Answer:
B is the answer for sure.
Answer: Conglomerate, Breccia, Shale, Dolostone
Explanation: (From youngest to oldest)
Answer:
The answer is - Although their cell structures are very different, archaean and eukaryotic cells are more closely related to each other than to bacteria, as evidenced by the fact that Bacteria was the first domain to split from the shared ancestor of Archaea and Eukarya.
Explanation:
The options are:
A. Bacterial and eukaryotic cells are more closely related to each other than to archaeans, as evidenced by the fact that bacteria and eukaryotes do not inhabit the most extreme environments.
B. Although their cell structures are very different, archaean and eukaryotic cells are more closely related to each other than to bacteria, as evidenced by the fact that Bacteria was the first domain to split from the shared ancestor of Archaea and Eukarya.
C. Bacteria and archaeans are more closely related to each other than to eukaryotes, as evidenced by their cell structures. Bacteria and archaeans are prokaryotic, while all eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria and other membrane-bound organelles.
D. The three domains of life are equally divergent from one another, so no two domains are more closely related to each other. This is supported by the evolutionary tree of life because three branches extend from one node millions of years ago.
The answer is - B. Although their cell structures are very different, archaean and eukaryotic cells are more closely related to each other than to bacteria, as evidenced by the fact that Bacteria was the first domain to split from the shared ancestor of Archaea and Eukarya.
Archaea and bacteria are similar in terms of cellular organisation and size but are however similar to eukaryotes (eukarya) at the molecular level. Archaea and Eukaryotes both undergo DNA replication and protein synthesis the same mechanism. Both of them posses closely related genes and several metabolic pathways, including the enzymes in transcription and translation.
Answer:
Due to their being no options (possibly just an incomplete question), I will just give an answer. So for panda bears, if their food sources became unavailable, they would most likely be in danger of becoming extinct.
But one thing is, pandas do have the ability to survive with bamboo.
But since bamboo comprises 99 percent of their food, although they also consume other plants and even meat, I highly doubt they could (whose make the remaining 1 percent ).
Because the gene T1R1 mutated some 4 million years ago, causing them to lose the ability to taste umami, giant pandas have come to rely significantly on bamboo (which is what makes meat tasty for omnivores and carnivores). The availability of bamboo trunks at the time coincided with their purported food source becoming increasingly limited, thus pandas became used to them and began to rely significantly on them, as they do now.
Thank you,
Eddie
