TOPIC 1.5 - DPBioY1
2 Marks - Your Questions
3 Marks - Your thoughtful response to others
----------
7 Total Marks
3 Marks - Your thoughtful response to others
----------
7 Total Marks
Textbook Link - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5dgiSZpFkXza0RJVUF2SWotZUk/view?usp=sharing
Powerpoint Link - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OY-mhPHTf6xOQpWy_yrLnZ5JM_d0psQe/view?usp=sharing
Student Sheet Link - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_xQjzqqnsQ-u84XazGb9aZHCHbSyPsQ/view?usp=sharing
1. What caused the bacteria inside the eukaryotic cell to change or evolve?
ReplyDelete2. How did Lynn Margulis find the evidence for the endosymbiotic theory? Was she the first to think about this theory or just the first to find evidence for it?
3. Can anyone better describe how the first cell came to be?
To answer your third question, and the the best of my understanding, before there was life everything was still composed of chemicals. The chemicals and the environment that were in would have caused basic reactions that would create carbon compounds. These could them gather together with the energy from deep-sea vents these chemicals bonded and the basic compounds for life were created. Since the chemicals for life are six basic ones the fusion of the chemicals created the first cell. The first cell had the materials for it to have a membrane and then a nucleus could be formed.
DeleteFor more information, and because I could have explained it better, check this out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
For your first question I found that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells because they shared a lot of the same characteristics. For example, they both use the same 20 amino acids, and they both have a lipid bilayer. Regarding our question as to why they changed or evolved, I could not find much information on that. This is a website that I found that contains a lot of information about Eukaryotic cells and how they were formed.
Deletehttps://www2.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Eukaryotes/Eukaryotes.html
Hope this helped:)
In response to your second question, she most likely had compiled the information on organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts and noticed the similarities to bacteria cells. She may have not necessarily found the evidence all on her own, but she was definitely the first to see the connections between the evidence, or at least the first to write it down.
Delete1. It says that the swan neck flask prevented organisms from getting into the liquid inside but on the homework (for example) it says there was accumulated dust in the neck, if it prevents it from getting inside then how did the dust get there?
ReplyDelete2.What evidence did Aristotle use to back up his theory that insects formed from droplets of water in leaves or hair, flesh, or faeces?
3. The text says that viruses reproduce by tricking another bacteria cell into making its children, if that the case, considering that, right now,COVID-19 is a virus, if we killed off all the bacteria n our bodies including the good bacteria, could we kill the corona virus and what harm would that do to our bodies?
To answer your first question, the swan-neck was not sealed as to avoid the claim that a lack of air was the problem, so there was a bit of the neck that was open that would be gathering everything that was falling in and preventing it from entering the flask. SO this is the part where the dust accumulated
DeleteFor your second question, he noticed flies and fish coming from puddles of water which they previously were not found in. He thus decided that certain materials give off a vital heat which allows for the conception of life.
DeleteCitation
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/microbiology/chapter/spontaneous-generation/
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor your third question, from what I can find, Covid doesn't necessarily need to use bacteria to reproduce, it just needs a healthy cell, preferably with the ACE2 protein, which it then infects and takes over it's protein production. To answer your question, because bacteria aren't necessary for reproduction killing off all good and bad bacteria would not in itself kill of the virus. Indirectly, however, it would help because if bacteria are eliminated then most species would die off due to an excess of biological waste (typically broken down my bacteria), subsequently killing off most species. Assuming humans are one of these species, technically Covid would no longer be an issue for us as we'd all be dead :)
DeleteInfo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/12/17/life-would-go-on-if-all-bacteria-disappeared-but-it-would-totally-suck/ / https://theconversation.com/what-the-coronavirus-does-to-your-body-that-makes-it-so-deadly-133856
1. Does the endosymbiotic theory apply to more than just mitochondria and chloroplasts?
ReplyDelete2. The book says that after Pastuer's experiments most scientists were convinced that spontaneous generation wasn't true, but it says most. When did this become the idea that all scientists believe in?
3. If it was impossible for early cells to have DNA because DNA needs enzymes and enzymes need DNA, how is RNA any different?
For your second question, it was accepted by all scientists around the 1860's because there was already evidence and Pastuer's experiment finally proved it.
DeleteCitation
https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/true-science-fake-history
To answer your first question, I could find no evidence that the endosymbiotic theory applies to any other organelles besides the mitochondria and the chloroplast. There are other cases where organisms have developed symbiotic relationships.
DeleteHere is an example of another relationship:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817226/#:~:text=The%20most%20significant%20examples%20of,across%20the%20tree%20of%20life.
To answer your third question, an experiment was done which found that RNA could act as its own enzyme to self-edit its genetic code and survive without enzymes.
DeleteSource: http://www.dnaftb.org/26/#:~:text=Experiments%20performed%20two%20decades%20later,edit%20their%20own%20genetic%20code!&text=It%20now%20seems%20certain%20that,DNA%20came%20onto%20the%20scene.
1. How is it that Pastures ideas were used to disprove all of spontaneous generation, when it seems that his experiments were fairly exclusive?
ReplyDelete2. Are chloroplasts and mitochondria not a part of the cells DNA at all (discounting their personal DNA)? Or have cells evolved to include mitochondria and chloroplasts in their DNA in some form?
3. Are there examples of endosymbiotic theory that apply to more specialized cells?
For your second question, Chloroplasts and mitochondria have their ow separate DNA and replicate from their own DNA. This is why during mitosis they need to be separated so that each cell can have mitochondria and make more for themselves.
DeleteCitation
Sabo 2018
For question 3, from my understanding all cells come from stem cells. They break off and are assigned their certain function based on location. So, I would say that after the mitochondria was taken in by eukaryotes it created the stem cells and then later the more specialized cells. Hope that makes sense!
DeleteIn response to your first question, Pasteur's experiment only disproved spontaneous generation for small organisms. Before Pasteur's experiment, Francesco Redi had left pieces of meant in jars, one with a lid and one without. He observed that without a lid maggots would grow, however with a lid there were no maggots. Redi proved before Pasteur that larger organisms did not spontaneously generate.
DeleteI found my information at this website. https://www.microbiologytext.com/5th_ed/book/displayarticle/aid/27
1) What specific reactions occurred in Stanley Miller's experiment that led to the forming of amino acids?
ReplyDelete2) Are there any examples of living cells only using RNA?
3) How was the fluid mosaic style of the cell membrane created before life.
To answer your third question, while there is no confirmed answer a theory is that the fluid mosaic model did not come before life, but rather a more simple membrane that was composed of simple fats. The fluid mosaic model came with time and adaptation to environments.
DeleteSource: http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html
To answer your second question, before DNA there were living organisms that would survive using only RNA, but since DNA is stronger and can repair better than RNA most organisms started to have DNA rather than RNA.
DeleteSource: https://sciencing.com/dna-favorable-molecule-genetic-material-rna-compares-respect-17806.html#:~:text=With%20the%20exception%20of%20certain,essential%20to%20survival%20and%20reproduction.
For your question 1, In 1953, chemists Harold Urey and Stanley Miller performed a landmark experiment intended to mimic the primordial conditions that created the first amino acids, by exposing a mix of gases to a lightning-like electrical discharge. Though I cannot find more specific reactions. https://www.livescience.com/13339-primordial-soup-chemistry-reaction-amino-acids-life.html#:~:text=In%201953%2C%20chemists%20Harold%20Urey,a%20lightning%2Dlike%20electrical%20discharge.
DeleteTo answer your second question, I found that RNA is considered to be the first genetic material inside of cells ,concluding that it stored and distributed all of the genetic materials before DNA was in cells. I was unable to find a specific organism that relies solely on RNA, but I can concluded that it is very possible for there to be one as science is constantly evolving and discovering new things.
Deletehttp://www.dnaftb.org/26/#:~:text=It%20now%20seems%20certain%20that,is%20easily%20damaged%20by%20enzymes.
For your second question, it hijacks the cellular processes to produce virally encoded protein that will replicate the virus’s genetic material. Viral mechanisms are capable of translocating proteins and genetic material from the cell and assembling them into new virus particles. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788752/
ReplyDeleteQuestions for Unit 1.5
ReplyDelete1. What did scientists believe created cells before the 17th century, when experiments were conducted about spontaneous generation?
2. What type of simple subunits form viruses?
3. How was the first mitochondria or chloroplast made sense they are only produced through division of there pre-exisitng self?
For your first questions, the way spontaneous generation occurred had several different theories such as believing living things arose from dust, from rotting flesh, from raindrops, or from the inside of other organisms. More info: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/man-made-a-history-of-synthetic-life
DeleteFor your third question, it is believed that mitochondria and chloroplasts bean as an early form of bacteria, which each evolved from the most simple forms of bacteria. Through natural selection these very simple forms slowly evolved into mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other bacterium. Source: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/125/1/50 / http://bioscience.jbpub.com/cells/MBIO1322.aspx#:~:text=Mitochondria%20originated%20by%20a%20endosymbiotic,captured%20by%20a%20eukaryotic%20cell.&text=Figure%203.41%20shows%20the%20endosymbiosis,evolved%20into%20mitochondria%20and%20chloroplasts.
DeleteTo answer your second question, a virus is made of a nucleic acid genome, a protein capsule that covers the genome, and a lipid envelope. https://msu.edu/course/mmg/569/Virus%20Structure.htm#:~:text=Lecture%202%3A%20Virus%20Structure,virus%20is%20called%20the%20virion.
Deletehope this helps :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor your second question I found that viruses are tiny germs made of genetic material that are located inside a protein coating. Viruses invade normal cells and use the normal cells to multiply the virus. The virus changes, kills or damages the cells which is what causes people to be ill. All viruses are different and attack different areas of the body and cells. The invade cells without being noticed because they use the cell against itself. I hope this helped :))
ReplyDeletehttps://medlineplus.gov/viralinfections.html
1. How many cells will die between a zygote and birth? And how does the body get rid of them?
ReplyDelete2. How did scientists explain mammal babies through spontaneous generation?
3. How did Miller and Urey know what the composition of Earth's early atmosphere was?
As an answer to your second question, within the video linked by Mrs. Sabo near the beginning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCK5DaCrck0), the speaker explains how many believed that organisms came from a multitude of objects after adding a type of food to it, such as mice appearing from dirty clothes and wheat after about a month.
DeleteIn regards of your third question, scientists have been able to assume that Earth's early atmosphere was so high in carbon dioxide because of the volcanoes that were active at the time. Scientists can only assume based off of what they observe. I hope this helps.
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3n37hv/revision/4#:~:text=Scientists%20believe%20that%20the%20Earth,gases%20given%20out%20by%20volcanoes.&text=Scientists%20can't%20be%20sure,high%20quantities%20of%20carbon%20dioxide.
In response to your third question, Pasteur's experiment is helpful in modern day science because it help to disprove spontaneous generation. Pasteur's swan-necked flask experiment was also used by Joseph Lister to learn more about microbes, which helped him manage wounds better.
ReplyDeleteI found my information at this website. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/depaolo.html#:~:text=From%201875%20to%201878%2C%20Lister,able%20to%20manage%20wounds%20better.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleten response to your first question, it's most likely due to how complex living organisms are and how hard it would be to reproduce that kind of structure. Various organelles and proteins that cells use have super complex designs that are minuscule compared to what we are able to see of them. Trying to recreate such small details would be nearly impossible for humans to accomplish without our own extremely complex machines that can create at such a small scale.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it has been proved possible to do. For more information, I'd recommend this article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x
1)What are histones and what do they do within the nucleus?
ReplyDelete2)What evidence do we have to prove that early Earth had an environment volatile enough to create parts of the first cell?
3)Are there any other examples of animals being able to utilize the cells that they eat like the Elysia chlorotica?
In response to your first question, a histone is a protein that nuclear DNA is wrapped around to fit in the nucleus and form chromosomes. Withing the nucleus, histones spool DNA into condensed chromosomes to fit within the nuclear membrane of a cell.
DeleteI found my information at this website. https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/histones-57/
To answer your third question, there is a type of marine worm called the raftia pachyptila, also known as the giant tube worm. They have a symbiotic relationship with a type of bacteria that helps give the worm nutrients. They call it "chemoautotrophic symbiosis"
DeleteI hope this helps :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riftia_pachyptila
To answer your second question, our assumptions about early earth atmosphere come from gasses released from volcanoes, because our assumption was that earth was originally molten then as it cooled gasses were released creating an atmosphere and the elements necesarry to eventually turn inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals and somehow into living cells. There is not much evidence supporting these beliefs, however, there is some geological evidence I can link. https://www.livescience.com/64970-early-earth-spin-magma-ocean.html
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Are there ways we can take samples of the earth to know and support the Earth's early atmospheric composition?
ReplyDelete2. How did Lynn Margulis come about the Endosymbiotic Theory?
3. What proved Lynn Margulis's theory at the time? Was it the Elysia Chlorotica?
When I was researching your first question, I found many websites mentioning that the early atmosphere likely contained the gases it did due to volcanic activity, but they didn't mention samples that proved this. I did, however, find an article about how looking at ancient lava bubbles revealed the thickness of the Earth's early atmosphere. The size of bubbles vary depending on the pressure of the air, and measuring bubbles in rocks in Australia confirmed that the atmosphere was thinner 2.7 million years ago than initially hypothesized. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/early-earth-s-atmosphere-was-surprisingly-thin/
DeleteSolidified magma/rocks seem to be the main source of understanding the Earth's early atmosphere. Certain ancient zircons have been studied because they contain elements from long ago. Scientists have studied the oxidation levels of these solidified magmas to determine what types of gases could have thrived in the atmosphere. There is much more detail on this in this website if you would like to read about the whole discovery! https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/
To answer your third question, the endosymbiotic theory was built upon research of other scientists, so it had proof to utilize prior to its publication. In 1883, Andreas Schimper was studying plastids in plant cells and noticed that they divided similarly to the way prokaryotes do. Ivan Wallin and Konstantin Mereschkowsky were the first to consider plastids endosymbionts and see the process as a main force in evolution. Ivan first suggested the eukaryotic cell was composed of microorganisms and that bacteria could be key to the origin of life. In the 1960's, scientists including Hans Ris discovered that mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA. The organelles could not be remade with the cell's own DNA, meaning it must have come from outside the cell. Lynn Marguli combined this information and her own observations to create her official theory. She confidently suggested that chloroplasts and mitochondria were separate organisms that became apart of a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotic cells. She had studied and noticed that bacteria often merged with larger organisms, which supported the claim. She believed mitochondria came from aerobic bacteria and chloroplasts came from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. More specific observations confirmed by scientists prove this theory: the organelles are created from pre-existing organelles of their kind, have their own 70s ribosomes like prokaryotes, and use DNA and RNA to synthesize their own proteins (page 50 of textbook). From what I researched, it seems little observations were building on each other and pointing to this conclusion. Different eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and organelles were studied to identify similarities. I hope that helped a little bit! If anyone finds a more specific example that served as proof, feel free to let me know or reply again!
DeleteSources: https://endosymbiotichypothesis.wordpress.com/history-the-formation-of-the-endosymbiotic-hypothesis/
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/cells-living-in-cells
To help answer your second question, Lynn Margulis first discovered her theory when studying the structure of the cell and compared their physical appearance to bacteria. She suggested that aerobic bacteria and cyanobacteria were engulfed into the cell which we now know as endocytosis. With many years of evolution they became the mitochondria and the chloroplast. She then published her book, The Origins of the Eukaryotic Cell, in the 1970s. DNA for her theory was not yet discovered until the 1980s by the Rockefeller University. Hope this helped!
Deletehttps://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_24#:~:text=Endosymbiosis%3A%20Lynn%20Margulis&text=Margulis%20and%20others%20hypothesized%20that,new%20adaptations%20and%20new%20species.&text=To%20Margulis%2C%20they%20looked%20remarkably%20like%20bacteria.
1) Why is "cells can only arise from pre-existing cells" considered factual if the opposite must be considered when looking at the origin of cells? If cells arose from non-living materials at the origin of life, why would do we assume this method stopped once the first living cell was created?
ReplyDelete2) What prevented the mitochondria and chloroplasts from being digested or rejected from the cell like other materials?
3) Do mitochondria and chloroplasts still divide themselves to reproduce?
To answer your 3rd question, while the entire cell devides with mitosis, the mitochondria and chloroplast reproduce or devide individually, or seperately from the cell. They reproduce with simple, or binary fission. Here is a link if you would like to have a more in depth explination. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/mitochondria-14053590/
DeleteTo attempt to answer your first question, because I had a similar one, there are many different ideas on how the first cell came to be. Currently we do not have the means to discover how it went from something that is not technically living, but still acting like a living thing. The Miller-Urey experamints show how organic molecules (necessary for life) could be formed from inorganic components, so we know for sure that that is a possibility, the main link missing is how these organic molecules make life. There are many theories as to how the jump could have been made, some based on science, and some based on religion, there are many different ideas. It’s hard to answer why we would assume whatever method used stopped once the first cell was created but I would think perhaps because either it was a rare event under rare circumstances that turned the organic molecules into a living cell, or because it is simply easier for cells to reproduce with with meitosis. Here is some more information on the Miller- Urey experamints if you are interested. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/history-of-life-on-earth/history-life-on-earth/a/hypotheses-about-the-origins-of-life
DeleteTo help you with your second question: unlike smaller molecules which travel through the membrane of the cell through carrier or channels, bacterial engulfing requires a process called phagocytosis (cell eating). During this process, the cell literally engulfs large particles like the mitochondria and chloroplast using binding receptors which alert the cell to go through pseudopodia. Pseudopodia is a temporary actin-based protrusion movement on the surface of the cell used for movement and feeding. The pseudopodia surrounds the bacteria using an intracellular vesicle, the bacteria is than a phagosome. Hope this answered your question!
Deletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9831/
To answer your third question, here is a website describing the replication of mitochondria and chloroplast and how it relates to bacteria reproduction.
Deletehttps://sciencing.com/mitochondria-chloroplasts-resemble-bacteria-22520.html
1 - What are some possible alternative views on how the first cell came to be?
ReplyDelete2 - Does the endosymbiotic theory apply to anything other than chloroplasts and mitochondria, or does it support any other theories having to do with evolution?
3 - Are there any other “plot holes” like the cell theory “plot hole”, where it says all cells arise from pre-existing cells, but then that can’t be true for the first cell. Do any other theories have this issue?
In response to question 2, the endosymbiotic theory also applies to centrioles. Lynn Margulis was a biologist in the 1900s who concluded that if all organelles were bacteria symbionts than they would have their own DNA that was closer to bacterial DNA than cell DNA. In 1980s, that theory was proven to be true when testing mitochondria, chloroplast, and centrioles. The endosymbiotic theory also further supports the Darwin's theory that all living organisms are formed by a descent with modification from a common ancestor or cell. Hope this helped!
Deletehttps://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2endosymb.html
For your first question, if you are looking for more of different opinions on how the first cell came to be, there is a link to the website quora where different scientists say there opinions on the first living organism.
Deletehttps://www.quora.com/What-was-the-first-living-organism-on-Earth-Where-did-it-come-from
For your 1st question, a possible view of how the first cells came to be, within the power point on slide 12 out of 25, it is said that the first cells may have spawned from a non-living material
DeleteTo answer your first question, I found a website that discusses 7 different theories on the origin of life: https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html
ReplyDeleteSome new perspectives include...
-Clay surfaces in ancient times could have compacted the early carbon compounds and organized the first DNA sequences.
-Ice may have covered the Earth 3 billion years ago, protecting compounds and allowing them to survive and react.
-Life started from simple reactions continuously occuring between small molecules. Then the cell evolved through a "survival of the fittest" process, where molecules that could complete the job more efficiently thrived and stuck around.
The website also covers the ideas the textbook talked about, like electricity in the early atmosphere, the energy from vents in the ocean, and even the idea that life came from somewhere else in space. I hope this helped!
1. what happens when the host organism/cell wants to remove the smaller cell it has engulfed in endocytosis? what are reasons for removal?
ReplyDelete2. Does anyone have any information or sources on biologist who experimented with the idea of spontaneous generation before the 1800s?
3. If cells did in fact come from non-living materials, how would the polymers be made and how would the elements bond?
3.
For your second question, here is a website I found talking about how Aristotle proposed the idea of spontaneous generation in 350 b.c. and it goes into a little bit of detail about that.
Deletehttps://biologydictionary.net/spontaneous-generation/#:~:text=The%20theory%20of%20spontaneous%20generation,meat%20and%20other%20decomposable%20items.
For your first question, when the host organism/cell wants to remove the smaller cell it has engulfed in endocytosis it uses exocytosis. The reason for doing so is that the host organism/cell doesn't require whatever the smaller cell could provide.
Delete3rd Question- polymers are found in deep-sea thermal vents. There is heat energy and these vents have inorganic chemicals . The combination of these things creates polymers :)
Delete1. Why are chloroplast and mitochondria no longer capable of living independently?
ReplyDelete2. Is it possible for the cells to evolve and the chloroplast and mitochondria to one day be capable of living independently?
3. After proposing spontaneous generation, did scientists think babies were spontaneously generated or did they already know about sexual reproduction?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteFor your second question, I couldn't find anything. Although, in theory if the nucleus gave the genomes the mitochondria and chloroplasts originally possessed, then exocytosis could happen to the mitochondria and chloroplasts, it would be able to function by itself again.
DeleteQuestion 2- I feel like it could be possible for cells similar to mitochondria and chloroplasts to live independently, However, I think that it just isn't necessary for them to be on their own. Their relationship with the rest of the cell creates a perfectly functioning system
DeleteQuestion 3- I couldn't find an exact resource, but I can recall learning something like this during Freshman Bio. Some people believed that babies were in fact spontaneously generated, and that a woman would become pregnant by ingesting bacteria from water. This is a very interesting thing that makes me want to research more in order to get you a solid answer.
DeleteFor your first question, mitochondria and chloroplasts are no longer capable of living independently because their genome only carries a fraction of genes that they utilize, the other genomes are provided by the nucleus. The reason why they don't have all the genomes to be capable of living independently is because over time some of the genomes got incorporated into the nucleus. Here is the source I utilized: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
ReplyDelete1) How is the function of the once free-living prokaryotic mitochondria different from the mitochondria we know today?
ReplyDelete2) How could the first cells have formed supposedly from spontaneous generation when that theory has since been disproved altogether?
3) How does the structure of the very first cells compare to the cells we know today?
To answer your 2nd question, the first cells are thought to be formed by pre-existing non-living material. How that non-living material came to be I dont know
DeleteTo answer your third question, the structure of the first cells are more simplistic comparing to the cells that we have today due to them evolving under the conditions they were faced.
Delete1. Why is it so hard for a cell to be created artificially without help from a base sequence of DNA?
ReplyDelete2. Could a symbiotic relationship occur between equally sized cells, and not just a smaller and larger one?
3. Has there been a symbiotic relationship that ended up hurting one or both of the cells involved? If so, what happened and why?
The symbiotic relationship that would harm one or both of the cells would be a parasitic relationship. Such as the relationship between a virus and a cell, the virus benefits and multiplies while the cell is harmed
DeleteTo answer your first question, it would be hard for a cell to be created artificially since creating the exact DNA of a cell would be nearly impossible due to the cell having trillions upon trillions of data stored in it.
DeleteI found my info from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/biologists-create-most-lifelike-artificial-cells-yet
To answer your second question from what I understand yes a symbiotic relation ship could occur between equal sized cells.
Delete1. Has spontaneous generation been completely disproven by Pasteur's experiments?
ReplyDelete2. If spontaneous generation has been disproven, how did the first cell come to be?
3. What was the non-living material the made the first cell?
The non-material was made out of phospholipids,proteins, molecules, and RNA.
DeleteI found this info from: https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-biology-flexbook-2.0/section/5.4/primary/lesson/first-cells-bio#:~:text=The%20first%20cells%20consisted%20of,released%20oxygen%20into%20the%20atmosphere.
In response to your first question, spontaneous generation has been generally accepted to have been disproven completely during the 19th century by Louis Pasteur and his experiments. "He expanded upon the investigations of predecessors, such as Francesco Redi who, in the 17th century, had performed experiments based on the same principles." My source was page 47-48 of the textbook as well as https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/1%3A_Introduction_to_Microbiology/1.1%3A_Introduction_to_Microbiology/1.1C%3A_Pasteur_and_Spontaneous_Generation
DeleteHope this helps!
To answer your second question we do not know where the first cell came from, however some theories where mentioned in the reading on pages 48 and 49.
Delete1. Are there still living organisms that feed off from the sea vents to this day, and how durable are these organisms?
ReplyDelete2. Is it possible to force big prokaryotic cells to work together with smaller prokaryotic cells with simulations?
3. Although I understand how the eukaryotic cell came to be, how did they work together in order to become tissues, organs, and networks?
In response to your first question, yes, there are still organisms that feed off of and thrive in the sea vents. "Bacteria and archaea use a process called chemosynthesis to convert minerals and other chemicals in the water into energy. This bacterium is the base of the vent community food web, and supports hundreds of species of animals" As far as durability goes, some creatures that live in the vents are thought to live as long as hundreds of years. Some smaller organisms, like bacteria, are used as sustenance and, therefore, don't last as long. But yes, there are creatures who still live in the sea vents and can survive for long periods of time without sunlight. Below are my main sources, hope this helps!
Deletehttps://oceantoday.noaa.gov/lifeonavent/
https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/deep_sea/vents_seeps/#:~:text=Vent%20creatures%20generally%20grow%20fast,for%20up%20to%20250%20years.
I found an article that may in some way help answer your third question. I hope it helps, if not it is still a very interesting and informative read. It wasn't until recently that something called the homeobox was discovered. This is basically the on/ off switch for your DNA. It assigns what genes are presented and what isn't. They have found homeoboxes to be consistent in a huge variety of organisms. It is the DNA within the cell that allows for programming and development of tissues/organs/etc. Cells are extremely complex, DNA is very complicated, and we are always learning more as time goes on.
Deletehere is the article: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/how-does-a-single-cell-become-a-whole-body
1. Is there discrepancy between scientists or groups in the science community who feel strongly of the origin of the first cells?
ReplyDelete2.Does anyone have more information or research behind why they think DNA is a developed RNA? I think it's an interesting theory that I'd like to know more about.
3. Does the endosymbiotic theory encompass anything in addition to everything involving the mitochondria and chloroplast?
1. If all cells come pre-existing cells, how was the first cell created? Did elements configuring in a certain way create the first cell or does it support an idea of a religion?
ReplyDelete2. If people believe that the first cell came from a different place than Earth, why would they believe that it is the first cell if all cells come from pre-existing cells?
3. On page 46, it says "Rather than arising spontaneously again", why would they say again when there is no indication that is arose spontaneously in the first place?
In response to your first question, it depends on who you ask. Some believe that the first cell was created by configuration, possibly by chance. Some believe that something as complex as a cell couldn't have been the outcome of something as chaotic as a massive explosion and come into existence by chance. As spontaneous generation has been disproven, it could appear to lean towards support of creation, as a cell, according to scientists such as Louis Pasteur, could not create itself. As I said, the answer and explanations you get will vary from person to person, and because of this i think this is definitely the kind of question where it would be beneficial to receive more than one answer.
Deletehttps://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/what-are-the-different-theories-about-origin-of-life/
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/overview-the-conflict-between-religion-and-evolution/
Those are some links with a couple different views, i hope this helps!
in response to your second question from what I understand, people wold say that was the first cell because that wold be the first cell on earth. however that wold not be considered the first ever cell.
DeleteI reread that section to answer your third question. With context it actually sounds like they are using this case as an argument against spontaneous generation. The plants were all used up and never returned. We know this is because there was no way to reproduce and create more Silphium. But they believed in spontaneous generation, that plants would just come back. But as the textbook is saying, it never arose again spontaneously.
Delete1. why where they called swan neck flasks?
ReplyDelete2. Which theory for how the first cell came into being is most popular?
3. other than endosymbios what are some other theories about how things like mitochondria and other similar organelles came into being.
To answer your first question: Louis Pasteur was the first person to use a flask with this unusual shape since he had bent it himself. It didn't have a name yet because of this. The flask has an S shape to it. Swan necks look similar to an S resulting in the name. It is a distinct characteristic to be referred to
ReplyDelete1. if there was a possibility of brand new cells being created, what would the process be, hypothetically?
ReplyDelete2. would a first origin cell look and function different from that of a modern-day cell, or have they always been the same?
3. would a mitochondria be able to survive by itself in the world of today, out of a cell's cytoplasm?