Answer:
Okay so for A the thing that is wrong with this experiment is that Cindy has done quite a few things incorrectly. Firstly what her experiment was about. Being healthy is a good thing but then turning around and doing the exact opposite for a week can damage your body. Secondly, Running 4 miles after school is good but then for the next week she sits and watches tv for 3 hours. It doesn't make sense on how she measured her experiment. Cindy should have recorded the times when she ran four miles and then used the same time to watch Tv for the next week.
We can fix this experiment by maybe taking out the hot Cheetos from it as that's just not healthy. Secondly we can have Cindy record how many minutes/hours she ran in the 4 miles and use those same times to watch Tv so that it's even.
Explanation:
For part B firstly it's just not possible to predict the weather with your feet. Secondly your grandpa could easily lie and tell you their hurting or they could just always be sore. Lastly, His feet could be not sore and it still rains.
We can fix this experiment by may be doing something more realistic. But to stay on this instead of calling him you should maybe stay over so that in the morning you can tell whether or not his feet are sore then record for the rest of the day to see if it rains or not. If their not sore and it rains then we know he can't predict weather with his feet the same goes for if they were sore and didn't rain.
Answer:
Muscle growth and repair would be limited
Explanation:
plz give me brainiest
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
It doesn't matter if you do aA or Aa
Answer:
The key difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes is that the prokaryotic ribosomes are 70S particles composed of 50S large subunit and 30S small subunit while the eukaryotic ribosomes are 80S particles composed of 60S large subunit and a 40S small subunit
Explanation:
The Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment<span> was an experimental demonstration, reported in 1944 by </span>Oswald Avery<span>, </span>Colin MacLeod<span>, and </span>Maclyn McCarty<span>, that </span>DNA<span> is the substance that causes </span>bacterial transformation<span>, in an era when it had been widely believed that it was </span>proteins<span> that served the function of carrying genetic information (with the very word </span>protein<span> itself coined to indicate a belief that its function was </span>primary<span>).
It was the culmination of research in the 1930s and early 20th Century at the </span>Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research<span> to purify and characterize the "transforming principle" responsible for the transformation phenomenon first described in </span>Griffith's experiment<span> of 1928: killed </span>Streptococcus pneumoniae<span> of the </span>virulent<span> strain type III-S, when injected along with living but non-virulent type II-R pneumococci, resulted in a deadly infection of type III-S pneumococci.
In their paper "</span>Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types: Induction of Transformation by a Desoxyribonucleic Acid Fraction Isolated from Pneumococcus Type III<span>", published in the February 1944 issue of the </span>Journal of Experimental Medicine<span>, Avery and his colleagues suggest that DNA, rather than protein as widely believed at the time, may be the hereditary material of bacteria, and could be analogous to </span>genes<span> and/or </span>viruses<span> in higher organisms.</span>
