No it is not . Explanation fossil fuels are not elements
<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>
Answer:
The environmental factor that could lead to a decrease in genetic variation in a tuna population is an increase in pollution (second option).
Explanation:
There is a correlation between genetic variability and environmental pollution, the latter being a factor that impacts negatively on the variability of a specific population.
The concept of pollution stress not only implies a low rate of reproduction, but it is also a factor that prevents genetic exchange with other populations, which is a factor that makes the genetic variability decrease in a population.
For these reasons an increase in pollution implies a decrease in genetic variability in a tuna population.
- <em>Other options, such as </em><u><em>an increase in food availability</em></u><em>, a</em><u><em> decrease in tuna fishing
</em></u><em> or </em><u><em>a decrease in tuna predators</em></u><em>, are environmental factors that contribute to increased genetic variability.</em>
Answer: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Explanation:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa