APPROVAL SHEET

Complete report of general biology with the title “ Lazzaro Spallanzani’s

Experiment “ with made by :

Name : Zulqifli Alqadri

ID : 1113040170

Group / Class : IV / ICP A

Department : Chemistry

After checked by assistant and assistant coordinator. So, this report accepted.

Makassar, November 18th 2011

Assistant Coordinator Assistant

\

(Djumarirmanto, S.Pd) (Nurul Fadhilah)ID 091404159

Responsibility Lecturer

(Drs. H. Hamka L, M.Si)NIP 1962 12 31 1987021005

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION

A. Background

Since then there has not been a scientist who managed to solve the

problem of the origin of life. People thought that living things were formed

spontaneously or formed by itself. This theory also called abiogenesis means can

be formed from living things rather than sentient beings, such as worms arising

from the mud. This theory was pioneered by Aristotle. But scientists still insist

on doing his own observations. They want to prove themselves the real origin

of life by doing experiments, so there are two answers from scientists - scientists

who are different. Which he said there biogenesis, namely that states that

life comes from previous life. And the second abiogenesis which claims that

life originated from inanimate or inanimate.

Many theories put forward by scientists but the theory can not provide a satisfactory

answer. In addition, there was born a few experiments that want to prove the origin

of life but which creates a conflict among scientists. "Where did the origin of life?",

Trying to answer that question with a variety of experiments. Among trials of French

Lazarro doubting the truth or the generation of spontaneous abiogenesis theory

pioneered by Aristoteles.

Lazarro Spallanzani is one of the experts who support the theory of

biogenesis states that living things come from living things themselves. He tried

to prove that the theory of biogenesis was right along with Francesco Redid and

Louis Pasteur's use broth. Abiogenesis theory reveals that living things came

from nonliving creatures. This theory survived for hundreds of years and this

theory is also based on a simple observation of what they see without the support

of adequate equipment.

This is the basis for Lazarro Spallanzani performed experiments to give

students the opportunity to observe directly the manner that has been done by

Spallanzani.

B. Purpose

This experiment aims to provide opportunities for students to follow the

way of thinking and the steps that have been done by scientists / researchers in

solving biological problems, specifically answering the question "Where does

the origin of life?".

C. Benefit

1. Students can do this experiment, especially Lazarro Spallanzani’s Experiment

2. Students can more understand and know or follow the way of thinking and

the step that have been done by scientist or researchers in solving biological

problems.

\

CHAPTER IIPREVIEW OF LITERATURE

Unable to allow Needham’s conclusion to remain untested, an Italia

naturalist, Lazzaro Spallanzani, took more extensive and sophisticated measures,

which included long-term heating of the test vessels and infusions to destroy any

lingering resistant forms. He found that a variety of liquid nutrients ( broths, urine )

thus treated and kept sealed in flasks from air would not developed growth. When he

was accused of destroying the vegetative force of the nutrients by overheating, he

showed that the heated nutrient could still grow microbes whwn exposed to air.

Undaunted by this argument, other critics objected that Spallanzani’s flasks were

selaed from oxygen, a gas known to be required in the respiration of animals.

Somehow Leeuwenhoek’s earlier discovery that free oxygen was not necessary for

microbial growth was disregarded at the time ( Talaro, 2010).

Additional experiments further depended biogenesis. Franz Shultse and

Theodor Schwann of Germany felt assured that air what the source of microbes and

sought to prove this by passing air through strong chemicals or hot glass tubes into

heat-treated infussion in flasks. When the infussions again remained devoid of living

things, the supporters of abiogenesis claimed that the treatment of the air had made it

harmful to the spontaneous development of life. These studies were followed up by

Georg Schroeder and Theodor Van Dusch, who did not treat the air with heat or

chemicals, but passed it through cotton wool to filter out microscopic organisms.

Again, no microbes grew in the infusions. Although these experiments should have

finally laid to rest the arguments for spontaneous generation, they did not (Talaro,

2010).

In this period the experts try to make the restriction or postulates, of all

things related to life, especially with the problems of life that does not look or the life

of microorganisms. The emergence of the notion that life happens by

itself spontaneously ("generatiospontaneous") better known as the theory of

"abiogenesis" occurred in this period. Assumption is then received a

prettysevere challenge of the biologists at that time. Persistentcharacter of which is

to defend the theory of abiogenesis John Needham (1713-1781), he has been

experimenting with cooked meat and observed that there are microorganisms in the

earlyexperiments and concluded that the bodies came from meat. For

several years abiogenesis theory accepted by the experts at the time, but a short time

later many of the biologists, chemists, medical and other experts who disagree

with the theory ( Kusnadi, 2003).

An expert on the Italian Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) conducted a series

of experiments by inserting the substrate in the form of organic compounds into the

bottle gourd, the top of the bottle is closed tightly and then heated (to be sterile).

Having saved some time, was not found life in the bottle , this is different from the

bottles are heated (as control), which became rotten and overgrown with a variety of

living microorganisms ( Kusnadi, 2003).

One of the first to provide strong evidence that microorganisms do not

appear by itself in organic juice. Was an Italian naturalist, Lazzaro Spallanzani, who

conducted a series of experiments on this subject in the mid-eighteenth century. He

can show repeatedly that the warming could prevent the onset of animalkules in

broth, although the length of pemnasan was changing. Spallanzani concluded

animalkules broth can be carried by air into it and this is the explanation of the

alleged existence of abiogenesis is true that in a broth that has been heated properly.

Previous researchers closed the pumpkin with a cork stopper, but Spallanzani did not

feel satisfied that it can be passed stoppers made of air, and forced to make air tight

sealing. He noticed that after the broth was left for a long time, there is a very small

cracks in the glass which is then followed by the development animalkules. The last

conclusion is that to make a broth that was not covered by animalkules eternally, then

the flask was sealed and air must be boiled. Animalkules would not exist unless the

air that can enter into contact with the pumpkin and broth ( Stainer, 1980).

Lazzaro spallanzani proved in 1768 that meat boiled water that is heated and

then sealed mengjasilkan not microbes. However, these proponents argue that the

spontaneous generation of microbes is not available because no air is necessary for

microbial life in the tube. To break the opinion, theodor schwann in 1827 performed

the same experiment with spallanzani but by using a long-necked glass tube. Air can

get into a heated tube to avoid contamination from the air. Apparently though there is

air inside the tube, having left for some time, there is no microbial growth.

Nonetheless, advocates of spontaneous generation still survive by stating that the life

force contained in the air has been damaged due to heating. Schultze (1836) fix

spallanzani experiment by passing air through a strong acid or base into the tube

containing the broth that has been boiled beforehand. But proponents of spontaneous

generation claimed that the air passing acids or bases have been amended so as not to

allow the emergence of microbes. Theodor schroeder and van dusch (1854)

conducted similar experiments with spallanzani and schwann, but they filter the

incoming air with sterile cotton, the result showed that there was no growth in water

meat stew that has been heated ( Stainer, 1980).

An amateur microbiologist, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, observed small

organisms in dirty water and some material he scrapped from his teeth. These

organisms were called 'animalcules' that we call as protozoans, today. This discovery

took Europe by storm and scientists were thrilled to find these animalcules. The most

pricking question in the minds of many was about the origin of these animalcules.

This doubt had only one answer, spontaneous theory of generation. Over the years,

many intelligent minds came up with theories that defied spontaneous generation

theory. An Italian physician, Francesco Redi could prove in 1668 that life cannot

evolve spontaneously. However, people who supported biogenesis did not think that

Redi's theory was applicable to microbes. Many other scientists continued their

attempts to dissolve the spontaneous theory of generation. However, John Needham

in 1745, added chicken broth to a flask and allowed it to cool. Then after few days,

microbes did grow in the broth, and Needham proposed it a proof of spontaneous

theory of generation. Needlam claimed that vital life is needed for spontaneous

generation of animalcules. His claim was challenged by Lazzaro Spallanzani in 1768,

who repeated the experiment in a sealed container. He found there was no growth in

the container. Then, in 1858, Rudolf Virchow, a scientist challenged the spontaneous

generation theory by proposing the theory of biogenesis. He stated, 'living cells can

arise only from pre-existing living cells. This biogenesis theory partly explained the

presence of animalcule under the microscope. However, without any concrete

scientific evidence, Virchow's biogenesis theory was not accepted by all

(Anonymousᵃ, 2011).

Lazzaro Spallanzani, also an Italian scientist, reviewed both Redi's and

Needham's data and experimental design and concluded that perhaps Needham's

heating of the bottle did not kill everything inside. He constructed his own

experiment by placing broth in each of two separate bottles, boiling the broth in both

bottles, then sealing one bottle and leaving the other open. Days later, the unsealed

bottle was teeming with small living things that he could observe more clearly with

the newly invented microscope. The sealed bottle showed no signs of life. This

certainly excluded spontaneous generation as a viable theory. Except it was noted by

scientists of the day that Spallanzani had deprived the closed bottle of air, and it was

thought that air was necessary for spontaneous generation. So although his

experiment was successful, a strong rebuttal blunted his claims (Anonymousᵇ, 2011).

CHAPTER IIIOBSERVATION METHOD

A. Place and Date

Day and Date : Friday, November 18th 2011

Time : 07.30 am until 09.00 am

Place : Biology Laboratory 3rd floor FMIPA UNM

B. Tool and Materials

1. Tools

a. Test tube (4)

b. Tube rack reactions (1)

c. Cork / rubber suitable (2)

d. Lights spritus (1)

e. Wood clamp (1)

2. Materials

a. Liquid broth (40 ml)

b. Wax (1)

c. Matches

d. Label

C. Procedure

1. The contents of the four test tubes with broth each 10 ml.

2. Tube I, stopper with cork lid / rubber and used as drops of molten wax

between the mouth of the tube with a lid.

3. Tube II, brought to a boiled over a fire broth spritus lamp for 10 minutes

(leaved it opened without a lid).

4. Tube III, brought to a boiled over a fire broth spritus lamp for 10 minutes,

immediately cover with cork and used as drops of molten wax between the

mouth of the tube with a lid.

5. Tube IV, didn’t boil and didn’t close (let it opened).

6. Placed all test tubes in test tube rack and store in the desk, try to avoid the

interference of animals, direct sunlight and other heat sources.

7. Performed observation and recorded every day, for a week.

CHAPTER IVRESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Result

D

A

Y

S

TUBE 1 TUBE 2 TUBE 3 TUBE 4SIGNA

TUREC S

C

OC S

C

OC S CO C S CO

0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 + + + + - + - + - - - -

2 +++

+

+

+

+

+-

+

++ + - - - -

3 +++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ - - -

Informations :

C : Color - : Nothing

S : Smell + : Yes

CO : Condition

B. Discussion

When the experiment occured :

I II III IV

The first day :

I II III IV

The second day :

I II III IV

The Last Day

I II III IV

Explanation

1. Tube 1 : Added 10 ml liquid broth (didn’t boil and didn’t closed)

2. Tube 2 : Added 10 ml liquid broth and closed with cork. After that, drops a wax.

3. Tube 3 : Added 10 ml liquid broth and boiled without closed.

4. Tube 4 : Added 10 ml liquid broth and boiled. Then, closed with cork and drops

a wax.

Based on theory (Lazarro Spallanzani, 2010) with experiments using the broth

can be compared with observations during five days in four tubes with different

treatment. On the first day of observation tubes I, II, III, and IV are still in a state of

clear or there has been no change. But the following day broth amended are as

follows:

1. In the first tube, the first day the tube is still clear, odorless and has no sediment.

On the second day, the broth has been experiencing changes in color that is green

and has a sediment. And on the third day already smelling broth, so anything on

the fifth day broth has experienced a change that is a green, smelly and have

sediment. From my observation, it can be said that this tube has the organism

because the tube is not heated and does not shut down resulting in the exchange

of air and water are not sterile broth so that the organism is more easy to breed in

the tube. In theory, the tube is not heated and not closed will have the organism

because of the air exchange so that microbes can get into the tube and multiply

rapidly because water is not sterile broth. In other words, observation of IV tube

pad worked perfectly because it fits with the theory.

2. On the second tube at the first day, the tubes are still clear and no sediment and

not smelly. But on the second day until the fifth day the water was getting cloudy

broth. But at this tube there is no sediment and no smell. In theory, it should not

be heated tube which has a sealed despite the marked organism broth with water

that smells, turbid and has a sediment. Means, observations on the tube I did not

work perfectly.

3. In the third tube, the second day is still colored translucent tube, there are no

deposits and no smell (still the same on the first day). But on the third day the

water had turned into a murky broth and has a sediment but no smell, so anything

until the fifth day, the broth became turbid water, a sediment but no smell. In

theory, the tube should not be closed despite having been boiled broth organism

that causes decay, have sediment and turbid. This is due to the exchange of

oxygen from the outer tube into the tube so that the organism also can get into the

tube. Means, observations on the tube II also did not work perfectly.

4. In the forth tube, the first day the tube is still clear, odorless and has no sediment.

On the second day, the water stock changes with sediment but the broth remained

clear and odorless. So even until the fifth day. From my observation, it can be

said that this tube does not have the organism because it is heated and then sealed

so that no exchange of oxygen that can cause the organism into the tube. In

theory, the tube is heated and then closed does not have the organism because the

water situation is still the same stock on the first day, but there is sediment in the

observation tube IV. This happens because the wax droplets that enter the tube so

that said sediment. In other words, observations on the tube IV declared to have

successfully that the tube does not have the organism.

CHAPTER VCONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on the observations that have been done then it can be deduced

Microorganisms that live does not come from the objects, rather than the

previous creatures. Based Lazarro Spallanzani experiment, the tube that opens

there is life that comes from microorganisms that are airborne. This proves that

life does not come from the broth, as stated by the theory of abiogenesis.

B. Suggestion

a. Apprentice expected to be on time to do lab work for this activity can work

well.

b. Expected that practican careful in doing lab work for better results.

c. Expected that the cooperation between the assistant with practican so that if

something goes wrong can be solved quickly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymousᵃ. 2011. Biogenesis Theory. www.buzzle.com/articles/biogenesis-theory. At November 24th 2011

Anonymousᵇ. 2011. Spontaneous Theory. www.infoplease.com/cig/biology. At November 24th 2011

Kusnadi, dkk. 2003. Mikrobiologi. JICA : Jakarta

Ristiati. 2000. Pengantar Mikrobiologi Umum. Proyek Pengembangan Guru Sekolah Menengah IBRD : Jakarta

Stainer, adeiberg. 1980. Dunia Microbe 1. Bhatara Karya Aksara : Jakarta

Talaro, Thleen. 2010. Microbiology. Wm. C. Brown Publisher : USA

ANSWER THE QUESTION

1. What are the causes of the changes in broth in the above experiment?

2. Where does the advent of living things that cause a change in the broth?

3. Changes in stock at the trial of the above occurs in the tube treated how? Why did

it happen so?

4. In the treated tube its broth how that has not changed? Why not change the color

and smell?

5. Could the stock material of a sudden it will come new creatures?

6. The experimental results above can be used as strong evidence to disprove

spontaneous generation opinion?

Answer

1. The reason is because of microorganisms that then multiply in broth.

2. Comes from the outside air, and also from the broth itself is not sterilized.

3. The stock changes occur in tubes I, II tubes, and tube III. Because the tube I,

since each tube is still has the microorganisms, because there is contaminated

with outside air and not in sterilization, but there are at sterilize contaminated

with outside air, and some are not contaminated but not sterilized.

4. IV tube has not changed, caused by microorganisms in the water off on the

heated broth and microorganisms from the outside can not enter because the

closed meeting.

5. Not likely. Because the causes of the emergence of living things that are broth

containing microbes (non-sterile and contaminated) that do not appear because

the numbers are still small and multiply over time after breeding.

6. Ya. Because of experiments that have been done conclude that life did not

originate from inanimate objects (occurs in IV tubes), but derived from

previously living things (seen on the tube I,II tubes, and tube III).