SCIENCE QUESTIONS OF THE WEEK : WEEK 2(4th Q)

好的，根據您提供的表格 [NEW SOURCE]，以下是表格中例句的中文意思： * **1. all** * **全部的**：**All** my friends were here with me. (我所有的朋友當時都在這裡。) * **全部**：**All** of us enjoyed the movie. (我們所有人都很喜歡這部電影。) * **都**：He got **all** wet. (他全身都濕透了。) * **2. along** * **沿著**：We walked **along** the river yesterday evening. (我們昨天傍晚沿著河邊散步。) * **帶……一起**：When my mother goes out, she takes my little brother **along**. (我媽媽外出時，會帶著我的小弟弟一起去。) * **3. angle** * **觀點**：We should look at the problems from different **angles**. (我們應該從不同的觀點來看待這些問題。) * **角度**：The picture is hanging at an **angle** of 45°. (這張畫以 45 度的角度懸掛著。) * **4. answer** * **答案**：Do you know the **answer** to the question? (你知道這個問題的答案嗎？) * **回答；回應**：Could you **answer** the phone for me? (你可以幫我接一下電話嗎？) * **5. back** * **後面**：She wrote her cellphone number down on the **back** of the paper. (她把她的手機號碼寫在紙的背面。) * **後面的**：Open the **back** door, please. (請打開後面的門。) * **回原處**：It’s time to go **back** home. (該回家了。) * **6. bat** * **蝙蝠**：Did you ever see a **bat** flying quickly in the sky at night? (你曾經看過蝙蝠在夜空中快速飛行嗎？) * **球棒**：Swing the **bat** higher. (把球棒揮高一點。) * **擊**：It’s your turn to **bat**. (輪到你打擊了。) * **7. bite** * **一口的量**：Jane took a **bite** of the guava. (珍咬了一口芭樂。) * **咬**：The dog **bit** the woman’s leg. (那隻狗咬了那個女人的腿。) * **8. book** * **書**：I’ve just started reading a **book** by Stephen King. (我剛開始讀一本史蒂芬·金的書。) * **預訂；預約**：They **booked** two seats at the theater. (他們在劇院預訂了兩個座位。) * **9. block** * **街區**：Nancy and I live on the same **block**. (南希和我住在同一個街區。) * **阻擋**：Those heavy boxes **blocked** my way to the restroom. (那些沉重的箱子擋住了我去洗手間的路。) * **10. bow** * **蝴蝶結**：David chose a gray **bow** tie to go with his black suit. (大衛選擇了一個灰色蝴蝶領結來搭配他的黑色西裝。) * **鞠躬**：The actor **bowed** to everyone before he left the stage. (那位演員在離開舞台前向大家鞠躬。) * **11. break** * **暫停；休息**：I’m tired. Can we take a **break**? (我累了。我們可以休息一下嗎？) * **分解**：These plastic forks are hard to **break** down. (這些塑膠叉子很難分解。) * **打破**：The glass is very expensive. Don’t **break** it. (這個玻璃很貴。不要打破它。) * **12. bright** * **晴朗的**：It’s a **bright** morning. Why not take a walk along the river? (這是個晴朗的早晨。何不沿著河邊散步呢？) * **明亮的**：The room isn’t **bright** enough. Let’s not read here. (這個房間不夠明亮。我們不要在這裡閱讀。) * **13. call** * **打電話**：I got a **call** from my old friend last night. (我昨晚接到我老朋友的電話。) * **打電話**：Tina **called** me last night. We talked a lot about music. (蒂娜昨晚打電話給我。我們聊了很多關於音樂的事。) * **呼喊**：Listen! Is that a **call** for help? (聽！那是求救的呼喊嗎？) * **呼喊**：Why did you **call** my name then? (那你當時為什麼喊我的名字？) * **14. camp** * **營隊**：Patrick joined a science **camp** this summer. (派屈克今年夏天參加了一個科學營隊。) * **露營**：They **camped** by the river yesterday. (他們昨天在河邊露營。) * **15. case** * **箱；盒**：The kids drank the whole **case** of Coke. (孩子們喝掉了一整箱可樂。) * **實例；情況**：The number of new **cases** of Covid-19 is growing. (新冠肺炎的新增病例數正在增加。) * **16. catch** * **接球**：Nice **catch**! My good dog. (接得好！我的好狗狗。) * **罹患（病）**：My head hurts. I may **catch** a cold. (我頭痛。我可能感冒了。) * **抓住**：I didn’t **catch** the ball. (我沒有接到那個球。) * **17. change** * **零錢；找零**：I think you’ve given me the wrong **change**. (我想你找錯錢了。) * **改變；交換**：The leaves **change** (in color) from green to red in the fall. (秋天時，樹葉的顏色從綠色變成紅色。) * **18. clean** * **打掃；清理**：Tom **cleans** the toilet once a week. (湯姆一週打掃一次馬桶。) * **乾淨的**：The water isn’t **clean**. Don’t drink it. (這水不乾淨。不要喝。) * **19. close** * **關；闔**：**Close** your books, students. Let’s have a pop quiz. (同學們，把你們的書闔上。我們要進行隨堂測驗。) * **靠近地**：Jane sat **close** to her husband at the party. (在派對上，珍緊挨著她的丈夫坐著。) * **20. cold** * **感冒**：I had a **cold** a week ago. (我一個星期前感冒了。) * **寒冷的**：It was **cold** last night. (昨晚很冷。)

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

I am a grade 7 ontario science teacher. I would like to have students complete a task using the scence terms in our curriclulum for heat (convection, conduction, thermal energy, particle theory, etc) for this task. I would like to play an episode of the magic school bus (here's th elink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hFvjI_n60k ) and I would like them to have a set of questions that challenge them to explain what is happening in the show with science terms. Could you create a google doc for this.

Can you make a multiple choice of test questions regarding this information given which is Curriculum from Different Points of View There are many definitions of curriculum. Because of this, the concept of curriculum is sometimes characterized as fragmentary, elusive and confusing. However, the numerous definitions indicate dynamism that connotes diverse interpretations of what curriculum is all about. The definitions are influenced by models of thought, pedagogies, political as well as cultural experiences. Let us study some of these definitions. 1. Traditional Points of View of Curriculum In early years of the 20th century, the traditional concepts held of the “curriculum is that it is a body of subjects or subject matter prepaid by the teachers for the student’s to learn”. It was synonymous to the “course of study” and “syllabus” Robert M. Hutchins views curriculum as “permanent studies” where the rules of grammar, reading, rhetoric and logic and mathematics for basic education are emphasized. Basic education should emphasize the 3 Rs and college education should be grounded on liberal education. On the other, Arthur Bestor as an essentialist, believes that the mission of the school should be intellectual training, hence curriculum should focus on the fundamental intellectual disciplines of grammar, literature and writing. It should also include mathematics, science, history and foreign language. The definition leads us to the view of Joseph Schwab that discipline is the sole source of curriculum. Thus in our education system, curriculum is divided into chunks of knowledge we call subject areas in basic education such as English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and others. In college, discipline may include humanities, sciences, language and many more. To Phoenix, curriculum should consist entirely of knowledge which comes from various disciplines. Academic discipline became the view of what curriculum is after the cold war and the race to space. Joseph Schwab, a leading curriculum theorist coined the term discipline as a ruling doctrine for curriculum development. Curriculum should consist only of knowledge which comes from disciplines which is the sole source. Thus curriculum can be viewed as a field of study. It is made up of its foundations (philosophical, historical, psychological and social foundations); domains of knowledge as well as its research theories and principles. Curriculum is taken as scholarly and theoretical. It is concerned with broad historical, philosophical and social issues and academics. Most of the traditional ideas view curriculum as written documents or a plan of action in accomplishing goals. 2. Progressive Points of View of Curriculum On the other hand, to a progressivist, a listing of school subjects, syllabi, course of study, and a list of courses or specific discipline do not make a curriculum. These can only be called curriculum if the written materials are actualized by the learner. Broadly speaking, curriculum is defined as the total learning experiences of the individual. This definition is anchored on John Dewey’s definition of experience and education. He believed that reflective thinking is a means that unifies curricular elements. Thought is not derived from action but tested by application. Caswell and Campbell viewed curriculum as “all experiences children have under the guidance of teachers”. This definition is shared by Smith, Stanley and Shores when they defined “curriculum as a sequence of potential experiences set up in the schools for the purpose of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and acting”. Marsh and Willis on the other hand view curriculum as all the “experiences in the classroom which are planned and enacted by the teacher, and also learned by the students”. Points of View on Curriculum Development From the various definitions and concepts presented, it is clear that curriculum is a dynamic process. Development connotes changes which are systematic. A change for the better means any alteration, modification or improvement of existing condition. To produce positive changes, development should be purposeful, planned and progressive. This is how curriculum evolves. Let us look at the two models of curriculum development and concepts of Ralph Tyler and Hilda Taba. Ralph Tyler Model: Four Basic Principles. This is also popularly known as Tyler’s Rationale. He posited four fundamental questions or principles in examining any curriculum in schools. These four fundamental principles are as follows: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained or not? In summary, Tyler’s Model show that in curriculum development, the following considerations should be made: (1) Purpose of the school, (2) Educational experiences related to the purposes, (3) Organization of the experiences, and (4) Evaluation of the experiences. On the other hand, Hilda Taba improved on Tyler’s Rationale by making a linear model. She believed that teachers who teach or implement the curriculum should participate in developing it. Her advocacy was commonly called the grassroots approach. She presented seven major steps to her model where teachers could have a major input. These steps are as follows: 1. Diagnosis of learner’s needs and expectations of the larger society. 2. Formulation of learning objectives. 3. Selection of learning content. 4. Organization of learning content. 5. Selection of learning experiences. 6. Organization of learning activities. 7. Determination of what to evaluate and the means of doing it. Thus as you look into curriculum models, the three interacting processes in curriculum development are planning, implementing and evaluating. Types of Curriculum Operating in Schools From the various concepts given, Allan Glatthorn(2000) describes seven types of curriculum operating in the schools. These are (1) Recommended curriculum- proposed by scholars and professional organizations. (2) Written Curriculum- appears in school, district, division or country documents. (3) Taught Curriculum- what teacher’s implement or deliver in the classrooms and schools. (4) Supported Curriculum- resources-textbooks, computers, audio- visual materials which support and help in the implementation of the curriculum. (5) Assessed Curriculum- that which is tested and evaluated. (6) Learned Curriculum- which the students actually learn and what is measured and (7) Hidden Curriculum- the unintended curriculum. 1. Recommended Curriculum- Most of the school curricula are recommended. The curriculum may come from a national agency like the Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Department of Science and Technology (DOST) or any professional organization who has stake in education. For example the Philippine Association for Teacher Education (PAFTE) or the Biology Teacher Association (BIOTA) may recommend a curriculum to be implemented in the elementary or secondary education. 2. Written Curriculum- This includes documents, course of study or syllabi handed down to the schools, districts, division, departments or colleges for implementation. Most of the written curricula are made by curriculum experts with participation of teachers. These were pilot-tested or tried out in sample schools or population. Example of this is the Basic Education Curriculum (BEC). Another example is the written lesson plan of each classroom teacher made up of objectives and planned activities of the teacher. 3. Taught Curriculum- The different planned activities which are put into action in the classroom compose the taught curriculum. These are varied activities that are implemented in order to arrive at the objectives or purposes of the written curriculum. These are used by the learners with the guidance of teachers. Taught curriculum varies according to the learning styles of students and the teaching styles of teachers. 4. Supported Curriculum- In order to have a successful teaching, other than the teacher, there must be materials which should support or help in the implementation of a written curriculum. These refer to the support curriculum that includes material resources such as textbooks, computers, audio-visual materials, laboratory equipment, playgrounds, zoos and other facilities. Support curriculum should enable each learner to achieve real and lifelong learning. 5. Assessed Curriculum- This refers to a tested or evaluated curriculum. At the duration and end of the teaching episodes, series of evaluations are being done by the teachers to determine the extent of teaching or to tell if the students are progressing. This refers to the assessed curriculum. Assessment tools like pencil-and-paper tests, authentic instruments like portfolio are being utilized. 6. Learned Curriculum- This refers the learning outcomes achieved by the students. Learning outcomes are indicated by the results of the tests and changes in behavior which can either be cognitive, affective or psychomotor. 7. Hidden Curriculum- This is the unintended curriculum which is not deliberately planned but may modify behavior or influenced learning outcomes. There are lots of hidden curricula that transpire in the schools. Peer influence, school environment, physical condition, teacher-learner interaction, mood of the teachers and many other factors made up the hidden curriculum.

The Science of Connection Questions

LESSON 2 Early Theories on the Origin of Life • Identify the different theories on the origin of life. • Describe each theory and determine their differences What are the characteristics of living things? Before learning about the history of Earth based on geological evidence, early scientists explored the possibilities of how the first life-form existed. There are several theories about the origin of life. Theory of Catastrophism The theory of catastrophism supported by French scientists Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and Alcide Dessalines d'Orbigny (1802-1857), is said to be a modification of the creation story of the Bible. It states that there have been several living creations from God, each encountered a catastrophe that completely destroyed them. Each new creation consisted of new life-forms, which happen to be different from the previous ones. Theory of Abiogenesis The theory of abiogenesis, or the spontaneous generation theory, states that living things were naturally created from nonliving things such as simple organic compounds. The theory supposes that abiogenesis occurred between 3.8 and 4 Gya. The experiment performed by Stanley Miller in 1953 gave way to many speculations and studies on how life on Earth really began. His research involved a simulation of the possible environment on Earth in the past. He demonstrated how an electric spark (which is a simulation for lightning) when passed through simple organic gases (similar to the early Earth atmosphere), resulted in the formation of amino acids, which are now known as the building blocks of proteins and the components of living tissues. Theory of Biogenesis The theory of biogenesis presented a strong argument against abiogenesis. This theory states that living things come from living things. Experiments of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur disproved the thought of spontaneous generation during their time (figure 5-1). Louis Pasteur argued that life comes from preexisting life and not from nonliving material. However, it should be noted that the "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous generation" that he opposed referred to any modern, existing, fully-formed organisms, not the original generation of life. Louis Pasteur's law of biogenesis contradicted the common belief during his time that cattle dung gives rise to flies, or old clothes with rotten food gives rise to mice. The idea of spontaneous generation was popular until near the seventeenth century. Even famous scientists of that period, such as Descartes, Galileo, and Jan Baptista van Helmont, believed in this theory. CIENCE PIONEER Francesco Redi (1626-1697). Francesco Redi is a physician, a naturalist, and a poet. His works challenged the popular theory of spontaneous generation. He disproved the idea that living things may arise from nonliving things. He also worked on toxicology using viper's venom. He discovered and worked on some parasites that caused disease in humans. SCIENCE CAREER Evolutionary Biologist An evolutionary biologist studies the descent of species and the origin of new species of living things. Working as evolutionary biologist means studying and researching species diversity, their interaction with the environment, their adaptation to change, their ancestors, and their possible origins. This career is important in the field of science because it seeks an answer to the questions about how life began on Earth.

LESSON 1 Origin of Life on Earth Learning Objectives • Describe how Earth was formed. • Describe the events that happened during Earth's formation. When and where did life possibly start? Many cultures develop different versions about the origin of life. However, modern scientists are still exploring the works of some well-known experts in the history of science in search of the true origin of life. Earth is said to be a little over 4.5 billion years (Gigaannum or Ga) old. The oldest material found on Earth that is estimated to be 4.3 billion years old is a zircon crystal. No one witnessed how Earth was formed and what exactly happened during that moment, but there are evidence that show how it all started. Earth's earliest times were geologically violent. There were continuous bombardment from meteorites. As Earth cooled and the surface solidified, the first solid rocks formed. Continents were not yet present; only a huge ocean with scattered small islands. Events such as erosion, sedimentation, and volcanic activities that were assisted by possible meteor impacts, gradually created the oceanic plates, which later evolved into continents. About 3.8 Ga, life on Earth initially began with single-celled organisms called prokaryotes. Over a billion year later, multicellular life evolved. Some studies show that life-forms began to evolve around 570 million years ago (Ma). This evolution started with early arthropods, followed by the fish (530 Ma), and land plants and forests (475 Ma and 385 Ma, respectively). It was only at around 200 Ma that early mammals emerged. Homo sapiens is believed to have evolved about 200000 years ago. Many things were revealed using fossil evidence, yet many questions remain unanswered about the origin of life. Science is continuously searching for answers on what was in the beginning.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes