Sometimes scientist disagree. For example, the models about how the oceans formed can be looked at as inside-out or outside-in. How does this type of disagreement fit into the scientific process?

By evaluating opposing arguments, scientific claims can be examined and strengthened.
Scientific logic depends on conflicting data collected by different groups.
Logical conclusions can only be made when all parties agree.
Scientific hypotheses are disproved when two scientists come to different conclusions.

By evaluating opposing arguments, scientific claims can be examined and strengthened.

Explanation:

The purpose of argument is to establish a better, more accurate conclusion. This is demonstrated in the given scenario: because there is disagreement, scientists work hard to find conclusive evidence towards one point or another.

Why not B: It doesn't really depend on conflicting data, though a bigger sample size and more groups helps to get a wider representation. You want your results to gradually converge.

Why not C: This is so untrue! Disagreement is key to healthy discussion and honing down scientific points.

Why not D: Two scientists can disagree; this doesn't flat-out disprove hypotheses. What it does is cast light on their discrepancy and lead them to improve their conclusions or do more research.

human didn't come from monkeys man i hate these stupid teachers

meiosis is the first to occur after the nuclei of opposite of opposite mating types fuse