Because it was a slow change, unlike the other version was a whole new evolved species.
To overturn cell theory, a scientist would need to find concrete evidence that disproves one of its core principles, such as the idea that all living organisms are composed of cells, or that cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living organisms. This evidence could come from new discoveries in the field of biology that challenge these fundamental principles.
The first scientist to use the word "cell" was Robert Hooke in 1665. He observed cork material under a microscope and described the small compartments as cells, likening them to the cells in a monastery.
The scientist can usually be found in the research lab within the bio dome. Look for a designated area where experiments are being conducted or data is being analyzed. Be sure to approach them politely and ask if they have time to speak with you.
The scientist should use the cDNA library to sequence the mRNA and identify the gene responsible for producing the protein in the frog liver. By comparing the mRNA sequences to known frog liver proteins, the scientist can pinpoint the gene of interest. Once identified, the scientist can use recombinant DNA technology to express the gene and produce the protein artificially.
"Every botanist who studies the book of nature, which is written in the language of nitrogen and carbon, will find the key to his own happiness.” "Botany is the science in which plants are made known by their flowers. People might call me a semi-botanist." "Every theory precipitates a revolution and, like it or not, in order to improve the tree, it must be uprooted."
Badly. The theory of evolution by natural selection has to do with the natural world and the selection of individual organisms. Social Darwinism and like ideologies are biologically mistaken as the posit a form of group selection which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory but everything to do with social ideology trying to find scientific respectability.
A theory models or explains why something is the way it is or how something works. If at some point a scientist find this theory to be inadequate (doesn't fully explain/describe it) due to recent research he/she may have done the theory will need to be modified to include the latest discoveries.
they work in there lab and find all the evidence they can get and then put all the clues together to make a theory
Nope. They keep the theory the way it is. No one changes it. Usually, when scientist have tested the theory and find out something new, they create a new theory instead of changing the first one.
evidences against Darwin
Yes I did find his reasoning convincing because in his theory he use the paradox statement that if we did time travel we couldn't be born but then Again we would be and it would cycle back in the same state!? Also it would not be pokey to stop time and go to the past or present which most likey means the earth would rotate counterclockwise but even still we wouldn't get younger or older in sense of time travel.
No scientist found the Earth.
Theories are ideas, educatied ideas, but still only ideas. A scientist may change a scientific theory if new facts or information are found, if other scientists' review find errors, if attempts to apply the theory are unsuccessful, or if they see that the calculations are wrong when they double check them, and so then they would retest and rewrite their theory to correct the errors.Science is testing a belief with the means to disprove it and being unable to do so.Scientific Fact = something that has yet to be disproved.
Scientists find the particle theory of matter useful because it helps explain the behavior of matter on a small scale, such as the properties of atoms and molecules. It also provides a framework for understanding various phenomena, such as changes in state and chemical reactions. Additionally, the theory allows for predictions and control of these processes, leading to advancements in technology and scientific research.
scientist use sound
To find DNA a scientist must look inside a cell's nucleus.
To overturn cell theory, a scientist would need to find concrete evidence that disproves one of its core principles, such as the idea that all living organisms are composed of cells, or that cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living organisms. This evidence could come from new discoveries in the field of biology that challenge these fundamental principles.