All categories

3 years ago

Which of the following sciences is not considered a natural science?

Biology

2 answers:

polet [3.4K]3 years ago

6 0

The correct answer is D. Computer science

Explanation:

Natural science covers different types of science and fields that study natural phenomena in the world. This implies natural science tries to predict, and understand events that occur naturally. Due to this, this branch of science includes disciplines such as biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and geography. However, in the case of computer science, this is not considered part of natural science, because this discipline focuses on the manipulation of digital information rather than in a phenomenon that occurs in the world. Also, different from biology, astronomy or physics that study nature computer science focuses on technology created by human beings.

gizmo_the_mogwai [7]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

astronomy

Explanation:

because it compost of a lot of geography

You might be interested in

6 What is a covalent bond? a bond in which electrons are transferred a bond in which electrons are shared a bond in which electr

ki77a [65]

iconic bond -> sharing of many electrons

metallic bond -> sharing of electrons

covalent -> transferring of electrons

hope this helps...

4 0

3 years ago

Is your liver inferior or superior to your heart ?

tiny-mole [99]

Answer:

the liver is inferior

Explanation:

Your heart is above your liver so your heart is superior to your liver and your liver is inferior to your heart(i think that's how it works)

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Question: Using your understanding of the 4 macromolecules explain how Earth’s early atmosphere and the 4 molecules taught could

Zielflug [23.3K]

Answer:

Advanced forms of life existed on earth at least 3.55 billion years ago. In rocks of that age, fossilized imprints have been found of bacteria that look uncannily like cyanobacteria, the most highly evolved photosynthetic organisms present in the world today. Carbon deposits enriched in the lighter carbon-12 isotope over the heavier carbon-13 isotope-a sign of biological carbon assimilation-attest to an even older age. On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth.

divine interventionThis duration was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Hence suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even, as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization. No evidence in support of these proposals has yet been obtained. Meanwhile the reason for making them has largely disappeared. It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science-it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years. Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth.

How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative. The clues come from the earth, from outer space, from laboratory experiments, and, especially, from life itself. The history of life on earth is written in the cells and molecules of existing organisms. Thanks to the advances of cell biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, scientists are becoming increasingly adept at reading the text.

An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided.

3 0

2 years ago

I WILL MARK YOU BRAINLYEST if you answer this for me !!!!!!!!!!!

Aliun [14]

23. centromeres
25. mitosis
27. cancer
29. sister chromatid
31. tissues

5 0

3 years ago

The pedigree below tracks the presence of dimples through a family's generation. Having dimples is an autosomal dominant trait.

yulyashka [42]

A pedigree is a representation of a family history tracking a trait. The graph shows the inheritance pattern of the trait and its expression through several generations.

<h3>What is an autosomal dominant trait?</h3>

The autosomal dominant trait is the characteristic that is coded by a gene located in an autosomal chromosome (this is, not a sexual chromosome).

This trait is dominant because it is coded by the dominant allele, meaning that the recessive allele codes for the absence of dimples. The presence of only one dominant allele in the genotype is enough for the idividual to express dimples.

<u> Genotype Phenotype </u>

DD, Homozygous dominant Dimples

Dd, Heterozygous Dimples

dd, Homozygous recessive No Dimples

<h3>What is a pedigree?</h3>

The pedigree is the representation of a family history conserning a certain trait. In this case, dimples.

The pedigree shows the expression -and inheritance pattern- of the trait through several generations.

To correctly interpret a pedigree, we need to know that

Family members

→ Individuals are represented with geometrical figures.

→ Males are squares

→ Females are circles

Trait/Phenotype

→ Healthy/normal/not affected individuals are represented with empty figures

→ Affected/mutated individuals are represented with solid black figures

Generations

→ Each file is represented with a roman number, indicating the Generation.

Here we will assume that

Individuals represented with solid figures express dimples -shaded individuals-. They can be either DD or Dd. This is because dimples is not usuall.

Individuals with no dimples are represented with empty figures and are dd.

According to the provided pedigree,

I-1 ⇒ man DD or Dd

I-2 ⇒ woman dd

II-1 ⇒ man Dd or DD

II-2 ⇒ woman dd

II - 5 ⇒ woman dd

III - 1 ⇒ man Dd

III- 2 ⇒ woman dd

III - 6 ⇒ woman dd

Since this pedigree does not specify the relationship between individuals, I can not answer the question based on it. So, I will attach another tree to specify genotypes.

I advise you study this new example, and then follow the same reasoning to choose the correct individual according to you pedigree.

Yo can learn more about pedigrees at

brainly.com/question/19516649

#SPJ1

7 0

1 year ago