0
On a basis of similar body structures scientist hypothesize that two species are closely related. what other evidence would the scientist look for to support their hypothesis.?
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What evidence supports his hypothesis?
The evidence that supports wegeners hypothesis is the fossil evidence
What is the liberation hypothesis?
Liberation hypothesis is hypothesis impliying that when the strength of the evidence against a defendant is weak, jurors are free to rely on nonlegal information to inform their decision.
A hypothesis that is supported by evidence gathered in the research process is called a what?
Apex: conclusion
What evolution has produced many of the analogous structures in organisms today?
They don't. Homologous structures provide evidence for evolution not analogous structures.
What is the study that can provide evidence of evolution?
Fossils, patterns of early development, similar body structures, DNA, and protein structures.
What is the evidence that scientist gather to test a hypothesis?
Data
When the evidence in a scientific experiment does not support the hypothesis what should the scientist do?
When the evidence in a scientific experiment does not support the hypothesis the scientist:Confirm through repeated experimentation that the evidence is validReject the hypothesisDevelop another hypothesis that is consistent with the valid evidence
What does it mean if a scientist fails to rejects a hypothesis?
the hypothesis has not been proven wrong.
If a scientist finds new evidence that contradicts a law or hypothesis then?
There are several things which follow such a discovery. First, the scientist would want to publish the findings so that other scientists could examine the evidence as well, and see if they can also observe a contradiction with a previously accepted law or hypothesis, or whether they will discover some error in the methodology, or will be unable to reproduce the phenomenon. Secondly, if the evidence is found to be reliable, it will be necessary to come up with a new hypothesis or law that is consistent with the new evidence, and which can replace the old hypothesis or law, subject to continued testing and observation.
What evidence supports his hypothesis?
The evidence that supports wegeners hypothesis is the fossil evidence
Why is a hypothesis that is unsupported by observation rejected by scientists?
Simply put, because there is not enough evidence to support it. "Rejected by scientists" should not be taken to always mean "scientist believe it is impossible" - rather, consistent evidence that support the hypothesis has not been produced.
What dose it mean if a scientist fails to reject a hypothesis?
It means there is no reason why he should reject it, whether because there is no evidence to the contrary or because an experiment set up to test it affirmed that hypothesis.
What dose it mean if a scientist fail to reject a hypothesis?
It means there is no reason why he should reject it, whether because there is no evidence to the contrary or because an experiment set up to test it affirmed that hypothesis.
How did the seafloor drilling help scientist find evidence to support the seafloor-spreading hypothesis?
people here are stupid , really the answer is not hi
The scientist Wegener's time should have accepted his hypothesis?
Yes, because he is the only scientist that discovered the CONTINENTAL DRIFT and studied all about FEATURES,FOSSILS AND EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE when 1900.
Why is careful obersavation important to being a scientist?
A scientist may create an hypothesis on the basis of their observations. If their observations are carelessly made or recorded then any hypotheses they offer will be inaccurate reflections of nature. A scientist may alternatively collect observations to test an hypothesis. If these observations are carelessly made or recorded then the conclusions that the scientist makes about the hypothesis could very well be incorrect. At the very least the conclusions they draw would not be based on sound evidence (because the observations are unsound).
How can you say that a scientist is an open minded person?
scientists are open minded because there theories fit the evidence, rather than looking for evidence to fit his theories. If the evidence starts to contradict the theories, then an open minded scientist will adjust his theories, or suggest a new hypothesis. A dogmatic, or closed minded person will ignore the evidence in order to protect the believe.
