It is true that it is possible for a population to not evolve for a while.
There is something called the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, which characterizes the distributions of genotype frequencies in populations that are not evolving.
There are 5 Hardy-Weinberg assumptions:
- no mutation
- random mating
- no gene flow
- infinite population size
- and no selection (natural nor forced).
You can see that some of these are kinda extreme and really hard to get, but with approximations, we can work.
For example, instead of an "infinite population size" we have enough with a really large population, such that genetic drift is negligible.
Concluding, yes, it is possible (but really difficult) for a population to not evolve for a while (at least, in nature), as long as the 5 assumptions above are met.
If you want to learn more, you can read:
brainly.com/question/19431143
Answer:
The correct answer is option d. "phosphorylation of glucose".
Explanation:
The phosphorylation of glucose is one of the most important catabolic reactions that allow to obtain energy from sugars. This reaction is the first step of glycolysis and avoid cells to lose sugars by diffusing back to its transporter. The phosphate used to phosphorylate glucose comes from the hydrolysis of one of the three phosphate of adenosine triphosphate. Therefore, phosphorylation of glucose is a processes where ATP hydrolysis is directly involved.
Answer:
The bones of skeletal system serve to protect the body's organs and support the weight of the of the body ,giving the body it's shape
Explanation:
The muscles of the muscular system attach to these bones, pulling on them to allow for movement of the body
Aim
When dividing the world into zoogeographical regions, Alfred Russel Wallace stipulated a set of criteria by which regions should be determined, foremost the use of generic rather than species distributions. Yet, recent updates of Wallace's scheme have not followed his reasoning, probably explaining in part the discrepancies found. Using a recently developed quantitative method, we evaluated the world's zoogeographical regions following his criteria as closely as possible.
Location
Global.
Methods
We subjected presence–absence data from range maps of birds, mammals and amphibians to an innovative clustering algorithm, affinity propagation. We used genera as our taxonomic rank, although species and familial ranks were also assessed, to evaluate how divergence from Wallace's criteria influences the results. We also accepted Wallace's argument that bats and migratory birds should be excluded (although he was contradictory about the birds) and devised a procedure to determine the optimal number of regions to eliminate subjectivity in delimiting the number of regions.
Results
Regions attained using genera (eight for mammals and birds and six for amphibians) strongly coincided with the regions proposed by Wallace. The regions for amphibians were nearly identical to Wallace's scheme, whereas we obtained two new ‘regions’ for mammals and two for birds that largely coincide with Wallace's subregions. As argued by Wallace, there are strong reasons not to consider these as being equivalent to the six main regions. Species distributions generated many small regions related to contemporary climate and vegetation patterns, whereas at the familial rank regions were very broad. The differences between our generic maps and Wallace's all involve areas which he identified as being uncertain in his regionalization.
Main conclusions
Despite more than 135 years of additional knowledge of distributions, the shuffling of generic concepts, and the development of computers and complex analytical techniques, Wallace's zoogeographical regions appear to be no less valid than they were when he proposed them. Recent studies re‐evaluating Wallace's scheme should not be considered updates as such because they have not followed Wallace's reasoning, and all computer‐based analyses, including this one, are subject to the vagaries of the particular methods used.
