The damage of the organ would be too great! The amount of nutrition needed for the animal to survive would be cut short! Soon the animal will grow too weak, and will faint. Or the organ that is poisened could explode, leaving toxic liquids in the animal's body, killing it!
The size and genetic material of the molecule.
Zoos allows scientists to study animals from up-close in a controlled environment. This has the downside that zoos do not provide anything close to a natural habitat, so animal behavior is inherently deviant from what it would be in the wild.
An animal would develop a longer and thicker coat of hair or fur.
So non-scientists would not be disadvantaged. Hope this help :) :D :* :3
Normally, scientists will examine the content of the animal's stomach and intestine to get an accurate reading on what the animal had eaten.
If we knew that the scientists wouldn't still have to learn it now would they? (if this is for the stupid earth's systems class that's the answer I put)
You can't learn languages in Antarctica. The scientists who live there are working, and would not have time to teach you.
animal testing is when scientists use animals to find out how they react with different chemicals. They would be injected into the animal and then they woul see what the animal would do and record what happened.
scientists save animals so you could say this animal is not breathing and the scintist would save its life.
To see how the environment and the launch would affect it.
Yes because if scientists did not do it on animals there would not be any cures.
Scientists can learn from a fossil of animal by its age, diet, and physical characteristics, depending on the condition of the fossil. For example, scientists would not be able to tell of a hominid was a new species or not if a few bones were missing, because of the fact that they could determine different or similar traits than other species of hominid.
In fiction, you can make it look like anything you want.You need to research the planet Saturn and learn what the environment is like - or what scientists think it is like - so that you can design an animal which could live there. It certainly won't look like anything on Earth!
Just think about this : Imagine scientists studying plants and animals of the past WITHOUT fossils. The slightest clue found on fossils leads scientists towards a conclusion that would be impossible to get without a mineralized remains of a dead organism, that we call fossils. The most important factor is the visualization of that animal or plant's shape. The foot's shape, number of bones, of a fossiled animal may give to scientists a clue on how that extinct animal could run away from predators and so on. The slightest evidence is important to reach on a conclusion when a fossil is being studied, which would be impossible without them. In other words, fossils are the linkage with the pass
the cell theory and the microscope
What is wrong with animal testing? Is it better to see if things would kill humans by killing humans? Scientists will always prefer the most conclusive methods of experimentation, so when they can use simpler experiments than animal tests they do.