Zalasiewicz writes, "The transfer of species globally has become a

History

1 answer:

Pavel [41]4 years ago

8 0

Answer:

It suggests that the rapid transfer of plants, animals, and disease may have unknown effects.

Explanation:

In this text, the author tells us that the way plants and animals are transferred globally nowadays is an event that has never been seen before in the history of the world. The author uses this phrase to show how unprecedented this event is. The purpose of showing this is that it suggests that such a transfer might have effects that we cannot imagine or predict.

You might be interested in

Which of the following did the Supreme Court uphold in Marbury v. Madison? Check all that apply. Federal contracts Judicial revi

topjm [15]

Judicial Review and Checks and Balances.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The differences in the economic development of the mid-Atlantic, New England, and Southern colonies can BEST be attributed to th

tangare [24]

I think you forgot to add the options but based on my research the correct answer is "geographic conditions there." The differences in the economic development of the mid-Atlantic, New England, and Southern colonies can BEST be attributed to the geographic conditions there. Thank you for posting your question. I hope that this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Until Khan united them, the Mongols lived in separate tribes in the _____________.

Anit [1.1K]

Answer:

A. Northern plains

Explanation:

A bunch of history notes that i do not have time to type out.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How did the Supreme Court's actions in United States v. Cruikshank impact Reconstruction efforts?

Anit [1.1K]

1876 Supreme Court case ruled against any individual right to bear armsSecond Amendment guaranteed only states' rights to maintain militiasState governments could regulate guns however they saw fitPresser v. Illinois affirmed Cruikshank ruling, further clarified that Second Amendment rights had not been "incorporated"—that is, they were not binding on the states
Until quite recently, the answer to that question was pretty simple—the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in just a few cases. The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be "well regulated," and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.

4 0

3 years ago

Was apollo the first mission to deploy lunar rovers

sergij07 [2.7K]

Actually, it wasn't; he flight of Apollo 1 was to have been the shakedown flight of the Saturn 1B and Apollo spacecraft, the first flight with man on board. Its goal was to demonstrate performance and functionality of the CSM. The first scheduled launch of the Apollo spacecraft was to occur on February 21, 1967.

4 0

3 years ago