If a scientist collects evidence that questions the basics of a scientific theory, this means the theory is (2 points) flawed to the point of being invalid going to be refined by further investigation not based on fact or evidence going to be proven wrong

going to be refined by further investigation

A well-substantiated illustration of some characteristic of the natural world, on the basis of the body of facts, which have been confirmed recurrently via experiment and observation is known as a scientific theory. Such fact-supported theories are not suppositions, however, are the dependable accounts of the actual world.  

Though, in case if a scientist collects evidence that questions the basics of a scientific theory, this means the theory is going to be refined for further investigation.  

blah

explanation: bc blah

i'm guessing this is from edg enuity so the answers would be, from top to bottom,

theodor schwann

matthias schleiden

robert hooke

rudolph virchow

anton van leeuwenhoek