View Full Version : cell - evolution
i was once heard that life begin with one cell,
and that cell is made up by chemicals water and other substence from
aerolites.
this is proved by someone i dont remmber.
and then that cell was evolved (some how), and become so many species we have now, so that cell was the mother of all.
BUT scitenist said if they are able to change the mother cell to other cell,by minaplated the gene 's pattern (or dna?)
maybe new species would exist.
is that true?
spuriousmonkey
Apr6-04, 02:58 AM
new species come into existence (probably) every day...
i mean a whole new different species from a different mother cell.
it's like asian is asian african is african eurpoean is eupoean e.g although african alll look different but they all have dark skin black hair like they mother. , although asian all look differnet but they all got yellow skin and black hair... and ......eurpopean have light skin with golden hair.
spuriousmonkey
Apr6-04, 05:19 AM
A new species is always a different new species, so I don't know what you mean. If it wasn't a new species it wouldn't be a species.
haha yes , i mean a totally different one wihch does not have the same mother cell it still is a specie but different compare to our earth one's
all i know is that
the mother cell we have now consider as cell evolution 1
if another mother cell could be formed then another cell evoltion will begin.
i called cell evoltion 2
maybe the another mother cells is already exist in other plantet, ...alien.
spuriousmonkey
Apr6-04, 08:52 AM
The evidence seems to suggest that there was ONE 'mother cell'.
Could there be another one? Some people think that the evolution of viruses can't be quite traced back to a single 'mother virus'.
(ref -can't be bothered to look it up, but it is by Dennis Bamford)
selfAdjoint
Apr6-04, 12:46 PM
But a virus isn't a cell.
The evidence seems to suggest that there was ONE 'mother cell'.
Could there be another one? Some people think that the evolution of viruses can't be quite traced back to a single 'mother virus'.
(ref -can't be bothered to look it up, but it is by Dennis Bamford)
already the mother cell has been find, but not the other ones. but only if scientist change or modify the the gene of mother cell, it could be possible to form another mother cell.
spuriousmonkey
Apr7-04, 03:28 AM
But a virus isn't a cell.
No, but it is always nice to learn new things isn't it.
But a virus isn't a cell.
Nor is it life. So this has little to do with the subject at hand.
Nautica
selfAdjoint
Apr7-04, 12:24 PM
Well, nautica, viruses do evolve, so they are relevant to a discussion of evolution. But not to one about the evolution of cells.
Not everything that evolves is "alive" in the accepted technical sense.
already the mother cell has been find, but not the other ones. but only if scientist change or modify the the gene of mother cell, it could be possible to form another mother cell.
What would you mean by another mother cell? And cells are extremely complex systems.. how many cells types are humans composed of? We've got muscle cells, bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, they are all VERY different. The only similarity is that they all carry the same genetic material, but the expression of that genetic material is very different.
What are you trying to find out with this question? New cell types? A cell with a new function? Maybe a blood cell that is able to migrate to a site of injury and turn into a smooth muscle cell?
already the mother cell has been find, but not the other ones. but only if scientist change or modify the the gene of mother cell, it could be possible to form another mother cell.
I'm not sure I follow your line of thought, but I'll start here.
The ultimate "mother cell" that is the common ancestor of all modern species has not been found.
Even if it was identified (doubtful), and even if still existed (doubtful), any changes to it are irrelevant to all other existing species. The evolutionary paths have separated. The change cannot be applied retroactively.
As far as creating a whole new evolutionary tree separate from the existing one....there's no need to use the "mother cell"....any cell's DNA could be used. There's no particular magic (that we know of) about the first cell. Being the first species, it was probably not too skilled. If such an unskilled new life form were to be introduced on this planet, the existing lifeforms would have it for breakfast in an instant.
It is, as you suggest, possible that a cell could spread to other planets & result in different evolutionary trees. Asteroid/planet impacts can send debris flying off into space which later lands on other planets (e.g., Martian meteorites have been found on Earth). Any cells which survive riding that debris (and it is a possibility) could grow & evolve on that new world.
and then that cell was evolved (some how),
That would be explained by the Theory of Evolution. (see Darwin's Origin of Species, etc.)
But what was the very first cell like? I'm curious what happened after Lynn Margulis (http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html) proposed the symbiotic evolution of mitochondria and chloroplasts?
And as margulis was associated with James Lovelock what do we think of the adorable Gaia hypothesis (http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm) nowadays?
Just curious.
I am looking at a phylogenetic tree here.. the proposed evolution of mitochondria and chloroplasts. Apparently oxygen respiration developed independently in the green, purple, and blue-green (cyanobacterial) lines of photosynthetic bacteria. It is thought that an aerobic purple bacterium that had lost its ability to photosynthesize gave rise the the mitochondrion, while several different blue-green bacteria gave rise to choloroplasts.
The ancestral cell would probably have been fermenting bacteria, using H2S photosynthesis..
iansmith
Apr7-04, 02:44 PM
there migth not be such a thing as the mother cell. Carl Woese (http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/faculty/faculty_woese.htm) think that 3 "mother cell" would of exit and gave rise to the 3 different type of cell we see nowadays. He recently wrote a very interresting theory in the following article On the evolution of cells (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305)
I'm not sure I follow your line of thought, but I'll start here.
The ultimate "mother cell" that is the common ancestor of all modern species has not been found.
Even if it was identified (doubtful), and even if still existed (doubtful), any changes to it are irrelevant to all other existing species. The evolutionary paths have separated. The change cannot be applied retroactively.
As far as creating a whole new evolutionary tree separate from the existing one....there's no need to use the "mother cell"....any cell's DNA could be used. There's no particular magic (that we know of) about the first cell. Being the first species, it was probably not too skilled. If such an unskilled new life form were to be introduced on this planet, the existing lifeforms would have it for breakfast in an instant.
It is, as you suggest, possible that a cell could spread to other planets & result in different evolutionary trees. Asteroid/planet impacts can send debris flying off into space which later lands on other planets (e.g., Martian meteorites have been found on Earth). Any cells which survive riding that debris (and it is a possibility) could grow & evolve on that new world.
That would be explained by the Theory of Evolution. (see Darwin's Origin of Species, etc.)
ic ic good point, it doesnt reallly need that mother cell for a different evolutionary tree
spuriousmonkey
Apr8-04, 06:44 AM
Nor is it life. So this has little to do with the subject at hand.
Nautica
That is just your opion. I have no trouble seeing viruses as alive.
Well, nautica, viruses do evolve, so they are relevant to a discussion of evolution. But not to one about the evolution of cells.
Not everything that evolves is "alive" in the accepted technical sense.
I agree, they are extremely relevant to the discussion of evolution. But, so are cars and computers, ect......
But like you stated we are discussing cells, which are present in "life".
Nautica
That is just your opion. I have no trouble seeing viruses as alive.
Okay, take one put in a nonliving media and see what happens.
Nautica
selfAdjoint
Apr8-04, 01:37 PM
I agree, they are extremely relevant to the discussion of evolution. But, so are cars and computers, ect......
But like you stated we are discussing cells, which are present in "life".
Nautica
I don't see how cars and computers can be said to evolve (in the technical sense) unless you factor in the meme dimension of design, e.g. fins and spoilers on passenger cars.
Biological evolution applies to life forms...but I'm sure some of the same principles can be applied elsewhere. (evolve a new theory :wink: )
Yes, biological evolution refers to life forms. That is the point I was making, when viruses were mentioned with the evolution of a "cell" they are completely different.
Evolution in general only refers to change and like I stated earlier that can be said about computers and cars, both of which have changed over the last 100 years.
Nautica
selfAdjoint
Apr8-04, 06:53 PM
I think of evolution, and especially of the verb to evolve, as meaning at least variation and natural selection. Computer "life" evolves in this sense, for example.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
According to dictioinary.com. So evolution can be applied to everything.
spuriousmonkey
Apr12-04, 06:05 AM
Yes, biological evolution refers to life forms. That is the point I was making, when viruses were mentioned with the evolution of a "cell" they are completely different.
There are some different principles involved in the evolution of viruses, but I don't think that the essence is much different.
One point I would like to make is that the evolution of viruses and cells are tightly linked to each other. It will be difficult to find an organism that hasn't been in contact with a virus.
Viruses can seriously influence the evolution of cellular life. The tight relationship goes both ways. Cellular evolution has steered the evolution of viruses.
I think the exclusion of viruses from 'alive' lifeforms is highly artificial. What is a virus? It is a selfreproducing unit. You might now say that this is not true. It is totally dependent on cellular life! The cell is just the enviroment that a virus needs to reproduce. It happens to be another living entity. Cells also need a specific environment to reproduce. Some are even dependent on other lifeforms. Take your precious cell and put it in a random non-living media and it will also die. The inability to reproduce in the worng enviroment cannot declassify viruses as being alive.
Criteria as being able to have a metabolism are very artifical criteria in my eyes. They lack an understanding of the essence of life. The essence is that life is a diverse interdependent community that has evolved. Different entities evolved different strategies. Viruses are therefore just as much alive as any cell. They are independent reproducing entities governed by relationships with other reproducing entities and the enviroment and are under the subject of constant evolution.
there migth not be such a thing as the mother cell. Carl Woese (http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/faculty/faculty_woese.htm) think that 3 "mother cell" would of exit and gave rise to the 3 different type of cell we see nowadays. He recently wrote a very interresting theory in the following article On the evolution of cells (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12077305)This is a wonderful paper!
A bit surprising that there's not been more discussion of it here (or maybe there has been, but I just haven't noticed? :redface: )
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.