Cell Walls and evolution

Discussion of all aspects of cellular structure, physiology and communication.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
pnjpenguin
Garter
Garter
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:20 am

Cell Walls and evolution

Post by pnjpenguin » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:25 am

Hi, everyone. My professor asked my class to discuss the pros and cons of having or not having a cell wall with respect to the process of evolution. I've been scanning my textbook for a while and I haven't found anything. From thinking about it I think that having a cell wall would lead to less evolution because the cell wall would prevent the cells from picking up as many new genes. I also think a cell wall could be positive because it allows the cell to live longer and therefore have more time to evolve. I'm pretty sure these are wrong. If any of you have any clue as to what the pros and cons are can you please help me. Thanks.

baikuza
Coral
Coral
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia
Contact:

Post by baikuza » Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:43 am

ah, hi there?

let see.. i may not talking about what's on the text book. i want to look at another perspective.

shall we look it at a different angle? :o

who has a cell wall and who does not?
and.. which organism are more dominant? the one who has cell wall or who doesn't?

anyway, hope this help
PS: the one who is more supperior/dominant may be the higher lifeform.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:03 am

Well you have to understand how evolution works. You have a problem: you are a big organism and need to support yourself. So natural selection devises solutions:
1. get a cell wall. this will help you be more rigid and(in a certain degree) get rid of osmosis problems. But it will incapacitate your cells to move or carry out cytosis. Is it worth the compromise? The plants seem to think so.
2. don't get a cell wall. you can move through water and you don't need one as long as you are there so much. But when you come on land you're gonna need some kind of support. Be it a hydrostatic skeleton(like in earthworms), an external skeleton(arthropods and nematodes) or an internal skeleton(chordates), you need something. Is it worth the trouble? Animals seem to think so.

@baikuza
Sorry, don't agree. from two points of view
Evolution is not a latter. You cannot say that one organism is more evolved than the other. Rather, you should think of organisms in the evolutionary tree as leaves. Is the leaf on top any better than the one on the bottom? Not really.
And if you absolutely want to classify organisms on how evolved they are, i am not sure numbers would be the best, since bacteria are the most numerous organisms on earth.
"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

baikuza
Coral
Coral
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia
Contact:

Post by baikuza » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:24 pm

well, the mean of supperior not always the most abbundant on this earth.
my point is the one who can control other. it is not like that if a bad man are more abundant than a good man.. then i say bad man are supperior than good man. :)

in the past, my master said that microbia like bacteria is far better than us :( (e.g. it can produce something that we cannot produce.. like capsula, live in high temp-thermophylic bacteria-, etc). i disagree about this, which mean i also do not side on that perspective, like you, i'm disagree. hehe...

so again, what i mean about supperior/dominant is not about the abbundance, but the level it can influence what/who's around. hope this may clear this missunderstanding. hehe..

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:57 pm

Interesting.. But how do you measure that. I mean it is kinda common sense that from that point of view humans should be on top, but you have to define something of a scientific system to quantify it..
"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

baikuza
Coral
Coral
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:09 am
Location: Yogyakarta, indonesia, south-east asia
Contact:

Post by baikuza » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:03 pm

easy.

is there any lifeform that exploit human? i think none except human it self (PS: do not make use of anypeople in bad term, we are human.. the highest lifeform.. at least in this planet. just why we need to do that? we are good.).

then which one may win.. human or plant? human or other animal?
just see the fact in these days... human can manipulate other livingthings. and we can do many things that cannot be done by other living thing

ok, let look at the cognitive ability of living things... this may be easier to determine which one is smarter.. in other words, the one who's more supperior.

quest what? now i recall something interesting. this is a bit out of topic.. but, i think this is a bit related on this topic.

do you know why there are many plant secondary metabolites that can be used by human like to cure human disease? just, why plant has it? do that existence just for us? human? (e.g kina for malaria) and many other product are adventage us.

somehow it says that we, human, are the one who will use it. cool doesn't it?

----
i do not expect that this discussion may go this far???? (+_+)
----

hope this is ok.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests