Skip to main content

Does anyone have good resource info on cell replacement?

Doing a kid's book and need to find out info on how quickly cells are replaced in the human body. I know that some turn over very quickly (liver or kidney) and others more slowly (bone) but that they are all replaced over a decade or two (well, I think so, anyway). Anyone know of a resource? I tried googling but could only find stuff on cancer, etc.

Comments

TaiChi said…
The best I could find:

http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=372183 (Scroll to JR Brown's posts for a list of citations)
Rowan said…
I think "cell turnover" might be a more useful search term - it yielded this.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks - very helpful...
wombat said…
It would seem to be manifestly untrue in the case of egg cells in the female which are apparently all present at birth and are never replaced. Some of these of course last up to around 45 years or so.

Theres also a bit of an issue isn't there with cell identity surely? If cells reproduce by splitting which is the original and which is the new one or do we consider them both new?
Stephen Law said…
yes I shall write this bit with some care.
This really is our new my partner and i visit here. I found so many engaging products in your blog, particularly it's discussion. In the tons of comments on your posts, I guess I'm not the only one obtaining all the amusement here! Continue the excellent work. Buy RS Gold
Runescape Gold
Unknown said…
Aqua Rite Flow Switch

We are committed to providing our customers with an individualized quality service, offering professional assistance and low product pricing designed to strengthen

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o