Scientific consensus supports the idea that living organisms require oxygen. Then, a scientist discovers a type of bacteria that
metabolizes sulfur instead of oxygen, and thus survives in environments without oxygen. The scientist concludes that a diverse group of many different organisms could live in an oxygen-free environment. Why should are some scientists skeptical of the scientist’s results and conclusion?
<h2>That doesn't mean a diverse group of many different organisms could live that way.</h2>
Explanation:
First of all, this is a theory, nothing else. This means that they are no strong evidence and events that support this. Another important point is that scientists discover a type of BACTERIA, nothing else, which means that the living organism with this nature is unicellular, it's not a complex organism like multicellular. However, they conclude that a DIVERSE GROUP can live without oxygen, which is a lie, they are speculating.
It actually is referring to the act of Secondary Oppression. </span>Tertiary
oppression is executed by individuals from a
persecuted gather when they look for acknowledgment by supporting the
predominant party's onerous demonstrations. For instance a minority-group member
may oppress kindred group individuals to get support with prevailing group
individuals.
