evidence support the hypothesis

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.1: Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 11199

• Chris Johnson, Matthew D. Affolter, Paul Inkenbrandt, & Cam Mosher
• Salt Lake Community College via OpenGeology

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) was a German scientist who specialized in meteorology and climatology. His knack for questioning accepted ideas started in 1910 when he disagreed with the explanation that the Bering Land Bridge was formed by isostasy and that similar land bridges once connected the continents [ 1 ]. After reviewing the scientific literature, he published a hypothesis stating the continents were originally connected and then drifted apart. While he did not have the precise mechanism worked out, his hypothesis was backed up by a long list of evidence.

Early Evidence for Continental Drift Hypothesis

Wegener’s first piece of evidence was that the coastlines of some continents fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. People noticed the similarities in the coastlines of South America and Africa on the first world maps, and some suggested the continents had been ripped apart [ 3 ]. Antonio Snider-Pellegrini did preliminary work on continental separation and matching fossils in 1858.

What Wegener did differently was synthesizing a large amount of data in one place. He used the true edges of the continents, based on the shapes of the continental shelves [ 4 ]. This resulted in a better fit than previous efforts that traced the existing coastlines [ 5 ].

Wegener also compiled evidence by comparing similar rocks, mountains, fossils, and glacial formations across oceans. For example, the fossils of the primitive aquatic reptile Mesosaurus were found on the separate coastlines of Africa and South America. Fossils of another reptile, Lystrosaurus, were found in Africa, India, and Antarctica. He pointed out these were land-dwelling creatures could not have swum across an entire ocean.

Opponents of continental drift insisted trans-oceanic land bridges allowed animals and plants to move between continents [ 6 ]. The land bridges eventually eroded away, leaving the continents permanently separated. The problem with this hypothesis is the improbability of a land bridge being tall and long enough to stretch across a broad, deep ocean.

More support for continental drift came from the puzzling evidence that glaciers once existed in normally very warm areas in southern Africa, India, Australia, and Arabia. These climate anomalies could not be explained by land bridges. Wegener found similar evidence when he discovered tropical plant fossils in the frozen region of the Arctic Circle. As Wegener collected more data, he realized the explanation that best fit all the climate, rock, and fossil observations involved moving continents.

Proposed Mechanism for Continental Drift

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): [Click to Animate] Animation of the basic idea of convection: an uneven heat source in a fluid causes rising material next to the heat and sinking material far from the heat.

Wegener’s work was considered a fringe science theory for his entire life. One of the biggest flaws in his hypothesis was the inability to provide a mechanism for how the continents moved. Obviously, the continents did not appear to move, and changing the conservative minds of the scientific community would require exceptional evidence that supported a credible mechanism. Other pro-continental drift followers used expansion, contraction, or even the moon’s origin to explain how the continents moved. Wegener used centrifugal forces and precession, but this model was proven wrong [ 7 ]. He also speculated about seafloor spreading, with hints of convection, but could not substantiate these proposals [ 8 ]. As it turns out, current scientific knowledge reveals convection is the major force in driving plate movements.

Development of Plate Tectonic Theory

Wegener died in 1930 on an expedition in Greenland. Poorly respected in his lifetime, Wegener and his ideas about moving continents seemed destined to be lost in history as fringe science. However, in the 1950s, evidence started to trickle in that made continental drift a more viable idea. By the 1960s, scientists had amassed enough evidence to support the missing mechanism—namely, seafloor spreading—for Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift to be accepted as the theory of plate tectonics. Ongoing GPS and earthquake data analyses continue to support this theory. The next section provides the pieces of evidence that helped transform one man’s wild notion into a scientific theory.

Mapping of the Ocean Floors

In 1947 researchers started using an adaptation of SONAR to map a region in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean with poorly-understood topographic and thermal properties [ 9 ]. Using this information, Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp created the first detailed map of the ocean floor to reveal the Mid-Atlantic Ridge [ 10 ], a basaltic mountain range that spanned the length of the Atlantic Ocean, with rock chemistry and dimensions unlike the mountains found on the continents. Initially, scientists thought the ridge was part of a mechanism that explained the expanding Earth or ocean-basin growth hypotheses [ 11 ; 12 ]. In 1959, Harry Hess proposed the hypothesis of seafloor spreading – that the mid-ocean ridges represented tectonic plate factories, where a new oceanic plate was issuing from these long volcanic ridges. Scientists later included transform faults perpendicular to the ridges to better account for varying rates of movement between the newly formed plates [ 13 ]. When earthquake epicenters were discovered along the ridges, the idea that earthquakes were linked to plate movement took hold [ 14 ].

Seafloor sediment, measured by dredging and drilling, provided another clue. Scientists once believed sediment accumulated on the ocean floors over a very long time in a static environment. When some studies showed less sediment than expected, these results were initially used to argue against the continental movement [ 15 ; 16 ]. With more time, researchers discovered these thinner sediment layers were located close to mid-ocean ridges, indicating the ridges were younger than the surrounding ocean floor. This finding supported the idea that the seafloor was not fixed in one place [ 17 ].

Paleomagnetism

The seafloor was also mapped magnetically. Scientists had long known of strange magnetic anomalies that formed a striped pattern of symmetrical rows on both sides of mid-oceanic ridges. What made these features unusual was the north and south magnetic poles within each stripe was reversed in alternating rows [ 18 ]. By 1963, Harry Hess and other scientists used these magnetic reversal patterns to support their model for seafloor spreading [ 19 ] (see also Lawrence W. Morley [ 20 ]).

Paleomagnetism is the study of magnetic fields frozen within rocks, basically a fossilized compass. In fact, the first hard evidence to support plate motion came from paleomagnetism.

Igneous rocks containing magnetic minerals like magnetite typically provide the most useful data. In their liquid state as magma or lava, the magnetic poles of the minerals align themselves with the Earth’s magnetic field. When the rock cools and solidifies, this alignment is frozen into place, creating a permanent paleomagnetic record that includes magnetic inclination related to global latitude, and declination related to magnetic north.

Scientists had noticed for some time the alignment of magnetic north in many rocks was nowhere close to the earth’s current magnetic north. Some explained this as part of the normal movement of earth magnetic north pole. Eventually, scientists realized adding the idea of continental movement explained the data better than the pole movement alone [ 21 ].

Wadati-Benioff Zones

Around the same time mid-ocean ridges were being investigated, other scientists linked the creation of ocean trenches and island arcs to seismic activity and tectonic plate movement [ 22 ]. Several independent research groups recognized earthquake epicenters traced the shapes of oceanic plates sinking into the mantle. These deep earthquake zones congregated in planes that started near the surface around ocean trenches and angled beneath the continents and island arcs [ 23 ]. Today these earthquake zones called Wadati-Benioff zones.

Based on the mounting evidence, the theory plate tectonics continued to take shape. J. Tuzo Wilson was the first scientist to put the entire picture together by proposing that the opening and closing of the ocean basins [ 24 ]. Before long, scientists proposed other models showing plates moving with respect to each other, with clear boundaries between them [ 25 ]. Others started piecing together complicated histories of tectonic plate movement [ 26 ]. The plate tectonic revolution had taken hold.

• 1. Fluegel, von H. W. Wegener-Ampferer-Schwinner. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Geologie in Österreich. Mitt. Oesterr. Geol. Ges. 73 , 237–254 (1980).
• 3. Bacon, F. & Montagu, B. The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England: With a Life of the Author . (Parry & McMillan, 1848).
• 4. Drake, E. T. Alfred Wegener’s reconstruction of Pangea. Geology 4 , 41–44 (1976).
• 5. Mantovani, R. Les fractures de l’écorce terrestre et la théorie de Laplace. Bull. Soc. Sc. et Arts Réunion 41–53 (1889).
• 6. Wells, H. G., Huxley, J. & Wells, G. P. The Science of Life. Philosophy 6 , 506–507 (1931).
• 7. Scheidegger, A. E. Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 64 , 127–150 (1953).
• 8. Jacoby, W. R. Modern concepts of Earth dynamics anticipated by Alfred Wegener in 1912. Geology 9 , 25–27 (1981).
• 9. Tolstoy, I. & Ewing, M. North Atlantic hydrography and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 60 , 1527–1540 (1949).
• 10. Heezen, B. C., Tharp, M. & Ewing, M. The Floors of the Oceans I. The North Atlantic. Geological Society of America Special Papers 65 , 1–126 (1959).
• 11. Heezen, B. C. The Rift in the Ocean Floor. Sci. Am. 203 , 98–110 (1960).
• 12. Dietz, R. S. Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the seafloor. Nature 190 , 854–857 (1961).
• 13. Wilson, J. T. A new class of faults and their bearing on continental drift. Nature (1965).
• 14. Heezen, B. C. & Tharp, M. Tectonic Fabric of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and Continental Drift. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 258 , 90–106 (1965).
• 15. Ewing, M., Ewing, J. I. & Talwani, M. Sediment distribution in the oceans: The Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 75 , 17–36 (1964).
• 16. Saito, T., Ewing, M. & Burckle, L. H. Tertiary sediment from the mid-atlantic ridge. Science 151 , 1075–1079 (1966).
• 17. Ewing, M., Houtz, R. & Ewing, J. South Pacific sediment distribution. J. Geophys. Res. 74 , 2477–2493 (1969).
• 18. Mason, R. G. A magnetic survey off the west coast of the United-States between latitudes 32-degrees-N and 36-degrees-N longitudes 121-degrees-W and 128-degrees-W. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 1 , 320 (1958).
• 19. Vine, F. J. & Matthews, D. H. Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199 , 947–949 (1963).
• 20. Frankel, H. The Development, Reception, and Acceptance of the Vine-Matthews-Morley Hypothesis. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 13 , 1–39 (1982).
• 21. Irving, E. Palaeomagnetic and palaeoclimatological aspects of polar wandering. Geofis. pura appl. 33 , 23–41 (1956).
• 22. Coats, R. R. Magma type and crustal structure in the Aleutian Arc. in The Crust of the Pacific Basin 92–109 (American Geophysical Union, 1962). doi:10.1029/GM006p0092
• 23. Wadati, K. On the activity of deep-focus earthquakes in the Japan Islands and neighbourhoods. Geophys. Mag. 8 , 305–325 (1935).
• 24. Wilson, J. T. Did the Atlantic close and then re-open? (Nature, 1966).
• 25. McKenzie, D. P. & Parker, R. L. The North Pacific: an Example of Tectonics on a Sphere. Nature 216 , 1276–1280 (1967).
• 26. Atwater, T. Implications of Plate Tectonics for the Cenozoic Tectonic Evolution of Western North America. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 81 , 3513–3536 (1970).

Alfred Wegener: Building a Case for Continental Drift

Alfred Wegener collected diverse pieces of evidence to support his theory, including geological “fit” and fossil evidence. It is important to know that the following specific fossil evidence was not brought up by Wegener to support his theory. Wegener himself did not collect the fossils but he called attention to the idea of using these scientific doc   uments stating there were fossils of species present in separate continents in order to support his claim.

Illustration showing similar rock assemblages across different continents.

Geological “fit” evidence is the matching of large-scale geological features on different continents. It has been noted that the coastlines of South America and West Africa seem to match up, however more particularly the terrains of separate continents conform as well. Examples include: the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America linked with the Scottish Highlands, the familiar rock strata of the Karroo system of South Africa matched correctly with the Santa Catarina system in Brazil, and the Brazil and Ghana mountain ranges agreeing over the Atlantic Ocean.

Another important piece of evidence in the Continental Drift theory is the fossil relevance. There are various examples of fossils found on separate continents and in no other regions. This indicates that these continents had to be once joined together because the extensive oceans between these land masses act as a type of barrier for fossil transfer. Four fossil examples include: the Mesosaurus, Cynognathus, Lystrosaurus, and Glossopteris.

Modern day representation of the Mesosaurus.

The Mesosaurus is known to have been a type of reptile, similar to the modern crocodile, which propelled itself through water with its long hind legs and limber tail. It lived during the early Permian period (286 to 258 million years ago) and its remains are found solely in South Africa and Eastern South America. Now if the continents were in still their present positions, there is no possibility that the Mesosaurus would have the capability to swim across such a large body of ocean as the Atlantic because it was a coastal animal.

Modern day representation of the Cynognathus.

The now extinct Cynognathus, which translates to “dog jaw”, was a mammal- like reptile. Roaming the terrains during the Triassic period (250 to 240 million years ago), the Cynognathus was as large as a modern wolf. Its fossils are found only in South Africa and South America. As a land dominant species, the Cynognathus would not have been capable of migrating across the Atlantic.

Modern day representation of the Lystrosaurus.

The Lystrosaurus, which translates to “shovel reptile,” is thought to have been an herbivore with a stout build like a pig. It is approximated that it grew up to one meter in length and was relatively dominant on land during the early Triassic period (250 million years ago). Lystrosaurus fossils are only found in Antarctica, India, and South Africa. Similar to the land dwelling Cynognathus, the Lystrosaurus would have not had the swimming capability to traverse any ocean.

Modern day representation of the Glossopteris.

Possibly the most important fossil evidence found is the plant, Glossopteris. Known as a woody, seed bearing tree, the Glossopteris is named after the Greek description for tongue due to its tongue shaped leaves and is the largest genus of the extinct descendant of seed ferns. Reaching as tall as 30 meters, the Glossopteris emerged during the early Permian period (299 million years ago) and became the dominant land plant species until the end of the Permian. The Glossopteris fossil is found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and South America—all the southern continents. Now, the Glossopteris seed is known to be large and bulky and therefore could not have drifted or flown across the oceans to a separate continent. Therefore, the continents must have been joined at least one point in time in order to maintain the Glossopteris’ wide range across the southern continents.

Description showing the  fossil locations of the Mesosaurus, Cynognathus, Lystrosaurus, and Glossopteris spread across different continents.

If the continents of the Southern Hemisphere are put together, the distribution of these four fossil types form continuous patterns across continental boundaries. Of course, possible explanations are brought to attention. One explanation is the species could have migrated via a land bridge or swam to the other continents. However, a land bridge is not applicable due to the differences in densities between the continents and oceans floor and violation of the isostasy concept. Moreover, swimming as a possibility is foolish due to the lack of formidable swimming capabilities to travel across such an extensive body of water like the Atlantic. An additional resolution is that the species could have merely evolved separately on the other continents. Undoubtedly, this interpretation is in complete disagreement with Darwin’s evolution theory.

Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Understanding the Difference Between Basic Scientific Terms

Hero Images / Getty Images

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, "theory," "law," and "hypothesis" don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is "just a theory," meaning it's a supposition that may or may not be true. In science, however, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. This hypothesis can be disproven if you observe a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying 1,000 detergents, there might be one more you haven't tried that could be different.

Scientists often construct models to help explain complex concepts. These can be physical models like a model volcano or atom  or conceptual models like predictive weather algorithms. A model doesn't contain all the details of the real deal, but it should include observations known to be valid.

Example: The  Bohr model shows electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus, much the same way as the way planets revolve around the sun. In reality, the movement of electrons is complicated but the model makes it clear that protons and neutrons form a nucleus and electrons tend to move around outside the nucleus.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say that it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908, in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It was theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon , and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this theory, generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

A scientific law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it's made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you the means to explain "why." The word "law" is used less and less in science, as many laws are only true under limited circumstances.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity . Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no "proof" or absolute "truth" in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is "proof" in science. Some work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What's important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• Theory Definition in Science
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• What Is a Scientific or Natural Law?
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• The Continental Drift Theory: Revolutionary and Significant
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
• Processual Archaeology
• Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

How To Write a Strong Research Hypothesis

Are you looking to take your research project to the next level? Have you heard of the power of a hypothesis but need to figure out how to formulate one that will unlock potential discoveries? We can help!

So get ready; it's time to dive into unlocking the power of research! This blog post will explore what makes a well-crafted and powerful hypothesis - from identifying a research question to developing supporting evidence.

By learning how to craft a compelling hypothesis, you'll have more tremendous success in every step of your research project.

What are hypotheses, and why are they important?

A hypothesis is an educated guess or a proposition based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It provides a framework for research and allows researchers to refine their ideas, collect data, and draw conclusions. Hypotheses are essential to the process because they will enable us to organize our thoughts and test theories properly.

Hypotheses are used in many fields , from medicine to psychology to economics. In each area, developing hypotheses based on observations enable researchers to make predictions about their data and guide them toward finding meaningful results.

For example, in medicine, hypotheses can be used to predict which treatments will be most effective for particular conditions or which drugs may have adverse effects when taken together. This allows doctors to make better decisions when caring for patients.

In psychology, hypotheses are often used in experiments to determine whether certain variables influence behavior or mental processes. By testing different combinations of variables, psychologists can identify patterns and understand why people behave the way they do.

In economics, hypotheses provide economists with a framework for analyzing the relationship between economic variables such as wages and consumer spending habits. By understanding these relationships, economists can better understand how economic forces affect the economy.

Overall, hypotheses play an essential role in helping scientists develop new ideas and draw meaningful conclusions from the collected data. Without taking the step to create hypotheses, it would be difficult for researchers to make sense of the vast amounts of information available today and use it effectively in their investigations.

How to determine an effective research question to form your hypothesis

When conducting research, having a compelling research question is critical . Properly formulating this question will allow the researcher to develop their hypothesis. A research question provides a clear and focused goal for your research study and also gives direction on how to get there. A compelling research question should be specific, answerable in the context of your field of study, significant, novel (not already answered by previous studies), and timely – that is, relevant to current events or trends.

Before determining the best research question, you must first understand your topic. Think about the area of knowledge that interests you most and narrow it down to a single theme or concept within this topic. Focus on what interests you most within this theme, and make sure there is room for further exploration and analysis. Once you have chosen a specific topic and narrowed down your focus, you can begin formulating questions related to your project.

To ensure relevance and impact to your field of study, choose questions that address essential issues in the literature or suggest solutions to existing problems. Avoid overly broad topics with unclear objectives; instead, opt for focused questions to enable targeted data collection and analysis with concrete results.

Additionally, consider time frames when formulating questions. If the issue has been discussed extensively in the past but has not been revisited recently, then it's likely not worthy of a new investigation.

Once you have developed some potential questions related to your topic, review them carefully and decide which question best captures the essence of what you want to learn through researching this topic.

Ask yourself:

• Is this question answerable?
• Does it fit within my field of study?
• Is it significant enough?
• Would its findings be novel?

If so, then congratulations! You have identified a compelling research question.

Tips for crafting a well-crafted hypothesis

Once you have formulated the official research question, you may develop the formal hypothesis. When composing a hypothesis, it's essential to think carefully about the question you are trying to answer.

A solid hypothesis should be testable, meaning that it can be verified or disproved through research. It should also be specific and focused on one issue at a time. Here are some tips for crafting a well-crafted hypothesis:

• Consider the goal of your research: Think about what it is that you want to learn or determine from your experiment and make sure that your hypothesis reflects this goal.
• Create an educated guess as to why something is happening: Your hypothesis should explain why something is occurring based on what evidence you already have and direct further investigation into the matter. For example, if you hypothesize that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to global warming, your research should focus on examining this relationship further.
• Define any variables or parameters involved in the experiment: This includes things like temperature or chemical composition that could potentially affect the outcome of any experiments done in pursuit of testing your hypothesis.
• Use clear and precise language: Make sure your hypothesis is written with clear and precise language so that anyone reading it can understand exactly what you are attempting to investigate or explain. Avoid complex words and keep sentences short whenever possible.

Following these simple tips will help ensure that your hypothesis is well-crafted and ready for testing!

Examples of evidence that can support your hypothesis

When it comes to developing a hypothesis, supporting evidence is essential for making sure it holds up. This evidence helps strengthen the argument that is being driven by providing facts and logical reasoning that support the hypothesis.

Examples of evidence that can be used to back up a hypothesis include using data from experiments, case studies, and other research projects. Data from experiments can provide insight into how certain variables interact to form a particular outcome.

Case studies may offer greater depth in understanding a specific phenomenon's cause and effect; research projects may yield results that confirm or refute existing theories on a subject.

In addition to these traditional forms of evidence, personal experiences or observations can also help to support a hypothesis. For example, if someone's daily commute has been consistently faster since they changed routes, they could use their personal experience to argue that making this change resulted in shorter commutes.

Similarly, suppose someone has witnessed how two variables consistently coincide (i.e., when one goes up, another goes down). In that case, this could be used to support the notion that there is some correlation between these two aspects.

Overall, evidence to support your hypothesis is crucial for ensuring its validity and credibility. While conducting experiments or researching may seem like time-consuming processes, having solid supporting evidence will make it much easier to defend your ideas convincingly when challenged.

Therefore, it is crucial to take the time necessary to gather credible sources of information to provide the most substantial possible backing for your hypotheses.

Understanding the potential of hypotheses and how they can help your research project progress

The power of research lies in the ability to develop and test hypotheses. A hypothesis is a statement or an idea that can be tested to determine its validity.

Essentially, it is a form of educated guesswork that helps researchers form conclusions about their data. By developing a hypothesis for a research project, you are effectively setting up the framework for further exploration.

When developing a hypothesis, you must consider both the expected outcomes and possible alternative explanations. This will help you focus on testing the possible results without getting sidetracked by irrelevant information. Once you have established a concrete hypothesis, it can then be used as a basis for further research and experimentation.

The process of testing hypotheses is an integral part of the scientific method and can help researchers build confidence in their findings and conclusions. Through careful observation and experimentation, researchers can compare their results against what they initially hypothesized, allowing them to draw more accurate conclusions about their data. As such, hypotheses play an essential role in helping researchers connect the dots between different pieces of evidence and form meaningful conclusions.

Overall, understanding how hypotheses can be used in research projects can be immensely beneficial in helping progress towards reaching meaningful insights from their data. By setting up expectations ahead of time and then testing them against real-world conditions, researchers can gain valuable insights that could potentially change the way we understand our world – now that's something worth exploring!

Final thoughts

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. It's important to note that hypotheses are not the same thing as theories–a theory is a much broader and well-established frame of reference that explains multiple phenomena.

Generally, scientists form a research question and then narrow it down to a testable hypothesis. After making observations and conducting experiments to gather data, researchers can use evidence to support or reject the hypothesis.

By following these steps to formulate a solid hypothesis, you will be on your way to developing a successful research project. Happy researching!

Header image by Bnenin .

Related Posts

How to Prove a Thesis Statement: Analyzing an Argument

Our Review of the Top Free Citation Generators

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Need an academic editor before submitting your work?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• Image & Use Policy
• Translations

UC MUSEUM OF PALEONTOLOGY

Understanding Evolution

Your one-stop source for information on evolution

Endosymbiosis

Evidence for endosymbiosis.

Biologist Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many years other biologists were skeptical. Although Jeon watched his amoebae become infected with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria:

• Membranes  — Mitochondria have their own cell membranes, just like a prokaryotic cell does.

When you look at it this way, mitochondria really resemble tiny bacteria making their livings inside eukaryotic cells! Based on decades of accumulated evidence, the scientific community supports Margulis’s ideas: endosymbiosis is the best explanation for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.

What’s more, the evidence for endosymbiosis applies not only to mitochondria, but to other cellular organelles as well.  Chloroplasts  are like tiny green factories within plant cells that help convert energy from sunlight into sugars, and they have many similarities to mitochondria. The evidence suggests that these chloroplast organelles were also once free-living bacteria.

The endosymbiotic event that generated mitochondria must have happened early in the history of eukaryotes, because all eukaryotes have them. Then, later, a similar event brought chloroplasts into some eukaryotic cells, creating the lineage that led to plants.

Despite their many similarities, mitochondria (and chloroplasts) aren’t free-living bacteria anymore. The first eukaryotic cell evolved more than a billion years ago. Since then, these organelles have become completely dependent on their host cells. For example, many of the key proteins needed by the mitochondrion are imported from the rest of the cell. Sometime during their long-standing relationship, the genes that code for these proteins were transferred from the mitochondrion to its host’s genome. Scientists consider this mixing of genomes to be the irreversible step at which the two independent organisms become a single individual.

Paramecium bursaria , a single-celled eukaryote that swims around in pond water, may not have its own chloroplasts, but it does manage to “borrow” them in a rather unusual way.  P. bursaria  swallows photosynthetic green algae, but it stores them instead of digesting them. In fact, the normally clear paramecium can pack so many algae into its body that it even looks green! When  P. bursaria  swims into the light, the algae photosynthesize sugar, and both cells share lunch on the go. But  P. bursaria doesn’t exploit its algae. Not only does the agile paramecium chauffeur its algae into well-lit areas, it also shares the food it finds with its algae if they are forced to live in the dark.

From prokaryotes to eukaryotes

Finding our roots

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Teaching resource database
• Correcting misconceptions
• Conceptual framework and NGSS alignment
• Image and use policy
• Evo in the News
• The Tree Room
• Browse learning resources

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.8: The Endosymbiotic Theory

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 3220

• Gary Kaiser
• Community College of Baltimore Country (Cantonsville)

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Briefly describe what is meant by the endosymbiotic theory.
• Give some evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts may have arisen from prokaryotic organisms.

It is thought that life arose on earth around four billion years ago. The endosymbiotic theory states that some of the organelles in today's eukaryotic cells were once prokaryotic microbes. In this theory, the first eukaryotic cell was probably an amoeba-like cell that got nutrients by phagocytosis and contained a nucleus that formed when a piece of the cytoplasmic membrane pinched off around the chromosomes. Some of these amoeba-like organisms ingested prokaryotic cells that then survived within the organism and developed a symbiotic relationship. Mitochondria formed when bacteria capable of aerobic respiration were ingested; chloroplasts formed when photosynthetic bacteria were ingested. They eventually lost their cell wall and much of their DNA because they were not of benefit within the host cell. Mitochondria and chloroplasts cannot grow outside their host cell.

Evidence for this is based on the following:

• Chloroplasts are the same size as prokaryotic cells, divide by binary fission, and, like bacteria, have Fts proteins at their division plane. The mitochondria are the same size as prokaryotic cells, divide by binary fission, and the mitochondria of some protists have Fts homologs at their division plane.
• Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA that is circular, not linear.
• Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own ribosomes that have 30S and 50S subunits, not 40S and 60S.
• Several more primitive eukaryotic microbes, such as Giardia and Trichomonas have a nuclear membrane but no mitochondria.

Although evidence is less convincing, it is also possible that flagella and cilia may have come from spirochetes.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• Give three points of evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts may have arisen from prokaryotic organisms.
• The endosymbiotic theory states that some of the organelles in eukaryotic cells were once prokaryotic microbes.
• Mitochondria and chloroplasts are the same size as prokaryotic cells and divide by binary fission.
• Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA which is circular, not linear.
• Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own ribosomes which have 30S and 50S subunits, not 40S and 60S.

The endosymbiotic theory states that mitochondria and chlopoplasts in today's eukaryotic cells were once separate prokaryotic microbes.