Often on television shows and in articles I see it mentioned that it'd always be bad to blow up an asteroid or comet because then the energy would just be spread out and cause even more damage.
According to some estimates I've seen around 100 tons (or more) of meteoroids hit the Earth each day. If all of this were combined together into a single asteroid, it could destroy an entire, large city.
Given that alone, it makes it seem to me that it be more logical to take the chance and blow up an asteroid and thereby trim its weight down, causing a lot more to be more easily burnt up on entry, so that when it did hit, it would cause less damage.
Is this logical at all? If my science/math/physics is incorrect, I want to understand why having more burn up by spreading out is worse compared to having it more concentrated and vastly more dangerous.
The outcome of this scenario is gene flow between the two com populations (Option b). It may lead to the introduction of the genetically modified allele into the natural population.
<h3>Gene flow and cross-pollination</h3>
Gene flow refers to the interchange of genes (alleles) between different populations as a consequence of mating and/or migration.
Gene flow leads to the mixture of different alleles in the populations, which will be selected in each environment in order to shape allele and genotypic frequencies over time.
In this case, maize is an allogamous plant, which means that cross-pollination and gene flow will occur between different maize (corn) populations.
Learn more about gene flow here:
brainly.com/question/17190749
Answer:
Water
Explanation:
Just took post test for edmentum