plato G all of the above
"Evidence". There's no special term to distinguish evidence supporting one theory in science from evidence supporting any other theory in science.
Because there's supporting evidence for it. Lots of supporting evidence. Overwhelming, awe-inspiring amounts of supporting evidence.A scientific theory is not just a guess. My chemistry teacher explained it this way: a theory is something we can explain (the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity). A law is something we can't explain (the law of gravity. We know it works, we're just not sure exactly why or how).Charles Darwin spent years developing his hypothesis of natural selection. There is ample evidence supporting his final theory, some found long after his death. To this day, archeologists still find fossil evidence that fits into Darwin's explanation of changing species.
It is no longer Darwin's theory, as Darwin has been dead about 130 years. There are no credible alternatives to the modern theory of evolution by natural selection. So, the differences is; the theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by myriad lines of converging evidence and explains the natural phenomenon that is evolution very well. The " conflicting theories " have no evidence supporting them and explain nothing.
Those terms need to be done away with. There is no such division in the theory of evolution by natural selection, even in Darwin's time. There is evolution and speciation. One flows seamlessly into the other over time and we have myriad pieces of evidence supporting this.
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.
for all using Plato the answer is G) all of the above.
"Evidence". There's no special term to distinguish evidence supporting one theory in science from evidence supporting any other theory in science.
There is no evidence supporting it, and all the more evidence supporting the less controversial models of human evolution, based on evolutionary theory.
Because there's supporting evidence for it. Lots of supporting evidence. Overwhelming, awe-inspiring amounts of supporting evidence.A scientific theory is not just a guess. My chemistry teacher explained it this way: a theory is something we can explain (the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity). A law is something we can't explain (the law of gravity. We know it works, we're just not sure exactly why or how).Charles Darwin spent years developing his hypothesis of natural selection. There is ample evidence supporting his final theory, some found long after his death. To this day, archeologists still find fossil evidence that fits into Darwin's explanation of changing species.
It is no longer Darwin's theory, as Darwin has been dead about 130 years. There are no credible alternatives to the modern theory of evolution by natural selection. So, the differences is; the theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by myriad lines of converging evidence and explains the natural phenomenon that is evolution very well. The " conflicting theories " have no evidence supporting them and explain nothing.
Those terms need to be done away with. There is no such division in the theory of evolution by natural selection, even in Darwin's time. There is evolution and speciation. One flows seamlessly into the other over time and we have myriad pieces of evidence supporting this.
The witness provided a corroborating statement that supported the victim's account of the incident.
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.
That the theory of evolution by natural selection fits the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is based on myriad lives of converging evidence and is the best explanation we have for the adaptive changes leading to speciation in populations of organisms.
When the evolutionary theory was first proposed, people didn't believe it. Often, religion and evolution contradict themselves and even today, there are many people who favor creationism over evolution.
The four sources of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution are fossils, the development of life forms, changes over life forms over the years and the way in which related species are distributed across the world.
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.