Scientist Solutions: International Life Science Community By Scientists For Scientists
    
Home » Forums » Anatomy and Physiology » Cell Anatomy/Physiology » History of the Cell

Thanks to our sponsors who make this site possible

History of the Cell

RSS Feed

Would you like to save this topic, event, protocol or job so you can find it again easily?

Just click the "Save to My Lab Drawer" link and the item will be saved in the My Lab Drawer section of your bench space.

Available to members only. Please log in or register for your free account now.


Send PM
See Mini bio

Status: Frog Egg
Frog Egg
Topic Started by Vladimir Matveev
on 3/27/2005 4:58 AM   
Reply to this post Go to the top of the page

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".

Replies

Send PM
See Mini bio

Status: Adult Frog
Frog Laureate
Posted By Sandy
on 6/20/2005 16:19 PM   
Reply to this post Go to the top of the page

Dear Vladimir,

I am sorry for not quit understanding your arguments and your opinion regarding cell not to be considered as "unit of life". Your arguments seem to be more philosophical than real biology. You didn't give any example of what you think it should be the real definition of "the cell". Could you please elaborate more about your idea of "the cell"?

Thanks,




Send PM
See Mini bio

Status: Frog Egg
Frog Egg
Posted By Vladimir Matveev
on 6/21/2005 0:16 AM   
Reply to this post Go to the top of the page

Dear Sandy,

Of course, cell is a "unit of life" but what is the living cell in its nature? That is the question! You understand me better if read the book you will find on this web page:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/revolution/contents.htm

Best regards,
Vladimir


RedBull
China

Send PM
See Mini bio

Status: Tadpole
Tadpole
Posted By RedBull
on 7/31/2005 22:52 PM   
Reply to this post Go to the top of the page

I think it's really a philosophysical question to ask about the definition of "cell".

I think that's the basis of every living organism.

I refer you to the book called "The Cell" by someone called Swanson.

You can also find more information about the definition of "cell" through this website



As a Scientist Solutions member, you are able to register a positive vote for any topic which you believe is useful and relevant to our board or any reply which you believe is especially well worded and helpful.

By participating in the voting, you will be helping to identify the best topics & replies on the board.

You may vote once for any one post, and you may not vote for your own posts.

A post (topic or reply) will earn one "thumbs up" icon for every 10 votes received (up to 3 thumbs up), and the person who made the post will also earn two bonus points.

learn more about member points.