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.

(drag each tile to the correct identify which questions can be answered by what can be answered by science or which cannot. -is it right or wrong to use genetic engineering to produce new food products? -what are the most common social settings that tend to produce accomplished artists? -if a new gene is added to the genome of a tomato species, will that species be more resistant to insects? -should humans use biotechnology to bring extinct organisms from the fossil record back to life? -do the types of organisms found in the fossil record appear in consistent sequences in different parts of the world? -are michelangelo's paintings more impressive than rembrandt's?

What is the most appropriate method of gaining weight (muscle mass)

Which phase of the cell cycle ensures that identical copies of the dna are made for daughter cells?