Mutasi adalah perubahan yang terjadi pada bahan genetik (DNA maupun RNA), baik pada taraf urutan

gen (disebut
mutasi titik) maupun pada taraf kromosom. Mutasi pada tingkat kromosomal biasanya disebut aberasi. Mutasi pada
gen dapat mengarah pada munculnya alel baru dan menjadi dasar munculnya variasi-variasi baru pada spesies.
Mutasi terjadi pada frekuensi rendah di alam, biasanya lebih rendah daripada 1:10.000 individu. Mutasi di alam
dapat terjadi akibat zat pembangkit mutasi (mutagen, termasuk karsinogen), radiasi surya, radioaktif, sinar
ultraviolet, sinar X, serta loncatan energi listrik seperti petir.
Individu yang memperlihatkan perubahan sifat (fenotipe) akibat mutasi disebut mutan. Dalam kajian genetik, mutan
biasa dibandingkan dengan individu yang tidak mengalami perubahan sifat (individu tipe liar atau "wild type").

Daftar isi
1 Macam-macam Mutasi Berdasarkan Sel yang Bermutasi
2 Macam-macam mutasi berdasarkan bagian yang bermutasi
o

2.1 Mutasi titik

2.2 Aberasi

3 Pemanfaatan mutasi
o

3.1 Terapi sel-sel tumor

3.2 Pemuliaan

4 Lihat pula
5 Pranala luar

Macam-macam Mutasi Berdasarkan Sel yang Bermutasi[sunting | sunting sumber]

Mutasi somatik adalah mutasi yang terjadi pada sel somatik, yaitu sel tubuh seperti sel kulit. Mutasi ini tidak akan
diwariskan pada keturunannya. Mutasi Gametik adalah mutasi yang terjadi pada sel gamet, yaitu sel organ
reproduksi yang meliputi sperma dan ovum pada manusia. Karena terjadinya di sel gamet, maka akan diwariskan
kepada keturunannya.
Pada umumnya, mutasi itu merugikan, mutannya bersifat letal dan homozigot resesif. Namun mutasi juga
menguntungkan, diantaranya, melalui mutasi, dapat dibuat tumbuhan poliploid yang sifatnya unggul. Contohnya,
semangka tanpa biji, jeruk tanpa biji, buah stroberi yang besar, dll. Mutasi ini juga menjadi salah satu kunci
terjadinya evolusi di dunia ini.
Terbentuknya tumbuhan poliploid ini menguntungkan bagi manusia, namun merugikan bagi tumbuhan yang
mengalami mutasi, karena tumbuhan tersebut menjadi tidak bisa berkembang biak secara generatif.
Bahan-bahan yang menyebabkan terjadinya mutasi disebut mutagen. Mutagen dibagi menjadi 3, yaitu:
Mutagen bahan kimia, contohnya adalah kolkisin dan zat digitonin. Kolkisin adalah zat yang dapat menghalangi
terbentuknya benang-benang spindel pada proses anafase dan dapat menghambat pembelahan sel pada anafase.

Mutagen bahan fisika, contohnya sinar ultraviolet, sinar radioaktif, dan sinar gamma. Sinar ultraviolet dapat
menyebabkan kanker kulit.
Mutagen bahan biologi, diduga virus dan bakeri dapat menyebabkan terjadinya mutasi. Bagian virus yang dapat
menyebabkan terjadinya mutasi adalah DNA-nya.

Macam-macam mutasi berdasarkan bagian yang bermutasi[sunting | sunting

sumber]
Mutasi titik[sunting | sunting sumber]
Mutasi titik merupakan perubahan pada basa N dari DNA atau RNA. Mutasi titik relatif sering terjadi namun
efeknya dapat dikurangi oleh mekanisme pemulihan gen. Mutasi titik dapat berakibat berubahnya urutan asam
amino pada protein, dan dapat mengakibatkan berkurangnya, berubahnya atau hilangnya fungsi enzim. Teknologi
saat ini menggunakan mutasi titik sebagai marker (disebut SNP) untuk mengkaji perubahan yang terjadi pada gen
dan dikaitkan dengan perubahan fenotipe yang terjadi.
contoh mutasi gen adalah reaksi asam nitrit dengan adenin menjadi zat hipoxanthine. Zat ini akan menempati tempat
adenin asli dan berpasangan dengan sitosin, bukan lagi dengan timin.
Aberasi[sunting | sunting sumber]
Mutasi kromosom, sering juga disebut dengan mutasi besar/gross mutation atau aberasi kromosom adalah perubahan
jumlah kromosom dan susunan atau urutan gen dalam kromosom. Mutasi kromosom sering terjadi karena kesalahan
meiosis dan sedikit dalam mitosis.
Aneuploidi adalah perubahan jumlah n-nya. Dalam hal ini, "n" menandakan jumlah set kromosom. Sebagai contoh,
sel tubuh manusia memiliki 2 paket kromosom sehingga disebut 2n, dimana satu paket n manusia berjumlah 23
kromosom. Aneuploidi dibagi menjadi 2, yaitu: >> Autopoliploidi, yaitu n-nya mengganda sendiri karena kesalahan
meiosis. >> Allopoliploidi, yaitu perkawinan atau hibrid antara spesies yang berbeda jumlah set kromosomnya.
Aneusomi adalah perubahan jumlah kromosom. Penyebabnya adalah anafase lag (peristiwa tidak melekatnya
beneng-benang spindel ke sentromer) dan non disjunction (gagal berpisah).
Aneusomi pada manusia dapat menyebabkan:
Sindrom Turner, dengan kariotipe (22AA+X0). Jumlah kromosomnya 45 dan kehilangan 1 kromosom kelamin.
Penderita Sindrom Turner berjenis kelamin wanita, namun ovumnya tidak berkembang (ovaricular disgenesis).
Sindrom Klinefelter, kariotipe (22 AA+XXY), mengalami trisomik pada kromosom gonosom. Penderita Sindrom
Klinefelter berjenis kelamin laki-laki, namun testisnya tidak berkembang (testicular disgenesis) sehingga tidak bisa
menghasilkan sperma (aspermia) dan mandul (gynaecomastis) serta payudaranya tumbuh.
Sindrom Jacobs, kariotipe (22AA+XYY), trisomik pada kromosom gonosom. Penderita sindrom ini umumnya
berwajah kriminal, suka menusuk-nusuk mata dengan benda tajam, seperti pensil,dll dan juga sering berbuat
kriminal. Penelitian di luar negeri mengatakan bahwa sebagian besar orang-orang yang masuk penjara adalah orangorang yang menderita Sindrom Jacobs.
Sindrom Patau, kariotipe (45A+XX/XY), trisomik pada kromosom autosom. kromosom autosomnya mengalami
kelainan pada kromosom nomor 13, 14, atau 15.

Sindrom Edward, kariotipe (45A+XX/XY), trisomik pada autosom. Autosom mengalami kelainan pada kromosom
nomor 16,17, atau 18. Penderita sindrom ini mempunyai tengkorak lonjong, bahu lebar pendek, telinga agak ke
bawah dan tidak wajar.
Delesi Terjadi ketika sebuah fragmen kromosom patah dan hilang pada saat pembelahan sel. Kromosom tempat
fragmen tersebut berasal kemudian akan kehilangan gen-gen tertentu. Namun dalam beberapa kasus, fragmen
patahan tersebut dapat berikatan dengan kromosom homolog menghasilkan Duplikasi.Fragmen tersebut juga dapat
melekat kembali pada kromosom asalnya dengan arah terbalik dan menghasilkan Inversi

Pemanfaatan mutasi[sunting | sunting sumber]

Meskipun secara biologi sebagian terbesar mutasi menyebabkan gangguan pada kebugaran (fitness) individu,
bahkan kematian, mutasi sebenarnya adalah salah satu kunci bagi kemampuan beradaptasi suatu jenis (spesies)
terhadap lingkungan baru atau yang berubah. Sisi positif ini dimanfaatkan oleh sejumlah bidang biologi terapan.

Terapi sel-sel tumor[sunting | sunting sumber]

Aplikasi radiasi sinar mengion (dikenal sebagai radioterapi, seperti penyinaran dengan sinar X) dan kemoterapi
untuk menghambat perkembangan sel-sel tumor dan kanker pada dasarnya adalah menginduksi mutasi pada sel-sel
kanker sebagai targetnya. Agensia mutasi tersebut akan menyebabkan sel-sel target berhenti tumbuh karena tidak
mampu lagi memperbanyak diri.

Pemuliaan[sunting | sunting sumber]

Pemaparan tanaman terhadap radiasi sinar mengion, seperti sinar gamma dari Co-60, atau terhadap beberapa
kemikalia, seperti EMS dan DS, dalam waktu dan kadar tertentu juga digunakan untuk menginduksi mutasi. Dalam
penerapan ini, mutasi tidak ditujukan untuk mematikan sel, tetapi untuk mengubah susunan basa nitrogen pada DNA
atau untuk menyebabkan mutasi segmental. Harapannya adalah ada beberapa sel yang akan mengalami mutasi yang
menguntungkan. Dengan demikian, tidak hanya sedikit yang dipaparkan, tetapi ribuan sampai ratusan ribu individu.
Cara pemuliaan dengan bantuan mutasi ini kebanyakan dilakukan terhadap tanaman hortikultura, seperti tanaman
sayuran dan tanaman hias (ornamental). Batan telah menghasilkan beberapa kultivar unggul padi yang dirakit
melalui mutasi.

Kromosom adalah struktur yang paling penting dalam sel, dan mereka berada di inti sel.
Kromosom memiliki dua molekul DNA identik dan mereka disebut kromatid. Kromatid ini
terikat bersama-sama pada titik yang disebut sentromer. Dalam sel, kromosom ada sebagai
pasangan. Pasang kromosom ini adalah identik dan, oleh karena itu, disebut kromosom homolog.

Setiap organisme memiliki seperangkat tertentu kromosom di setiap sel, dan itu adalah konstan
untuk suatu organisme. Pada manusia, ada 23 kromosom homolog dan 22 dari mereka adalah
autosom, yang tidak terlibat dalam penentuan jenis kelamin, dan pasangan lain dari kromosom
seks disebut allosom.
Organisme yang memiliki dua set kromosom homolog disebut diploid. Sebagian besar spesies
diploid dan dilambangkan sebagai 2n. Pada tumbuhan tinggi, sporofit adalah diploid, dan
manusia juga diploid. Organisme yang memiliki satu set kromosom disebut haploid, dan
dilambangkan dengan n.
Beberapa organisme memiliki lebih dari dua set kromosom, dan disebut poliploidi. Sebagian
besar spesies tanaman menunjukkan sifat poliploidi, tapi jarang terjadi pada hewan yang lebih
tinggi. Aneuploidi diproduksi oleh kromosom yang hilang atau penambahan tertentu atau bagian
dari kromosom. Baik poliploidi dan aneuploidi menunjukkan kelainan pada jumlah kromosom.
Apa itu Aneuploidi

Pergantian dari jumlah kromosom dalam sel dengan menambahkan atau menghilangkan
kromosom tertentu atau set kromosom atau bagian dari kromosom disebut aneuploidi. Jadi,
jumlah kromosom berbeda dari tipe umum organisme karena memiliki cacat.

Aneuploidi

Menurut perbedaan jumlah kromosom, ada beberapa jenis aneuploidi seperti monosomi (2n-1),
disomy (n + 1), trisomi (2n + 1) dan nullisomy (2n-2) di mana fenotip induk 2n. Aneuploidi
terjadi terutama disebabkan kegagalan pemisahan kromosom dengan benar ke kutub yang
berlawanan dalam yaitu divisi nuklir mitosis atau meiosis, baik kromatid kakak atau kromosom
homolog pergi ke salah satu tiang, atau dengan kata lain, tidak ada yang lain.

Pengertian Poliploidi

Ketika sel berisi lebih dari dua set kromosom, poliploidi terjadi. Jadi mengubah jumlah
kromosom dalam sel. Poliploidi dapat dilihat sering pada tanaman berbunga termasuk tanaman
tanaman penting tetapi jarang pada hewan, kecuali vertebrata dan invertebrata.
Beberapa jenis poliploidi terjadi melalui beberapa proses. Autopoliploidi adalah salah satu jenis
yang dibentuk oleh perkalian dari genom spesies yang sama. Autopoliploidi diproduksi dalam
reproduksi seksual selama meiosis oleh disjungsi non kromosom homolog dalam metafase I atau
pembelahan sel abnormal pada mitosis. Allopoliploidi terjadi karena kombinasi dari genom
spesies yang berbeda seperti pada spesies hibrida.

Pengertian Poliploidi

Poliploidi juga dapat diinduksi menggunakan berbagai bahan kimia seperti colchicine dengan
menghambat pembelahan sel.
Apa perbedaan antara Aneuploidi dan poliploidi?
1. Perbedaan utama antara aneuploidi dan poliploidi adalah bahwa poliploidi terjadi karena
mengubah jumlah set kromosom seperti 2n, 3n, 5n, sedangkan aneuploidi terjadi karena
perubahan kromosom tertentu atau bagian dari kromosom seperti 2n-1 (monosomi).
2. aneuploidi dapat dilihat pada manusia sebagai gangguan genetik; misalnya, sindrom Tuner dan
sindrom Down, sedangkan poliploidi dapat dilihat pada beberapa jaringan otot manusia.
3. aneuploidi lebih sering terjadi pada manusia, sedangkan poliploidi jarang pada manusia.
4. poliploidi dapat dilihat umunya pada tanaman daripada aneuploidi.

Om Swastyastu,
selamat malam, saya menulis artikel ini hanya untuk memenuhi tugas yang di kasi sama guruku. jadi,
kalo ada yang perlu dengan artikel ini silah kan di copas atau dibaca-baca saja juga boleh !
1. Sindrom Down

Penyebab : Menurut para ahli, penyebab down syndrome terjadi karena perkembangan kromosom yang
tidak normal, di mana pada saat pembuahan ada kromoson menyimpang atau adanya mutasi gen dari
orangtua janin. Padahal seharusnya kromoson ibu dan ayah terbelah menjadi dua, dan saling
menempel.
Ciri-ciri : tinggi badan
sekitar 120 cm, kepala lebar dan
pendek, bibir tebal, lidah
besar dan menjulur, liur selalu
menetes, jari pendek dan
gemuk terutama kelingking,
telapak tangan menebal, mata sempit miring ke samping, gigi
kecil-kecil dan jarang, IQ

rendah, umumnya steril

2. Sindrom Klinefelter

Penyebab : Penyebab dari sindrom klinefelter ini adalah karena terjadi penyimpangan proses
bersatunya kromosom pada saat terjadi pembuahan. Bisa diakibatkan oleh radiasi, faktor makanan,
atau lingkungan, misalnya polusi. Kasus ini banyak juga ditemukan, tergantung rentannya penyebab
yang muncul. bagi daerah dengan tingkat polusi yang tinggi, kemungkinan akan semakin banyak terjadi
kasus yang lebih dikenal dengan penderitanya disebut transgender.
Ciri-ciri : jenis
kelamin pria, kelebihan satu
kromosom X, mengalami
testicular disgenesis (testis
tidak tumbuh sempurna)
akibatnya mandul, dan tumbuh payudara
3. Sindrom Turner

Penyebab : Penyebab kelainan sindrom turner ini adalah tidak mendapatkan kromosom Y; terjadi
karena ada nondisjunction pada spermatogenesis sehingga sperma yang dihasilkan adalah sperma XY
dan sperma O. Sperma O (tidak mempunyai kromosom kelamin) kemudian membuahi ovum X, maka
terbentuklah individu 44A + X.
Ciri-ciri : jenis
kelamin wanita, mengalami
ovariculardisgenesis (ovarium
tidak tumbuh) sehingga
mandul, kehilangan satu kromosom X, payudara tidak
tumbuh.
4. Sindrom Edwards

Penyebab : Sindrom Edward

adalah sindrom yang
terjadi karena
kelebihan kromosom
ke-18 (trisomi 18)
ketika terjadi pembuahan.Sindrom
ini biasanya terjadi
sebanyak 1 dari
3.000 bayi baru
lahir.
ciri-ciri : kepala kecil, telinga
terletak lebih
rendah, celah bibir/
celah langit-langit,
tidak memiliki ibu jari
tangan, clubfeet, diantara jari tangan
terdapat selaput,
kelainan jantung &
kelainan saluran
kemih-kelamin.Para
penderitanya jarang bertahan sampai
lebih dari beberapa
bulan dan
keterbelakangan
mental yg terjadi
sangat berat.
5. Sindrom Patau

Penyebab : Sindrom ini

terjadi jika pasien memiliki
lebih satu kromosom pada
pasangan kromosom ke-13

karena tidak terjadinya

persilangan antara kromosom saat proses meiosis. Beberapa
pula disebabkan oleh
translokasi Robertsonian.
Lebih satu kromosom pada
kromosom yang ke-13
mengganggu pertumbuhan normal bayi serta
menyebabkan munculnya
tanda-tanda Sindrom Patau.
Ciri-ciri : kepala kecil, mata kecil, tuli, polidaktili, rumbing celah-celah langit, dapat terjadi pada
wanita atau pria, memiliki kelainan otak, jantung, ginjal, usus dan mengalami keterbelakangan mental.
6. Sindrom Jacobs

Penyebab :Sindrom Jacobs merupakan kelainan yang terjadi ketika sel telur dibuahi oleh sel sperma
dengan kromosom YY (akibat mengalami gagal berpisah pada kromosom seksnya) Pembuahan tersebut
menghasilkan keturunan dengan 47 kromosom terdiri atas 44 autosom dan 3 kromosom seks, yaitu XYY.
Ciri-ciri : laki-laki berperawakan tinggi, bertubuh normal, IQ di bawah normal (80-95), wajah
menakutkan, agresif, dan berperilaku kasar.
7. Sindrom cri du chat

Penyebab :Sindrom tangisan kucing

disebabkan kelainan
kromosom tubuh (autosomal).
Kromosom nomor 5 yang
terlibat mengalami delesi
pada lengan pendeknya (5p). Kebanyakan kasus terjadi
akibat mutasi. Suatu
mekanisme translokasi
genetik pada kromosom
orang tua saat pembelahan
sel juga menjadi penyebab kelainan ini. Akibat
translokasi ini, risiko
terjadinya kasus yang sama
pada kehamilan berikutnya
akan meningkat. Tidak
ditemukan hubungan antara usia orangtua saat kehamilan
dengan sindrom ini. Diagnosis
kelainan ini dapat dilakukan
pada jaringan plasenta
(teknik chorionic villus
sampling)saat kehamilan berusia 9-12 minggu atau
dengan cairan ketuban
(amnioncentesis) saat usia
kehamilan di atas 16 minggu .
Ciri-ciri : kepala kecil, leher pendek, hidung lebar, dengan penampakan wajah yang tidak biasa, dan
mengalami keterbelakangan mental.
Om Santi Santi Santi Om

ndrom Patau (trisomi 13)

diposting oleh w-afif-mufida-fk12 pada 13 December 2012

di 1 BioMed - 1 komentar
Sindrom Patau, atau dikenal sebagai Trisomy 13 adalah salah satu

penyakit yang melibatkan kromosom, yaitu stuktur yang membawa informasi genetik seseorang dalam
gene. Sindrom ini terjadi jika pasien memiliki lebih satu kromosom pada pasangan kromosom ke-13
karena tidak terjadinya persilangan antara kromosom saat proses meiosis. Beberapa pula disebabkan
oleh translokasi Robertsonian. Lebih satu kromosom pada kromosom yang ke-13 mengganggu
pertumbuhan normal bayi serta menyebabkan munculnya tanda-tanda Sindrom Patau. Seperti
sindrom-sindrom lain akibat tidak terjadinya persilangan kromosom, misalnya Sindrom Down dan
Sindrom Edward, risiko untuk mendapat bayi yang memiliki Sindrom Patau adalah tinggi pada ibu yang
mengandung pada usia yang sudah meningkat.
Sejarah Sindrom Patau kali pertama Sindrom Patau ditemukan oleh Erasmus Bartholin pada tahun
1657. Maka Trisomy 13 juga dikenal sebagai Sindrom Bartholin-Patau. Namun Trisomy 13 lebih dikenal
sebagai Sindrom Patau dibandingkan Sindrom Bartholin-Patau karena orang yang menemukan
penyebab terjadinya Sindrom Patau adalah Dr Klaus Patau. Beliaulah yang menemukan kromosom
yang lebih pada kromosom ke-13 pada tahun 1960, dan beliau adalah seorang ahli genetika asal
Amerika yang lahir di Jerman. Sindrom Patau kali pertama dilaporkan terjadi di sebuah suku di Pulau

Pasifik. Menurut laporan kejadian tersebut mungkin bersumber dari radiasi yang terjadi akibat ledakan
ujian bom atom.
Gejala dan tanda-tanda Sindrom Patau. Kejadian Sindrom Patau adalah sekitar 1 kasus per 8,00012,000 kelahiran. Rata-rata umur bagi anak yang mengalami Sindrom Patau adalah sekitar 2.5 hari,
dengan hanya satu dari 20 anak yang dapat hidup lebih dari 6 bulan. Namun sejauh ini laporan
menunjukkan tidak ada yang hidup sampai dewasa.

Manajemen medis anak-anak dengan trisomi 13 direncanakan berdasarkan kasus per kasus dan
tergantung pada keadaan individual pasien. Pengobatan sindrom Patau berfokus pada masalah fisik
tertentu dengan yang setiap anak lahir. Banyak bayi mengalami kesulitan bertahan dalam beberapa
hari pertama atau minggu karena saraf parah masalah atau kompleks cacat jantung . Pembedahan
mungkin diperlukan untuk memperbaiki kerusakan jantung atau celah bibir dan langit-langit . Terapi
fisik, okupasi, dan pidato akan membantu individu dengan sindrom Patau mencapai potensi penuh
perkembangan mereka.
Abnormaliti yang biasa terjadi pada bayi yang mengalami Sindrom Patau termasuk:
1. Bibir sumbing
2. Memiliki lebih jari tangan atau kaki
3. Kepala kecil
4. Mata kecil
5. Abnormaliti pada tulang rangka, jantung dan ginjal
6. Pertumbuhan terbantut

1. Euploidi
Euploidi merupakan peristiwa perubahan jumlah kromosom pada seluruh pasangan
kromosomnya.Jumlah kromosom makhluk hidup euploid adalah kelipatan dari kromosom
haploidnya. Berdasarkan jumlah kromosomnya, makhluk hidup euploidi dapat dibedakan atas
monoploid(n/haploid), diploid(2n), dan poliploid(lebih dari dua n)
Contoh dari makhluk hidup monoploid adalah lebah madu jantan yang merupakan hasil dari
telur yang tidak dibuahi, diploid contohnya adalah manusia dan kebanyakan makhluk eukariotik
lainnya.

Poliploid terjadi akibat peleburan sel kelamin yang masing-masing atau salah satunya
memiliki jumlah kromosom yang tidak normal. hal ini dinamakan dengan alopoliploid
Kasus ini bisa terjadi pada manusia yang dinamakan dengan kasus digini, dimana terjadi
peleburan antara sel sperma dengan sel telur/ovum yang masih bersatu dengan polositnya. Ada
juga kasus yang dinamakan dengan diandri yaitu dibuahinya sel ovum oleh dua sel sperma.

peristiwa euploidi

Perhatikan gambar diatas, pada gambar sebelah kiri pada saat sel melakukan meiosis I terjadi
kegagalan berpisah pada salah kromosom homolog, akibatnya pada saat memasuki meiosis II,
sel memiliki 3 set kromosom, dan satu set kromosom, memasuki fase anafase II maka yang
terjadi akan terdapat 4 kromatid disebelah kiri, dan 2 kromatid disebalah kanan, hal ini akan

berakibat jumlah kromosom pada gamet yang terbentuk

Pada gambar sebelah kanan pada tahap meiosis I, sel membelah secara normal, tapi pada saat
memasuki meiosis II sel mengalami gagal berpisah pada sel sebelah kiri pada salah satu
kromosom, ini berakibat pada pembentukan gamet yang paling kiri terdapat 3 kromosom(n+1)

2. Aneuploidi
Aneuploidi adalah perubahan jumlah kromosom yang hanya terjadi pada pasangan kromosom
tertentu. Berdasarkan jumlah kromosom yang berubah, aneuploidi dibedakan menjadi:

Monosomi(2n-1): jika individu kehilangan satu kromosom pada salahsatu

pasangan kromosom nomor tertentu. Gamet yang dihasilkan ada dua
macam yaitu (n) dan gamet (n-1)
Nulisomi(2n-2): jika individu kehilangan dua kromosom pada salah satu
pasangan kromosom yang kehilangan masing-masin satu kromosom.
Gamet yang dihasilkan adalah (n-1) atau (n) dan (n-1)
Trisomi(2n+1): jika individu memperoleh tambahan satu kromosom pada
salah satu pasangan kromosom nomor tertentu. Gamet yang dihasilkan
adalah (n) dan (n+1)

salah satu kasus trisomi

Perhatikan lingkaran merah, terjadi penambahan satu kromosom

Trisomi ganda(2n+1+1): jika individu mempunyai du pasangan kromosom

yang masing-masing memperoleh tambahan satu kromosom. Gamet yang
dihasilkan adalah (n) dan (n+2)
Tetrasomi(2n+2): jika suatu individu memperoleh tambahan dua
kromosom pada salah satu pasangan kromosom nomor tertentu. Gamet
yang dihasilkan adalah (n) dan (n+2)
Peristiwa aneuploidi bisa terjadi biasanya pada saat masuk ke tahapan anafase dan gagal
berpisah. Apabila pada saat anafase, kromosom mengalami gagal melekat pada benang
spindle sehingga kromosom hancur. Sedangkan apabila terjadi gagal berpisah biasanya terjadi
pada saat anafase I maupun anafase II pada pembelahan meiosis.
Umumnya kasus yang terjadi pada manusi adalah kasus monosomi dan trisomi.

Aneuploidi pada kasus manusia yang bisa berakibat terjadinya sindrom

Sebelum membahas mengenai beberapa jenis sindrom ada beberapa hal dasar yang
mungkin perlu diketahui, sebagai contoh adalah sindrom turner yang memiliki simbol
45,XO. Simbol tersebut menunjukkan jumlah kromosom pada sindrom turner. Pada manusia
normal jumlah kromosom manusia adalaha 46 kromosom, di detailkan menjadi 44A + XY/XX,
jika di detailkan lagi adalah 22AA + XY/XX. Masih ingat bukan dengan materi mengenai
substansi hereditas, jika lupa bisa mempelajari di link ini lagi: substansi hereditas, sub bab
kromosom.
Nah untuk kasus sindrom turner tersebut yang memiliki simbol 45,XO, berarti jumlah
kromosomnya adalah sebanyak 45 kromosom. Ini berarti sindrom turner adalah kasus
monosomi dikarenakan kehilangan satu kromosom(2n-1/46-1=45). XO menandakan bahwa
yang mengalami kehilangan kromosom adalah kromosom kelamin yang seharusnya XX atau
XY menjadi XO, ini berarti kromosom kelamin kehilangan satu kromosom X atau Y. jadi untuk
kasus sindrom turner merupakan kasus monosomi dan yang mengalami kehilangan kromosom
adalah kromosom kelamin, bukan kromosom tubuh.(45,XO / 44A + XO / 22AA + XO). Paham
kan konsep ini.

1. Sindrom turner(45,XO)
Sindrom turner dapat terjadi jika sel telur/ovum dibuahi oleh sel sperma yang tidak memiliki
kromosom seks, hal ini juga bisa terjadi jika sel telur tidak memiliki kromosom seks dibuahi oleh
sel sperma yang normal. dengan hilangnya kromosom seks pada salah satu sel, maka akan
terjadi gagal berpisah pada saat pembelahan sel.
Penderita sindrom turner adalah wanita yang memiliki kromosom tubuh sebanyak 44 kromosom
dan satu kromosom seks X. penderita sindrom turner bersifat steril/mandul dengan ciri ciri
sebagai berikut

Sindrom Turner

1. Tidak memiliki ovarium sehingga tidak bisa menghasilkan ovum

2. Uterus kecil
3. Payudara tidak berkembang
4. Tubuh pendek( dwarfisme )
5. Tingkat kecerdasan dibawah normal
6. Letak telinga agak ke bawah

2. Sindrom klinefelter( 47,XXY)

Sindrom klinefelter terjadi jika sel sperma normal dibuahi oleh sel ovum yang memiliki dua
kromosom seks (XX), atau juga bisa terjadi sel sperma yang memiliki dua kromosom seks(XY)
dibuahi oleh sel ovum normal. sehingga penderita sindrom klinefelter memiliki kromosom seks
kelebihan satu (XXY). Sindrom klinefelter termasuk kasus trisomi(2n+1 /
46+1=47) dengan kromosom(47,XXY/ 44A + XXY/22AA + XXY).

sindrom klinefelter

Penderita sindrom klinefelter adalah laki laki dengan ciri ciri sebagai berikut

1. Bersifat steril/mandul
2. Testis berukuran kecil
3. Saluran sperma rusak
4. Payudara tumbuh membesar
5. Tubuh tinggi dan panjang
6. Suara seperti wanita
7. Pinggul berukuran lebar
3. Sindrom jacobs(47,XXY)
Sindrom jacobs terjadi jika sel ovum dibuahi oleh sel sperma yang memiliki kromosom YY
akibat gagal berpisah pada kromosom seksnya. Sindrom jacobs memiliki kromosom sebanyak
47 kromosom dengan kelainan pada kromosom seksnya yang kelebehin satu kromosom(XXY).
Peristiwa ini termasuk ke dalam kasus trisomi(47, XXY / 44A + XXY / 22AA + XXY).

Penderta sindrom jacobs memiliki ciri ciri diantaranya bersifat agresif, antisosial, tubuh tinggi,
memiliki IQ dibawah normal sekitar 80-95.

4. Wanita super(47,XXX)
Wanita super terjadi apabila sel ovum yang tidak normal dengan kromosom kelebihan satu yaitu
XX dibuahi oleh sel sperma normal dengan kromosom X, sehingga wanita super memiliki
kromosom sebanyak 47 kromsom( 47,XXX/44A + XXX/22A + XXX) peristiwa ini termasuk
peristiwa trisomi
Ciri ciri yang dimiliki penderita wanita super antara lain berumur pendek dan bersifat steril, ini
dikarenakan banyak organ tubuh penderita yang tidak berkembang dengan sempurna

5. Sindrom down(47, XX/XY)

Sindrom down bisa terjadi jika terjadi penambahan satu buah kromosom pada kromosom
tubuh/autosom pada kromosom nomor 21 sehingga penderita memiliki jumlah kromosom
47,XX/XY(45A + XX/XY). Kejadian ini termasuk kasus trisomi( 2n+1/46+1=47).
Jadi pada sindrom down yang mengalami kelainan adalah pada kromosom tubuh, bukan pada
kromosom kelamin sehingga sindrom down bisa diderita baik laki-laki maupun perempuan.

sindrom down, penambahan satu kromosom nomot 21

Penderita sindrom down diantaranya memiliki ciri ciri sebagai berikut

1. Terdapat lipatan diatas kelopak mata

2. Tubuh pendek, muka bulat
3. Kelopak mata memiliki lipatan epikantus
4. Mata tampak sipit
5. Bibir tebal
6. Hidung lebar dan datar
7. Telinga kecil
8. Jari berukuran pendek dan gemuk
9. IQ dibawah normal dan biasanya memiliki kelainan pada jantung
6. Sindrom edward(47,XX/XY)
Sindrom edward bisa terjadi jika terjadi penambahan satu kromosom pada kromosom tubuh
nomor 18 sehingga penderita memiliki jumlah kromosom 47, XX/XY(45A + XX/XY). Kejadian
ini termasuk ke dalam kasus trisomi dimana penderitanya bisa laki-laki maupun perempuan.

penderita sindrom edward

Ciri-ciri penderita sindrom edward diantaranya adalah tengkorak berbentuk lonjong, dada
pendek dan lebar.

7. Sindrom patau(47, XX/XY)

Sindrom patau terjadi jika terjadi penambahan satu kromosom pada kromosom
tubuh nomor 13, sehingga penderita memiliki jumlah kromosom sebanyak 47,
XX/XY(45A + XX/XY). Kejadian ini termasuk kasus trisomi yang bisa terjadi pada
laki-laki maupun perempuan.

Ciri-cirinya diantaranya adalah memiliki kepala dan mata berukuran kecil dan
posisi telinga agak kebawah.

This article is part of the Science in Sci-fi, Fact in Fantasy blog series. Each week,
we tackle one of the scientific or technological concepts pervasive in sci-fi (space travel, genetic
engineering, artificial intelligence, etc.) with input from an expert. Please join the mailing list to
be notified every time new content is posted.

The Expert: Dan Koboldt

I know what youre thinking: any guy can claim to be an expert on something when its his own
blog. Yet in this case, its true: Ive worked as a genetics researcher for the last decade, and coauthored more than 50 publications in Nature, Science, JAMA, the New England Journal of
Medicine, and other journals. Currently, I manage the human genetics group for one of three
NIH-funded large scale DNA sequencing centers in the United States. MassGenomics, my
work-related blog, is where I do most of my writing about DNA sequencing and its impact on our
understanding of genetics.
Mutation Myths in Fiction
In my last post for this series, I wrote about some common misconceptions about genetics
that often show up in fiction and mass media. This time, Id like to tackle a related concept, the
mutation of DNA. Mutation is the process by which a base in DNA is accidentally, yet irrevocably
altered. As usual, Im going to tackle some of the myths about mutation that Ive encountered
in fiction especially science fiction and then offer some guidance for authors to help them
get it right.

Myth #1: Mutations Happen All the Time (Click to Tweet)

Thanks to advances in genome sequencing technologies, we have a good estimate for the
human mutation rate. Its roughly one mutation per 100 million base pairs per generation.
Granted, the human genome is large (3.2 billion base pairs), so each of us does have about 32
mutations that neither of our parents gave us. Compare that to the ~3 million inherited genetic
variants, and youll understand just how rare true mutations are. An important exception to this:
somatic mutations, which happen during or after an embryo develops, and thus are found only
in a subset of cells. Our group uses next-generation sequencing to examine cancer genomes.
Cancer develops from a single cell thats acquired somatic mutations. The highest mutation rate
I know of? The genomes of lung cancer specimens from lifelong smokers.

Myth #2: Mutations Are Often Beneficial (Click to Tweet)

Quite the opposite. Most mutations are actually neutral, because they occur out in the 95% of
the genome that doesnt really do anything. When mutations do hit a protein-coding gene or
regulatory region, its usually bad news. The human genome has been under natural selection
for thousands of years. Its like tinkering with a complicated machine: when you make random
changes, youre more likely to break something than improve it. Most of the well-known
inherited disorders, like cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell disease, are caused by mutations that
damage or disable the proteins. Well, sickle-cell disease is an unusual example: if you have two
copies of the mutation (one in each copy of the gene), you get sickle-cell disease. However, if
you have just one copy, it protects against malaria. You can understand why that allele has
persisted in populations of African origin.

Myth #3: One Mutation Takes Over the Body (Click to Tweet)
I really like the movie Resident Evil, but theres a scene that bothers me. A creature in it
mutates and changes form entirely in the course of a few minutes. Its a frighteningly cool
speculative element, but not terribly realistic. Usually a mutation affects a single cell. If multiple
cells are hit, as might be the case with exposure to radiation, the mutations would be random in
those cells. The odds that the same one would occur in two different cells are infinitesimal. Even
a dramatic change, like one that causes some tumor cells to resist chemotherapy, requires
weeks or months to have a system-wide effect. In the absence of a pervasive delivery
mechanism (like a virus infecting lots of cells at once with a custom gene), theres no way for a
significant, rapid change to a complex organism like a human.
Tips for Handling Mutations Well in Fiction
Now that youve been disabused of some of the worst myths, youre already well-equipped to
write about mutations rather well. It might also be useful to cover some of the basics.

The Causes of Mutation

Mutations are typically caused by DNA damage after exposure to mutagenic elements
(carcinogens, ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, etc). Our cells have complex machinery for
repairing DNA damage, and, failing that, to initiate a self-destruct procedure. Sometimes it
doesnt work as intended, particularly if the machinery has itself been compromised. Thats why
carriers of certain mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (involved in DNA repair)
predispose women to breast and ovarian cancer. Mutations can also occur due to biological
errors mistakes made by the enzymes that copy DNA when cells divide. When this happens
during meiosis, a mutation might be passed on to the child that wasnt present in the parents.

Mutations and Natural Selection

The millions of genetic variants that (in combination) distinguish us from one another arose from
mutations in our ancestors. Mutations that are damaging tend to be weeded out over time by
natural selection the people with them were less apt to survive and have children. This form
of selection, called purifying selection, is evident in many of the protein-coding regions of the
genome. Its signature is a lack of genetic variation among healthy members of the population. In
contrast, regions where genetic variants are common are unlikely to be under strong selection,
because otherwise lots of people would be messed up (to use a scientific term).
There is another kind of natural selection, positive selection, under which variants that confer
survival or fitness advantages rapidly become common in certain populations. In the poorlyreceived movie Waterworld, for example, the character played by Kevin Costner had developed
gills which allowed him to spend long periods underwater. Obviously theres a survival
advantage, though it might be compensated for by all of the normal people trying to kill him.
The classic real-world example of positive selection in humans is a mutation that altered the
LCT gene allowing us to be lactose-tolerant that arose in Africa during a period when
cattle were being domesticated. Being able to drink cows milk was a major advantage, and the
mutations that provided this capability were rapidly selected for. Granted, I mean rapidly in
terms of evolution, which is measured in generations, not years.
Another well-known signature of recent positive selection in the human genome affects genes
related to innate immunity. This also is unsurprising, since infectious diseases were (and in
many places of the world, remain) a common cause of mortality and morbidity. Id love to tell
you that more exciting science fiction traits like super strength or super speed were under
obvious positive selection as well. Unfortunately, we havent found convincing evidence
of positive selection acting on physical traits.
At least, not yet.

Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life
does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not
demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and
propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot
arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field,
denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.
Introduction
A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of
life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution
is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of
species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more
insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases
by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that.
Hence this essay. We will look at the history of the idea, and then the disproofs, and finally the
relation of the origin of life to evolutionary theory in general. As always, we start with the
Greeks. Once we reach Pasteur, the implications of the debate to that point for evolution will be
considered. Then we will look at the modern - post-Pasteur and post-Darwin - developments in
Origins of Life research.
Early views on spontaneous generation
The first western thinker to suggest that life arose spontaneously was probably Anaximander, a
Milesian philosopher (in what is now Turkey) who wrote in the 6th and 5th centuries before
Christ (611-547 BCE). He believed that everything arose out of the elemental nature of the
universe, which he called the "apeiron" or "unbounded". As part of his overall attempt to give
natural explanations of things that had previously been ascribed to the agency of the gods, such
as thunder, the heavens, and the earth, he gave the following account of life.
According to a late source, Hippolytus in the third century CE, for Anaximander's own works do
not survive, Anaximander claimed that living creatures were first formed in the "wet" when acted
on by the Sun, and that they were different then than they are now. In particular he claimed
humans were originally a kind of fish, and that based on the observation humans took a long time
to mature to independence, humans must have earlier been born mature like other animals, or
they would not have survived. It was not a complete theory of evolution by any means, although
Haeckel and Osborn claimed he was a "prophet" of Kant, Laplace, Lamarck and Darwin.

Anaximander also claimed that spontaneous generation continued to this day, with eels and other
acquatic forms being produced directly from lifeless matter. {Lloyd 17-18, Osborn 33-35}
Anaximenes, his pupil (588-524) thought that air was the element that imparted life, motion and
thought, and supposed there was a primordial terestrial slime, a mixture of earth and water, from
which the sun's heat formed plants, animals and human beings directly. {Osborn 35}
Xenophanes (576-480), the founder of the Eliatic School, traced the origin of man back to the
transitional period between the fluid stage of the earth and the formation of land. He too held to a
spontaneous generation of fully formed plants and animals under the influence of the sun. So too
did Parmenides (b544).
Empedocles (495-435) accepted the spontaneous generation of life, but held that there had to be
trials of combinations of parts of animals that spontaneously arose. Successful combinations
formed the species we now see, unsuccessful forms failed to reproduce. Osborn {37-40} thought
this was a kind of natural selection, but as only one form is successful for each lineage, and
species remain unchanged thereafter, it is a tenuous analogy to make.
Democritus (b450) and Anaxagoras (500-428) also adopted a terrestrial slime account, although
Anaxagoras thought that the germs (seeds) of plants existed in the air from the beginning, and of
animals in the ether. {Osborn 42-43}
Aristotle
All these accounts rely on the innate (or natural; the Greek word is phusis, from which we get
"physics") properties of the elements of the universe. Life is a result of the propensities of the
world. In Aristotle (384-322) we get the most sophisticated of all these Greek views. He thought
there were four elements and a fifth essence later called the "quintessence" or "ether" that
occurred only beyond the moon, in the heavens. The four terrestrial elements are, of course,
earth, air, fire and water, each of which is a principle of hot, cold, dry and wet {see the
discussions in Toulmin and Goodfield 1962a and 1962b}.
He thought that the properties of living organisms were due to the mixture of these principles and
elements in each part of the body, plus an animating force he called "pneuma", which got
translated as "anima" in Latin, the word for "soul". There were, in fact, a number of souls,
ranging from growth, to motion, sensation, to thinking, and finally in humans, to reason.
In the History of Animals Aristotle several times says that animals of some kinds arise directly
from elements and the pneuma of the material:
"So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow
spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation

some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects,
while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their
several organs." 539a18-26
"As a general rule, then, all testaceans grow by spontaneous generation in mud, differing from
one another according to the differences of the material; oysters growing in slime, and cockles
and the other testaceans above mentioned on sandy bottoms; and in the hollows of the rocks the
ascidian and the barnacle, and common sorts, such as the limpet and the nerites."547b18-22
"Other insects are not derived from living parentage, but are generated spontaneously: some out
of dew falling on leaves, ordinarily in spring-time, but not seldom in winter when there has been
a stretch of fair weather and southerly winds; others grow in decaying mud or dung; others in
timber, green or dry; some in the hair of animals; some in the flesh of animals; some in
excrements: and some from excrement after it has been voided, and some from excrement yet
within the living animal, like the helminthes or intestinal worms." 551a1-10
"Other animalcules besides these are generated, as we have already remarked, some in wool or in
articles made of wool, as the ses or clothes-moth. And these animalcules come in greater
numbers if the woollen substances are dusty; and they come in especially large numbers if a
spider be shut up in the cloth or wool, for the creature drinks up any moisture that may be there,
and dries up the woollen substance. This grub is found also in men's clothes.
A creature is also found in wax long laid by, just as in wood, and it is the smallest of animalcules
and is white in colour, and is designated the acari or mite. In books also other animalcules are
found, some resembling the grubs found in garments, and some resembling tailless scorpions, but
very small. As a general rule we may state that such animalcules are found in practically
anything, both in dry things that are becoming moist and in moist things that are drying, provided
they contain the conditions of life." 557b1-13
and
"Some writers actually aver that mullet all grow spontaneously. In this assertion they are
mistaken, for the female of the fish is found provided with spawn, and the male with milt.
However, there is a species of mullet that grows spontaneously out of mud and sand.
From the facts above enumerated it is quite proved that certain fishes come spontaneously into
existence, not being derived from eggs or from copulation. Such fish as are neither oviparous nor
viviparous arise all from one of two sources, from mud, or from sand and from decayed matter
that rises thence as a scum; for instance, the so-called froth of the small fry comes out of sandy
ground. This fry is incapable of growth and of propagating its kind; after living for a while it dies

away and another creature takes its place, and so, with short intervals excepted, it may be said to
last the whole year through." 569a21-569b3 {listed in Lennox 233}
He gives a theoretical explanation in the Generation of Animals Bk 3, ch 11. After reiterating the
claim that some, but not all, of various classes of organisms spontaneously generate out of
matter, he explains why they do:
"All those which do not bud off or 'spawn' are spontaneously generated. Now all things formed
in this way, whether in earth or water, manifestly come into being in connexion with putrefaction
and an admixture of rain-water. For as the sweet is separated off into the matter which is
forming, the residue of the mixture takes such a form. Nothing comes into being by putrefying,
but by concocting; putrefaction and the thing putrefied is only a residue of that which is
concocted. For nothing comes into being out of the whole of anything, any more than in the
products of art; if it did art would have nothing to do, but as it is in the one case art removes the
useless material, in the other Nature does so. Animals and plants come into being in earth and in
liquid because there is water in earth, and air in water, and in all air is vital heat so that in a sense
all things are full of soul. Therefore living things form quickly whenever this air and vital heat
are enclosed in anything. When they are so enclosed, the corporeal liquids being heated, there
arises as it were a frothy bubble. Whether what is forming is to be more or less honourable in
kind depends on the embracing of the psychical principle; this again depends on the medium in
which the generation takes place and the material which is included."
In short, things arise from nonliving matter because there is a "vital heat", a pneuma, which is
already there, and the proportions of that and the other elements enclosed by the forming
structure determine the kind of organism.
Aristotle denied that the universe, and the earth, had a beginning, so this is a process that
happens all the time, not just at the beginning, as in the older Greek thinkers. Given Aristotle's
influence on later thinking, particularly throughout the later middle ages, his ideas form a kind of
background "default" which western thinkers had unless they consciously were set against him
on a particular topic. For example, Francis Bacon said, in his New Atlantis (c1614), that it was
possible for his "learned Jew" protagonist to
"... imitate and demonstrate meteors -- as snow, hail, rain, some artificial rains of bodies and not
of water, thunders, lightnings; also generations of bodies in air -- as frogs, flies, and divers
others."
In short, spontaneous generation was even possible in the air. But in all these post-Aristotle
claims, only simple bodies and organisms could spontaneously generate, and certainly not
humans. In this belief, Theophrastus (370-288 BCE) concurred, as did most writers throughout

the middle ages through to the beginnings of modern biology in the seventeenth century,
including the early Christian fathers Origen and Augustine.
Early modern biology and the challenges to spontaneous generation
William Harvey (1578-1657) published his De Generatione in 1651, in which he coined the oftquoted phrase "ex ova omnia" (all [life] from eggs). However, despite that phrase, he did allow
that there could be spontaneously generated life {Gasking 18-19}. Hence, despite the textbook
myth, Harvey was not the first to reject spontaneous generation, although he did say that many
cases of apparent spontaneous generation were due to invisible seeds being scattered and
dispersed through the air.
Spontaneous generation of mice was reported by Johannes Baptista van Helmont (1579-1644), a
physician and alchemist. He believed that mice arose when a flask of wheat and old rags was
incubated in a warm dark closet. {Magner 267}
Francisco Redi (c1626-1697) demonstrated in 1668 that maggots did not, contrary to Aristotle,
arise spontaneously, but from eggs laid by adult flies. Meat covered so that the flies could not
reach it was free of maggots, while meat that flies could reach developed them. A member of the
Academy of Experiments in Florence, he carried out several experiments on the matter,
following the development of fly larvae form eggs, on different meats including lion meat, lamb,
fishes and snakes. The results were published as Experiments on the Generation of Insects. He
said, using "worm" to mean maggot:
"I began to believe that all worms found in meat derived from flies and not from putrefaction. I
was confirmed by observing that, before the meat became wormy, there hovered over it flies of
that very kind that later bred in it. Belief unconfirmed by experiment is vain. Therefore I put a
[dead] snake, some fish, and a slice of veal in four large, wide-mouthed flasks. These I closed
and sealed. Then I filled the same number of flasks in the same way leaving them open. Flies
were seen constantly entering and leaving the open flasks. The meat and fish in them became
wormy. In the closed flasks were no worms, though the contents were now putrid and stinking.
Outside, on the covers of the closed flasks a few maggots eagerly sought some crevice of entry.
"Thus the flesh of dead animals cannot engender worms unless the eggs of the living be
deposited therein." {Quoted from Singer 440}
He continued the experiments using gauze, with the same results.
Redi did not disprove spontaneous generation as such, as Magner notes, but his experiments did
"shrink the battle from the generation of macroscopic creatures to the small new world of
infusoria and animalcules discovered by van Leeuwenhoek" {Magner 267}. Despite this, though,
he continued to believe gall insects were spontaneously generated. Later workers, such as

Antonio Vallisnieri (1661-1730), showed in 1700 that gall wasps laid their eggs in the plants
before the gall formed around the larvae, as had Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694) {Singer 441},
and Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680) in 1669, while Rene Antoine Ferchault de Ramur (16831757) in his Contributions to the History of Insects (1737-1748) showed that insects that had
been thought to spontaneously generate in fact arose from eggs. {Gasking 62-63}
Subsequent proponents of spontaneous generation were typically epigeneticists in the
generations debates, and opponents typically preformationists. These were two theoretical
viewpoints on the nature of the generation of new organisms: preformationists believed that the
pattern of generation was included in the seed, each embryo encapsulated in its parental embryo
all the way back to creation, while epigeneticists believed with Aristotle that each embryo is
formed out of an undifferentiated matter by an organising form. Hence, preformationists had to
reject spontaneous generation, ex hypothesi.
Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), a famous philosopher, mathematician and scientist,
asserted that there were fundamental "living molecules" he called "monads", from which all
things sprang. Although he held to a static view of nature, he did think that there was a scale of
complexity, and that very simple organisms were comprised directly of monads. His views
influenced a great many biologists after him. {Nordenskiold 128, Magner 267}
Needham and Spallanzini
The great French naturalist Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon (1707-1788, known as
Buffon even by the French) and an English Catholic priest, the Abb John Turberville Needham
(1713-1781), an accomplished microscopist whom Buffon met on a trip to England, decided
around 1738 to attempt to disprove the work of Louis Joblot (1645-1723). {Gasking 89-90}
Joblot had tried to show that infusoria (simple organisms found in infusions into organic
material, mostly ciliates) were not spontaneously generated by boiling a medium, and placing
one part in a sealed vessel, the other in an open one. The sealed one did not become infused with
these organisms. To prove the medium was still capable of supporting life, he exposed the sealed
material to the air and it was soon teaming too.
When Needham repeated the experiments at the urging of Buffon, he found that, boiled or not,
sealed or not, life arose in the vessels of broth. He concluded that there was a vegetative force in
every bit of matter, just as Buffon's theory of there being an "interior mold" (moule interieur) for
generation of larger organisms (i.e., an epigenetic view) predicted. The results were published in
1748 in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
Abbott Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) disagreed, and set about disproving Needham and
Buffon's results. He was also a professor at the universities of Reggio, Modena and Pavia, and
his experimental work was of high standard. He reasoned that the minute organisms must have a

more minute early stage of growth, and so decided that the problem could not be resolved
through the use of a microscope. {Singer 442} In 1767, he published his account rebutting
Needham and Buffon, saying:
"I sought to discover whether long boiling would injure or prevent the production of animalcules
in infusions. I prepared infusions with eleven varieties of seeds, boiled for half an hour. The
vessels were loosely stopped with corks. After eight days I examined the infusions
microscopically. In all there were animalcules, but of differing species. Therefore long boiling
does not of itself prevent their production". {Quoted in Singer 442}
So he tried excluding air, placing infusions in five series of flasks. One series was left open, the
other four were sealed and raised to boiling, each series for 30 seconds longer than the first. After
two days the open series was swarming, and the 30 second series contained smaller organisms,
while the remainder contained almost none. He had shown that the duration of the boiling
mattered, in that some organisms were more heat resistant than others. Boiling sealed vessels for
a half to three-quarters of an hour, Spallanzani showed that no life would develop so long as the
flask was kept sealed. {Singer 442-443}
When Needham objected that the heat had rendered the infusions themselves sterile - that is,
incapable of supporting life - Spallanzini broke the necks of the flask, and the infusions soon
showed the usual life. {Nordenskild 131}
This did not end the debate - others repeated the experiments with varying success or failure.
Theodor Schwann (1810-1882), one of the founders of the Cell Theory, showed that air that had
been heated would not cause putrefaction in a sterilised broth in 1836-1837, but the reason was
ambiguous; it may have been heated (calcined) air was unable to support respiration. French
chemist Joseph-Louis Gay-Lusssac (1778-1850) showed that Spallanzani's experiments included
oxygen, which was necessary for fermentation and putrefaction, by proving that a frog could live
in it. Others such as Franz Schultze (1815-1873), Heinrich Schroder (1810-1885) and Theodor
von Dusch (1824-1890), all tried to resolve the matter, to no avail. {Singer 443, Magner 269270} The arguments continued.
Despite the theoretical arguments, a French chef, Nicholas Appert (1750-1841) applied
Spallanzani's results to food commercially, placing it in clean bottles, corking them slightly, and
boiling them. These techniques were published in 1810, and founded the canning industry.
{Magner 269} Another industrial matter came to the fore at this time - fermentation. The man to
resolve this side of the debate was Louis Pasteur.
The Nineteenth century before Pasteur
Throughout the nineteenth century, there were believers in spontaneous generation. A major
believer was Lorenz Oken (1779-1851), a follower of Goethe, who proposed (1809) a "sea-

slime" theory of the origins of life, just as Anaximander had. He believed it occurred where land
and sea met, and minute bladders of foam enclosed three life principles - feeding, respiration and
digestion. However, he was not consistent and made many contradictory claims - such as Man
being the offspring of a warm and gentle seashore in India. {Osborn 126-127}
Like Oken, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829), a student of Buffon's, also believed in
spontaneous generation, in contradiction to his mentor, and for the first time made it a
cornerstone of a theory of transmutation (1809). However, unlike Darwin's later theory,
Lamarck's assumed that each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous
generation, and that they were continuing to the present day - each species was advanced just as
much as it had been in existence. He wrote:
"In the waters of the ancient world, an at the present time, very small masses of mucilaginous
matter were collected. Under the influences of light, certain elements, caloric and electric,
entered these little bodies. These corpuscles became capable of taking in and exhaling gases;
vital movements began, and thus an elemental plant or animal sprang into existence. Possibly
higher forms of life, such as infest the intestines, originate in this way. Nature is thus always
creating." {1802, quoted in Osborn 178}
Just preceding Lamarck, Darwin's own grandfather, Dr Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), wrote in
his scientific poem The Temple of Nature (1802), much appreciated at the time but not much
later:
"Hence without parents, by spontaneous birth,
Rise the first specks of animated earth."
and
"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;"
and so on. These initial forms of life are primitive and minute, and larger forms evolve later. In
the Zoonomia (1794), he conjectured about the first life form:
"Shall we conjecture that one and the same kind of living filament is and has been the cause of
organic life?"
However, neither Oken, Lamarck nor Darwin had much impact on the academic world of their
day. In France only tienne Geoffroy (1725-1810) championed his views, while in Britain, only
Robert Grant in Edinburgh, later a teacher and friend of Charles Darwin's, continued to present
evolutionary views.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

In the period following the increasingly evolutionary views on life, there were two urgent
problems that had to be resolved that touched on spontaneous generation. Both were
heterogenesis issues (life arising from the degraded or putrified products of other life) and not
abiogenesis (a word coined much later in the century by T. H. Huxley, as we shall see later).
Heterogeny was a major problem in two ways not related to evolution - one was the issue of the
origin of diseases, and in particular of parasitic worms and flukes; and the other was the cause of
fermentation. The former is a public health issue, exemplified by the cholera pandemics of 1831,
1848, 1853 and 1861 in England, while the latter was a matter of great concern in the viticulture
and brewing industry of France and elsewhere. Let us consider fermentation first.
There were two theories as to the origin of microorganisms in fermentations, and the process of
fermentation itself. One was put forward in 1836 by a French engineer, Charles CagniardLatour (1777-1859), that yeast, recognised as the active ingredient in fermentation, was made up
of minute organisms that caused the fermentation directly through what we now call their
metabolic processes (a term that was coined only a few years later by Schwann, one of the
discoverers of the cell theory). {Nordenskild 431, Singer 339} The other, proposed by the
famous chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier in 1789, and championed by Justus von Liebig (18021873), was that fermentation was caused by a chemical process - of the action of air on grape
juice (Joseph-Louis Gay Lussac, 1778-1850, in 1810); or of "a compound of nitrogen in a state
of putrefaction or decay" that caused a similar condition in other bodies (Liebig, 1840) {Farley
49}. Of course, the chemical explanation, although bolstered by the work of Liebig's student
Friedrich Whler (1800-1882) in the synthesis of the organic compound urea in 1828, had a
problem - in yeast during fermentation, microorganisms were found to grow. Therefore, either
they grew as a result of the chemistry, that is, spontaneous generation, or they were infections
that took advantage of these products.
In 1837-8, three researchers independently found that yeast were living organisms: CagniardLatour, Friedrich Ktzing, and Schwann. The first two established that yeast causes the
decomposition of sugar when alive, and not when dead. Schwann, trying to prove that
spontaneous generation did not occur on meat, showed that the air in the flasks used to prove that
meat would not putrefy when boiled was still "vital" by using it to grow yeast on boiled cane
sugar. When they did not cause fermentation, he examined the yeast and concluded it was an
"articulated fungi" and concluded, without real warrant, that alcoholic fermentation occurs when
yeast (or as he called it, "the sugar fungus", or Zuckerpilz) uses sugar and nitrogenous substances
for its growth, incidentally converting these elements to alcohol. He was right, but that was not
known then, and Liebig rejected his evidence. So although there was a minority view that yeast
were living organisms causing fermentation, the majority view remained that chemical
fermentation occurred, and spontaneous generation was the cause of yeast cells.

Contagion, on the other hand, was equally critical. It might be thought that the success in
antiseptic techniques introduced by Joseph Lister (1827-1912) in 1865 proved that contagion
was caused by pathogens, he himself allowed, though he did not agree, that the "septic particles"
might be cell products, not cells. {Farley 83} In any case, this was after Pasteur. More to the
point was John Snow's (1813-1858 ) work on tracing the source of cholera in London in 1849
and 1855 to certain wells. Although it was thought that the epidemic was due to transmission,
most British contagionists thought that the contagion was due to "nonorganismic particles", a
view that can be traced back to Galen (130-200), who thought diseases were transmitted by
"miasmas". So it stood when Pasteur undertook his research.
Theodor Schwann's work, in particular, had asserted that cells might form out of cell products
such as the extracellular material he called the "Cytoblastema", while his co-theorist Matthias
Schleiden (1804-1881) thought that all cells formed from structures within existing cells. Hugo
von Mohl (1805-1872), though he thought that cells were in general formed by direct division,
still said in passing that free cell formation might occur independently of "life of the parent plant
in the creation of parasitic fungi, yeast cells, etc., both in the decomposing fluid of cells and in
the excreted or expressed juices". {Farley 53}
The famous pathologist and cytologist Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902) agreed with Robert Remak
(1815-1865) who said in 1852 that the occurrence of free cell formation was as improbable as
spontaneous generation. Virchow considered spontaneous generation as "heresy, or devil's work"
in 1855, and much later asserted that Schwann had reinvigorated the old doctrine of generatio
aequivoca, as spontaneous generation was known. {Farley 199n} In its place, Virchow asserted
that any kind of life required a matrix, a prior organisation:
"Life does not reside in the fluids as such, but only in their cellular parts; it is necessary to
exclude cell-free fluids from the realm of the living and intercellular material of cell-containing
fluids as well. ... Life will always remain something apart, even if we should find out that it is
mechanically aroused and propagated down to the minutest detail." {quoted in Farley 54}
Virchow famously propounded the dictum Omnis cellula e cellula (all cells from cells), but he
never was able to provide an "absolute demonstration" of this "established principle"; for a very
good reason - you can neither prove a universal negative nor a universal positive with a finite or
limited set of observations. Even as Virchow was attacking the non-cellular origin of cells, cell
theory itself was being modified to accommodate the idea of a "protoplasm", which will become
important in the period after Pasteur.
Other combatants over spontaneous generation at this time included Christian Ehrenberg (17951876; opposed) and Felix Dujardin (1801-1862, in favour), among others. {Farley 55-56}. One
interesting side debate was whether or not parasitic worm and liver flukes formed through
irritations in the tissues of the sufferers or due to infection. In Britain, around 240 papers were

published on this subject, which was clouded by the fact that, as it turned out, many such
parasites have distinct forms in alternating generations, and so the infecting parasites were not
recognised as being the same species. The discovery of the alternation of generations was made
by Japetus Steenstrup (1813-1897), a Danish zoologist, in 1842.
Pouchet and Pasteur
The Director of the Natural History Museum in Rouen, Flix Archimde Pouchet (1800-1872),
began presenting a series of papers in 1855 to the Academy of Sciences in Paris, purporting to
prove spontaneous generation, and to show not only that it happened, but under what
circumstances. He named his subject heterogenesis, which was the title of a massive volume he
published in 1859. Like Buffon and Needham, Pouchet thought that heterogenesis was not
accidental, but due to the vital force of the materials, which had to be pre-existing organic matter.
According to him, the causal factors involved were organic matter, water, air, and the right
temperature. {Magner 270}
Pouchet's results showed, he claimed, that although in the animal kingdom, all life arose from
eggs, those eggs arose, at times, by spontaneous generation. He wrote,
"Spontaneous generation does not produce an adult being; it proceeds in the same manner as
sexual generation which, as we shall show, is initially a completely spontaneous act by which the
plastic force brings together in a special organ the primitive elements of the organism." {quoted
in Farley 97}
In other words, Pouchet thought that sexual generation was a spontaneous act caused by a vital
force as much as spontaneous generation. He held that this occurred by divine providence rather
than chance. Spontaneous generation had been previously attacked for being irreligious, as the
event was due to the chance recombination of molecules. Pouchet's version was divinely guided.
He thought that both the original act of creation was divinely guided, and so too were subsequent
events. Hence, Pouchet was trying to wrest spontaneous generation from the materialists. "The
law of heterogenesis," he wrote, "far from weakening the attributes of the Creator, can only
augment Divine Majesty." {Farley 98} As Farley notes, Pasteur and subsequent accounts of the
debate overlooked Pouchet's orthodox theism and piety.
Moreover, Pouchet's account was based on the origination of new life from the organic material
of old life, not from non-living matter:
"The succession of life on the surface of the globe links matter in a narrow circle from which it
cannot escape. It is successively attracted and repelled by these incessant phenomena. But the
organic particles, sometimes intimately united to form organisms, and sometimes free in space,
are no less animated with a latent life, which seems to wait only for their grouping to be visibly

manifested. It seems that for organic molecules, there is no death ... only a transition to a new
life." {quoted in Farley 98}
The obvious exception to this is, of course, the first divine creation. All else required a "force
plastique", a molding power.
But Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) objected to the idea of spontaneous generation. The French
Academy of Science offered the Alhumbert Prize of 2500 francs to whoever could shed "new
light on the question of so-called spontaneous generation". Pasteur won it in 1862 for his famous
essay in 1861, "Mmoire sur les corpuscules organiss qui existent dans l'atmosphre", published
in their Annales the next year. In this he described a series of elegant experiments designed to
disprove Pouchet's major claim that there were no organisms introduced into his flasks. Agreeing
that neither the air used, nor the water contained germs in Pouchet's experiment, and that he had
sufficiently sterilised the flask and materials with heat, he focused on another item in the
experiment - the mercury trough in which Pouchet cooled the flask. In this, Pasteur claimed,
dust, carrying germs, had settled and this introduced germs into Pouchet's sealed flask.
Pasteur could not, of course, merely argue that Pouchet might have made this mistake, he had to
show that if properly carried out, no germs would spontaneously develop. So he had flasks made
with a series of differing shapes designed to allow the movement of air, but not of dust that
would carry germs, into the flask containing sterilised broth. The liquid remained clear for
months. As one biographer notes,
"The observer had a choice between only two hypotheses: placing the origin of germs either in
solid particles (fragments of wool or cotton, starches) that float in the atmosphere, or in spores of
molds or the eggs of infusoria. Pasteur said: "I prefer to think that life comes from life rather than
from dust." {Debr 161}
Subsequent debate and experiment involved sampling air from the ceilings of cathedrals by
Pouchet, and from a balloon by Pasteur, and mountaintops by both. A competition in June 1864
between the two overseen by a Pasteur-inclined committee of the Academy was won by Pasteur
when Pouchet walked out claiming bias and misprocedure. Pasteur was held to have shown that
spontaneous generation did not exist, and became a hero in French society. But had he shown
this?
Strictly, Pouchet had shown that hay infusions would generate even when boiled, because, as it
was shown a while later, hay had heat resistant spores. {Geison 131} Had he stayed in the
competition, he may very well have won (although not because he was right about spontaneous
generation). More worrying to us moderns is that it transpires, now that Pasteur's notebooks have
become available (they were made available only in the 1970s, and an index published only in
1985), that Pasteur repeatedly ignored positive results in experiments, claiming that they were

due to error rather than spontaneous generation; in fact only 10% of his experiments gave his
desired result. {Geison 130}
Even so, Pasteur was correct - modern life, including fungi and infusorians, did not arise from
non-living matter, whether or not that matter was organic or elemental. The debate over his
experimental technique matters only to historians, although Geison's 1995 book caused an
enormous furore in France, where Pasteur is something of a secular saint.
In his later years, Pasteur was forced to modify some of his views (not about spontaneous
generation). He had thought that microorganisms retained their virulence indefinitely. But in
1881, he was forced to admit that virulence could attenuate spontaneously (and he made it the
foundation of his anti-rabies vaccine). Debr says, "And now, at the age of sixty, Pasteur was
once again facing facts that did not fit in which his concepts. Attenuated virulence conflicted
with his biological philosophy. He had to renounce his dogmas and enter the debate on the
evolution of species." He had to choose between Darwin's view that selection was in operation,
or Lamarck's that the environment directly influenced the species of organism, and chose
Lamarck. But he did accept transmutation of species, as is demonstrated by his comment quoted
in Hilaire Cuny's biography, from Pasteur {Cuny, 122, from Pasteur 434}:
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in
her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for
millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of
producing virulent or contagious diseases - which does not seem very likely."
Although he shortly afterwards refers to "the myriad species of Creation", it is clear that he
accepted the reality of evolution. Moreover, he characterised the interaction between microbes
and hosts as a "struggle for existence" (a phrase, it must be remembered, invented by the Swiss
botanist Alphonse de Candolle, and borrowed by Darwin). However, I doubt he accepted that
evolution occurred by natural selection, as the French rarely did until the 1950s and Jacques
Monod's writings. However, he was not a creationist, at least at this point in his life.
Moreover, much has been made about Pasteur's faith. It is often claimed that he was a devout
Catholic, but it seems he was very lax in his religious devotion, reading through church services
as a student, and not attending church much during his life. He was, it must be said, opposed to
the philosophical vogue of radical materialism in France, from which the spontaneous generation
debate sprang, but he was hardly a model believer. Even so, despite claims made by Farley and
Geison that Pasteur allowed his research to be guided by his a priori philosophy, he did turn out
to be correct that the growths of germs were caused by pre-existing germs, and that fermentation
was due to yeast.
Summary so far

So we must ask - what did Pasteur prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from nonliving things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that
experimentally, only theoretically, and he had no theory of molecular biology to establish this
claim. What he showed was that it was highly unlikely that modern living organisms arose from
non-living organic material. This is a much more restricted claim than that primitive life once
arose from non-living non-organic material.
So far we have seen that neither Redi, Spallanzani nor Pasteur disproved the origination of life in
all cases, only in particular cases. Moreover, we have seen that the claims "all life from eggs",
"all cells from cells" and "all life from life" are generalisations not fully supported by the
experimental evidence available at the time they were made.
Evolution and abiogenesis
[Note: from this point on, dates are not given for scientists. Biographical details can be found in Farley's book, or in
a history such as Singer's.]

The reaction to Pasteur was almost unanimous, at least in France: heterogenesis was a dead
issue. But what Pasteur showed and what was drawn from it as a philosophical moral were
different things. French science had since the time of the philosophes had a strong materialistic
flavour. Many objected to this, and Pasteur was immediately pressed into service against it. In
1873, Father H. de Valroger saw spontaneous generation as a necessary belief of atheism, and
wrote that the "action of the creator has been necessary for the production of the first living
beings", while on the other side, Felix Isnard wrote in 1879 that "one must submit to rigorous
proof of reasoning and accept as truth only that which is demonstrated by science", and that
reason forced us to accept abiogenesis, and admit that heterogenesis was also still possible.
{Farley 119}
In other countries, where Darwin's Origin, published the same year as Pasteur's studies, had an
influence, which in France it tended not to, abiogenesis was still regarded as a viable notion.
Although Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" into his final paragraph in the second (1860)
edition, and Huxley had also publicly stated that life may have been originally created, this was
never understood to be part of the evolutionary mindset, and it was not long before people began
to speculate on how life began. Darwin himself did, in a letter to his botanist friend Joseph
Hooker in 1871, he wrote:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now
present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in
some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity,
&c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more
complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were found."

In print, though, he restrained from speculation, noting that "In what manner the mental powers
were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated.
These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man." (Descent of Man,
chapter 2, 1871). In an essay to the Atheneum in 1863, Darwin wrote upon heterogeny "as the old
doctrine of spontaneous generation is now called", in which he noted that a "mass of mud with
matter decaying and undergoing complex chemical changes is a fine hiding-place for obscurity
of ideas". He argued that while it is true that at one time "there must have been a time when
inorganic elements alone existed on our planet", "our ignorance is as profound on the origin of
life as on the origin of force or matter", and denies that the theory of evolution requires that life
continuously arises. So-called "primitive" life forms as Foraminifera are well adapted to their
conditions, and are not evidence of on-going heterogenesis: "the nature of life will not be seized
on by assuming that Foraminifera are periodically generated from slime or ooze". {Barrett
2:78ff}
T. H. Huxley, although agreeing with Darwin that Pasteur had shown that heterogeny was not
continuously occurring, expressed the belief that life was formed from a fluid found in cells
called "protoplasm", which was the clay that life molded, as it were {Huxley 1868}. Many
thought he meant to claim that life arising from inorganic life was evolutionary "doctrine",
although he denied this. It was to no avail. In 1870, he returned to the question and coined the
term "abiogenesis" {Huxley 1870} to contrast to "biogenesis", the doctrine that all life arises
from life. He concurred with Pasteur for all "known forms of life". He noted that heterogenesis
and abiogenesis were often confused with each other, but that disproving the one did not thereby
disprove the other. Again, though, he did not argue in its favour.
In 1868, Huxley had re-examined some oceanic mud dredged up in 1857 with a more powerful
microscope than the one he used in his first examination, and thought he saw in it "a new form of
... simple animated beings" that Ernst Haeckel had previously called Urschleim (original slime),
and he called it Bathybius Haeckelii. Protoplasmists were now able to say the oceanic floor was
covered in protoplasmic Urschleim. All Huxley would say in 1870, though, was that abiogenesis
was theoretically possible but "that I see no reason for believing that the feat has been performed
yet". {Farley 74f} The Darwinists seemed to line up behind Pasteur, on this and other questions
(Huxley was a medical doctor, and he accepted the contagion theory of disease).
William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin, whose physical contributions included a denial that there
had been enough time for natural selection to cause evolution (later shown by the discovery of
radioactivity to be wrong), said in his presidential address to the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in 1871:
"I confess to being deeply impressed by the evidence put before us by Professor Huxley, and I
am ready to adopt, as an article of scientific faith, true through all space and all time, that life
proceeds from life, and from nothing but life.

"How then, did life originate on Earth? Tracing the physical history of the Earth backwards, on
strict dynamical principles, we are brought to a red-hot melted globe on which no life could
exist. Hence when the Earth was first fit for life, there was no living thing on it. ... Science is
bound, by the everlasting law of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be
presented to it. If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can be found,
we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power."
Thompson then suggested the first scientific idea of panspermia, or the seeding of life on earth.
{Basalla et. al 125-127}
However, others were not so circumspect. Henry Charlton Bastian (1837-1915), one of the
younger Darwinians, was convinced that life had spontaneously generated, and still did {Strick}.
He declared that belief in abiogenesis did not commit one to denying the contagion theory of
disease, although he denied that contagion was caused by living forms, but by organic but
nonliving "fragments" from which living forms arose, a view admitted as legitimate by Pasteur,
although Pasteur did not believe it. Bastian was opposed by, of all people, Huxley and John
Tyndall, two of the older Darwinians, and adherents to the living contagion theory. Tyndal agreed
with Lister that contagion was caused by living organisms, and that this mattered medically.
Many other evolutionists, such as Herbert Spencer and William Thistleton-Dyer opposed
spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) on the grounds that even the simplest organisms and
protoplasm were too complex to arise directly from inorganic matter. Other forms of opposition
came from vitalists such as William Carpenter, whom Darwin was criticising in his Heterogeny
paper, and Lionel Beale. Vitalists opposed abiogenesis, but not heterogenesis, as a rule. John
Tyndall, a friend of Darwin's and Huxley's, published a series of experiments in 1876 in which
he claimed to show that positive results such as Bastian's were due solely to experimental error.
{Farley chapters 5, 7}
Ernst Haeckel, whose monist philosophy combined Goethe and Darwin, asserted that
spontaneous generation at the beginning of life was "a logical postulate of scientific natural
history", and he regarded heterogenesis as "only of subordinate interest in the history of
creation". As noted above, he thought that the simplest living material was protoplasm, and that
the simplest organisms were little more than bags of protoplasm, so that "the deep chasm which
was formally and generally believed to exist between organic and inorganic bodies is almost or
entirely removed, and the way is paved for the conception of spontaneous generation" {Farley
75-77}
Others, such as Heinrich Bronn, rejected the idea until and unless it could be explained, and in
general the debate was split between vitalists, who thought there was something special that
made dead matter live, and materialists, who thought that life was merely chemistry in a different
form. The idea and debate died, as no real progress was made, from the 1880s through to the
second decade of the 20th century, although research on the contagion theory, or germ theory as

it came to be known, continued apace, along with histological studies of cell growth, division
and behaviour. Free cell formation, heterogenesis, and the chemical contagion theory all seemed
to have disappeared. The only doctrine that still seemed to have some interest was abiogenesis,
but little was done on it. Pasteur and Virchow appeared to have carried the day, and the
Darwinians concurred with everyone else, although Bastian published a series of books between
1904 and 1911 still promoting his ideas. The notion that the simplest life was as simple as
Haeckel had declared was shown, for modern single celled organisms, not to be true. They were
in fact very complex, and the gap between non-life and life opened up again. And then closed, as
biochemistry developed, leading Ben Moore, first professor of biochemistry at Liverpool
University to remark in 1921:
"The territory of this spontaneous production of life lies not at the level of bacteria, or
animalculae," rather it lies "at a level of life lying deeper than anything a microscope can reveal,
and possessing a lower unit than the living cell" - in other words, it was chemical, not
organismic. {Farley 155}
In the 1920s, the chemical theory of contagion got a boost, when viruses were discovered that
were unfilterable even by earthernware filters. Viruses had been discovered in the 1890s in
research on mosaic disease of tobacco and foot and mouth disease in cattle. Increasing interest
was also shown in colloid chemistry (mixtures of chemicals that do not dissolve in each other) as
a possible source of the activity of cellular material, or protoplasm. Proteins formed colloids in
water, it was discovered, and they had a molecular weight in excess of anything previously
discovered. Viruses were thought to be proteins. Enzymes in particular, which catalysed
reactions in other proteins, were considered important. Some, such as Harvard biochemist
Leonard Troland, saw the first life form as an autocatalytic protein enzyme, or in simple terms, a
protein that caused reactions that generated more copies of itself. {Farley 157-159}
Felix D'Hrelle commenced studies in 1917 on dysentery in which he discovered bacteriophages,
viruses that appeared to eat cells, that could lyse, or rupture, dysentery bacteria. He argued that
viruses were living principles, parasites of bacteria, but not cellular, which seemed to overthrow
as a general rule Virchow's dictum. He himself thought that the original living thing was a virus,
and that it was composed of protein as a "micella" or thread. He thought that plant and animal
life each arose separately from these micellae. The view was influential. {Farley 160-162}
At the same time, genetics was getting well underway, and Hermann Joseph Muller, the
American geneticist, stated in 1921 that genes and viruses were the same thing, only viruses
were "little else than the gene". In 1935, Wendell Stanley showed that viruses, in this case the
same tobacco mosaic virus studied in the 1890s, was an autocatalytic protein that made us of the
cellular machinery for reproduction. Further work showed it was not a pure protein, but a
mixture of protein and nucleic acid. For this, he won the 1946 Nobel Prize for chemistry,
showing that a pure chemical substance could behave as if alive. {Magner 318f}

In the meantime, though, a young Russian biochemist named Aleksandr Oparin gave a lecture on
the origins of life in 1922, published as a booklet in 1924, that was to have a major impact on
future research and ideas. To his ideas and the work that followed until the present day, we now
turn.
Modern origins of life research
Oparin's book The Origin of Life in 1924, in which he proposed a chemical theory of the origin
of life, was not published in English until 1936. Prior to that, it had been relatively uninfluential
except in his native Soviet Union. Oparin (1894-1980) was personally well regarded in the
Soviet Union, and was elected early to the Academy of Sciences. He was also unfortunately
involved in the Lysenkoist debacle in Soviet genetics, and declared overtly that his views were
compatible with the "dialectical materialism" of Soviet Leninism. However, despite this, it
appears that the more important influence was the impact of colloid chemistry, then making great
strides. {Farley 162-165}
Oparin's hypothesis was this: gels arose out of colloidal solutions which reacted in a way to
cause more gels to be formed of the same chemical constitution. As the material in the
surrounding watery medium diminished,"the more strongly and bitterly the struggle for existence
was waged", so that gels either became "cannabilistic" or evolved to become autotrophs
(organisms that metabolise non-living material, such as algae). {Farley 163}
He reasoned that if the early atmosphere lacked free oxygen, which is a product of plant
respiration, simple organic compounds formed by vulcanism or lightning, containing the
chemical elements that make up life - Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen - would not be
destroyed, but would accumulate, forming a broth of organic molecules. {Schopf 121}
Before Oparin's work became known, the English biochemist J. B. S. Haldane, who had since
1923 been working on enzymes, wrote his paper in 1929, published in The Rationalist Annual,
on the origin of life, in which he stated that, as a result of biochemistry, "since his [Pasteur's]
death the gap between life and matter has been greatly narrowed", and, influenced by d'Hrelle,
thought that the bacteriophage was a "step beyond the enzyme on the road to life, but it is
perhaps an exaggeration to call it fully alive". The precursors of life were like viruses, due to
anaerobic fermentation for millions of years. {Farley 163-164}
Despite many arguments, largely theoretical but with some experimental work, spontaneous
generation remained a viable option for the origins of life - for abiogenesis - but it was a very
confused field. What caused it to change and become focused was the publication on 23 April
1953 of Crick and Watson's Nature paper on the structure of DNA. Three weeks later, a graduate
student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller published a paper in Science, on 15
May, entitled "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions".

Miller was a doctoral student of Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey (a chemist who discovered
deuterium), after he heard a lecture by Urey in which he noted in passing that earth's primordial
hydrogen-rich (reducing) atmosphere would have been favourable for the formation of simple
organic molecules. {Schopf 123} He decided, with Urey's permission, to test this, assuming an
atmosphere of molecular hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water vapour
(H2O). Neither Urey nor Miller knew at this point that this was in line with Oparin's hypothesis,
but as he prepared for the experiments, Miller read Oparin and mulled it over, along with Urey's
hypotheses on the formation of the solar system. {Schopf 125}
He passed the atmosphere through a glass retort, continuously cycling it for several days, while
exposing it to heat, electrical arcing, and cooling. After two days, the "ocean" (a flask of water
through which the gases were passed) became pale yellow, and on analysis this turned out to be
glycine, the simplest amino acid. They repeated the experiment for a week, and in the final
yellow-brown solution, Miller detected seven amino acids, including three (glycine, anine and
aspartic acid) found in modern living systems. In a period of three and a half months, Miller had
confirmed Urey's and Oparin's hypotheses on the formation of the precursor molecules of life.
The claim was never that life had been made, but only that the necessary molecules for life could
form spontaneously. Since Whler synthesised urea in 1828, this was becoming an inevitable
conclusion - the molecular nature of life was more and more widely accepted and applied. Now
there was no need to think that organic molecules had to come from organic systems. Later
experiments use a more realistic atmosphere, replacing methane with carbon monoxide or
dioxide (CO or CO2), or ammonia with molecular nitrogen (N2), with similar results.
An alternative to the Oparin-Miller model was proposed by Gnter Wchtershuser, who
suggested that carbon oxides released from deep sea vents could stabilise on iron-sulphates,
reacting with molecular hydrogen to form organic monomers (simple molecular units) from
which life could form. Others have included the roles of clay substrates as catalytic templates for
molecules to form on before there were genes, the formation of organic molecules in space (now
well-established) seeding the early earth, and a formal model by Manfred von Eigen of how
chemical reactions might generate copies of themselves - the hypercycle.
Sidney Fox successfully synthesised coascervate "cells" (a coascervate is a mixture of colloids
that can, like lipids in modern cells, form a layer that will enclose molecules, but which can
allow monomers to pass across it). These will, under some conditions, divide as they "grow" to
form new cells.
There has been considerable progress made in recent years - the "Modern origins of life
references" gives citations, but it is a complex and rapidly moving field.
Conclusions

1. In the initial period of biology it was assumed that life was a special
substance, and that it could generate living beings directly. As research into
the lifecycles of animals, plants and diseases progressed, it became obvious
that modern living forms were always observed to form from existing living
forms, and that cells always came from existing cells.
2. At the same time, it became increasingly obvious that the gap between living
things at the chemical level and non-living molecules was decreasing, until it
became clear in the mid-20th century that all processes of living things were
chemical, and there was no "vital principle" needed for life.
3. Opposition to abiogenesis has sometimes been due to philosophical or
religious principles, but also the state of scientific knowledge at the time.
However, it is not feasible now, with our increasing knowledge of the
chemistry of life and of prebiotic earth.
4. None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation
disproved abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that
modern organisms (mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases
out of nonliving material. Most of the experiments against spontaneous
generation were posed against heterogenesis, the doctrine that life could
form from the decayed products of living organisms.
5. Pasteur did not disprove the origin of life by natural means, and the saying
"all cells from cells" was not intended to cover the initial period of life on
earth. Darwin did not propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning.
6. Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living
beings, only the process of change once life exists. However, many have
thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life,
which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the
origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne
up or not as research proceeds.

Abiogenesis (diucapkan [eba.dnss] AY-by-oh-JEN--siss[1]) atau biopoiesis adalah studi

mengenai bagaimana kehidupan biologis dapat muncul dari materi anorganik melalui proses
alami. Secara khusus, istilah ini biasanya merujuk kepada proses saat kehidupan di Bumi
muncul. Abiogenesis diperkirakan terjadi pada masa awal Eoarkean atau sekitar 4 hingga 3,5
miliar tahun yang lalu.
Sebagian besar asam amino, yang sering dijuluki "bahan dasar kehidupan", berhasil disintesiskan
dalam percobaan Miller-Urey dan percobaan lain yang menyimulasikan kondisi awal Bumi.
Bahan biokimia lain yang penting seperti nukleotida dan sakarida dapat muncul dengan cara
yang mirip. Dalam semua organisme, bahan biokimia tersebut diorganisasi menjadi molekul
yang lebih kompleks, seperti protein, polisakarida, dan asam nukleat. Tiga molekul tersebut
penting untuk fungsi kehidupan dan ada di semua organisme. Pembentukan makromolekul
tersebut diperantarai oleh asam nukleat dan enzim, yang disintesis melalui jalur biokimia yang

dikatalis oleh protein. Molekul organik mana yang pertama muncul dan bagaimana mereka
membentuk organisme pertama masih diperdebatkan.
Kehidupan pertama yang muncul di bumi diduga merupakan prokariot bersel-satu yang mungkin
berevolusi dari protobion (molekul organik yang dikelilingi oleh struktur mirip membran).[2]
Fosil mikroba tertua tercatat berasal dari 3,5 miliar tahun yang lalu, sekitar satu miliar tahun
setelah pembentukan Bumi.[3][4] Pada masa 2,4 miliar tahun yang lalu, rasio isotop karbon, besi,
dan sulfur menunjukkan pengaruh kehidupan terhadap mineral dan sedimen anorganik[5][6] dan
penanda molekular menunjukkan terjadinya fotosintesis.[7][8]
Abiogenesis modern (yang pertama dicetuskan oleh Oparin dan Haldane pada tahun 1920-an)
berbeda dari abiogenesis klasik alias generatio spontanea (pembentukan spontan). Salah satu
perbedaannya yang paling mendasar adalah abiogenesis modern merupakan penjelasan mengenai
asal-usul fenomena kehidupan sementara abiogenesis klasik yang diutarakan oleh Aristoteles
menjelaskan bagaimana sebagian hewan/tumbuhan tertentu (tampak) secara rutin muncul tanpa
melalui reproduksi. Perbedaan lainnya adalah dari segi mekanisme: abiogenesis modern
didasarkan pada pengetahuan biokimia modern sementara abiogenesis klasik didasarkan pada
konsep-konsep klasik seperti prinsip material ( /h hylik arkh), prinsip gerakan (
/h kinousa arkh) dan prinsip ruh ( /psykhiks arkhs).
Ketidakterbuktiannya abiogenesis klasik sekarang sudah tidak kontroversial lagi di kalangan
biologiwan profesional, sementara abiogenesis modern merupakan bidang riset yang masih aktif
(hipotesis yang paling banyak diterima dewasa ini adalah Hipotesis Dunia-RNA).
Daftar isi
[sembunyikan]
1 Pembentukan spontan (Generatio Spontanea)
2 Pembentukan spontan dan pembuktian bahwa teori Generatio Spontanea
salah
3 Referensi
4 Bacaan lanjutan
5 Pranala luar
Pembentukan spontan (Generatio Spontanea)[sunting | sunting sumber]

Generatio Spontanea alias abiogenesis klasik pertama kali dirumuskan secara tuntas oleh
Aristoteles. Dalam bukunya, Historia Animalium, Aristoteles menyatakan:

"Nah terdapat satu sifat hewan yang ternyata sama dengan tumbuhan. Karena beberapa
tumbuhan dihasilkan oleh benih tumbuhan, sementara tumbuhan yang lain muncul sendiri dari
pembentukan suatu prinsip elemental yang menyerupai benih; dan tumbuhan yang jenis kedua
inipun ada yang menyerap gizi dari tanah dan ada yang tumbuh di dalam tumbuhan lainnya
sebagaimana dideskripsikan dalam traktat saya mengenai Botani. Maka hewan juga ada yang
dilahirkan oleh hewan induk yang sejenis, sementara yang lainnya tumbuh secara spontan dan
bukan dari makhluk yang sejenis."[9]
dan memberikan contoh di buku tersebut:
"Belut tidak dihasilkan melalui persetubuhan, tidak pula ovipar. Tidak pernah ada belut yang
ditangkap yang memiliki milt ataupun telur; tidak pernah pula ditemukan belut yang memiliki
saluran ataupun saluran telur. Bahkan, semua jenis makhluk hidup berdarah ini tidak dihasilkan
melalui senggama ataupun bertelur. Hal ini secara absolut diperjelas oleh hal berikut ini: di
genangan rawa tertentu, setelah semua airnya dibuang dan lumpurnya dikuras, belut-belutnya
muncul kembali setelah turunnya hujan."
Pembentukan spontan dan pembuktian bahwa teori Generatio Spontanea
salah[sunting | sunting sumber]

Sampai pada abad ke-19 banyak ilmuwan sebagaimana orang Yunani kuno percaya bahwa benda
hidup dapat secara spontan muncul dari benda mati suatu proses yang disebut Generatio
spontanea. Aristoteles mengemukakan bahwa suatu makhluk hidup dapat berasal dari organisme
yang sama sekali berbeda atau dari tanah.
Variasi konsep pembentukan spontan (spontaneous generation) masih ada sampai akhir abad ke17, tetapi menjelang akhir abad tersebut, sejumlah observasi dan argumen yang menentang
pandangan tersebut mulai terbentuk. Kemajuan sains ini mendapat tantangan keras terutama oleh
mereka yang masih percaya pada teori abiogenesis.
Francesco Redi, seorang dokter Italia, membuktikan pada tahun 1668 bahwa bentuk kehidupan
yang lebih tinggi tidak muncul secara spontan, tetapi para penganut abiogenesis mengatakan
bahwa hal itu tidak berlaku bagi microba dan terus berpegang bahwa mikroba dapat muncul
secara spontan. upaya untuk membuktikan teori abiogenesis ini salah berlanjut pada abad ke-19
melalui observasi dan percobaan oleh Franz Schulze dan Theodor Schwann.
Pada tahun 1745, John Needham menempatkan sup kaldu ayam ke dalam sebuah tabung gelas,
memanasi sampai mendidih, kemudian mendinginkan dan membiarkannya beberapa waktu.
Ternyata muncul mikroba dan ini dianggapnya bukti dari pembentukan spontan. Namun, pada
tahun 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani mengulangi percobaan Needham, tetapi memompa keluar
semua udara dari tabung gelas. Tidak ada pertumbuhan makhluk hidup apapun.[10]

Pada tahun 1854, Heinrich Schrder (18101885) dan Theodor von Dusch mengulangi
percobaan filtrasi Hermann von Helmholtz (Schrder melakukan lagi sendirian pada tahun 1859)
dan membuktikan bahwa partikel-partikel benda hidup dapat dipisahkan dari udara dengan
menyaringnya melalui kain katun.[11]
Pada tahun 1864, Louis Pasteur mengumumkan hasil percobaan ilmiahnya. Dalam percobaan
yang mirip dengan apa yang dilakukan sebelumnya oleh Needham dan Spallanzani, Pasteur
membuktikan bahwa kehidupan tidak bisa muncul pada tempat-tempat yang tidak terkontaminasi
oleh kehidupan. Hasil penelitian Pasteur dapat disarikan dalam frase Omne vivum ex vivo, bahasa
Latin untuk "semua kehidupan berasal dari kehidupan".[12][13]
Setelah memperoleh hasil ini Pasteur menyatakan: "La gnration spontane est une chimre"
("pembentukan spontan adalah sebuah impian").
Gk. A = tidak ; bios = hidup ; genesis = kelahiran) Suatu istilah tentang asal-usul kehidupan dibumi yang
menyatakan bahwa sesuatu yang menghasilkan zat hidup berasal dari bahan yang tidak hidup, atau
sebagai generasi spontaneo, suatu teori Abiogenesis yang dimunculkan setelah abad ke-19 yang
menyatakan bahwa mikroorganisme atau organisme yang lebih tinggi dapat terjadi dari materi yang
tidak hidup. teori Abiogenesis didukung oleh Teori Urey (Harold Urey, 1893), Teori Oparin (AI Oparin,
1936), Percobaan Staley Miller (1953), dan percobaan Shilly B. Foks.

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Sampai sekarang belum ada seorangpun yang berhasil memecahkan masalah bagaimana asal
kehidupan di bumi ini. Banyak teori atau faham yang diajukan, tapi sampai sekarang belum memberikan

jawaban yang memuaskan. Usaha manusia untuk mengetahui bagaimana dan darimana asal kehidupan
sudah dimulai sejak jaman Yunani kuno, tetapi kebanyakan hanya berupa mitos.
Beberapa teori yang pernah diajukan untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut diantaranya adalah:
1. Teori Kreasi Khas (Special Creation) : menyatakan bahwa kehidupan diciptakan oleh suatu zat
supranatural
2. Teori Mantap : menyatakan bahwa kehidupan tidak berasal-usul (keadaan mantap)
3. Teori Kosmozoan : menyatakan bahwa kehidupan berasal dari spora kehidupan yang datangnya
dari luar angkasa
4. Teori Generatio Spontanea : menyatakan bahwa makhluk hidup tercipta secara mendadak
(spontan).
5. Teori Abiogenesis : menyatakan bahwa makhluk hidup berasal dari benda tak hidup. (Teori ini
sering rancu dengan Generatio Spontanea, sehingga sering dikatakan bahwa menurut teori
Abiogenesis makhluk hidup berasal dari benda tak hidup yang terjadi secara spontan.
Sebenarnya ini dua teori yang berbeda)
6. Teori Biogenesis : menyatakan bahwa makhluk hidup berasal dari makhluk hidup sebelumnya
7. Teori Naturalistik/Evolusi Organik/Neoabiogenesis/Oportunistik : menyatakan bahwa
kehidupan tercipta melalui proses evolusi kimia dan evolusi biologi berdasarkan pada konsep
biologi modern.
Teori yang dikemukakan Aristoteles ini menyatakan bahwa makhluk hidup tercipta dari benda tak
hidup yang berlangsung secara spontan (generatio spontanea). Misalnya cacing dari tanah, ikan dari
lumpur, dan sebagainya. Teori ini dianut oleh banyak orang selama beberapa abad.
Aristoteles (384-322 SM), adalah seorang filsuf dan tokoh ilmu pengetahuan Yunani Kuno. Sebenarnya
dia mengetahui bahwa telur-telur ikan yang menetas akan menjadi ikan yang sifatnya sama seperti
induknya. Telur-telur tersebut merupakan hasil perkawinan dari induk-induk ikan. Walau demikian,
Aristoteles berkeyakinan bahwa ada ikan yang berasal dari Lumpur.

Menurut penganut paham teori abiogenesis, makhluk hidup tersebut terjadi begitu saja secara
spontan. Itu sebabnya, teori abiogenesis ini disebut juga generation spontanea. Bila pengertian teori
abiogenesis dan generation spontanea digabung, maka konsepnya menjadi: makhluk hidup yang
pertama kali di bumi berasal dari benda mati / tak hidup yang terjadinya secara spontan (sebenarnya ini
adalah dua teori yang berbeda, tetapi orang sudah kadung salah kaprah).
Paham teori abiogenesis bertahan cukup lama, yaitu semenjak zaman Yunani Kuno (ratusan tahun
sebelum Masehi) hingga pertengahan abad ke-17, dimana Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek menemukan
mikroskop sederhana yang dapat digunakan untuk mengamati makhluk-makhluk aneh yang amat kecil
yang terdapat pada setetes air rendaman jerami. Oleh para pendukung paham teori abiogenesis, hasil
pengamatan Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek ini seolah-olah memperkuat pendapat mereka tentang teori
abiogenesis. Hasil pengamatan Anthoni ditulisnya dalam sebuah catatan ilmiah yang diberi judul Living
in a drop of water. Tokoh lain pendukung teori ini adalah John Needham.
Menurut teori Abiogenesis, makhluk hidup berasal dari benda tidak hidup atau dengan kata lain
makhluk hidup ada dengan sendirinya. Oleh karena makhluk itu ada dengan sendirinya maka teori ini
dikenal juga dengan teori Generatio Spontanea. Aristoteles merupakan salah satu pelopor teori ini,
dengan percobaan yang dilakukannya pada tanah yang direndam air akan muncul cacing. Pendukung
lain teori Abiogenesis adalah Nedham, seorang ilmuwan dari Inggris. Nedham melakukan penelitian
dengan merebus kaldu dalam wadah selama beberapa menit kemudian ditutup dengan gabus. Setelah
beberapa hari, terdapat bakteri dalam kaldu tersebut. Nedham berpendapat bahwa bakteri berasal
dari kaldu.
Setelah ditemukan mikroskop, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek melihat adanya mikroorganisme
(animalculus) di dalam air rendaman jerami. Temuan ini seolah-olah menguatkan teori Abiogenesis.
Para pendukung teori Abiogenesis menyatakan bahwa mikroorganisme itu berasal dari jerami yang
membusuk. Akan tetapi, Leeuwenhoek menolak pernyataan itu dengan mengemukakan bahwa
mikroorganisme itu berasal dari udara. Para penganut abiogenesis tersebut di atas dalam menarik
kesimpulan sebenarnya terdapat kelemahan, yaitu belum mampu melihat benda yang sangat kecil
(bakteri, kista, ataupun telur cacing) yang terbawa dalam materi percobaan yang digunakan.
Hal ini karena pada zaman Aristoteles belum ditemukan mikroskop. Walaupun ada kelemahan pada
percobaan, tetapi cara berpikir dalam mencari jawaban mengenai asal usul kehidupan di bumi ini sudah
mengacu pada pola metode ilmiah.

Francesco Redi

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Redi merupakan orang pertama yang melakukan eksperimen untuk membantah teori abiogenesis. Dia
melakukan percobaan dengan menggunakan bahan daging segar yang ditempatkan dalam labu dan
diberi perlakuan tertentu.

Labu I : diisi daging segar dan dibiarkan terbuka

Labu II : diisi daging segar dan ditutup dengan kain kasa

Labu III : diisi daging segar dan ditutup rapat

Ketiga labu diletakkan di tempat yang sama selama beberapa hari. Hasilnya adalah sebagai berikut:

Labu I : dagingnya busuk, banyak terdapat belatung

Labu II : dagingnya busuk, terdapat sedikit belatung

Labu III : dagingnya tidak busuk, tidak terdapat belatung

Menurut Redi belatung yang terdapat pada daging berasal dari telur lalat. Labu ke III tidak terdapat
belatung karena tertutup rapat sehingga lalat tidak bisa masuk. Sayangnya, meskipun tertutup rapat

ternyata pada labu tersebut bisa muncul belatung. Ini disebabkan karena Redi tidak melakukan
sterilisasi daging pada disain percobaannya.

Lazzaro Spallanzani

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Spallanzani juga melakukan percobaan untuk membantah teori abiogenesis, tetapi menggunakan
bahan kaldu. Disainnya sebagai berikut:

Labu I : diisi kaldu lalu dipanaskan dan dibiarkan terbuka

Labu II : diisi kaldu, lalu ditutup dengan gabus yang disegel dengan lilin, kemudian dipanaskan

Setelah dingin kedua labu diletakkan di tempat yang sama. Beberapa hari kemudian hasilnya sebagai
berikut.

Labu I : berubah busuk dan keruh, banyak mengandung mikroba (bakteri)

Labu II : tetap jernih, tidak mengandung mikroba

Menurut Spallanzani mikroba yang tumbuh dan menyebabkan busuknya kaldu berasal dari mikroba
yang beraada di udara. Pendukung paham abiogenesis keberatan dengan disain Spallanzani karena
menurut anggapan mereka, labu yang tertutup menyebabkan gaya hidup (elan vital) dari udara tidak
dapat masuk, sehingga tidak memungkinkan munculnya makhluk hidup (mikroba).

Louise Pasteur

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

Pasteur menyempurnakan percobaan Redi dan Spallanzani. Ia menggunakan kaldu dalam labu yang
disumbat dengan gabus. Selanjutnya gabus tersebut ditembus dengan pipa berbentuk leher angsa

(huruf S), kemudian dipanaskan. Setelah dingin dibiarkan beberapa hari kemudian diamati. Ternyata air
kaldu tetap jernih dan tidak ditemukan mikroba.
Disain pipa yang berbentuk leher angsa tersebut memungkinkan masuknya gaya hidup dari udara,
tetapi ternyata tidak didapati makhluk hidup

Pengertian Teori Abiogenesis

kaldu. Menurut Pasteur, mikroorganisme yang tumbuh dalam kaldu berasal dari udara. Mereka tidak
bisa masuk karena terhambat oleh bentuk pipa. Hal ini bisa dibuktikan bila labu dimiringkan
sedemikian rupa sehingga kaldu mengalir melalui pipa dan menyentuh ujung pipa, ternyata beberapa
hari kemudian menyebabkan busuknya kaldu.
Dengan demikian Pasteur telah membuktikan bahwa teori biogenesislah yang benar. Muncullah
ungkapan :
omne vivum ex ovo, omne ovum ex vivo, omne vivum ex vivo
yang artinya: makhluk hidup berasal dari telur, telur berasal dari makhluk hidup, makhluk hidup berasal
dari makhluk hidup.

Tokoh teori Abiogenesis adalah Aristoteles (384-322 SM). Dia adalah

seorang filosof dan tokoh ilmu pengetahuan Yunani Kuno. Teori Abiogenesis ini
menyatakan bahwa makhluk hidup yang pertama kali menghuni bumi ini berasal
dari benda mati. Paham abiogenesis bertahan cukup lama, yaitu semenjak zaman
Yunani Kuno (Ratusan Tahun Sebelum Masehi) hingga pertengahan abad ke-17.
Walaupun telah bertahan selama ratusan tahun, tidak semua orang membenarkan
paham abiogenesis. Orang orang yang ragu terhadap kebenaran paham
abiogenesis tersebut terus mengadakan penelitian memecahkan masalah tentang
asal usul kehidupan (Hartaty, 2012).

Sebagian besar ahli biologi sependapat dengan hipotesis yang menyatakan

bahwa kehidupan di atas Bumi berasal dari bahan-bahan tidak hidup yang
kemudian menjadi susunan kumpulan molekuler yang akhirnya mampu membelah
dan memperbanyak diri dan melakukan metabolisme sendiri. Sejauh yang kita
ketahui, kehidupan tidak dapat terjadi secara spontan dari bahan-bahan tak hidup
yang ada saat ini, akan tetapi keadaan sangat berbeda ketika Bumi baru berumur
satu miliar tahun. Atmosfer pada waktu itu sangat berbeda (misalnya, dulu hanya
terdapat sedikit oksigen di atmosfer), petir, aktivitas vulkanik, hujan meteorit, dan
radiasi ultraviolet semuanya dulu lebih intens (kuat) dibandingkan dengan apa yang
kita alami saat ini. Pada lingkungan masa silam itu, asal mula kehidupan terbukti
memiliki kemungkinan untuk terjadi, dan kemungkinan tahap awal kelahiran
biologis tidak dapat dihindarkan lagi. Akan tetapi, banyak sekali perdebatan
mengenai apa yang terjadi selama tahapan awal ini (Campbell, 2003).

Berdasarkan pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut di atas, teori neo abiogenesis

merupakan teori yang masih mempertahankan teori abiogenesis yang menyatakan
bahwa makhluk hidup berasal dari benda tak hidup. Perbedaan yang membedakan
abiogenesis dengan teori neo abiogenesis ialah sudah adanya ahli yang
menjelaskan bagaimana benda-benda tak hidup itu bisa berubah menjadi makhluk
hidup. Adapun para ahli atau tokoh yang mendukung teori ini yaitu Alexander
Ivanovich Oparin, Harold Urey, dan Stanley Miller. Berdasarkan tokoh-tokoh
tersebut, maka dalam teori neo abiogenesis ini mencakup 2 macam teori, yaitu
teori evolusi kimia dan teori evolusi biologi.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.

<!--[endif]-->Teori Evolusi Kimia

Para pakar biologi, astronomi, dan geologi sepakat, bahwa planet bumi ini
terbentuk kira-kira antara 4,5-5 miliar tahun yang lalu. Keadaan pada saat awal
terbentuknya sangat berbeda dengan keadaan pada saat ini. Pada saat itu suhu
planet bumi diperkirakan 4.000-8.000C. Pada saat mulai mendingin, senyawa
karbon beserta beberapa unsur logam mengembun membentuk inti bumi,
sedangkan permukaannya tetap gersang, tandus, dan tidak datar. Karena adanya
kegiatan vulkanik, permukaan bumi yang masih lunak tersebut bergerak dan
berkerut terus menerus. Ketika mendingin, kulit bumi tampak melipat-lipat dan
pecah (Anonim, 2012).
Pada saat itu, kondisi atmosfer bumi juga berbeda denagn kondisi saat ini.
Gas-gas ringan seperti Hidrogen (H2), Nitrogen (N2), Oksigen (O2), Helium (He), dan
Argon (Ar) lepas meninggalkan bumi karena gaya gravitasi bumi tidak mampu
menahannya. Di atmosfer juga terbentuk senyawa-senyawa sederhana yang
mengandung unsur-unsur tersebut, seperti uap air (H 2O), Amonia (NH3), Metan
(CH4), dan Karbondioksida (CO2). Senyawa sederhana tersebut tetap berbentuk uap
dan tertahan di lapisan atas atmosfer. Ketika suhu atmosfer turun sekitar 100C
terjadilah hujan air mendidih. Peristiwa ini berlangsung selama ribuan tahun. Dalam
keadaan semacam ini pasti bumi saat itu belum dihuni kehidupan. Namun, kondisi
semacam itu memungkinkan berlangsungnya reaksi kimia, karena tersedianya zat
(materi) dan energi yang berlimpah (Anonim, 2012).
Bagaimanakah awal kemunculan teori evolusi kimia? Pada tahun 1938,
A.I.Oparin dari Rusia dan J.B.S.Haldane dari Inggris secara sendiri-sendiri
berpostulat bahwa kondisi pada bumi primitif sesuai untuk reaksi-reaksi kimia yang
mensintesis senyawa-senyawa organik dari anorganik yang telah ada di dekat
atmosfer dan laut (Sudjadi, 2007).
Menurut Oparin dan Haldane, hal itu tidak dapat terjadi di bumi modern,
karena atmosfer saat ini banyak mengandung oksigen yang dihasilkan oleh
kehidupan fotosintetik. Atmosfer pengoksidasi yang ada saat ini tidak
memungkinkan untuk mensintesis molekul kompleks secara spontan karena oksigen
pada atmosfer akan memutuskan ikatan kimia, yang melepaskan efek elektron.
Sebelum terjadinya fotosintesis yang menghasilkan oksigen, bumi memiliki lebih
sedikit atmosfer pengoksidasi, dan sebagian besar oksigen diperoleh dari uap
vulkanik. Atmosfer pereduksi (penambah elektron) semacam itu akan meningkatkan
penggabungan molekul sederhana untuk membentuk molekul yang lebih kompleks.
Bahkan dengan atmosfer pereduksi, pembuatan molekul-molekul organik
memerlukan energi yang cukup banyak, yang mungkin terdapat pada kilat dan
radiasi UV yang menembus atmosfer primitif tersebut. Atmosfer modern memiliki
lapisan ozon yang dihasilkan dari oksigen, dan lapisan pelindung ozon ini menyaring

sebagian besar radiasi UV. Terdapat juga bukti bahwa matahari yang masih muda
memancarkan lebih banyak radiasi UV dibandingkan dengan matahari yang lebih
tua. Oparin dan Haldane membayangkan suatu dunia kuno dengan kondisi kimiawi
dan sumber daya energi yang diperlukan untuk sintesis molekul organik dari bahanbahan abiotik (Campbell, 2003).
Energi dari atmosfir purba bumi menyebabkan zatzat sederhana tersebut
mengalami serangkaian perubahan menjadi senyawa organik kompleks (polimer)
seperti asam amino, protein, gula serta asam nukleat yang merupakan building
block dari makromolekul penyusun makhluk hidup. Polimer tersebut kemudian
membentuk molekul dalam bentuk tetesan yang disebut protobion (Oparin)
(Supriatna, 2010).

Protobion/protosel
Hipotesis yang diajukan Oparin dan Haldane ini kemudian diuji oleh Harold
Urey dan muridnya, Stanley Miller di laboratorium.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.

<!--[endif]-->Harold Urey

Harold Urey adalah ahli Kimia berkebangsaan Amerika Serikat. Dia

menyatakan bahwa pada suatu saat atmosfer bumi kaya akan molekul zat seperti
Metana (CH4), Uap air (H2O), Amonia(NH2), dan karbon dioksida (CO2) yang
semuanya berbentuk uap. Karena adanya pengaruh energi radiasi sinar kosmis
serta aliran listrik halilintar terjadilah reaksi di antara zat-zat tersebut menghasilkan
zat-zat hidup. Teori evolusi Kimia dari Urey tersebut biasa dikenal dengan teori Urey
(Hartaty, 2012).

Menurut Urey, zat hidup yang pertama kali terbentuk mempunyai susunan
menyerupai virus saat ini. Zat hidup tersebut selama berjuta-juta tahun mengalami
perkembangan menjadi berbagai jenis makhluk hidup. Menurut Urey, terbentuknya
makhluk hidup dari berbagai molekul zat di atmosfer tersebut didukung kondisi
sebagai berikut:

<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->kondisi 1:tersedianya molekul-molekul Metana, Amonia, Uap air,

dan hydrogen yang sangat banyak di atmosfer bumi
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->kondisi 2:adanya bantuan energi yang timbul dari aliran listrik
halilintar dan radiasi sinar kosmis yang menyebabkan zat-zat tersebut bereaksi
membentuk molekul zat yang lebih besar,
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->kondisi 3:terbentuknya zat hidup yang paling sederhana yang
susunan kimianya dapat disamakan dengan susunan kimia virus, dan
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->kondisi 4:dalam jangka waktu yang lama (berjuta-juta tahun), zat
hidup yang terbentuk tadi berkembang menjadi sejenis organisme (makhluk hidup
yang lebih kompleks).

Kondisi-kondisi tersebut dapat kita gambarkan dalam ilustrasi berikut ini:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->(a) <!--[endif]-->atmosfer primitif mengandung beragam gas yang

dikeluarkan oleh gunung berapi. Sebagia gas tercuci dan jatuh ke laut bersama air
hujan

<!--[if !supportLists]-->(b) <!--[endif]-->energi dari letusan gunung berapi dan petir

menyebabkan gas dapat membentuk molekul organik kecil, seperti nukleotida dan
asam amino

(c) molekul-molekul organik kecil dapat bergabung membentuk protein dan asam
amino. Kedua makromolekul tersebut kemudian bergabung membentuk membran
yang mengelilingi struktur bulatan. Struktur bulatan tersebut kemudian menjadi sel
pertama yang disebut protosel. Pada akhirnya, protosel berkembang menjadi sel
sejati yang dapat bereproduksi.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->b.

<!--[endif]-->Stanley Miller

Miller adalah murid Harold Urey yang juga tertarik terhadap masalah asal
usul kehidupan. Didasarkan informasi tentang keadaan planet bumi saat awal
terbentuknya, yakni tentang keadaan suhu, gas-gas yang terdapat pada atmosfer
waktu itu, dia mendesain model alat laboratorium sederhana yang dapat digunakan
untuk membuktikan hipotesis Harold Urey (Hartaty, 2012).

Ke dalam alat yang diciptakannya, Miller memasukan gas Hidrogen, Metana,

Amonia, dan Air. Alat tersebut juga dipanasi selama seminggu, sehingga gas-gas
tersebut dapat bercampur didalamnya. Sebagai pengganti energi aliran listrik
halilintar, Miller mengaliri perangkat alat tersebut dengan loncatan listrik
bertegangan tinggi. Adanya aliran listrik bertegangan tinggi tersebut menyebabkan

gas-gas dalam alat Miller bereaksi membentuk suatu zat baru. Ke dalam perangkat
juga dilakukan pendingin, sehingga gas-gas hasil reaksi dapat mengembun
(Hartaty, 2012).

Pada akhir minggu, hasil pemeriksaan terhadap air yang tertampung dalam
perangkap embun dianalisis secar kosmografi. Ternyata air tersebut mengandung
senyawa organik sederhana, seperti asam amino, adenine, dan gula sederhana
seperti ribose. Eksperimen Miller ini dicoba beberapa pakar lain, ternyata hasilnya
sama. Bila dalam perangkat eksperimen tersebut dimasukkan senyawa fosfat,
ternyata zat-zat yang dihasilkan mengandung ATP, yakni suatu senyawa yang
berkaitan dengan transfer energi dalam kehidupan. Lembaga penelitian lain, dalam
penelitiannya menghasilkan senyawa-senyawa nukleotida (Hartaty, 2012).

Eksperimen Stanley Miller

Eksperimen Miller dapat memberikan petunjuk bahwa satuan- satuan

kompleks di dalam sistem kehidupan seperti Lipida, Karbohidrat, Asam Amino,
Protein, Nukleotida dan lain-lainnya dapat terbentuk dalam kondisi abiotik. Teori
yang terus berulang kali diuji ini diterima para ilmuwan secara luas. Namun, hingga

kini masalah utama tentang asal-usul kehidupan tetap merupakan rahasia alam
yang belum terjawab. Hasil yang mereka buktikan barulah mengetahui
terbentuknya senyawa organik secara bertahap, yakni dimulai dari bereaksinya gasgas diatmosfer purba dengan energi listrik halilintar. Selanjutnya semua senyawa
tersebut bereaksi membentuk senyawa yang lebih kompleks dan terkurung di
lautan. Akhirnya membentuk senyawa yang merupakan komponen sel (Hartaty,
2012).

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.

<!--[endif]-->Teori Evolusi Biologi

Alexander Ivanovich Oparin adalah Ilmuwan Rusia. Didalam bukunya yang

berjudul The Origin of Life (Asal Usul Kehidupan). Oparin menyatakan bahwa pada
suatu ketika atmosfer bumi kaya akan senyawa uap air, CO 2, CH4, NH3, dan
Hidrogen. Karena adanya energi radiasi benda-benda angkasa yang amat kuat,
seperti sinar Ultraviolet, memungkinkan senyawa-senyawa sederhana tersebut
membentuk senyawa organik atau senyawa hidrokarbon yang lebih kompleks.
Proses reaksi tersebut berlangsung di lautan (Anonim, 2012).

Senyawa kompleks yang mula-mula terbentuk diperkirakan senyawa aseperti

Alkohol (H2H5OH), dan senyawa asam amino yang paling sederhana. Selama
berjuta-juta tahun, senyawa sederhana tersebut bereaksi membentuk senyawa
yang lebih kompleks, Gliserin, Asam organik, Purin dan Pirimidin. Senyawa kompleks
tersebut merupakan bahan pembentuk sel (Anonim, 2012).
Menurut Oparin senyawa kompleks tersebut sangat berlimpah di lautan
maupun di permukaan daratan. Adanya energi yang berlimpah, misalnya sinar
Ultraviolet, dalam jangka waktu yang amat panjang memungkinkan lautan menjadi
timbunan senyawa organik yang merupakan sop purba atau Sop Primordial
(Anonim, 2012).
Senyawa kompleks yang tertimbun membentuk sop purba di lautan tersebut
selanjutnya berkembang sehingga memiliki kemampuan dan sifat sebagai berikut:
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->memiliki sejenis membran yang mampu memisahkan
ikatan-ikatan kompleks yang terbentuk dengan molekul-molekul organik yang
terdapat di sekelilingnya;
<!--[if !supportLists]-->
<!--[endif]-->memiliki kemampuan untuk menyerap dan
mengeluarkan molekul-molekul dari dan ke sekelilingnya;
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->memiliki kemampuan untuk memanfaatkan molekulmolekul yang diserap sesuai dengan pola-pola ikatan didalamnya;
<!--[if !supportLists]--> <!--[endif]-->mempunyai kemampuan untuk memisahkan bagianbagian dari ikatan-ikatannya. Kemampuan semacam ini oleh para ahli dianggap
sebagai kemampuan untuk berkembang biak yang pertama kali.

Senyawa kompleks dengan sifat-sifat tersebut diduga sebagai kehidupan yang

pertama kali terbentuk. Jadi senyawa kompleks yang merupakan perkembangan
dari sop purba tersebut telah memiliki sifat-sifat hidup seperti nutrisi, ekskresi,
mampu mengadakan metabolisme, dan mempunyai kemampuan memperbanyak
diri atau reproduksi (Anonim, 2012).

Walaupun dengan adanya senyawa-senyawa sederhana serta energi yang

berlimpah sehingga di lautan berlimpah senyawa organik yang lebih kompleks,
namun Oparin mengalami kesulitan untuk menjelaskan mengenai mekanisme
transformasi dari molekul-molekul protein sebagai benda tak hidup ke benda hidup.
Bagaimana senyawa-senyawa organik sop purba tersebut dapat memiliki
kemampuan seperti tersebut diatas ? Oparin menjelaskan sebagai berikut:

Protein sebagai suatu senyawa, dapat membentuk kompleks koloid hidrofil

(menyerap air), sehingga molekul protein tersebut dibungkus oleh molekul air.

Gumpalan senyawa kompleks tersebut dapat lepas dari cairan di mana dia berada
dan membentuk emulsi. Penggabunagn struktur emulsi ini akan menghasilkan
koloid yang terpisah dari fase cair dan membentuk timbunan gumpalan atau
Koaservat (Anonim, 2012).

Timbunan Koaservat yang kaya berbagai kompleks organik tersebut

memungkinkan terjadinya pertukaran substansi dengan lingkungannya. Di samping
itu secara selektif gumpalan Koaservat tersebut memusatkan senyawa-senyawa lain
ke dalamnya terutama Kristaloid. Komposisi gumpalan koloid tersebut bergantung
kepada komposisi mediumnya. Dengan demikian, perbedaan komposisi medium
akan menyebabkan timbulnya variasi pada komposisi sop purba. Variasi komposisi
sop purba di berbagai areal akan mengarah kepada terbentuknya komposisi kimia
Koaservat yang merupakan penyedia bahan mentah untuk proses biokimia
(Anonim, 2012).

Tahap selanjutnya substansi didalam Koaservat membentuk enzim. Di

sekeliling perbatasan antara Koaservat dengan lingkungannya terjadi penjajaran
molekul-molekul Lipida dan protein sehingga terbentuklah selaput sel primitif.
Terbentuknya selaput sel primitif ini memungkinkan memberikan stabilitas pada
koaservat. Dengan demikian, kerjasama antara molekul-molekul yang telah ada
sebelumnya yang dapat mereplikasi diri ke dalam koaservat dan pengaturan
kembali Koaservat yang terbungkus lipida amat mungkin akan menghasilkan sel
primitif. Kemampuan koaservat untuk menyerap zat-zat dari medium
memungkinkan bertambah besarnya ukuran koaservat. Kemungkinan selanjutnya
memungkinkan terbentuknya organisme Heterotropik yang mampu mereplikasi diri
dan mendapatkan bahan makanan dari sop Primordial yang kaya akan zat-zat
organik (Anonim, 2012).

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Anonim. 2012. Asal Usul Kehidupan. http://www.scribd.com/doc /57518271 /ASAL-USULKEHIDUPAN. Diakses pada tanggal 13 Maret 2012
Campbell, Neil A, Jane B Reece, dan Lawrence G. Mitchell. 2003. Biologi Edisi V Jilid II.
Jakarta: Erlangga
Hartaty,
Amelin
dkk.
2012.
Asal
Usul
Kehidupan.
http://www.scribd.
com/doc/29975550/ASAL-USUL-KEHIDUPAN. Diakses pada tanggal 13 Maret 2012

Sudjadi, Bagod dan Sitti Laila. 2007. Biologi:Sains dalam Kehidupan. Surabaya: Yudhistira
Supriatna, Jatna. 2010. Asal Usul Kehidupan, Evolusi, dan Keanekaragaman Hayati.
http://www.freedom-institute.org /pdf/20101111-Kuliah-umum-Asal-usul-KehidupanJSU.pdf. Diakses pada tanggal 13 Maret 2012

By Muliana G. H., S. Pd - 2015

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

RELATED POSTS :

Teori Evolusi Beruang Teori Evolusi Beruang Biologi. Perkembangan

evolusi beruang sampai saat ini masih dalam penelitian oleh ahli palaentologi dan zoologi. B Read
More...

Asal Usul Kehidupan-Biologi

{behavior:url(#default#VML);}

w\:*

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*

{behavior:url(#default#VML);}

.shape

{behavior:url(#default#VML Read More...

Teori Neo Abiogenesis

TEORI NEO-ABIOGENESIS Tokoh teori

Abiogenesis adalah Aristoteles (384-322 SM). Dia adalah seorang filosof dan tokoh ilmu
pengetahuan Yun Read More...

Evolusi Gajah

BAB I PENDAHULUAN A. Latar Belakang Evolusi

merupakan salah satu cabang biologi yang membahas tentang perubahan yang terjadi pada
Read More...

Teori

Evolusi

{behavior:url(#default#VML);}

w\:*

v\:*

{behavior:url(#default#VML);}

{behavior:url(#default#VML);}

o\:*

.shape

{behavior:url(#default#VML Read More...

0 RESPONSE TO "TEORI NEO ABIOGENESIS"

Poskan Komentar
Posting Lebih Baru Posting Lama Beranda

Langganan: Poskan Komentar (Atom)

Kontributor
Arsip

Kontributor

Muliana GH-biologylovers

ahmad dahlan

Popular Posts

Reproduksi Anjing
REPRODUKSI ANJING (Canis lupus familiaris) Latar Belakang Kajian Reproduksi Anjing
Bilogimu . Setiap makhluk hidup tentunya...

Laporan Praktikum Bioteknologi Nata de Coco

Laporan Praktikum Bioteknologi Proses Pembuatan Nata de Coco Bab I Pendahuluan A.
Latar Belakang Biologimu.com Bioteknolol...

Asal Usul Kehidupan-Biologi

Asal Usul Kehidupan-Biologi Biologimu.com . Teori tentang asal usul kehidupan senantiasa
berkembang. Aristoteles berteori bahwa mahlu...

Laporan Praktikum Bioteknologi Yoghurt

Laporan Praktikum Bioteknologi Proses Pembuatan Yoghurt Bab I Pendahuluan A. Latar
Belakang Biologimu.com Bioteknologi ...

Pertumbuhan & Perkembangan pada Tumbuhan

Pertumbuhan dan perkembangan pada tumbuhan Biologimu.com . Tumbuh dan
berkembang merupakan salah satu ciri mahluk hidup. Pertumuhan...

Pengaruh Faktor Lingkungan terhadap Laju Transpirasi (Laporan)

Pengaruh Faktor Lingkungan terhadap Laju Transpirasi (Laporan) BAB I PENDAHULUAN A.
Latar Belakang Biologimu.com Transpirasi...

Kajian Filsafat Selat Gibraltar

Kajian Filsafat Selat Gibraltar Mengapa Pertemu an Jenis Air Laut Di Selat Gibraltar Terjadi
Perbedaan Warna? Biologimu . Di Selat ...

Arsip

2015 (147)

Desember (11)

November (4)

Juni (18)

Mei (14)

April (9)

Maret (19)

Februari (38)

Januari (34)

Istilah dalam Anatomi

Pisces

Invertebrata

Istilah pada Invertebrata

Vertebrata

Coelenterata

Porifera

Annelida

Spesiasi

Evolusi Molekuler

Variabilitas (Keanekaragaman)

Evolusi dan Agama

Ubi Jalar Transgenik

Teori Neo Darwinisme

Tomat Transgenik (Flavr Savr)

Teori Neo Abiogenesis

Fosil Kuda

Mengapa perlu mematikan lampu sebelum tidur?

Sistem Hormon (Endokrin)

Protista Mirip Hewan (Protozoa)

Mengapa Kita Tersenyum?

Mengapa kita menguap?

Protista Mirip Tumbuhan (Alga)

Bagaimana Semut Berkomunikasi ?

Mengapa Gunung Meletus?

Ada Apa dengan Cinta

Sistem Integumen

Zat Makanan

Mutasi

Protista 1

Penanganan Sampah Laboratorium

Manajemen Laboratorium

Keselamatan Kerja Lab

Alat-Alat Laboratorium

2012 (32)

September (1)

Juli (1)

Mei (3)

April (16)

Januari (11)

2011 (38)

Desember (10)

November (1)

Oktober (9)

September (10)

April (3)

Maret (5)

Situs Rujukan

Eureka Pendidikan

Liburan Dzargon

Fisika Sehari_Hari

Total Tayangan Laman

Dikelolah Oleh: Pendidikan Biologi I Ahmaddahlan.net - Wanita

Powered by Blogger.com I Eurekapendidikan.com