Answer: mucilaginous sheath
Explanation:
Scientist can communicate their findings by putting them on a journal and publish them
Answer:
The most appropriate answer would be option B.
The flaw in their reasoning is that they compared different molecules in a different set of organisms.
For example, they compared the DNA of lizard A and B whereas they compared the RNA of lizard B and C.
In addition, the mutation rates of different molecules (DNA and RNA) are different and thus, comparison of DNA in one set of organism and comparison of RNA in another set cannot be used as the basis for the conclusion.
<span>Notice a couple of things
different between (A) and (B). It was NOT the first time a biologist
proposed that species changed through time (so it's not B). But it
finally *solidified* that idea by giving "change through time"
(evolution) a MECHANISM. It gave a plausible explanation for WHY
species change over time, in a testable way that made sense and had
evidence to support it.
So it finally dismissed the idea that species are constant.
It also emphasized that the simple presence of *variation* within a population was a key reason for evolution.
While we're at it ... (C) is wrong because it's not *individuals* that
acclimate (adapt) to their environment, but the population (the species)
as a whole.
And (D) is wrong because it had nothing to do with economics or the monarchy.</span>
