Jump to content

Talk:Cell theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.181.168.148 (talk) at 17:03, 6 January 2008 (→Non-living cells?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Wikiproject MCB

WikiProject iconHistory of Science Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is in desperate need of attention!


Transplantation

How can doctors transplant vital organs such as hearts and livers. (with cell theory in mind) -Unknown

Please specify your concern. Basically, the cells are similar enough to operate, and the immune system is suppressed to increase chances of organ being accepted. Tyciol 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microscope relevance

How is most of this relevant? It doesn't seem like improvements of microscopes or theass and tities differences and my foot uo your ass difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is relevant in an article about the cell theory. -Unknown

Page is screwed up

Someone messed up this page. I'm not scientifically savvy enough to fix it. Just let'n people know. Thanks P.S. Louis Pasteur I'm pretty sure had little to do with the confirmation of Schwann's original theory. Source? -Unknown

Reversion can restore page to previous state without creating new from scratch. Tyciol 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why does it have the ć→← it's so weird -Unknown

you're right. this page is totally messed up.

I'd just like to say sorry for my edit on 14 Feb 2007, maybe trying to fight vandalism in the middle of the night is not a good idea. Ram4eva 14:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.216.223 (talk) 13:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Science

What are the scientific theories the main three? -Unknown

The main three what? *fixes your typos* Tyciol 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hole in Cell Theory

I think this page should be paying attention to the logical fallacy that all cells must result from division of a previous cell. Obviously there would have to be at least one originating cell that was not derived from another cell. As such, abiogenesis should be consulted, the formation of simple cellular organisms from organic compounds. Even if not observable today due to evolved cells that outcompete it for organic resources, it is the only logical explanation for the origin of cells. I would like to see it added. Tyciol 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spontanious generation

I think this should also mention the theory that was accepted by many before cell theory. I think it was called Spontanious Genreation, but I'm not sure. But what if it doesnt work? you will not get it right.or will have false information.

I am going to have to disagree. As this is meant to be a reference book and not a magazine of sorts it would make no sense to post something about the logical fallacy, as you call it, of the theory.

Opinionated?

How is this opinionated?

The three main parts of the cell theory are: 

  1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
  2. Cells are the most basic unit for function and structure of all organisms.
  3. cells come from cells that already exist.

Jvbishop 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

I'm trying a big rewrite of this page to make it a lot better than Stub status. rather than making the actual page an incoherent mess that changes 12 times a day (like today), I'm going to just do most of the work on a draft page that I made. Anyone interested in helping may feel free to stop by and offer suggestions, or make their own improvements. Jvbishop 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October repairs

The vandalism rate on this article is very high. There was some serious damage done to the article during the past two months. I'm going to try to repair the damage. --JWSchmidt 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck. I'm not enough of a biologist to help out here, although I'll do my best to keep the vandals off your back. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit resulted in the loss of a page section called "Modern cell theory". I think it is important to have such a section in addition to the section that describes the recognition of cells and the early historical development of cell theory. Note: There is an alternative form of this page section in this draft by Jvbishop. I would prefer something other than a numbered list, but I'm not sure I like all the small 4th level sections in the Jvbishop version. Here is what was deleted:

Modern cell theory

The generally accepted parts of cell theory include:

  1. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
  2. All cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
  3. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.
  4. Cells contain hereditary information which is passed from cell to cell during cell division
  5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
  6. All known living things are made up of cells.
  7. Some organisms are unicellular, made up of only one cell.
  8. Others are multicellular, composed of countless number of cells.

This theory also contains exceptions:

  1. Viruses are considered by some to be alive, yet they are not made up of cells.
  2. The first cell did not originate from a preexisting cell.

Lost paragraph

This edit destroyed an important part of the history section:

"Credit for developing Cell Theory is usually given to three scientists, Theodore Schwann, Matthias Jakob Schleiden, and Rudolf Virchow. In 1839 these three scientists suggested that cells were the basic unit of life. Their theory accepted the first two tenets of modern cell theory. However the cell theory of Schleiden differed from modern cell theory in that it proposed a method of spontaneous crystallization that he called "Free Cell Formation"[1]. In 1858, Rudolf Virchow concluded that all cells come from pre-existing cells thus completing the modern theory."

Lost image

This edit removed an image and part of a sentence related to Hooke. The deleted content was:

File:Hooke's cork.png
Drawing of the structure of cork

"as it appeared under the microscope to Robert Hooke from Micrographia which is the origin of to Cell theory" [2]

Nowiki version:
[[Image:Hooke's cork.png|thumb|right|300px|Drawing of the structure of [[Cork cambium|cork]]]] as it appeared under the microscope to [[Robert Hooke]] from [[Micrographia]] which is the origin of to Cell theory" <ref>The American Naturalist, Vol.73 pgs 517-537</ref>.

I added the above content that seems to have been accidentally lost during the past few months. I also did some other cleaning of the article such as putting a "see also" section in after the references. --JWSchmidt 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryote image

Should the lines originating from “Plasma membrane” and from “Cell Wall” really end at the same red perimeter in the image?

Thanks Merquior 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Merquior[reply]

Non-living cells?

When you search "cell theory" on Google, this entry's little summary thing is

"Cell theory refers to the idea that cells are the basic unit and structure of all non-living things. Development of this theory during the 1800s was made ..."

It says that they're the structure of non-living things, but in the article is says living things. I'm assuming this is a glitch, because it's obviously supposed to say living things. Could someone fix that?

  1. ^ Schleiden, Matthias Jakob 1839,"Contributions to Phytogenesis"
  2. ^ The American Naturalist, Vol.73 pgs 517-537
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cell_theory&oldid=182553181"