complete sequencing of three passenger pigeons. The genes of those three individuals show that passenger pigeons have been through population booms and busts before — their numbers have grown and shrunk at different times.
Passenger pigeons have gone through times in their evolutionary history when their numbers were quite small, geneticist Beth Shapiro said. That suggests that scientists are able to create a small population of pigeons that can grow on its own.”
This evidence shows that the creatures were killed, so obviously they must have either been valuable, or lived in places that would be populated later. If this happened once, why could it not happen again?
If the de-extinction works, the only remaining challenge would be to teach the new birds how to be passenger pigeons. Doing that would likely be even more challenging than the genetic work itself. To understand the difficulty, look at similar efforts — such as attempts to raise California condors with puppets or to teach cranes to migrate by using ultralight airplanes.
These creatures are better to be left resting in peace, after all, if the scientists failed to teach these pigeons the proper way of life, they could become something else entirely, and what would be the point in that? It would be like trying to teach a T-Rex how to become a T-Rex, I mean, what are they going to do? Broadcast an educational film about tyrannosaurs onto a wall into a containment area and hope the tyrannosaurus catches on?
Overall, some things are best to be left the way they are, and some people should learn to leave well enough alone. There is a reason the term says ‘Rest In Peace’. If they were to be brought back, we would face many commercial, economic, environmental, and moral problems. It would have to great of an impact on the environment, and most likely it would be a negative impact. The truth is, if something is extinct, it is gone for a reason.
just take everything here, help me get a thesis statement, and put everything i've written in an organized order, according to the thesis.
I need you to help me get a thesis statement and reorganize my essay, here is my essay.
De-Extinction: The Why, the How, and the Should.
By James S.F. Mulcahey
Should extinct creatures be brought back ‘from the dead’? Should new species’ be made from mixtures of Genes from different types of creatures? Should these creatures, if created, be allowed to roam freely? Why would we want them alive? How could we even START the recreation projects, if we wanted to?
Anyone who has seen the film ‘Jurassic Park’ and the following films in the franchise know what kind of risks these creatures would post to people in real life. Many people remember the iconic scene of the Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking free from its containment area, and begin wreaking havoc almost immediately. The film gives us a hint at a resonating horror: Don’t revive what is dead for a reason.
However, this message does not stop modern scientists from trying to bring back these great creatures. Many are trying to manipulate genes and DNA to recreate the mighty beasts of old.
According to Would bringing back extinct animals turn out as it did in "Jurassic Park"? By Jason Nark, Washington Post, The Washington Post, adapted by Newsela staff,
“That is the goal of the Revive & Restore project, a California nonprofit co-founded by Brand that seeks to use new methods of "genetic rescue for endangered and extinct species." The group is working to reintroduce the extinct passenger pigeon into the wild. The process would remove genes from modern band-tailed pigeons and replace them with passenger-pigeon genes.
Revive & Restore would like to do something similar with woolly mammoths, editing the extinct creature's genes into those of modern Asian elephants. In that case, the goal is to increase the population of endangered Asian elephants, which has declined because of a virus. "We're not just curing extinction," Brand told the audience. "The technology that de-extinction is leading the way in is now being used by us and by others to prevent extinction."
This shows us that people are trying to bring back extinct creatures, even as we speak. From Woolly mammoths to even simple pigeons. What could this mean for the future? One genetic mistake and the whole operation could go askew; perhaps even unleash unknown horrors upon humanity!
People are even trying to change ecosystems to put these creations in, which are (possibly) good actions, as these creatures need a habitat, but what about all the creatures that already live there? These actions might misplace many local species.
The article explains such a scenario:
“In 2018, Brand and Church traveled to Siberia, where Russian scientists are attempting to re-create the grassland ecosystem where woolly mammoths once lived. As the number of mammoths declined, foliage took over grassland. To restore it, scientists have knocked down trees and shrubs and brought in plant eaters, including elk and moose, to graze and keep back the foliage.
Church said mammoth-and-Asian-elephant hybrids could once again inhabit Russia. He also urged everyone to "loosen up" about the prospect of hybrids. There's a lot of hybridization that occurs in mammals, he said. "I am partially Neanderthal," he said, referring to estimates by scientists that about 20 percent of Neanderthal genes are in modern humans. Neanderthals are an extinct species of human.
Jack Horner, a Montana State University scientist and adviser on the first "Jurassic Park" film, is also working on a hybrid called "chickenosaurus." No one mentioned this during the debate.
A hybrid mammoth, roaming Russia today, raises all sorts of questions, Rothschild and MacPhee said. Would this hybrid be released into a world with no natural predators? How would a mammoth know how to be a mammoth without other mammoths around? "You've got all the problems of not having a mom" and not having other animals to learn from, Rothschild said. These animals "will be suffering for something that we could be solving a different way," she said.”
Obviously, besides the misplacing of species, the creatures would need something to learn from, which is perhaps why everything in the JP films went wrong: Because some creatures had nothing to learn from, and thus decided to make it up as they went.
People are even getting sick ideas to use such creatures, such as extinct predators, for commercial purposes, such as using saber-toothed tigers for ‘hunting purposes’, should they be revived.
An audience member asked if someone wealthy could be moving forward with the technology, possibly for commercial purposes, while scientists were debating whether they should. Brand said there was nothing happening in the de-extinction world that had commercial purposes. MacPhee, in response, asked, "You don't think there's a future in having saber-toothed tigers that you can use for hunting purposes?"
This was proven not to be a good idea many times. We also see this in the JP and JW franchises. Where companies try to capture the dinosaurs for war and commercial purposes, or how in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, they show that the GENETICALLY ENGINEERED Indoraptor became more than what they expected, going so far as to devouring even the very people responsible for its creation.
Not to mention the Moral problems presented in a situation like this.
“Rothschild took the argument further, wondering whether someone could attempt to de-extinct a Neanderthal for commerce or simply in the name of science. The idea, Rothschild said, was morally wrong. "We have enough trouble with humanity recognizing that we have roughly equal intellects across the races. And to purposefully re-create a species that we know is going to be inferior in some way is just asking for enormous trouble," she said.
In the end, based on the votes tallied before and after the debate, more people came around to MacPhee and Rothschild's side than Church and Brand's. For once, Jeff Goldblum's won.”
(Jeff Goldblum was a character in Jurassic Park, who said 'Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.')
People talk about how bringing back species could be good in certain cases such as the Passenger Pigeon. Tis may seem good, as pigeons are usually harmless, but what about the fact that, should they be produced into the environment, poachers and others would not try to capture these birds and sell or kill them for profit? Then it would be worse for the bird than if it had never lived.
People are trying to use the DNA to recode the creatures, since DNA is like an instruction manual for building something. Think of it like this: DNA is like a construction manual for your body, as the construction book in your LEGO set allows you to build the model.
According to "Jurassic Park" for the birds? By David Biello, Scientific American, Scientific American, adapted by Newsela staff,
“But what if the passenger pigeon could be brought back?
After all, specimens of long-dead animals still contain DNA, genetic material that can be thought of as a set of instructions on how to form a particular species. Packets of DNA combine to form genes associated with a particular trait. If enough of those genes can be recreated, perhaps a long-gone species could be brought back to life.
That's the idea behind something called de-extinction.
It works like this: Take DNA harvested from specimens stuffed in museum drawers, like Martha. Figure out which genes matter and then use genetic engineering to edit the DNA of a closely related species into some version of the extinct species. If all goes well, a copy of the long-lost Martha could be born and, one day, flocks of passenger pigeons could be restored.”
But what about this other species who’s DNA they are manipulating? Couldn’t this cause a disruption in that species’ lifestyle? And what about the genetic change that will take place when the DNA is altered? It could cause mutations to occur, which may cause pain and agony for the creature involved. Has it ever occurred to scientists that conducting experiments like this on these creatures could be considered cruelty to animals?
“Ben Novak is doing pioneering work to make this exact scenario come true. Novak's effort is focused on acquiring genetic information from stuffed passenger pigeons, while simultaneously studying the genetic makeup of the closely related band-tailed pigeon.
So far, 32 passenger pigeon samples have had their genomes sequenced. "Genome" is simply the word for the complete set of genes found in an individual animal, while "sequencing" refers to the process of figuring out the order of the genome's parts — that is, the order of its DNA bases. Just as the words in a sentence need to be in a certain order to make sense, so too do DNA bases need to be ordered in a particular way for genetic information to be conveyed. A unique sequence is what creates an animal's particular genetic profile.
All of Novak's passenger pigeon samples come from birds killed between 1860 and 1898. "That's right in the range when the bird was going extinct," he notes.
Novak has also been helped by outside efforts, including the nearly complete sequencing of three passenger pigeons. The genes of those three individuals show that passenger pigeons have been through population booms and busts before — their numbers have grown and shrunk at different times.
Passenger pigeons have gone through times in their evolutionary history when their numbers were quite small, geneticist Beth Shapiro said. That suggests that scientists are able to create a small population of pigeons that can grow on its own.”
This evidence shows that the creatures were killed, so obviously they must have either been valuable, or lived in places that would be populated later. If this happened once, why could it not happen again?
If the de-extinction works, the only remaining challenge would be to teach the new birds how to be passenger pigeons. Doing that would likely be even more challenging than the genetic work itself. To understand the difficulty, look at similar efforts — such as attempts to raise California condors with puppets or to teach cranes to migrate by using ultralight airplanes.
These creatures are better to be left resting in peace, after all, if the scientists failed to teach these pigeons the proper way of life, they could become something else entirely, and what would be the point in that? It would be like trying to teach a T-Rex how to become a T-Rex, I mean, what are they going to do? Broadcast an educational film about tyrannosaurs onto a wall into a containment area and hope the tyrannosaurus catches on?
Overall, some things are best to be left the way they are, and some people should learn to leave well enough alone. There is a reason the term says ‘Rest In Peace’. If they were to be brought back, we would face many commercial, economic, environmental, and moral problems. It would have to great of an impact on the environment, and most likely it would be a negative impact. The truth is, if something is extinct, it is gone for a reason.
just take everything here, help me get a thesis statement, and put everything i've written in an organized order, according to the thesis.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
## Thesis Statement
The attempt to resurrect extinct species, while scientifically intriguing, poses significant ethical, ecological, and practical dilemmas, suggesting that nature's course should not be interrupted through de-extinction efforts.
## Organized Essay
### Introduction
In recent years, the concept of de-extinction—bringing extinct creatures back to life through genetic manipulation—has sparked considerable debate. Should extinct creatures be revived? What are the implications of creating new species from genetic mixtures? This essay examines the why, how, and critical considerations surrounding de-extinction, concluding that the potential consequences may outweigh the benefits.
### The Appeal of De-Extinction
The allure of reviving extinct species often sparks excitement and scientific curiosity. Many individuals envision a world enriched with the majestic creatures of the past. The Revive & Restore project, for instance, aims to reintroduce species like the passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth into the wild by using genetic techniques to edit the DNA of closely related species. This effort is presented as a means not only to revitalize extinct populations but also to prevent the extinction of endangered species.
### Potential Risks of De-Extinction
However, despite these noble intentions, the risks associated with de-extinction are substantial. The recreation of extinct creatures can lead to profound ecological disturbances. For example, manipulating the DNA of modern species to recreate woolly mammoths raises questions about the adaptability of these hybrids in a world where they lack natural ecosystems or social structures. A hybrid mammoth in Russia raises concerns about its survival without natural predators or other mammoths to learn from, potentially leading to suffering for these creatures.
### Ethical Considerations
The ethical implications of de-extinction cannot be ignored. The desire to bring back species for commercial purposes, such as using saber-toothed tigers for hunting, introduces moral dilemmas reminiscent of the cautionary tales portrayed in "Jurassic Park." As experts debate the wisdom of reviving species, voices like that of scientist Rothschild argue against recreating a species that may inherently be "inferior" or ill-suited for modern environments.
### Economic and Ecological Concerns
Restoring passenger pigeons and other species, while seemingly harmless, could lead to unforeseen consequences. The fear of poachers exploiting these creatures for profit raises troubling possibilities. Furthermore, altering the DNA of one species can disrupt the lives of other organisms. The genetic engineering process itself may result in mutations that cause pain and suffering to resurrected creatures, raising significant animal welfare concerns.
### Lessons from Jurassic Park
The cautionary tales presented in the "Jurassic Park" franchise highlight the unforeseen consequences of reviving extinct species. The iconic scene of the Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking free serves as an allegory for the chaos that can ensue from meddling with nature. The hubris of humanity in believing it can control such powerful forces often leads to disaster, as evidenced by the chaos and destruction portrayed in the films.
### Conclusion
In conclusion, while the scientific pursuit of de-extinction may seem promising, it is fraught with ethical, ecological, and practical dilemmas, suggesting that nature's course should not be interrupted. Bringing back extinct species may lead to significant disruptions in existing ecosystems, moral quandaries about animal welfare, and potential commercialization of these creatures. Ultimately, the phrase "Rest In Peace" serves as an important reminder that extinction often occurs for a reason, and some things are best left undisturbed.
---
This reorganization presents your ideas in a clear, structured manner aligned with your thesis statement, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.
The attempt to resurrect extinct species, while scientifically intriguing, poses significant ethical, ecological, and practical dilemmas, suggesting that nature's course should not be interrupted through de-extinction efforts.
## Organized Essay
### Introduction
In recent years, the concept of de-extinction—bringing extinct creatures back to life through genetic manipulation—has sparked considerable debate. Should extinct creatures be revived? What are the implications of creating new species from genetic mixtures? This essay examines the why, how, and critical considerations surrounding de-extinction, concluding that the potential consequences may outweigh the benefits.
### The Appeal of De-Extinction
The allure of reviving extinct species often sparks excitement and scientific curiosity. Many individuals envision a world enriched with the majestic creatures of the past. The Revive & Restore project, for instance, aims to reintroduce species like the passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth into the wild by using genetic techniques to edit the DNA of closely related species. This effort is presented as a means not only to revitalize extinct populations but also to prevent the extinction of endangered species.
### Potential Risks of De-Extinction
However, despite these noble intentions, the risks associated with de-extinction are substantial. The recreation of extinct creatures can lead to profound ecological disturbances. For example, manipulating the DNA of modern species to recreate woolly mammoths raises questions about the adaptability of these hybrids in a world where they lack natural ecosystems or social structures. A hybrid mammoth in Russia raises concerns about its survival without natural predators or other mammoths to learn from, potentially leading to suffering for these creatures.
### Ethical Considerations
The ethical implications of de-extinction cannot be ignored. The desire to bring back species for commercial purposes, such as using saber-toothed tigers for hunting, introduces moral dilemmas reminiscent of the cautionary tales portrayed in "Jurassic Park." As experts debate the wisdom of reviving species, voices like that of scientist Rothschild argue against recreating a species that may inherently be "inferior" or ill-suited for modern environments.
### Economic and Ecological Concerns
Restoring passenger pigeons and other species, while seemingly harmless, could lead to unforeseen consequences. The fear of poachers exploiting these creatures for profit raises troubling possibilities. Furthermore, altering the DNA of one species can disrupt the lives of other organisms. The genetic engineering process itself may result in mutations that cause pain and suffering to resurrected creatures, raising significant animal welfare concerns.
### Lessons from Jurassic Park
The cautionary tales presented in the "Jurassic Park" franchise highlight the unforeseen consequences of reviving extinct species. The iconic scene of the Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking free serves as an allegory for the chaos that can ensue from meddling with nature. The hubris of humanity in believing it can control such powerful forces often leads to disaster, as evidenced by the chaos and destruction portrayed in the films.
### Conclusion
In conclusion, while the scientific pursuit of de-extinction may seem promising, it is fraught with ethical, ecological, and practical dilemmas, suggesting that nature's course should not be interrupted. Bringing back extinct species may lead to significant disruptions in existing ecosystems, moral quandaries about animal welfare, and potential commercialization of these creatures. Ultimately, the phrase "Rest In Peace" serves as an important reminder that extinction often occurs for a reason, and some things are best left undisturbed.
---
This reorganization presents your ideas in a clear, structured manner aligned with your thesis statement, ensuring that each section flows logically into the next.