Why would you learn less about an organism if it is were isolated from its surroundings than if you were able to observe the same organism in its natural surroundings?

this one`s been up for debate for awhile now.

1. it depends on the organism

learning about an organism could be considered 'easier' to study in different ways. for example, if you are studying marine life, you will most likely have to keep it in a water habitat to watch it alive. If you are studying a land species, then watching from it`s natural habitat will give you more accurate results. sometimes the environment can affect an organisms internal systems more than you may think. this leads into my second point.

2. it depends on what you are trying to study

if you are trying to learn about the mating process, seasonal activity, migration, or external behavior, then monitoring it from it`s natural habitat or an area that is a close copy is your best option. but if you are looking into studying internal organs/systems or cells, then in most cases, the organism will need to be taken out of its natural habitat. only in very careful situations is it left in a habitat during examination.

in situ hybridization has been widely used for research applications, including clinical cytogenetics, gene mapping, tumor biology and studies of chromosome evolution.

the titanic would be the correct answer