Deeeechie
contestada

Scientific consensus supports the idea that living organisms require oxygen. Then, a scientist discovers a type of bacteria that metabolizes sulfur instead of oxygen, and thus survives in environments without oxygen. The scientist concludes that a diverse group of many different organisms could live in an oxygen-free environment. Why should are some scientists skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion?

Respuesta :

CharlieStryker

Scientific consensus supports the idea that living organisms require oxygen. Then, a scientist discovers a type of bacteria that metabolizes sulfur instead of oxygen, and thus survives in environments without oxygen. The scientist concludes that a diverse group of many different organisms could live in an oxygen-free environment.


The reason why some scientist should be skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion is to evaluate experimental procedures and it also helps scientists recognize when ideas are not supported by evidence. This is the way that this theory can become a scientific consensus.


I hope it helps, Regards.

JcAlmighty
The answer is that the conclusion needs to be supported by more evidence.

It is not enough to find some type of bacteria that can live in an oxygen-free environment to conclude there are many different organisms that also can. It is necessary to know what mechanisms of the organisms are responsible for such characteristics that help them  survive in environments without oxygen. There must be more evidence from different group of organisms that will confirm the conclusion.