Talk:Cell theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten. Please help improve this article. The discussion page may contain suggestions.

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) rated top as high school/SAT biology content, fundamental theory in biology - tameeria 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

	This 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This page is in desperate need of attention!

Contents 1 Transplantation 2 Microscope relevance 3 Page is screwed up 4 The Hole in Cell Theory 4.1 Spontanious generation 5 Opinionated? 6 Draft 7 October repairs 7.1 Modern cell theory 7.2 Lost paragraph 7.3 Lost image 8 Prokaryote image 9 Non-living cells? 10 Mesosome 11

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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."

[edit] Lost image

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

"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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 it says living things. I'm assuming this is a glitch, because it's obviously supposed to say living things. Could someone fix that?

[edit] Mesosome

The leading image in this article is of a bacterium with a "mesosome," a structure that most scientists have considered an artifact of fixation processes (OsO4?) for over 30 years. Should this really be the lead image for this article on cell theory? Does the article discuss the prominent mesosome in the prominent image? --69.226.108.255 (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See reply at Talk:Cell (biology)‎. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. Does anyone have any info on the more vitalistic theories that were related to the early development of cell theory. Probably the counter-theories? Labratt (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

There is a category mistake that this page needs to clean up. Yes we are made of cells , but we are also made of organs i.e that is cells that are aggregated and have properties of that organ ; certain genes switched on and others switched off. The type of cell signalling can also be specific to the organ BillO'Slatter (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)