The evidence that supports wegeners hypothesis is the fossil evidence
Because it cannot be proven or replicated.AnswerIn science, a hypothesis is a good idea, a possible explanation, which might be right and might be wrong. Hypotheses can be refuted by experimentation. If the expectation from the hypothesis is not met by the outcome of experiment, the hypothesis is refuted. The longer a hypothesis survives unrefuted the more confidence we have in it. Evidence can support a hypothesis. The more evidence one has in support of a hypothesis, the more grows our confidence in it. Within the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, a hypothesis cannot be proven, but one can have a mighty amount of confidence in one, proportional to the amount of evidence in support of it. Unrefuted and with backing evidence, a hypothesis is promoted to a theory! A theory is better than a hypothesis. Evolution has much evidence from comparative genetics, comparative morphology and the fossil record. Evolution was once a hypothesis. Darwin collected a large mass of evidence for On the Origin of Species and now we have evidence from Mendelian genetics and comparative genetics, which Darwin knew nothing of. We now have a greater fossil record than Darwin did. There is far more evidence these days (for what is now called Neodarwinism or the Modern Synthesis- the combination of genetics and Darwin's basic 1859 ideas) than there was in Darwin's time. Evolution now has so much evidence that it is best to call it a theory, rather than a hypothesis. Yes, theories are unproven, but in Popperian philosophy of science they cannot be proven. Theories survive refutation and have much evidence and explain a lot. Biology regards evolution as its baseline, its most important idea ever. It might only be a theory of which we can only be 99% confident, but it explains everything so well that most biologists should better call it a fact rather than a theory. Evolution is such a good theory that its pedantic differentiation from 'fact' is entirely unnecessary.
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.
use scientific evidence to support your answer
19th Century hypothesis: "That adaptations are chosen from enviremental factors meaning that you adapt to your surrondings" yet there are none evidence to support Darwin's evolution (hoax) even at 21st Century (over hundred years after monkey's death). Evolution = Never exist.
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
Fossils support his hypothesis.
Hypothesis.
You obtain objective evidence to support it by undertaking experiments designed to test the veracity of the hypothesis.
Which type of evidence was NOT used by Alfred Wegener to support his continental drift hypothesis human remains
support
Which type of evidence was NOT used by Alfred Wegener to support his continental drift hypothesis human remains
booglishullisj
Well...it all depends on the hypothesis. For example, if you know exactly how to back it up with evidence, than very easy. But...if your hypothesis is kind of 'far out', and finding evidence will be difficult, then writing it will be hard.
The question is very poorly specified so this answer is simply a wild guess at what the questioner might want. Three possible outcomes of any research, designed to test some hypothesis, are: (a) evidence in support of the hypothesis; (b) evidence disproving the hypothesis; or (c) evidence that can neither prove (support) nor disprove the hypothesis.
You can look for existing studies that support your ideas or conduct an experiment to prove your hypothesis.
To support a hypothesis means you agree, and may even give supporting evidence.To refute it means you submit evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect , or you make a cogent and persuasive argument against it.