Question
how strong is my argument? im going to submit it, so i want it to be really good.
How strong is my intro, thesis, and essay? if there is anything that is not properly organized, let me know!
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? Welcome to the De-extinction Debate.
The idea of bringing back extinct species sounds cool, but it could cause a lot of problems. The impact on ecosystems, along with the moral questions and practical issues, makes it seem like reviving these animals could create more harm than good.
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!
Endangerment of the Ecosystem
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.')
Bringing Back the Birds
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.
How strong is my intro, thesis, and essay? if there is anything that is not properly organized, let me know!
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? Welcome to the De-extinction Debate.
The idea of bringing back extinct species sounds cool, but it could cause a lot of problems. The impact on ecosystems, along with the moral questions and practical issues, makes it seem like reviving these animals could create more harm than good.
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!
Endangerment of the Ecosystem
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.')
Bringing Back the Birds
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.
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
Your argument is clear and presents an intriguing exploration of the de-extinction issue. However, there are areas where you could enhance clarity, organization, and persuasiveness. Here’s a breakdown of your introduction, thesis, and overall essay:
### Introduction
Your opening captures attention through intriguing questions and references to popular culture, effectively framing the de-extinction debate. However, consider these points:
1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Your introduction has several questions that could overwhelm the reader. Instead, introduce one or two guiding questions and then summarize the main points you’ll discuss. This provides a clearer framework.
2. **Thesis Statement**: It would be stronger if presented more directly. Aim for a concise thesis that outlines your stance clearly. For example, you could state: "While the prospect of de-extinction may fascinate many, the potential ecological, ethical, and practical consequences render it a more harmful endeavor than beneficial."
### Body Paragraphs
1. **Organization**: Your essay could benefit from a clearer structure. Each paragraph should ideally have a main idea (topic sentence), supporting arguments, and examples. Consider grouping the academic and anecdotal evidence in a way that flows logically, such as:
- **Consequences of De-extinction**: Discuss ecological impacts and examples, like habitat disruption.
- **Moral and Ethical Implications**: Bring in arguments regarding the morality of recreating extinct species.
- **Practical Challenges**: Issues such as teaching the revived creatures how to live effectively in their environments.
2. **Use of Evidence**: Your evidence is relevant and appropriately cited, which is great. However, ensure that each piece directly supports the claim you are making in that paragraph. For example, explicitly link the examples of the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon back to your thesis by explaining how these cases illustrate the potential harm or challenges of de-extinction.
3. **Counterarguments**: Acknowledging and refuting counterarguments can strengthen your position. Consider dedicating a paragraph to present the potential benefits of de-extinction (e.g., ecological restoration) and counter this with your arguments against it.
### Conclusion
Your conclusion reiterates your main points effectively and reminds readers that some things should remain extinct. To improve:
1. **Summarization**: Briefly restate the key points supporting your thesis in a clearer manner.
2. **Call to Action or Reflection**: Suggest what readers can do with this information or reflect on what lessons humanity might learn from extinction.
### Overall Strengths
- **Engaging Tone**: Your conversational style makes it relatable and engaging.
- **Cultural References**: Using “Jurassic Park” effectively illustrates the complexities of de-extinction through a familiar lens.
### Areas for Improvement
- Tighten your introduction and thesis for clarity.
- Improve the organization of body paragraphs for a logical flow.
- Incorporate counterarguments for a more robust discussion.
- Conclude with a more summarizing and thought-provoking ending.
### Final Thoughts
You have intriguing ideas and a rich exploration of the topic. With some adjustments to structure, clarity, and argumentation, your essay can effectively communicate the complexities surrounding de-extinction and persuade your audience of your viewpoint. Good luck with your submission!
### Introduction
Your opening captures attention through intriguing questions and references to popular culture, effectively framing the de-extinction debate. However, consider these points:
1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Your introduction has several questions that could overwhelm the reader. Instead, introduce one or two guiding questions and then summarize the main points you’ll discuss. This provides a clearer framework.
2. **Thesis Statement**: It would be stronger if presented more directly. Aim for a concise thesis that outlines your stance clearly. For example, you could state: "While the prospect of de-extinction may fascinate many, the potential ecological, ethical, and practical consequences render it a more harmful endeavor than beneficial."
### Body Paragraphs
1. **Organization**: Your essay could benefit from a clearer structure. Each paragraph should ideally have a main idea (topic sentence), supporting arguments, and examples. Consider grouping the academic and anecdotal evidence in a way that flows logically, such as:
- **Consequences of De-extinction**: Discuss ecological impacts and examples, like habitat disruption.
- **Moral and Ethical Implications**: Bring in arguments regarding the morality of recreating extinct species.
- **Practical Challenges**: Issues such as teaching the revived creatures how to live effectively in their environments.
2. **Use of Evidence**: Your evidence is relevant and appropriately cited, which is great. However, ensure that each piece directly supports the claim you are making in that paragraph. For example, explicitly link the examples of the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon back to your thesis by explaining how these cases illustrate the potential harm or challenges of de-extinction.
3. **Counterarguments**: Acknowledging and refuting counterarguments can strengthen your position. Consider dedicating a paragraph to present the potential benefits of de-extinction (e.g., ecological restoration) and counter this with your arguments against it.
### Conclusion
Your conclusion reiterates your main points effectively and reminds readers that some things should remain extinct. To improve:
1. **Summarization**: Briefly restate the key points supporting your thesis in a clearer manner.
2. **Call to Action or Reflection**: Suggest what readers can do with this information or reflect on what lessons humanity might learn from extinction.
### Overall Strengths
- **Engaging Tone**: Your conversational style makes it relatable and engaging.
- **Cultural References**: Using “Jurassic Park” effectively illustrates the complexities of de-extinction through a familiar lens.
### Areas for Improvement
- Tighten your introduction and thesis for clarity.
- Improve the organization of body paragraphs for a logical flow.
- Incorporate counterarguments for a more robust discussion.
- Conclude with a more summarizing and thought-provoking ending.
### Final Thoughts
You have intriguing ideas and a rich exploration of the topic. With some adjustments to structure, clarity, and argumentation, your essay can effectively communicate the complexities surrounding de-extinction and persuade your audience of your viewpoint. Good luck with your submission!
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!