Re: cell split and death

[John M <***>]

Jerry and Judith:

could you raise your views from the "cell" model which
depicts a bag made of membrane molecules, some goo
inside with ingredients (some of them!) are involved
in already discovered "chemistry" and act out some
well defined (similarly already discovered) actions on
other "cells" or similar? 
We set those boundary conditions and squeeze part of
the (still unknowable) so called "life process" into
the inside of such phantasms. 
I got news from you - (I believe in the spirit and not
within the learned and applied biological science of
RR) which contemporary as it may be - is obsolete for
us) - the living atom called cell is part of the TOTAL
and interacting/inter effecting (with) them all. The
"scientific" reductionistic analysis boiled down the
procedures into cell-life and synthesized from that
fiction the "organizational" life. 

The process Jerry detailed is "senescence" (see: Stan
Salthe) and is representative in all 'biology'. The
suicidal 'cells' are observed in psoriasis, mostly on
the surface of the skin. 
Since I am not a biologist, I wonder: Jerry's "split"
of cells refers to mitosis or to some proliferation
where only as an end result can a split recognized. 
Lots of ingredients (including what you may call
energy) - known or still undiscovered - pass the cell
membranes, which may be semipermeable, but do not at
all "close off" a plenum. It is so easy to draw final
conclusions on a part of a complexity with limited
view into only limited aspects (and limited
conclusions). It may be good for a Nobel prize, but it
is far from the unattainable accuracy. 

Politicians can play smart in subjects they have no
idea about, for so called scientists it is
dis-allowable in the topic they regard as their own. 

I accept talking about 'cells', 'energy', 'mass', even
consciousness and mind, but get irritated when final
conclusions are drawn and their further consequences
regarded as the sole 'truth' by self-smart pretension.


It is 96F and even through the A/C it gets to me.
My apologies

John M


--- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:

> When cells divide they are no longer there only
> becomes new ones.  Parents cells do not die.  They
> become childern cells themselves. I think cells
> split
> at later age.  Age is measured by energy level
> stored
> in cells.  My estimate is that cells die at early
> stage in similar way babies die. They can not make
> it
> into adults. This proposition can be observed
> experimentally.  There might be research being done
> showing when cells disintegrate.  To my estimates,
> energy plays important role in the process.  
> 
> Jerry
> 
> --- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:
> 
> > There have been a lot of experiments into this. Do
> a
> > google search on 
> > Hayflick: He was able to show that most cells will
> > only divide a set 
> > number of times, and then they disintegrate.
> > 
> > However, that's not the same as the programmed
> cell
> > death that I 
> > posted stuff on a few weeks ago, whereby certain
> > cells initiate 
> > suicide processes as part of normal "healthy"
> > functioning of the 
> > organism. The fact that organisms actually have
> such
> > a capability is 
> > what amazes me.
> > 
> > Judith
> >   ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: Jerry Zhu
> >   To: ***
> >   Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:09 PM
> >   Subject: [ROSEN] cell split and death
> > 
> > 
> >   I was wondering if anyone has thought about what
> i
> > am
> >   thinking.
> > 
> >   Any observation has been done on the ballance
> > between
> >   cell split and cell death and how such ballance
> is
> >   maintained?
> > 
> >   If cells go through stages such as infancy,
> youth,
> >   middle and senior age, at what stages do cells
> > die?
> > 
> >   Jerry Zhu
> > 
> > 
> >