Answer:
An atom is the smallest particle in a chemical element that holds its chemical properties. Although in the past it was thought impossible to break an atom, within modern chemistry we know that an atom is composed of subatomic particles, which compose the atomic model:
1) electrons, which have a negative charge, such a small size that it is immeasurable, and a mass much smaller than the other two subatomic particles; 2) protons, which have a positive charge; and 3) neutrons, which have no charge.
The protons and neutrons form a dense and massive atomic nucleus, which is called multipons nuclei. The electrons form a cloud of electrons that surround the nucleus.
Answer:
Global warming is an aspect of climate change, referring to the long-term rise of the planet's temperatures. It is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and farming.
Explanation:
The consequences of global climate change : -
- More frequent and severe weather.
- Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts.
- Higher death rates.
- Dirtier air.
- Higher wildlife extinction rates.
- More acidic oceans.
- Higher sea levels.
Answer:
- Not enough evidence
Sometimes there isn't enough evidence in a case to state fully what happened which can result into false accusation. It can also make the jury become confused and struggle to find whos the right murder due to the lack of evidence.
- misinterpreted evidence
If a forensic scientist looks at a piece of evidence with the wrong theory they might try to prove their theory by trying to get proof out of it which can cuse a domino effect to where the wrong person can be accused of the wrong thing.
- false evidence
The evidence may be planted and the forensic science can look at it the wrong way similar to misinterpreted evidence. usually forensic scientist can see that it has been planted but when they figure that it has then its even harder to look for the real evidence. and it would take a longer process. And if they present the false evidence in court it may take a bad turn.
Explanation:
hope that helps >w<
Darwin lived in a time where natural selection was a strange theory among scientists and researchers. This was especially true when other researcher Lamarck argued that organisms passed on helpful traits to their offspring, that they magically could form a new trait to adapt to their environment and then pass it onto their offspring. For example, if a giraffe was too short to reach food, it would grow a larger neck in its lifetime and then pass that trait onto its offspring. Darwin argued that, through the process of survival of the fittest, that short giraffe would die off and never receive the chance to pass on its shortness to future populations. Thus, taller giraffes would survive— they can reach food, shorter giraffes can’t— and the short genes would disappear. The fact that Darwin was introducing a new theory that nobody was used to at the time was peculiar, so he had few people on his side until long after his observations.
Another problem Darwin had was the lack of technology. To travel, Darwin would have to use boats to reach far away places, and of course, this took time.
The final problem Darwin had was the extra time it took for evolution, a process that can take up to millions of years. Evolution didn’t occur over night— it took time for Darwin to conduct experiments, observe, conduct them again, come to a conclusion, and so on.
Hope this helped a little!
