Question

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 are some scientists skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion? the results are different from the scientific consensus. the conclusion shows the scientist is not open-minded. the results will be difficult for scientists to reproduce. the conclusion needs to be supported by more evidence.

Answer 1

The conclusion needs to be backed up by more evidences only then scientists make a claim.

Finding one type of bacteria that can survive in an oxygen-free environment does not prove that many other organisms can as well. It is important to understand the biological processes that give organisms the traits that enable them to live in settings devoid of oxygen. More data from many groups of species are required to support the statement.

In what all conditions can bacteria thrive?

Although bacteria can survive at higher and lower temperatures than humans, they thrive in an environment that is warm, wet, protein-rich, and pH neutral or slightly acidic. However, there are several exceptions. While certain bacteria can survive in extremely hot or cold environments, others can endure excessively acidic or salty environments. The danger zone, or the temperature range between 41 and 135 degrees Fahrenheit, is where most pathogenic bacteria thrive.

To learn more about anaerobic bacteria:

brainly.com/question/11451338

#SPJ4