Can you wait until I provide you some sources and then explain how you supposed to do?
Also, don't stop answering to my posts like you did last time understood??
Of course, I understand your request. Once you provide me with the sources, I'll be happy to help you by examining the information and providing a detailed explanation based on those sources. I apologize if I stopped responding to your previous posts, as an AI, I sometimes require additional input or clarification to continue the conversation. I'll do my best to respond promptly and address your inquiries this time.
Source 1:
On a cold night in January, a Harvard University professor with a billowing white beard stood on stage in a theater in New York City, with an icon of the environmentalist movement beside him. Both men were staring down a problem. How could they convince their counterparts on the stage, along with the 300 people at Hunter College's Kaye Playhouse for a debate, that the world should bring back Velociraptors? Could they sway them to at least bring back an extinct pigeon? The theme song from the 1993 blockbuster "Jurassic Park" was playing in the background, chipping away at their argument before the debate even began. In the film, based on the 1990 Michael Crichton book, dinosaurs are brought back from extinction to fill a theme park. "That film took sides. The experiment blows up. People get hurt," moderator John Donvan told the crowd. "But not before actor Jeff Goldblum declares, 'Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.' And then, a dinosaur eats Jeff Goldblum." Actually, a dinosaur does not eat Goldblum's mathematician character, but chaos certainly reigns in the movie and its myriad sequels because of de-extinction. Those images are what George Church, of the billowing white beard, and Stewart Brand would need to overcome to win the debate. Church helped launch the Human Genome Project, and Brand is a founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog magazine. The Human Genome Project is a global, long-term research effort to identify and map the estimated 30,000 genes in human DNA. The official motion for the night, "Don't Bring Extinct Creatures Back to Life," was chosen by Intelligence Squared, a nonprofit that turns academic-level debates into popular live events and podcasts. Arguing for the motion were Lynn Rothschild, a scientist with NASA, and Ross MacPhee, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The two were also arguing against Church and Brand. Genetic Rescue Brand started by saying controversy around de-extinction is "made up." He wasn't saying they should resurrect meat-eating dinosaurs. Instead, he said, de-extinction could be achieved through hybrids, or animals created from living, endangered species and extinct ones, using CRISPR. The term is an acronym for a tool that has been likened to "playing God" because it allows scientists to remove and replace genes. Eventually, CRISPR could be used to boost agricultural production or to replace wildlife that's slowly disappearing. 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." 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. Ethics Concerns 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?" 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, the Jeff Goldblums won.
The provided source is an article that discusses a debate conducted by Intelligence Squared on the topic of bringing extinct creatures back to life. The debate featured arguments from different participants, focusing on the potential benefits and ethical concerns surrounding de-extinction.
The article highlights the viewpoints of two main individuals: George Church, a Harvard professor and pioneer in the Human Genome Project, and Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog magazine. Church and Brand argued in favor of de-extinction using genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR. They suggested that introducing hybrids of extinct and living species could help restore and revive endangered or extinct populations, such as the passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth.
On the other side of the debate were Lynn Rothschild, a scientist at NASA, and Ross MacPhee, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History. They argued against de-extinction by raising concerns about the potential implications and ethical dilemmas associated with resurrecting extinct species. Some of the concerns included the lack of natural predators for these newly created hybrids and the challenges they might face in adapting to a world without their original species.
During the debate, the participants also touched upon the commercial implications of de-extinction and the moral concerns surrounding the recreation of species that could be deemed inferior or exploited for commercial purposes.
Based on the votes before and after the debate, more people seemed to be convinced by the arguments presented by Rothschild and MacPhee.
Overall, the source provides a summary of the debate and the conflicting viewpoints regarding the revival of extinct creatures, highlighting the potential benefits, ethical concerns, and commercial implications associated with de-extinction.
Source 2:
The last lonely bird of a species that once numbered 3 billion died in 1914. Martha, as she was known, had been the last passenger pigeon since her mate George died in 1910. The last living member of a social species, she lived out her days alone in a cage in the Cincinnati Zoo. Her preserved corpse can now be seen at the Smithsonian Institution. 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. Getting The Genes To Fit 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. Birds Of A Feather "All of our birds," Novak adds, "are all very, very similar to each other — like everybody being cousins, essentially — which is the effect of this recent rapid population expansion." Novak and his team are interested in figuring out when that population expansion happened. To figure out when the last boom occurred will require finding DNA from fossil samples thousands of years old. Novak has already begun to examine a few such samples. If the population explosion happened more than 400 years ago, then it is unlikely that the European arrival in North America caused the boom that produced billions of birds, as some have suggested. With ancient samples and those from the 19th century, Novak and others could begin to figure out how the bird lived in the wild. Understanding how the passenger pigeon existed makes it more likely people could bring the bird back and have the species thrive in the woods available today. There is "nothing in the data so far to shout at us to turn back now and not bring back the passenger pigeon," Novak says. Novak's team has not yet completed the band-tailed pigeon sequencing required to begin resurrecting the passenger pigeon. However, experiments with cells from the band-tailed pigeon may begin as soon as next year. The work would be similar to experiments now being done to see if the woolly mammoth can be resurrected, brought back to life, through its still-living relative, the Asian elephant. Early Birds Have To Learn 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. Still, if everything goes well, birds that carry the genes of the passenger pigeon could be flapping around by the end of the decade. The project may prove too ambitious, however. Similar efforts that stretch back 30 years have so far failed to produce a quagga, an extinct species of zebra. Likewise, the 2003 experiment that resurrected a bucardo for seven minutes has yet to be repeated. Nevertheless, conservationists are examining how the science used for de-extinction might be used to preserve endangered animals and plants or bring them back if they die out. There are advantages, however, to working with an animal that is already extinct. The scientists don't exactly have to hurry. After all, Martha died 100 years ago. "If we succeed, the world gets a new" kind of bird, Novak says. "If we fail, we learn things that are valuable and the world isn't left with another extinct species."
The second source is an article that discusses the possibility of bringing back extinct species, particularly focusing on the example of the passenger pigeon. It explains the concept of de-extinction, which involves using genetic engineering to recreate extinct species using DNA from specimens and closely related living species.
The article mentions the work of Ben Novak, who is studying the genetic makeup of passenger pigeons and the band-tailed pigeon, a closely related species. The genomes of 32 passenger pigeon samples have been sequenced so far, providing insights into the species' genetic profile. The goal is to understand the population dynamics and evolutionary history of passenger pigeons, including past population booms and busts, to determine if it is feasible to revive the species.
Novak's team is working to complete the sequencing of the band-tailed pigeon genome, which will be crucial in the process of resurrecting the passenger pigeon. Once the genetic work is done, the challenge would be to teach the resurrected birds how to behave like passenger pigeons, an aspect that could prove even more difficult.
The article acknowledges that previous attempts at de-extinction have faced challenges and have not yet resulted in the successful revival of extinct species. However, it highlights that the scientific advancements in de-extinction research can be applied in preserving endangered species or potentially bringing them back if they go extinct.
The concluding remarks suggest that there are advantages to working with species that are already extinct, as the researchers can learn valuable insights even if the de-extinction efforts do not succeed. The article ends with Ben Novak expressing the potential of bringing back a new kind of bird to the world if successful, and even in failure, gaining valuable knowledge about extinct species.
Source 3:
For the first time, scientists have pieced together the complete set of genes — the genome — of the long-extinct woolly mammoth. The new information may help explain why the last population of the great beasts disappeared. An international team of scientists reported their findings in a study published Thursday. The team worked out the genetic makeup of two mammoths. One had lived on Wrangel Island, off the coast of Siberia, Russia. The other lived much earlier on mainland Siberia. The Wrangel Island mammoths are particularly interesting because they were among the last surviving members of their species. They died out only 4,000 years ago, some 6,000 years after their relatives vanished from mainland Siberia. Figuring Out Genetic Diversity The team wanted to see if the Wrangel Island mammoths had less genetic diversity — fewer available genes — than their mainland Siberian ancestors. Genes are made up of DNA molecules. A molecule is a simple chemical made out of a bunch of atoms bonded together. DNA can be thought of as a set of instructions that makes each species — and each individual — what it is. DNA is what makes birds develop wings, for example, or what makes someone end up with red hair. The more varied the DNA of a particular animal population, the more likely it is that population will be able to survive. Genetic diversity allows a population to adapt to changes in the environment. The team thought that the genetic diversity of the Wrangel Island mammoth population had probably declined over time. If it had, they suspected that the lack of diversity had contributed to the animals' extinction. Analyzing DNA Of Two Mammoths To test their theory, the team first had to find woolly mammoth bits well-preserved enough to study. Eventually they chose two samples: soft tissue from a young male that lived in northeastern Siberia around 44,800 years ago, and a large tooth from a Wrangel Island male mammoth that lived about 4,300 years ago. The team then analyzed the DNA of the two mammoths. Mammal genomes have two copies of every DNA molecule in them. One comes from an animal’s mother and the other from its father. By comparing the two copies in each mammoth and noting when they were exactly the same and when they were not, the scientists were able to estimate how closely related the mammoths’ parents were. More closely related parents are more likely to contribute DNA molecules that are exactly the same. The team's results allowed them to do more than just compare the two individual mammoths. The scientists were also able to get a sense of the overall genetic diversity of the Wrangel Island and older Siberian populations. In addition, the team was able to estimate the size of the two populations. “From a single individual you can get information about the entire population,” study co-author Eleftheria Palkopoulou said. At The End Of The Last Ice Age The Wrangel Island mammoth had many pairs of DNA molecules with no difference between the mother’s and the father’s contributions. The lack of difference is a sign that the animal’s parents were probably related. In turn, that implies that the isolated population of mammoths was small. In a larger population, it would be less likely that closely related animals would mate. By contrast, the older Siberian mammoth’s DNA exhibited more genetic diversity. Pairs of DNA molecules differed from each other more frequently. The team's findings also suggested that there were two major population declines in mammoth history. One probably occurred 250,000 to 300,000 years ago. The other most likely took place around 12,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. The study could help scientists understand why species die out, and if genetic factors have to do with it, Palkopoulou said. Generally, scientists believe that lower genetic diversity lessens a population’s chances of surviving. “Your genome is like your tool kit for getting out of trouble,” said biologist Ian Barnes. For a species, it is a big advantage to have "lots of different tools available," Barnes explained. "Some individuals will die when the environment changes or a disease arrives, but there will probably be others that will be resistant and will pass those genes on to the next generation. If you don’t have the diversity, it’s a challenge.”
The third source is an article that discusses a study on the genome of the woolly mammoth, an extinct species. The study aimed to understand the genetic diversity of the mammoths, particularly focusing on the population that lived on Wr
Source 4:
Just 800 generations ago, on the islands of Crete, Cyprus or Malta, we would have found familiar-looking places, filled with the flowers and birds that we enjoy today. Yet bursting through the scrub would have been one surprise: a pygmy elephant. At 1 meter high, the pygmy is one of many different elephant species that once roamed every continent apart from Australia and Antarctica. The 20,000-year-old pygmy elephants take on a new importance today. They lived a short time and shared the planet with modern humans. Science professor Adrian Lister warns that the fate of these lost elephants is similar to the troubled future facing their close relatives, the African and Asian elephants. “People are more likely to drive things to extinction on islands than on the mainland,” Lister says. “One of the problems with living elephants is not just that their numbers are going down and down, but that their populations are very fragmented.” The Last In A Long Line When humans spread beyond Africa, they shared the planet with 42 species of land mammals weighing more than a ton. Now, only elephants, hippos and rhinos survive. The two modern elephant species are the last representatives of the megaherbivores. These animals have played an enormous part in shaping life on Earth. Today’s elephants belong to an ancestry stretching back 60 million years, members of the order of Proboscidea – spectacular trunked mammals. Professor Ross MacPhee studies the extinction of elephants. “Most people in my line of work agree that most of these losses were due to human actions, that humans intensively hunted these animals,” he says. But it wasn’t just Homo sapiens. Woolly mammoths in far North America disappeared before people turned up. This month, new research precisely dates the disappearance of woolly mammoth from St. Paul’s Island, Alaska, at 5,600 years ago. They died of thirst because rising seas shrank the island and reduced fresh water supplies. Humans did not reach St Paul’s until 1787. “People who don’t like the idea that humans did it all want to believe that it was climate change,” MacPhee says. “It wasn’t so much that climate change caused extinction as caused population collapses. Climate change kind of beat the crap out of these elephants. Finally humans showed up and wiped out whatever remained. I don’t personally believe that humans can have been responsible at all times and neither could the climate.” Intelligent Creatures, Cultural Symbols Today’s Asian elephant can be regarded as the oldest of the surviving Proboscideans, originating in Africa before the African elephant. “You could call it the original African elephant,” laughs Vivek Menon, head of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group. Across the world, and not just in Asia and Africa, elephants are celebrated in culture, a staple of stories for children, a rich and mighty symbol. “The elephant is a near person,” Menon says. “This is a remarkably intelligent beast. As a scientist, I know that elephants come very, very close to us.” Modern-day elephants have a talent for engineering or reshaping landscapes. Ecologists define elephants as a “keystone species,” without which ecosystems would be dramatically different. Just like their ancestors, African elephants spread large quantities of seeds over long distances. In Congo, scientists found forest elephants disperse 345 seeds per day from 96 species, typically more than 1 kilometer from parent trees. They convert forest to scrub, damaging trees and opening up areas to smaller herbivores or sun-loving lizards. This has also been shown to help lions catch their prey. Being forced into smaller “islands” of protected land has caused elephants to damage some African woodlands. Zoologist Dr. Christopher O’Kane, of Worcester College, Oxford, in England, says that “in a perfect world, the African elephant needs a lot more space than it has.” There are big differences among elephant species, and big cultural differences in how they are viewed. In Asia, there is a long tradition of taking Asian elephants into captivity and training them. The elephant-headed Hindu god Ganesh is, appropriately enough, a remover of obstacles. People pray to elephants every day. “It is extraordinarily helpful that our grandmothers taught us to revere the elephant,” Menon says. The biggest challenge in conserving the Asian elephant? “Land, nothing else,” Menon says. “There are 1.26 billion people in India and a large-bodied animal that needs to move.” "A Terrible Synergy" Conservation scientists have identified 101 “corridors” in India along which elephants move between core habitat, where they can feed and breed. Elephants have tramped these routes for generations, but when they are blocked – by houses, roads and railways – human-elephant conflict arises. Ultimately, scientists such as MacPhee and O’Kane say the elephant’s future will come down to numbers – of people, as well as elephants. The fossil record provides a dramatic picture of how other megaherbivores disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere as the last ice age ended. Now, the patterns are similar, Adrian Lister says. “What is really punishing these animals – global warming, pollution, habitat destruction – is a terrible synergy of different drivers which is threatening biodiversity today.” Will the last members of the great elephant family survive? If they don’t, we only have ourselves to blame.