The answer is A, a mountain building.
The two faces of the book represent the tectonic plates
As he presses them towards each other he is modeling a convergent boundary, and mountains are an affect of convergent plates.
<span>Notice a couple of things
different between (A) and (B). It was NOT the first time a biologist
proposed that species changed through time (so it's not B). But it
finally *solidified* that idea by giving "change through time"
(evolution) a MECHANISM. It gave a plausible explanation for WHY
species change over time, in a testable way that made sense and had
evidence to support it.
So it finally dismissed the idea that species are constant.
It also emphasized that the simple presence of *variation* within a population was a key reason for evolution.
While we're at it ... (C) is wrong because it's not *individuals* that
acclimate (adapt) to their environment, but the population (the species)
as a whole.
And (D) is wrong because it had nothing to do with economics or the monarchy.</span>
When there isn't enough room in the cell for two complete molecules of DNA, the prokaryote stops replication and undergoes cell division.
Answer:
The answer is the second: Both Hutton and Lyell claimed that the Earth was very old and changed very slowly over time.
Explanation:
During the 19th century, the common thought was that everything in heaven and on Earth was made by God and had biblical origins. The Earth was supposed to be relatively young because it was created in seven days, according to the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Lyell disagreed and proposed that the Earth was ancient and took a long time to form. Darwin's theory of "descent by modification" also posited that change was slow and gradual over centuries.
I hope I have helped you, can you put that this is the smartest answer please.
Composite volcanoes. Had this question on apex:)
