Login

Join for Free!
119258 members


History of the Cell

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

History of the Cell

Postby Vladimir Matveev » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:34 am

History of the Cell: http://www.ifcbiol.org/Dotcweb/index.html

Waddington (1968), for all his outstanding contributions to biology in the middle and later part of the 20th century, failed to mention the cell as a concept in his paper 'Main biological conceptions'. The cell to him was a reality, an object for investigation, a fact. Only such a fundamental notion can so present itself to one's consciousness that one considers it "something that goes without saying" - an objective phenomenon, like the sea or the stars. But the cell, a concept that took many years to emerge, was by no means an "obvious fact" to all concerned at the outset. The cell concept probably had a no less painful birth than many other concepts that now are considered fact, such as the heliocentric nature of our solar system (Galileo, 1612-32). That birth (not literally of the cell, but of the concept of the cell) has been the subject of much intensive research, compiled as one fascinating, highly erudite but complex treatise in Harris (2000). We might all concede that there is a "unit of life", and might be prepared to call it a cell, but there is no precise, unambiguous and generally agreed definition of "a cell".
Last edited by Vladimir Matveev on Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vladimir Matveev
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:50 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

Postby MrMistery » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:30 pm

Think about algebra: the number, as the simplest of all algebric concepts has no definition. In geometry, the dot has no definition. Therefore, in biology, the cell needs no definition.
Think of it like this: Anything with a membrane, cytoplasm and genome si a cell
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Physics no needs in atom definition too???

Postby Vladimir Matveev » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:37 am

Your jump from algebra and geometry to biology is a phantom of logic. According to your mind, physics no needs in atom definition too. :lol:
User avatar
Vladimir Matveev
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:50 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia


Postby MrMistery » Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:20 pm

You do not have to accept my opinion. You are free to have your own
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Postby mith » Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:07 am

I think there is a difference between define-able and common knowledge. Probably the cell should have been common knowledge, while, at least I think, dots are abstract imaginary objects.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby biostudent84 » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:07 am

A number is a value representing the count of a group of units.
A point [dot] is a location in three dimensional space used to give positions for more complex units, for example, lines.

This argument is following the lines of Reductionism and Wholisitic science.

The cell is the basic unit of life
--taken from modern Cell Theory

Dr. Matveev has a highly valid point. Remember our debates on whether or not viruses are alive? The definition of a cell must be refined because of this. Asking deeper questions, what is a membrane? If a membrane is a shell protecting the innards of a cell, then by all means, a virus is a cell. But if the definition of membrane is refined to a phospholipid bilayer, then viruses are ruled out. They have a protective shell...but it is not made of lipids...it is made of proteins.

Reading this thread and its attachment, my interest is highly piqued. Please keep us appraised on the events surrounding this research.
User avatar
biostudent84
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am
Location: Farmville, VA

Postby MrMistery » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:40 pm

Even if you consider membrane as a protective layer then a virus can not be a cell cause it has no cytoplasm
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests