Thanks its for school so thanks in advance. The question is basically when have there been great discoveries in Science that employed the use of models.
131230
By far the most famous was the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, using essentially a tinker-toy ball and stick model.
642587
is this discovery has any proof? if it is having . You have to write a research paper for it. then you can send it to any international journal of repute such as IEEE Journals(http://ieee.org)
94005
How about the discovery of pi, or the the number zero? These are crowd pleasers :), and you can find lots of material on the web, for instance:\n\nhttp://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html
39397
fairy tales? , probably you can do that in literature or history, but in physics is sort of hard ..He dedicated his life to work , he was truly a genius, we needed a bunch of scientists to get together just for continue with his legacy ; maybe his ideas were , at his time, sort of fantastic ; but I don't think He was a lier or something ,if that's what you were trying to say... if not, yeah he was fun :P
614485
In the example of the flagellum, scientists say that they have no clue how it could put itself together like that, but they will find a way. And same for cilium. And then the giraffe too to and extent. And the human blood clotting system. Or the dolphin.\n\nIf you know the right stuff, you know that it’s impossible. Darwin foresaw this. "If it could be demonstrated that any organ is so complex that it cannot have evolved, my theory would absolutely fall apart." This happened with those organs and animals I listed above.\n\nSo scientists say there will be discoveries in the future. Like Lucy then ape man? Turned out to be the fossil of a human. They say they will find a way.\n\nThere was recently a dinosaur discovered that still had 90% of soft tissue still on it. this couldn't have happened if dinosaurs died out more than 10,000 years ago. Scientists are not - get this- looking for another way for animals to decay and fossilize. That is not science. That's indoctrination.\n\nBut when they look at the things and find more, they will find more complexity, not less. When you look at a small section of a car motor, it looks complex. If you look at a little more, you see more complexity, not less.\n\nthings are too complex to have evolved, but they will still insist that they did. I’m sorry, but doggedly devoting yourself to a theory is not science. you cannot insist that alternatives not be taught in classrooms.\n\nEvolution is not plausible.
511443
The only way to really find out is by experiment. I mean, this is the science section, not the philosophy section. Go out and fight something.
246610
An interesting point you make, and it is, indeed, true. During the scientific revolution, most of the scientists that participated in it were Christians. Isaac Newton, for example, had believed that his discoveries concerning light and universal gravitation had to do with God. Many scientists were Christians, and did not perceive science as simply an endeavour in which one attempts to legitimately answer a question. Many of these scientists were those who had viewed science as a way of understanding the mind of God. It was thought by many of these prominent scientists (Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and many others) that, if one were to better understand the universe through science, they could see God in all creations and discoveries. In fact, during the scientific revolution, one scientist said that "Science is thinking God's thought's after him." This quote really embodies the basic reason for scientists' devotion to science during the revolution. God was the driving force for many of the scientists, along with interest and the spirit of inquiry.
120289
I have some but it is impossible to show them to you so go to these sites:\n\nhttp://www.palgrave.com/science/mpc/\n\nhttp://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&qwork=4235746&qsort=p&siteID=KLVmR9fE2yU-giJdIkKGIBX1NUraLFkp1g\n\nhttp://www.palgrave.com/science/mpc/
559593
For a long time, people around the Earth have been spending lots and lots of money to send robotic equipment to study other planets in our Solar System.  Several have sent back such surprising results - oh, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and the colors of Neptune and Pluto!\n\nSome of the results also describe to us what the 'greenhouse effect" causes on other planets.  Unfortunately, when we see the results here on Earth, we presume that such a thing cannot happen here.\n\nWell, it can, and it does, and it has.\n\nFor rasons dealing largely with control of existing industrial resources, cost of investment, and just plain political power, people have made quite a campaign out of denying that global warming is taking place.  Their talk largely just adds to the hot air in the atmosphere.\n\nThe last Great Ice Age was more than 20 millenia ago.  Scientists studying that epoch say that carbon dioxide, particulates in the atmosphere, and a periodic change in the angle of the Earth's relationship to the sun all had a role to play - as perhaps did a major cycle of sunspot activity.  (That's just a guess by solar specialists but they like the idea a lot.)\n\nHowever, the physical evidence from the Great Ice Age is pretty conclusive.  Atmospheric components in ice left over from those days tell the tale.  And one of the great triggers of the last major Ice Age was particulate matter in the atmosphere - what some scientists decades ago warned would occur in a "nuclear winter" after The Bomb went off.  Everywhere.\n\nCarbon dioxide was relatively low in the atmospheric content - both during and at the end of the Great Ice Age.\n\nOne of the best arguments in favor of the effects of carbon dioxide on "global warming" is what we can tell happened to the planet when it got COLDER.  Besides various physical and naural events such as tiny alterations in the incidence of the sun's rays on the planet (that is, the angle at which they struck the atmosphere), we can track the history of stuff in the air that changed things.\n\nIn the pre-Industrial era, the only times that would happen were when NATURAL EVENTS took place - such as immense volcanic eruptions.  Those events combined with a periodic "wobble" in the Earth to create the last Little Ice Age, which affected Europe from around the time of Elizabeth I through the American Revolution.  \n\nSo it is appropriate to ask questions about the NATURAL events that might contribute now to global warming and the shrinking of ice caps.  But it is inappropriate to state that the byproducts of industrialized activities of humans, on a scale never before seen on the planet, cannot influence global weather and atmospheric conditions.\n\nYES, this is a big planet.  Yes, the forces at work are so massive they dwarf the puny efforts of humans - just ask any ship's captain, whether of a supertanker or a dinghy.  But NO, there has never before in all of history been anything equal to the cumulative effects of what humans do across the planet daily to spew heat, gases, and pollutants into the air through UNNATURAL means.  And for the cynics, let's remember that if in olden days all the dinosaurs on Earth had all farted at the same time, the methane they produced would not equal one day's worth of carbon dioxide emissions from industry today.  So leave that alone, once and for all.\n\nPart of the problem is that people think the byproducts of their actions are UNNATURAL.  In the sense that they result from human industrial functions, yes, they are not direct products of nature.  But in the sense that thse are an element of our natural world and we must see the emissions affecting that world, they ARE a part of "Nature."\n\nThe ONLY DIFFERENCE is that as a result we humans actually do own some sort of control over nature.  We can change the way that we influence natural processes.  And by the way - the various global attempts to do so wou
321949
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/853956505.Bt.r.html\nhttp://www.chariho.k12.ri.us/faculty/dmmor/scifair02/sf023.html
210356
NONE.  All things were created!  Things adapt to changing environments, but they never turn into something entirely new.
539325
I believe this methodological approach compares data from observation of natural phenomena, rather than controlled experiments, to make a credible claim. It may not be feasible, legal, or ethical to do certain experiments, so you basically have to look at what's happening in nature to infer conclusions. Maybe try looking up 'natural experiment' or 'comparative method?'
230623
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/ \n\nhope will help
227899
You might try searches at\n\nhttp://www.scirus.com/srsapp/\n\nhttp://www.scienceresearch.com/search/
259873
This looks like one you should refer to your professor or advisor.  You might try searches at\n\nhttp://www.scirus.com/srsapp/\n\nhttp://www.scienceresearch.com/search/
500671
The following wikipedia link talks about the DNA model watson and crick proposed. \n\nYou will also find that each of the scientists you listed above is mentioned in the article, and hyperlinks will take you to webpages with short biographies on their lives and their work.\n\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Watson_and_Crick.27s_model
7050
I remember reading an article on it recently (past few months) - I think it was in Discover magazine.\n\nThat might be a good place to start.