Geographic isolation and different living conditions.
Explanation:
Both the Neanderthal and the Homo sapiens shared the same ancestor, the Homo erectus. The Homo erectus managed to spread from Africa to Eurasia. The populations started to become geographically isolated from each other, and over time this caused speciation.
The Homo erectus from the far East, with the one from Europe, or the one from Africa, didn't had contact. This was due to big distance and natural barriers. Gradually this species was evolving, and because of the different living conditions and the geographic isolation at different places it started to develop different characteristics. This has led to evolution of different species over time, with the Neanderthal evolving in Eurasia, as well as the Denisovan Man, while in Africa it was the Homo sapiens that emerged.
The correct answer is true
Answer and Explanation: Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca introduced the wealth and power of Mali to the rest of the Mediterranean. ... The king had carried 30,000 pounds of gold, which signified the immense wealth in his empire. This created an impression on his acquaintances. Hope this helps... :D
"The name code talkers is strongly associated with bilingual Navajo speakers specially recruited during World War II by the US Marine Corps to serve in their standard communications units of the Pacific theater. Code talking, however, was pioneered by the Cherokee and Choctaw peoples during World War I.
"
They sent and received verbally encrypted messages over radio to and from the battlefield during World War 1.
Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another. This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.
John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience. Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.
Further explanation:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
