To collect something exposed to biological fluids
A Creationist might believe in a literal understanding of Genesis including its Creation-narrative. See also:Is there evidence against EvolutionCan you show that God existsGod's wisdom seen in His creationsDiscovering Creation
DNA evidence might be used to confirm scientists' conclusions about any relationships between any animal and how closely related they are.
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.
New since when? The answer may include anything from new palaeontological evidence (eg. fossils and such) to new geophysical findings to the advent of genetics and new findings in the fields of genetics and genomics to the latest findings based on the mathematical modelling of population dynamics and population genetics, and so forth, and so on. Perhaps a more specific question might help.
New since when? The answer may include anything from new palaeontological evidence (eg. fossils and such) to new geophysical findings to the advent of genetics and new findings in the fields of genetics and genomics to the latest findings based on the mathematical modelling of population dynamics and population genetics, and so forth, and so on. Perhaps a more specific question might help.
They might eat chicken
shut up ok......
I recently spotted in a video a new biohazard tattoo on his arm, which might indicate that he does, in fact, have HIV
It is necessary that we know what you might register for after retirement. If you want to collect VA benefits, you'll have to file for them. Other than that, there really isn't anything to "register" for.
The evidence might be unreliable because technology and other knowledge has advanced since that time, and their evidence might have been biased.
Forensic criminalists are people employed by Police Departments to collect, identify, and report on evidence at crime scenes. They may be sworn police officers or civilian employees. They are patient and methodical in collecting evidence which might show how a crime was committed and by whom. They testify in criminal and civil court cases about how they identified, collected, and tested the evidence they found.
Direct evidence are visible noticable changes. Indirect evidence is when you might not see the action happen but you do notice the results
Might not allow you to collect it because your in the country illegally which is a crime in itself...
Though some might say it is necessary to feed the population of the world, overfishing is not necessary.
What evidence is there?
Yes, there might be evidence in it.
Shells Sand Rocks