0
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.
What else can I help you with?
What A scientist makes the argument that she has found DNA evidence that shows that evolution does not exist. What would her evidence have to show for her to be correct?
For a scientist to argue that evolution does not exist based on DNA evidence, her findings would need to demonstrate that genetic mutations do not occur, that species do not share common ancestry, and that there is no evidence of natural selection influencing genetic variation over time. This would contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
What is the Best Evidence to disprove Evolution?
There is no single piece of evidence that definitively disproves evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific fields, including genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Any challenges to the theory of evolution would need to provide substantial evidence and be subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Is the theory true that the theory of evolution is supported by a wide range of biological evidence?
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.
Which discovery could provide evidence against the theory of evolution?
A discovery that shows species appearing suddenly in the fossil record without any preceding ancestors would provide evidence against the theory of evolution. This would contradict the gradual changes in species predicted by evolution.
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.?
Scientists would look for genetic evidence such as similarities in DNA sequences, shared ancestry through evolutionary relationships, and similarities in embryonic development. They may also consider similarities in behavior, habitat preference, and geographical distribution as further evidence to support their hypothesis of the two species being closely related.
What A scientist makes the argument that she has found DNA evidence that shows that evolution does not exist. What would her evidence have to show for her to be correct?
For a scientist to argue that evolution does not exist based on DNA evidence, her findings would need to demonstrate that genetic mutations do not occur, that species do not share common ancestry, and that there is no evidence of natural selection influencing genetic variation over time. This would contradict the vast body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
What is a valid reason why a scientist might reject a scientific therory?
A scientist might reject a scientific theory if new empirical evidence contradicts its predictions or underlying principles. For instance, if experimental results consistently show outcomes that the theory cannot explain or predict accurately, this would undermine its validity. Additionally, if a theory fails to account for a significant body of existing data or if a more comprehensive alternative theory emerges, a scientist may deem it necessary to reject the original theory.
How would you use theory in a sentence?
I would use the word "theory" in a sentence like this: "The scientist presented a new theory to explain the findings of the experiment."
True or False Empirical evidence always trumps theory. Give a reason for your answer.?
If your issues are on the table, then it would be apparent that empirical evidence would trump theory, if the theory on the table were not proven to be true. If the theory were proven to be true, and the empirical evidence does not agree with the theory, then more experimentation would be necessary to determine the validity of the theory.
How would a scientist use the term theory?
In scientific terminology, a "theory" refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence and extensive testing. It is not merely a guess or hypothesis; rather, it integrates and generalizes numerous observations and experimental results. A theory is subject to revision or rejection based on new evidence, but it provides a reliable framework for understanding and predicting phenomena. Examples include the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity.
What is a psychologists method for testing a theory?
A psychologist would use the scientific method to test a theory, just as any other scientist would.
What lack of evidence weakens the theory of an asteroid?
A lack of evidence would weaken any theory. But the well known asteroids have well defined orbits.
What would happen if correct new evidence was discovered that did not agree with a well established scientific theory?
The theory would be modified or replaced.
What did data from this indirect evidence tell scientist?
We would need to know the circumstances to answer this question.
Is it true that the theory of evolution is supported by a wide range of biological evidence?
Yes. If evolution was not widely supported by evidence, then it would be regarded as a hypothesis rather than a theory.
Why would a scientist reject a scientific therory?
A scientist may reject a scientific theory if new evidence emerges that contradicts its predictions or underlying principles. If repeated experiments or observations consistently yield results that the theory cannot explain, it may be deemed insufficient or inaccurate. Additionally, if a more robust and comprehensive theory is developed that better accounts for the data, the original theory may be abandoned. Ultimately, scientific progress relies on the willingness to revise or discard theories in light of new findings.
What would cause scientist's to change or replace the modern atomic theory?
new technology
