Answer: Cause, geographical discoveries, consequences, exploitation of territories.
Explanation:
The factors that led to colonization were primarily geographical discoveries. With the discovery of new sea routes, European countries hurried to occupy new territories. In that context, they competed to grab more. In this way, the newly conquered territories are exploited. The discovery of new territories led to mass colonization, primarily of North and Latin America. The consequences are varied. There is an exchange of plant and animal species with each other. Europeans, for example, introduced the natives to new tillage techniques, metals and other technological possibilities. The natives presented corn, tomatoes, tobacco and some other products to the Europeans. There were also negative consequences. In addition to the ill-treatment of the natives and the appropriation of their land, the Europeans also brought with them contagious diseases to which the natives did not have developed immunity, which led to the suffering of a large number of people.
The renaissance was a time of education, art, music, and activities that did not revolve around the church. Often times adults and children alike would make art, play instruments, and learn in a school-like setting. They would also attend church everyday. And yes, they did have villages.
Answer:
Lystrosaurus provided genetic evidence to support the continental drift.
Explanation:
it was found that there was similar type of genetic characteristics of animals living in different parts of the world. As a result of this there has been similar type of evolution of such creatures. However due to the drift of the continent there has been distributed in different parts of the modern geographical continent.
The same is true for listrosaurus which was having similar gene with different other organisms on different parts of the world
Explanation:
hope this helps :)
Answer:
Bc they liked that it happened? Sorry I’m not to good at this stuff but I’m trying to help. Please don’t report me. I’m just trying to help
Explanation:
When testing a hypothesis using a null hypothesis, you use a statement that negates your hypothesis, and, within a certain level of certainty, see if the null hypothesis can be rejected. When testing the null hypothesis, you typically want to be around 95% sure that you can reject it (confidence interval is 95%).
In Rose's case, she is testing the hypothesis that there is a correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior.
Her null hypothesis would be:
"There is not a positive correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior"
or
"The correlation between watching violence on television and aggressive behavior is less than or equal to zero"