I am sorry but we can't answer because we don't know the case you are asking about.
A case by itself does not prove a theory because it typically provides only a single instance or example, which may not be representative of broader patterns or principles. While a case can support a theory by illustrating its applicability, multiple cases and consistent findings are necessary to establish robust evidence. Additionally, alternative explanations and variables must be considered to validate the theory comprehensively. Thus, a single case is insufficient for definitive proof.
yes it can prove ....
If it is a living organism it must reproduce itself sexually or asexually. Reproduction of the organism ( not viral hijacking of the reproductive mechanisms ) is one part of the definition of living things.
To begin with, a theory can not prove or disprove anything until it is proven itself.
it does and it doesnt exist can prove and cant not prove so there you have it
A case by itself does not prove a theory because it typically provides only a single instance or example, which may not be representative of broader patterns or principles. While a case can support a theory by illustrating its applicability, multiple cases and consistent findings are necessary to establish robust evidence. Additionally, alternative explanations and variables must be considered to validate the theory comprehensively. Thus, a single case is insufficient for definitive proof.
The case of Mesosaurus does not by itself prove the theory of continental drift, but it provides significant evidence supporting it. Mesosaurus was a freshwater reptile found in both South America and Africa, suggesting these continents were once joined. The existence of similar fossils on widely separated landmasses is difficult to explain without considering continental movement. However, additional evidence from geology, paleomagnetism, and other fossil types further supports the theory.
A criminal case is harder to prove, as the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A civil case only has to be by a "preponderance of the evidence" which is anything over half.
reflexive property of congruence
Evidence can prove, or disprove, the case against you.
To prove whether a number is composite, factor it. A number having any factor besides 1 and itself is composite.
If the attorney can prove the officer's intent to violate your rights, or a statute, your case is likely to raise concerns: if nothing else. If the attorney cannot prove that the officer knowingly and intentionally violated a statute, you probably do not have a case. That being said, you can never be "positive" of anything in the justice system.
it contains carbon
to prove discrimination
They moved on to a new case.
No! Correlation by itself is not sufficient to infer or prove causation.
No. You mean "a case in point" A case in point is an example that helps to prove your argument eg "The weather is unpredictable, last week's hurricanes were a case in point."