Skip to main content

How have microscopes helped biologists understand cells and organisms?

Microscopes allow humans to see cells that are too tiny to see with the naked eye. Therefore, once they were invented, a whole new microscopic world emerged for people to discover. On a microscopic level, new life forms were discovered and the germ theory of disease was born. The organization of an organism's body from cells, to tissues, to organs, to systems, to the complete individual could finally be studied and visualized.


The Cell Theory emerged from early work with microscopes. The notion that all living things are composed of cells, that cells are the units of structure and function of living things and that cells arise from pre-existing cells were all powerful ideas.


Microscopes allowed scientists to observe Prokaryotic cells which make up Bacteria and Archaea. These cells are small and contain no membrane- bound organelles. It allowed them to observe Eukaryotic cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles that perform different life functions. These are seen in Fungi, Protists, Animals and Plants.


Ever since the first simple microscope was invented, as technology improved and led to the development of compound microscopes, electron microscopes and beyond, our knowledge of the microscopic world has expanded tremendously. Society has reaped the benefits new knowledge can provide in the fields of medicine, surgery, pharmaceutical industry, biology, taxonomy, etc. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more