Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Spontaneous Generation PPT - Final

    Uploaded by

    Mary Grace Besin
    1) For much of history, people believed that living things could spontaneously generate from non-living matter, such as frogs from rain or mice from sweaty clothes. 2) Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation by showing that flies did not generate maggots in meat sealed away from them, only where the flies could access the meat. 3) Louis Pasteur further disproved spontaneous generation using flasks with swan necks that allowed air in but trapped microbes, showing no microbes grew without introduction from outside sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spontaneous Generation PPT - Final

    Uploaded by

    Mary Grace Besin
    85 views23 pages
    1) For much of history, people believed that living things could spontaneously generate from non-living matter, such as frogs from rain or mice from sweaty clothes. 2) Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation by showing that flies did not generate maggots in meat sealed away from them, only where the flies could access the meat. 3) Louis Pasteur further disproved spontaneous generation using flasks with swan necks that allowed air in but trapped microbes, showing no microbes grew without introduction from outside sources.

    Original Title

    Spontaneous Generation Ppt.final

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) For much of history, people believed that living things could spontaneously generate from non-living matter, such as frogs from rain or mice from sweaty clothes. 2) Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation by showing that flies did not generate maggots in meat sealed away from them, only where the flies could access the meat. 3) Louis Pasteur further disproved spontaneous generation using flasks with swan necks that allowed air in but trapped microbes, showing no microbes grew without introduction from outside sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    85 views23 pages

    Spontaneous Generation PPT - Final

    Uploaded by

    Mary Grace Besin
    1) For much of history, people believed that living things could spontaneously generate from non-living matter, such as frogs from rain or mice from sweaty clothes. 2) Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation by showing that flies did not generate maggots in meat sealed away from them, only where the flies could access the meat. 3) Louis Pasteur further disproved spontaneous generation using flasks with swan necks that allowed air in but trapped microbes, showing no microbes grew without introduction from outside sources.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 23

    spontaneous generation

    Redi, Needham, Spallanzani, and Pasteur


    • Spontaneous Generation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNByRg
    hR6sw
    Spontaneous Generation
    • For much of history, people believed that animals could come
    from non-living sources. They thought:
    – Frogs developed from falling drops of rain
    – mice arose from sweaty underwear
    – and flies arose from decaying meat.
    • This is called abiogenesis
    • Also known as spontaneous generation
    • These ideas
    were followed
    because people
    simply
    accepted what
    they were told
    The Power of Authority
    • In the past, people
    believed what they were
    told by “authorities” such
    as the Church, or the
    ancient Greek philosopher
    Aristotle
    • Questioning Aristotle was
    like questioning the
    Church....
    • One “scientist” put forward the belief that mice could
    be generated spontaneously from wheat and a sweaty
    shirt.
    • The wheat provided the “nutritive power” and the
    shirt provided the “active principle.”
    • “active principle” = a mysterious “life-force” that
    allowed spontaneous generation to occur.
    1668 -- Francisco Redi (Italian physician & poet)--
    attempted to disprove the theory of Spontaneous Generation.
    “The flesh of dead animals cannot engender
    worms unless the eggs of the living being
    deposited therein”

    • Put dead snakes, eels, and veal in large wide


    mouthed vessels. Sealed one set with wax
    and left the other set open to air.
    • Decaying meat was teeming with maggots,
    sealed meat had no maggots
    • Wax sealed vessels failed to produce maggots
    because flies were unable to reach the meat
    Redi’s critics said:

    • You have too many variables


    • There is a lack of access and
    a lack of air.
    • We ALL know that everything
    needs air
    • Of course no flies grew!
    • You haven’t proven
    anything.
    Redi part 2 – answer to critics

    fine mesh allows in air,


    but not flies

    flies laid eggs on top of mesh


    no maggots in meat
    Redi’s Conclusions:

    • “All living beings come from seeds of the


    plants or animals themselves”
    • However, if someone were to demonstrate
    even one exception to this hypothesis, then
    Redi’s hypothesis would be rejected.
    John Needham (English Clergyman)
    wondered if this would work with micro
    organisms in1745
    • Everyone knew that boiling killed organisms.
    • Needham prepared various broths and showed
    that they contained microbes.
    • Then he boiled them, and showed that there
    were no longer any microbes.
    • He ensured the stoppers were loose, so that air
    would not be excluded
    • Then, after a few days, microbes had
    reappeared!
    • This was “proof” that the microbes had
    spontaneously generated from the non-living
    broth.
    Needham’s error
    • BUT: how was this evidence of
    a faulty experiment?
    – what ERROR in experimental
    method is shown here?
    • Hypothesis: microbes MUST
    HAVE arisen spontaneously from
    the broth.
    • Assumption: there is no other
    place the microbes could come
    from (other than the broth).
    • error: microbes could have come
    from the air!
    Spallanzani’s (Italian Naturalist) -- 1745
    • Disagreed with Needham
    • Claimed he didn’t seal jars well enough
    • He said microbes could have come from the air
    • He repeated Needham’s experiment, but changed two things:
    – boiled flasks longer, and
    – SEALED THEM after boiling by fusing the glass tops shut
    – (hermetically sealed – absolutely airtight)
    • Result: NO growth in ANY flask
    Needham criticizes Spallanzani’s first experiment

    • BUT Needham said: you boiled it


    TOO LONG, and:
    • You spoiled the vegetative power
    by boiling.
    • You killed the ability of the broth
    to give life.
    • Life can still come from broth --
    but the broth must not be
    “damaged” by boiling.
    Spallanzani’s second experiment
    tight seal loose seal
    • he did TIMED
    BOILINGS 30 mins
    • then left them partially
    sealed
    • some partially sealed, 60 mins
    some hermetically
    sealed as in his
    previous experiment
    • hypothesized that
    more boiling should
    lead to less life 90 mins
    • he left some jars as
    Needham had (leaky
    seals), to ensure
    “active principle” was
    not damaged 120 mins
    Spallanzani’s second experiment -- results
    tight seal loose seal

    • this showed 30 mins


    TWO main
    things:
    60 mins
    • boiling did NOT
    damage broth’s
    ability to support
    life 90 mins

    • growth depended
    on the SEAL
    only 120 mins
    (French chemist) entered a contest sponsored
    Louis Pasteur 1859– by French Academy of Sciences to prove or
    disprove Spontaneous generation.

    • used swan-necked flask


    • flask allowed in air, but
    trapped dust (and
    microbes)
    • boiled infusion
    • showed that NO growth
    occurred, even after many
    days
    • BUT -- what about
    damaging the “active
    principle”?
    • Pasteur showed
    that the active
    principle was NOT
    damaged
    • at any later time,
    he could tip the
    flask
    area where
    • this allowed dust had
    nutrient broth to been trapped
    contact the dust
    • this carried
    microbes into the
    broth
    • result: growth!
    Pasteur squashes the idea of abiogenesis completely!

    • Since then, no one has been able to refute Pasteur’s experiment


    • scientists everywhere soon came to accept that abiogenesis did
    NOT EXIST.
    • but: then how did life on this planet start in the first place?

    You might also like