Objection against redi's experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter smhaq
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
AI Thread Summary
Redi's experiment on biogenesis involved placing dead animals in open and closed bottles to observe the presence of maggots, demonstrating that life does not spontaneously arise from non-living matter. The main objection from supporters of abiogenesis was the claim that oxygen was necessary for the process of reproduction, which they believed was not adequately accounted for in Redi's setup. Critics argued that the closed bottles lacked oxygen, potentially skewing the results. At the time, belief in abiogenesis was prevalent, leading to resistance against Redi's conclusions. This historical debate highlights the tension between emerging scientific evidence and established beliefs in biology.
smhaq
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
My question is related to biology, what was the main objection against redi's experiment about biognesis?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We can't help you until you show your own effort here. Why don't you start off by describing Redi's experiment about biogenesis to show you've at least gotten that far with your studying.
 
I am familiar with Redi's experiment that he took two sets of four bottles each.In first set he placed dead snakein one bottle, a few dead fish in second bottle, third bottle contained dead eels and in fourth a piece of meat.all bottles of this set were left open.The contents of these bottles were visited by flies.In the second ,he placed same dead animals but covered their mouth of the bottles. after few days , maggots were produced in the first four open bottles whereas no maggots were produced in second set.
I did n't understand that was clear and fair experiment, then why was it rejected or ignored?What was the objection of supporters of abiognesis?
 
the simple answer is non availibility of oxygen
ps if this question comes in an exam the above answer is 100% correct as i got the same question for my exam.
this is also because at that abiogenesis belaivers were at peak and oxygen is required for reproduction
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top