Protists.  good and bads?
369977
there are good ones and bad ones\n\n\n\nProtists (IPA: [prəʊˌtɪst]) are a heterogeneous group of living things, comprising those eukaryotes that are neither animals, plants, nor fungi. They are usually treated as the kingdom Protista or Protoctista. The protists are a paraphyletic grade, rather than a natural (monophyletic) group, and do not have much in common besides a relatively simple organization (unicellular, or multicellular without highly specialized tissues). Some call it the "left-overs" kingdom. If an organism is eukaryotic, but does not fit in the plants, animals or fungi - then it is a protist.\n\nProtists were traditionally (for the last 150 years) subdivided into several groups based on similarities to the higher kingdoms: the animal-like protozoa and the plant-like algae and the fungi-like slime molds . These traditional groups often overlapped. A new working model for the taxonomy of the eukaryotic organisms has recently been codified by a collaborative team.(see references below.) In it the evolutionary relationships among the eukaryotes is given priority rather than method of obtaining energy or structural characteristics.\n\nThe protozoa are mostly single-celled, motile, and feed by phagocytosis, though there are numerous exceptions. They are usually only 0.01-0.5 mm in size, generally too small to be seen without a microscope. They are ubiquitous throughout aqueous environments and the soil, commonly surviving dry periods as cysts or spores, and include several important parasites. Based on locomotion, protozoa are grouped into:\n\nFlagellates with long flagella e.g., Euglena \nAmoeboids with transient pseudopodia e.g., Amoeba \nCiliates with multiple, short cilia e.g., Paramecium \nSporozoa non-motile parasites; form spores e.g., Plasmodium \n\nAlgae\nThe algae gather light energy through photosynthesis. They include many single-celled creatures that are also considered protozoa, such as Euglena and Paramecium bursaria, which have acquired chloroplasts through secondary endosymbiosis. Others are non-motile, and some are truly multicellular, including some members of the following groups:\n\nChlorophytes green algae, related to higher plants e.g., Ulva \nRhodophytes red algae e.g., Porphyra \nHeterokontophytes brown algae, diatoms, etc. e.g., Macrocystis \n\nThe green and red algae, along with a small group called the glaucophytes, appear to be close relatives of other plants, and so some authors treat them as Plantae despite their simple organization. Most other types of algae, however, developed separately. They include the haptophytes, cryptomonads, dinoflagellates, euglenids, and chlorarachniophytes, all of which have also been considered protozoans.\n\nFungus-like protists\nVarious organisms originally considered fungi were later moved to the Protista. These include the Chytridiomycetes, slime moulds, water moulds, and Labyrinthulomycetes. The chytrids are now known to be related to the other Fungi, and are usually classified with them; the others are now placed among the Amoebozoa and heterokonts.\n\nThe classification of protists is still changing. Newer classification criteria attempt to present monophyletic groups based on ultrastructure, biochemistry, and genetics. Because the protists are paraphyletic, such systems often split up or abandon the Kingdom. A partial picture is given by the list of phyla at right; other groups are listed under the traditional categories, linked to above. For more discussion of modern relationships, see eukaryote or articles referenced below
596485
Just going with what Jag said, there doesn't seem to be any correct answer.\n\nAnimalia are never photosynthetic.\n\nEubacteria are never eukaryotes.\n\nFungi are never photosynthetic.\n\nPlantae are never single celled.\n\nNone of the answer is correct. In point of fact most single-celled eukaryotes that are either heterotrophic or photosynthetic belong to the kingdom Protista. But Protista isn't one of the options given.\n\nI think your teacher stuffed up the question.
92645
Your question is to wide... protozoans are too big a group to tell their economic importance as a whole. You'll first have to find each and everyone of the organisms of the protozoan taxa than causes any disease (e.g. Plasmodium - malaria), then find out if there are estimates of their economic importance... then make the math.\nNext, you'll need to find out which protozoans may contribute to any industrial process. Who knows, there may be some species that is used to produce something... (as Sacharomyces cereviceae is used to produce beer)\nNext, find out the economic importance of protozoans as cell models in scientifical experiments...\nNext, find out the economic importance of protozoans as a fundamental part of the trophic chain in the oceans, and what would happen to the fish inductry around the world if they were gone...\nSo your question may no have as yet an estimate
707688
Multicellular organisms
206670
"No protists are producers."\n\nI'm sure of it. Protists are the "junk drawer" of kingdoms.\nThe category of Protists includes many widely ranging microbes, including slime molds, protozoa and primitive algae. They are all eukaryotic <you-carry-ah-tick> creatures, meaning their DNA is enclosed in a nucleus inside the cell (unlike bacteria, which are prokaryotic <pro-carry-ah-tick> and have no nucleus to enclose their DNA. \n\nAlgae, Protozoa, Slime molds: Some produce and some consume.
851793
The major difference is that protist are single celled eucaryotic (have membrane bound organelles) whereas Monera are procaryotic (lack membrane bound organelles).
1036246
right on, I'm glad someone else sees some of the problems with evolutions.  Everyone else, keep in mind that this protein is just one of millions that is vital to life as we know it.  And another thing how do we know that the world is 4 billion years old?  Carbon dating?  The half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.  So how many half lives is that. Simply put by 4 billion years there no carbon 14 left to measure, it would have all deteriorated.  There is no way that all the life on earth could have resulted by evolution\n\nOkay to everyone above, to the person who said that scientists have created living cells from nonliving molecules, slap yourself because that is an absolute falsehood.  Next when you say that scientist created amino acids that is true but lets look closer.  There were only about 5 different amino acids that were created not all the ones that are necessary for life.  Next how were all the other cell parts (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs) formed.  Did they just appear? Scientists cannot make lipids from just the molecules needed to synthesize them.  I have a very hard time believing that all these parts were formed, in the same place (it is very hard to keep things together underwater let alone in an ocean) and somehow all came together and then replicated.  No that does not happen.  \n\nNext how did new material get added in to the gene pool? Mutation?  Well everything that we know from science (Medicine, genetics) tells us that mutation is bad.  Name one good mutation.  Not sickle cell anemia.  First of all sickle cell is only beneficial when it is in the heterozygote and so it helps protect against malaria, it also cause way more harmful symptoms than beneficial ones.  Look at what happens with people that have cystic fibrosis.  There are a few (less than 10) nucleic acid changes and it is usually fatal.  Mutation does not, repeat, DOES NOT, provide helpful change.  Another thing is how did this first cell survive?  Even the simplest cell carry out complex reactions, and processes that "Scientists" cannot explain after years of study.  In order for this "first cell" to be viable all these pathways would have to present before the cell could live.  And what about all the proteins need for DNA/RNA replication?  There are about 150 different proteins that carry out karyokinesis alone and then comes the problem of separating the DNA.  Come on do you still think that all this could have happened by chance?  \n\nNext time, do not come after creationist because you do not want to believe that there is a God.  With creation everything fits.  The more you know about biology the more you see the holes in evolution.
553651
u must be knowing that all organisms are classified into five kingdoms-monera,protista,anemalia,fungi and alge.\n\nthe MONERA phlum[group] consists of bacteria which are prokaryotic in nature -i.e, the cell doesnot have membrane bound organneles or nucleus.\n\nthe Protista group consists of organisms that are eukaryotic in nature-that is they have well defined organneles.\nthis is one reason that bacteria is kept in two separate groups.
749401
Hey, this is a question I asked my professor, how funny, lol. \n\nFirst of all, it's important to note the differences between a prokaryotic and a eukaryotic cell.  \n\nCells that lack a membrane-bound nucleus are called prokaryotes (from the Greek meaning before nuclei). These cells have few internal structures that are distinguishable under a microscope. Cells in the monera kingdom such as bacteria and cyanobacteria (also known as blue-green algae) are prokaryotes. Prokaryotic cells differ significantly from eukaryotic cells. They don't have a membrane-bound nucleus and instead of having chromosomal DNA, their genetic information is in a circular loop called a plasmid. \n\nTake a look at this picture:  http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/media/prokaryote.gif\n\nEukaryotic cells comprise all of the life kingdoms except monera. They can be easily distinguished through a membrane-bound nucleus.  Eukaryotic cells also contain many internal membrane-bound structures called organelles. These organelles such as the mitochondrion or chloroplast serve to perform metabolic functions and energy conversion. \n\nTake a look at this picture:  http://library.thinkquest.org/C004535/media/eukaryote_animal.gif\n\nFor a brief and quick response, ...a eukaryotic cell is a larger cell with distinctly more organelles within the cell.  They differ in size greatly :)
451783
2 is always better than 1.  The higher number of sets an organism has, the higher up on the food chain they would be.  An organism with 2 sets of cells would probably eat a 1 cell organism.
1012471
(A) protozoa\n(B) protozoa are eukaryotes (have membrane bound organelles), bacteria are prokaryotes (no nucleus, organelles, etc)\n(C) there are thousands of protozoans in Kingdom Protista (maybe even millions)\n(D) Protozoans are animal like because they are motile (some have flagella and/or cillia), SOME of them cannot produce their own food (via photosynthesis), so they have to get food from their environment, and some are sexually reproducing organisms.\n(E) via sexual reproduction\n\n(F) next time pay attention in class :)
1139602
There are organisms in the kingdom protista that are unicellular and have no cell wall.  The only other kingdom containing organisms without a  cell wall is the animal kingdom.  I am unaware of any animal whose total body contains only 2 cells.\nIt would have to be any animal.
774826
Artificial systems are good!  Or rather, neutral.  What makes them good or bad is their content.  Fight for freedom, but do it through the channels of these systems, unless they don't exist.  Without them, there is chaos, right?  Live your life as free as you can, but understand why the stuff is there.
777562
Presence of Mitochondria\nCilia or Flagella used for cellular locomotion\nPresence of RNA
1070874
ima try to keep it simple.. more of a opinion than answer because of the topic which we won't really know.  \n\nIf you study science hard as hell, you will see how a single cell organism lived in the water, long ago.  When they adapted... to survive for food they grew to 'cilia' (hair) on sides to move thu water after only having on hair(flagella).  To get to the point... cells evolved into tadpoles. then to fish and snakes. then to amphibians like frogs or platypus which is land and water.  Then reptiles and mammals that live on land.  Most say the monkey group grew to human when more complex learning/thinking came...but this could be the beginning of man.  Then religion to explain it all.  THe big bang theory states dinosaurs could of died when a meteor hit earth and clogged the atmosphere with dust so bad that no light was here for years.  No grass, no oxygen.  If the bible says... let there be light... could that of been when it cleared up.  The whole point is there is no way to prove anything that will satisfy us wholely.  If i do not have the cross of jesus... they do not believe... if you tell them anything out of the norm... they doubt it. It will all be confusion until enough knowledge satisfies their interest whether they choose science or religion.  THis is all because we are becoming in need of security thru reality and facts relating to our own patterns.  Most people believe the bible for only its relating content to everyday life rather than the miracles, holy spirit, and other great feats not known or seen to man today.  A scientist will help fulfill these questions as well as an interpretor of faith.  It depends if your a theorist. So its a bad thing for a scientist to fail in his field. The unexplained is sorta why we even have religion.  You must stop collecting facts and give faith to the supreme being....because even the single cell organism came from somewhere and the power to adapt/evolve is unexplained. unexplained gives a sense of unsecurity where we "fear what we cant control" (heights, ghost, and other scary sh/it.  we feel we cant control our lives without that being explained, so we fear and act off of that. Hope i covered alot in a lil.  Good luck on the answer! peace out!
1032485
the good and bad of something
825614
There isn't anything bad about endoplasmic reticulum (ER). The ER is used to aid in the production of protiens when covered with ribosomes. Without ribosomes it is just a passageway.