who are the modern biologist who contributed to modern biology?
827073
Hello, there are many ‘foreign’ biologists but I don’t know of any Filipino biologist. You should throw this question back to the one who asked.
160466
I think the scientists who made the greatest contribution of all time was Alexander Gram Bell even though he was not really scientists and more like a inventor. His invention the telephone is what now makes the world go round. The telephone lead to the internet, and being able to send mass amounts of information.
1156766
try this\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
869313
The father of modern microbiology, Anton Van Leeuwenhoek created the first simple microscope ( single lensed ) and Robert Hooke created the compund microscope ( Light microscope )
308666
You mean after Mendel??? i think he started it without even knowing, then came morgan with his Drosophila melanogaster (fruit-flies) and the their sex-limked traits, then came the analysis of sex-linked traits in humans
841277
It was Robert Hooke He was an English Scientist.\nHe firt saw cells in wood from a cork tree he was studying.
71183
Genetics, scientific study of how physical, biochemical, and behavioural traits are transmitted from parents to their offspring. The word itself was coined in 1906 by the British biologist William Bateson. Geneticists determine the mechanisms of inheritance whereby the offspring of sexually reproducing organisms do not exactly resemble their parents, and the differences and similarities between parents and offspring recur from generation to generation in repeated patterns. The investigation of these patterns has led to some of the most exciting discoveries in modern biology.\nSoon after Mendel's work was rediscovered, scientists realized that the patterns of inheritance he had described paralleled the action of chromosomes in dividing cells, and they proposed that the Mendelian units of inheritance, the genes, are carried by the chromosomes. This led to intensive studies of cell division.\n\nEvery cell comes from the division of a pre-existing cell. All the cells that make up a human being, for example, are derived from the successive divisions of a single cell, the zygote (see Fertilization), which is formed by the union of an egg and a sperm. The great majority of the cells produced by the division of the zygote are, in the composition of their hereditary material, identical to one another and to the zygote itself (assuming that no mutations occur; see below). Each cell of a higher organism is composed of a jellylike layer of material, the cytoplasm, which contains many small structures. This cytoplasmic material surrounds a prominent body called the nucleus. Every nucleus contains a number of minute, threadlike chromosomes. Some relatively simple organisms, such as cyanobacteria and bacteria, have no distinct nucleus but do have cytoplasm, which contains one or more chromosomes.\n\nChromosomes vary in size and shape and usually occur in pairs. The members of each pair, called homologues, closely resemble each other. Most cells in the human body contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas most cells of the fruit fly Drosophila contain four pairs, and the bacterium Escherichia coli has a single chromosome in the form of a ring. Every chromosome in a cell is now known to contain many genes, and each gene is located at a particular site, or locus, on the chromosome.\n\nThe process of cell division by which a new cell comes to have an identical number of chromosomes as the parent cell is called mitosis (see Reproduction). In mitotic division each chromosome divides into two equal parts, and the two parts travel to opposite ends of the cell. After the cell divides, each of the two resulting cells has the same number of chromosomes and genes as the original cell (see Cell: Division, Reproduction, and Differentiation). Every cell formed in this process thus has the same genetic material. Simple one-celled organisms and some multicellular forms reproduce by mitosis; it is also the process by which complex organisms achieve growth and replace worn-out tissue.\n\nHigher organisms that reproduce sexually are formed from the union of two special sex cells known as gametes. Gametes are produced by meiosis, the process by which germ cells divide. It differs from mitosis in one important way: in meiosis a single chromosome from each pair of chromosomes is transmitted from the original cell to each of the new cells. Thus, each gamete contains half the number of chromosomes that are found in the other body cells. When two gametes unite in fertilization, the resulting cell, called the zygote, contains the full, double set of chromosomes. Half of these chromosomes normally come from one parent and half from the other.\n\nFor more than 50 years after the science of genetics was established and the patterns of inheritance through genes were clarified, the largest questions remained unanswered: how are the chromosomes and their genes copied from cell to cell, and how do they direct the structure and behaviour of living things? Two American genet
70616
History of Mitochondria\nDiscovered by a scientist named Altmann in 1890: called them “bioblasts” •Altmann suggested they might be tiny independent organism within living cells.\nMITOCHONDRIA was then named by scientist Benda.
298956
No. Darwin figured out many of the basics, but the theory today is much more sophisticated than Darwin ever imagined. This is why we now have the "modern synthesis". Darwin had a different, and largely incorrect, idea of how inheritance worked, and never imagined the complexities inherent in modern biochemistry. The fundamental idea was Darwin's, but it has changed so much that we could not rightly say that the modern theory of evolution is what Darwin had in mind.\n\nIncidentally, sun_of_samsa claimed "this ultimately is what caused him to change his theory later in life, however he did not "revoke it on his deathbed" as many creationists claim." This is patently false; Charles Darwin died in 1882, 18 years before Mendel's work was to be rediscovered. Further, I know of no evidence that Darwin changed his theory, as he had no access to any of the evidence which would later require modifications to his theory. Perhaps there is some, though, in his personal letters; unlike his books, I have not read all of his personal correspondence.\n\nFurther, leonkallai's post is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates a near-complete ignorance of the last two (or more) centuries of biology, physics, and geology.
635175
I believe you are thinking of Carolus Linnaeus, also known as Carl von Linné or Carl Linnaeous.
443656
Aha, this is my passion.  You can look into the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  I think they're a group called Answers in Genesis.  If you want something more in-depth check out the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.  He interviews leading scientists (with extensive post-grad education) on a whole host of topics.  To hone in on strictly biology go for the Michael Behe book, "Darwin's Black Box."  The black box is the cell which Darwin thought was just a blob with a darker center.  He had NO idea that there was a super efficient little factory in there.  There's also a book called "Mere Creation."    If you buy the Lee Strobel book, he cites a ton of scholarly articles and books that you can get.  If you want me to list more, just say so.  God bless on your journey.  He definitely reveals Himself in creation.
585719
>>>>who found tthe field of modern gentics?\n\nNormaly credited to Gregor Mendel.\n\n>>>and what suger is used in DNA?\n\nRibose\n\n>>>what is crossing over\n\nA transfer of lengths of DNA between chromosomes during meiosis.
1159725
Whoa, you tackled a risky one there and will probably get some interesting answers. \n\nI will say that I am concerned in that modern science has made it possible for many to live in spite of genetic traits that can continue to be passed down to other generations. In days gone by, the less healthy did not usually make it to the age in life to procreate and so there was a natural termination to many of the genetic problems. \nNow  in the modern world, our morals and values have to enter in and whether we could with good conscience do what nature once did is debatable.\nFYI...I would have been one of those that was buried beside the Oregon trail with the epitaph...because of her delicate constitution,she did not make it.\nAntibiotics have saved my life at least 4 times to date.
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
901324
check out this link \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_biology#Notable_cell_biologists
861073
Alfred Wegner...\n\nhttp://pangaea.org/wegener.htm\nhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bowege.html\nhttp://www.tqnyc.org/NYC040622/tectonicplates.html\n\nThere is one hell of a lot of writing on these pages.
556771
Men: Darwin, Mendel, Watson, Crick, Wallace, Carrollus Linneas\nWomen: Rosalind Franklin, Barbara McClintock,hmmm.... I should know more\nThose are ones I teach, you're on your own to find out what they did.