Spontaneous Generation Agreement

On April 12, 2021, in Uncategorized, by admin

In 1837, Charles Cagniard de la Tour, a physicist, and Theodor Schwann, one of the founders of cell theory, published their independent discovery of yeasts in alcoholic fermentation. They used the microscope to examine the foam that remained during brewing of the beer. Where Leeuwenhoek described “small spherical globuli,” they observed that yeast cells were subjected to cell division. Fermentation would not occur if sterile air or pure oxygen were introduced if there was no yeast. This indicated that microorganisms in the air, not spontaneous production, were responsible. [45] In what was occasionally considered to be the preconfiguration of a concept of natural selection,[17] Empedocles accepted the spontaneous creation of life, but found that different forms, composed of different combinations of parts, appeared spontaneously as if through trial and error: successful combinations formed the species we see now, while unsuccessful forms could not multiply. The debate over spontaneous generations continued until the 19th century, with scientists playing the role of supporters of both sides. To settle the debate, in 1858, the Paris Academy of Sciences offered a prize to solve the problem. Louis Pasteur, a leading French chemist who had studied microbial fermentation and the causes of wine tearing, took up the challenge.

In 1858, Pasteur filtered the air through a cotton pistol filter and found it during a microscopic examination of cotton full of microbes, suggesting that exposure to a broth has no “vital force” in bubbling but microorganisms in the air. Pier Antonio Micheli, circa 1729, observed that when mushroom spores were placed on melon discs, the same type of fungi from which spores came was produced was produced, and this observation revealed that the fungi did not come from spontaneous production. [43] His explanation for the spontaneous generation was as follows: In 1745, John Needham carried out a series of experiments on cooked broths. Believing that cooking would kill all living things, he showed that if they were sealed just after cooking, the broths would tarnish, so that belief in spontaneous generation remained. His studies were severely questioned by his colleagues and many of them agreed. [39] Lazzaro Spallanzani modified the Needham experiment in 1768 and tried to rule out the possibility of introducing a contaminating factor between cooking and sealing. His technique was to boil the broth in a closed container, the air being partly evacuated to avoid explosions. Although he did not see any growth, the exclusion of air left open the question of whether air was an essential factor in spontaneous production. [39] However, at that time, there was already widespread skepticism among the great scientists, the principle of spontaneous generation.

Observation showed increasingly that whenever the mechanisms of biological reproduction were studied with sufficient attention, it was evident that the processes involved the position of new structures on existing complex structures, rather chaotic sludge or dead materials. Joseph Priestley, after fleeing to America and just before his death, wrote a letter read in 1803 to the American Philosophical Society. This was partly to say that old beliefs were under review.


Comments are closed.