Yes, because if enough people prove the hypothesis and produce evidence supporting it it can become a theory.
No because a hypothesis s an educated guess..It doesn't need supporting details only you final conclusion needs evidence
To do it right
The evidence that made you come to that conclusion. Remember that a hypothesis is an educated guess
Experimentation.
No. A theory is more certain: it is a hypothesis which has had some supporting evidence.
Yes, because if enough people prove the hypothesis and produce evidence supporting it it can become a theory.
A well-supported hypothesis is a theory that appears to have a lot of evidence behind it. This evidence helps to make it seem likely that the hypothesis is true, but it is still just a theory until it has been proven.
No because a hypothesis s an educated guess..It doesn't need supporting details only you final conclusion needs evidence
evidence supporting the idea of sea-floor spreading.
it was proposed by edward Édouard Roche it's not so real .... no supporting evidence is there for this hypothesis
To support a hypothesis means you agree, and may even give supporting evidence.To refute it means you submit evidence that a hypothesis is incorrect , or you make a cogent and persuasive argument against it.
Evidence supporting the hypothesis of continental drift includes the fit of continental coastlines, matching rock formations and fossils across continents, and the alignment of mountain ranges. Additionally, the distribution of ancient glacial deposits and paleoclimate data further support the idea that continents were once connected.
The key to a good science story is facts. Do your research and include lots of them as supporting evidence for your hypothesis or topic.
To do it right
Evolution is both: it began as a hypothesis by a scientist who, after some research and thought on the matter, came up with the idea. Since then, that hypothesis has been recognised as a theory, as further evidence came to light supporting the idea and predictions - which were developed based on existing evidence and what the some of the gaps might be - were made, then tested and shown correct.
what are supporting evidence of the whyldam resort?