<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>
The right answer is the second one
A change in the organism’s DNA Sequence
If there are options I can't see them, but I know ribosomes synthesise proteins, do I'll go with that as the answer
We can confirm that Increased ethanol production is not a consequence of bioenergy use.
<h3>Why is ethanol production not a consequence of bioenergy?</h3>
This has to do with the fact that there would be no need for increased production of ethanol when using bioenergy. This is due to the fact that biomass naturally produces ethanol and that most bioenergy does not rely on ethanol to be created.
Therefore, we can confirm that Increased ethanol production is not a consequence of bioenergy use.
To learn more about bioenergy visit:
brainly.com/question/5236894?referrer=searchResults