0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which and why theory sound like an explanation that Bismarck might give?
Which theory sound like an explanation that Bismarck might give
What is -in theory not in fact?
A "theory" is a scenario of what might be.
Why might a scientist reject a scientific theory?
there might not be enough proof
Which theory might explain why people blame immigrant for the country troubles .?
scapegoat theory
How is Darwin's theory of Evolution and Lamarck's theory of Evolution alike?
The primary difference between Darwin's and Lamarck's approaches to evolution (if I remember correctly) was that Darwin believed that evolution operated primarily through breeding and death: members of a species that have unproductive characteristics tend to die early and have less opportunity to produce offspring, and so their characteristics are not passed on to future generations. Lamarck, by contrast, thought that environmental conditions could exert a direct (if slight) influence on the genome, so that parents would tend to produce offspring that were better suited to the environment they lived in. For example, Darwin would explain the thick fur and subcutaneous fat deposits of cold-climate animals by saying that members of the species with less fur and fat would die more easily and earlier in cold weather; Lamarck would explain the same result by saying that the cold climate induced the organisms to produce more fur and fat, and their offspring would be born with a greater capacity to produce those things than their parents. Lamarck's theory has not been disproved - scientists still do not have a clear understanding of the process of evolution - but for various non-scientific reasons it is less accepted in the scientific community (primarily, I think, because it opens the door to a teleological argument abut the nature of species that most scientists find distasteful). It is important to point out that Darwin's theory was that of Natural Selection and The Origin of Species, and he was not proposing any system separate from or one that discredited classical Creationist theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, however, coined the phrase Evolution.
Which theory sounds like an explanation that Darwin might give?
Darwin might give an explanation based on the theory of natural selection, which suggests that organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their advantageous traits to future generations. This theory forms the core of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Which and why theory sound like an explanation that Bismarck might give?
Which theory sound like an explanation that Bismarck might give
How was lamarks theory of evolution different than Darwin's theory?
Lamarck's theory of evolution proposed that traits acquired during the lifetime of the parent were genetically passed on to children. Some animal might, according to Lamarck's theory, learn a novel way of obtaining food, and then its children would be born with this novel mechanism already in place. Darwin, contrarily, proposed that lineages evolved new traits though natural selection: by the elimination of lineages that do *not* possess a certain trait.
What is the reason that a theory might be replaced with a new theory?
A theory might be replaced with a new theory if the new theory provides a better explanation of the observed phenomena, makes more accurate predictions, or is more consistent with available evidence. Scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and new theories may emerge as more data becomes available or new technologies are developed.
Can a theory be true or false?
A theory can't be definitively proven true or false. It can only be supported or refuted by evidence and testing. The goal of a theory is to provide the best possible explanation of a phenomenon based on current knowledge and evidence.
Can Lamarck's theory of evolution be true?
Lamarck's theory cannot be true since characteristics of an organism are determined by its DNA and also over time how this is expressed through the epigenetic code. This theory is wrong.
What is -in theory not in fact?
A "theory" is a scenario of what might be.
The difference between theory and fact?
A theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that can be used to make predictions. It is not proven to be true but can be supported with evidence. A fact, on the other hand, is a statement that can be proven to be true through direct evidence or observation.
What is a suggested explanation that might be true and is subject to testing by further observations is an?
A suggested explanation that might be true and is subject to testing by further observations is
What should an employee give explanation for late coming?
Just say sorry You might want to add a reasonable explanation.
How are conspiracy theories used?
The big problem is that conspiracy theory is used in two different ways. The first is as a conspiracy theory, which refers to to an explanation that invokes a conspiracy. Although some authors say that the invoked conspiracy is nonexistent, I think it is more appropriate for most cases to say that the conspiracy is unproven. The second use of conspiracy theory is generic, referring to the act of appealing to, or the tendency to appeal to, undocumented conspiracy and continuing to appeal to it for years to centuries without documentation. Unfortunately, this generic use is seldom defined. Readers have to figure it out for themselves. We might also note that the theory in conspiracy theory is used incorrectly. At least in the scientific world, a theory is is an advanced stage of explanation, an idea that was first proposed as a hypothesis, then rose to the level of working hypothesis, and then survived enough tests to ultimately be taken very seriously and regarded as the best explanation. A conspiracy theory usually shares none of these characteristics. By its very nature, it is undocumentable, and hence represents the earliest stage of explanation. It should probably be called a conspiracy hypothesis. But even this term is too strong, because it is an idea that has failed the test of finding concrete evidence for it. Whatever term is appropriate, it is not conspiracy theory.
Should you tell your sister that her husband has been on a singles website?
If you can talk to him and there may be a simple explanation and it might not be worth worrying your sister about but if there is something dodgy going on which from the sounds of it there is your sister deserves to know so she has a choice of how to deal with the situation x
