The largest reservoir of carbon is in the ocean
If they are decreased at the same time and the same amount is being taken away from them at the same time then the gravitational force would stay the same but if they are be decreased one then the other they will go back and forth
Infectious Disease Epidemiology Programs primary purpose is to study the ... <span>Contact Diseases</span> are transmitted when an infected person has direct bodily contact with an ... are found on the skin but do not cause illness it is called " colonization. ... a bacterium found in rodents and their fleas in many areas around the world.
There's tropism and stimulus, for starters. Gravity, light, and touch can all be used as stimuli. So it is debatable... If the plant is reaching upwards towards a window that is above it... It would then be light, and the plant's response would be to reach upward.
Hope this helps and if it does, don't be afraid to give my answer a "Thanks" and maybe a Brainliest?
It is true that it is possible for a population to not evolve for a while.
There is something called the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, which characterizes the distributions of genotype frequencies in populations that are not evolving.
There are 5 Hardy-Weinberg assumptions:
- no mutation
- random mating
- no gene flow
- infinite population size
- and no selection (natural nor forced).
You can see that some of these are kinda extreme and really hard to get, but with approximations, we can work.
For example, instead of an "infinite population size" we have enough with a really large population, such that genetic drift is negligible.
Concluding, yes, it is possible (but really difficult) for a population to not evolve for a while (at least, in nature), as long as the 5 assumptions above are met.
If you want to learn more, you can read:
brainly.com/question/19431143
