Answer:
Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. This is known as The Big Bang Theory.
For almost a century, the term has been bandied about by scholars and non-scholars alike. This should come as no surprise, seeing as how it is the most accepted theory of our origins. But what exactly does it mean? How was our Universe conceived in a massive explosion, what proof is there of this, and what does the theory say about the long-term projections for our Universe? The basics of the Big Bang theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.
Explanation:
Answer: Protons contribute towards making ATP by producing proton-motive force that provides energy for ATP synthesis.
Explanation: In the respiratory chain, the transfer of electrons from one complex to another is accompanied by pumping of protons out of the matrix. This creates a difference in proton concentration and separation of charge across the mitochondrial inner membrane. The electrochemical energy inherent in this difference in proton concentration called proton-motive force is used to drive ATP synthesis as protons flow back passively into the matrix through a proton pore.
Answer:
would be smaller
Explanation:
During his work, Darwin observed that the size and shape of finches' beaks varied between islands as a consequence of the food type and food availability in each island. Darwin proposed that this phenotypic variation was a response to natural selection, i.e., those organisms with more suitable beaks in their corresponding environments (i.e., islands) would be better adapted to survive and reproduce, thereby passing their genes to the next generations. In consequence, in this case, it is expected that the average size of finch beaks will be smaller because environmental factors prevent the growth of large seeds.
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.
You can turn off the light when you're done using it, you could turn off the water while brushing your teeth, or even take shorter showers.
