Gregor Mendel never saw a gene, yet he concluded that "heritable factors" were responsible for the patterns of inheritance he observed in peas. Similarly, maps of Drosophila chromosomes, and the very idea that genes are carried on chromosomes, were conceived by observing the patterns of inheritance of linked genes, not by observing the genes directly. Is it legitimate for biologists to claim the existence of objects and processes they cannot actually see? How do scientists know whether an explanation is correct? Please be certain your post is a minimum of 200 words.

In science generally and in Biology particularly, being able to 'look at' certain structures largely depends on developing sophisticated tools and techniques that take time. However, scientists are still able to employ the scientific method to theorize about the existence of such structures that may not be possible to prove the existence of at the time. So, the scientist will make use of whatever they have at their disposal to extrapolate and make sense of whatever it is that they are studying or researching.

For the scientific method to work, scientists rely on making keen observations that enable them to ask critical questions with respect to what they are studying. These questions could then form a hypothesis that can be tested by designing intelligent experiments, which will either prove the hypothesis right or wrong. Even if they are not able to provide the evidence for their hypothesis, they can still argue their theory on the basis of logic. Other scientists in the community can then either support the theory or counter it with an alternate.

Hope that answers the question, have a great day!

hello there,

igneous rock formed from below the surface would have more crystals because

answer: because magma cools more slowly than lava