RATIFICATION PAGE

Complete report of Basic Biology with title “ Experiment of Lazarro

Spallanzani” which made by :
Name : Andriani Nasrullah
Reg Number : 121 444 1 035
Class : Biology education ICP A
Group : IV ( Four )
Has been checked by assistant and assistant coordinator, so this report is accepted.

th
Makassar, November 2012

Assistant Coordinator Assistant

M. Nur Qadri S. M. Nur Qadri S.

Known,
The Lecture Laboratorium

Drs. H. Hamka L, SM
ID 196212311987021005
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A. Background
The question “ Where did the origin of life ?”, have been tried answered with
various theories and experiment. Among them is a dubious Spallanzani experiment
the theory of abiogenesis / spontaneous generation of Aristoteles. Aristoteles
demonstrated that living things come from nonliving things, because he saw the ants
were always out of the ground so it was thought that the ants came from land. Finally,
came the few scientists who try to break the theory of abiogenesis. The theory of
spontaneous generation asserted that living things could come into being without a
living predecessor.
If we try to think about this problem further, we can be more think critically in
solving this problem. Such as mice from corn, flies from bovine manure, maggots
from rotting meat, and fish from the mud of previously dry lakes and so on. Through
the experiment has been done by scientists like Francesco Redi, Lazarro Spallanzani,
and Harold Urey by using scientific methods then those statements can not be proven
true. Such experiments have been done by Redi. He conducted experiments on meat
that was left open in a container, and other closed containers. The result after a few
days, the meat on the open container filled with maggots. Maggots were actually
comes from the eggs of flies that landed on the meat. Meanwhile the meat is not
covered types of microorganisms that live there. This same experiment was
demonstrated Lazarro Spallanzani in the broth which was given different treatment.
Based on experiments that have been done are scientists, proved that living
things come from living things before. Because if not, it should also a closed
container in which there are microorganisms. With experiment thatwe will doing in
the laboratory, we will proving righteousness that the theory of the origin of life.
Proving the the biogenesis theory.
B. Purpose
This experiment aims to provide student chance to follow the path of thinking
and the steps that have been done the scientists / researchers in solving biological
problems, specifically answering the question about where did the orgin of life ?.
C. Benefit
Know and understand how steps to proved theory the origin of life by a
practicum in a laboratory that all living things could not come from nonliving things.
 CHAPTER II
PREVIEW OF LITERATURE

It was once believed that life could come from nonliving things, such as mice
from corn, flies from bovine manure, maggots from rotting meat, and fish from the
mud of previously dry lakes. Spontaneous generation is the incorrect hypothesis that
nonliving things are capable of producing life. Several experiments have been
conducted to disprove spontaneous generation (Anonymousa: 2012).
Francesco Redi (1668) set up an experiment that helped to dispel the theory of
spontaneous generation. Redi placed rotting meat in three different containers. The
first container was left uncovered, a wire mesh screen was placed on the second
container, and the third container was sealed. During the experiment, Redi observed
that flies flew around the containers. In the first container, the flies landed on the
meat and in the second container the flies landed on the screen. When the experiment
was over, maggots were found on the meat in the first container, maggots were found
on the top of the screen on the second container, and no maggots were found on or
around the third container. Redi concluded that the flies laid eggs that hatched into
maggots. Following the steps of the scientific method, Redi and other scientists
replicated his experiment and came up with the same results and conclusions. Redi's
was one of the first scientists to apply the scientific method (Anomymousb: 2006).
After studying the organisms in infusions for 14 years, Spallanzani was
convinced that he had terminated definitively the chapter on spontaneous generation.
As early as 1771 Spallanzani had begun to interest himself in the phenomenon of
fertilization. He had published some first observations in the Prodromo di un’opera
da imprimersi sulle riproduzioni animali, but he went into the problem in some detail
in the second of his Opuscoli di Fisica Animale e Vegetabile. As a good, convinced
ovist he interpreted the little spermatic worms as parasites in the seed, perhaps
transmitted from one generation to the next, as Vallisnieri thought happened with
intestinal worms. Spallanzani was sure that they played no part in fertilization, a
function he attributed to the seminal fluid. With these theoretical assumptions, but
without preconceptions, Spallanzani set to work experimentally. He had observed
spermatic animalcules in many animals: various mammals, including man, fish and
amphibians. Thus equipped with direct personal experience, not basing his words on
descriptions by previous authors, he could write: “For many years I had no longer
read their discoveries about spermatic worms, therefore, I had only general ideas
about them. I should have liked even to cancel those general ideas from my memory
in order to approach the research as a Tabula rasa, myself open only to the sense of
sight, without concerning myself about the discoveries of others.”10 For his first
experiment he chose amphibians (Capanna, 1999: 189).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1770) disagreed with Needham. After reading about
Redi's experiment, he decided to try Needham's experiment and see what would
happen if the gravy were boiled for a longer period of time. Spallanzani boiled two
flasks filled with gravy. After boiling, he left one flask open to the air and sealed the
other flask. In a few days he checked both flasks. The open flask was filled with
microscopic organisms and the sealed flask had no organisms. Spallanzani then
concluded that the microorganisms, which were living in the air, entered the flask
from the air and did not develop from the gravy (nonlife). He then stated that
spontaneous generation does not happen because if it did, then both flasks would be
filled with microorganisms (Anomymousb: 2006).
In middle of the last century Louis Pasteur demonstrated by a series of
brilliant experiments that living organisms could not arise out of non-living material.
Pasteur dealt the death blow to the theory of spontaneous generation which was based
on incompetent observation and the willingness to accept the evidence of the senses.
Unfortunately, his work also gave rise to the misconception that the problem of the
origin of life could not be approached by scientific methods. The question of life’s
beginning was therefore considered to be unworthy of the attention of any serious
scientific investigator. But it is transparently clear that what Pasteur proved was that
micro-organisms could not be grown from sterile starting material; his experiments
had no bearing on the gradual formation of organic compounds leading to the
emergence of biologically significant polymers (Knobloch, 1967: 323).
 CHAPTER III
PRACTICUM METHOD

A. Time and place

Day / Date : Wednesday / October 31st 2012
Time : at 07.30 a.m until 09.10 a.m
Place :Biology Laboratory at the 3rd floor, Mathematic and Science
Faculty of Makassar State University.
B. Tools and materials
1. Tools
a) Tools provided by laboratory:
1) 3 pieces of test tube
2) 1 piece test tube rack
3) 1 piece of light spirits
4) 2 pieces of cork / rubber suit
b) Tools provided by student:
1) 1 piece of wood clamps / tweezers
2) 1 piece pipette hand
2. Materials
a) Materials provided by laboratory:
1) 30 mL of liquid broth
b) Materials provided by student:
1) 1 piece of wax
2) Label
C. Work Procedure
1. Fill three tubes with broth 20 ml respectively.
2. The first tube, stopped with cork / rubber suit and wax used as drops of liquid
interposed between the mouth of the tube with a lid.
3. The second tube, broth simmers over low heat for 2 minutes spirits light, leave
it open (without lid).
4. The third tube, broth simmers over low for 2 minutes spirits light,
immediately cover with cork and wax used as drop if liquid interposed
between the mouth of the tube with a lid.
5. Pull al tubes on a test tube rack and keep on top of your desk, try to avoid
interference from animals, direct sunlight and other heat sources.
6. Observe and record every day, for 5 days.

.
 CHAPTER IV
OBSERVATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Observation Result
Table of observation result
Day- n Tube 1 Tube 2 Tube 3
C S Sm C S Sm C S Sm
Tube
1 Tr - - Tr - - Tr - -
2 Tr - - Tr - - Tr - -
3 Tr - - Tu - - Tr - -
4 Tu - - Tu + + Tr - -
5 Tu + - Tu ++ + Tr + -
Note of tubes :
C = Color
Tr : Transparent
Tu : Turbid
S = Sediment
- : Low
+ : Medium
++ : Strong
Sm = Smell
- : Low
+ : Medium
++ : Strong
B. Discussion
1. Tube 1
This tube was contained 10 mL of liquid broth. It was closed and notboiled.
The first day until third day, there was no change, the color was transparent, no
smell, and no sediment. The fourth day the color to be turbid but don’t have sediment
and smell. The last day, the liquid broth on tube was had sediment but just a little, the
color was turbid and no smell.
2. Tube 2
This tube was contained 10 mL of liquid broth. It was opened ( not closed )
and boiled. The first and the second day, there was no change, the color was
transparent, no smell, and no sediment. The third day, the color to be turbid but don’t
have sediment and smell. The fourth day, the tube showed sediment and have
smelling. The last day, the color of liquid broth was turbid, have sediment and smell.
3. Tube 3
This tube was contained 10 mL of liquid broth. It was closed and boiled. The
first day until fourth day, there was no change, the color was transparent, no smell,
and there was not sediment. But in the last day ( fifth ), the color was transparent,
showed sediment but just a little, and no smell.
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUTION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclution
From the result of observation we can conclude that:
All living things could not come from nonliving things, but by the experiment
microbes are coming from air or the other place that unclearly.
B. Suggestion
1. Suggestion for assistant.
Assistant should be checked the tools that will be used for experiment, it is complete
or not, because in there was experiment the tube rack not complete for each group.
2. Suggestion for apprentice.
Apprentice has to know the theory before beginning the practicum so that the
apprentice can understand quickly and safely in practicum and apprentice should be
carefully to observed so the liquid broth in the tube not spilled, and tube not broken.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymousa. 2012. http://www.infoplease.com/. Accessed on October 29th 2012 in

Makassar.
Anonymousb. 2006. http://www.livejournal.com/. Accessed on November 4th 2012 in
Makassar.
Knobloch, Irving William. 1967. Reading in Biological Science Second Edition. New
York: Meredith Publishing Company.
Capanna, Ernesto. 1999. Lazzaro Spallanzani: At the Roots of Modern Biology.
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo Universitá “La Sapienza”,
Italia.