A scientific argument is when it had more examples of that certain argument. What I’m saying is that scientific arguments have more details and more evidence to why that answer is wrong or right. Regular arguments is when it is less detailed and just making predictions and theoretical analysis. (Hope this helps)
Answer:
Explanation:
the second one because the idea of people worshiping their own beliefs was a big change in 1765
Answer:
It provided Homo habilis with tools that were used to create carvings.
Explanation:
Homo habilis is an extinct hominid that lived in Africa, in the Gelasian and Calabrian ages (early and mid Pleistocene), 2.4 million years ago. The discovery of this species is due to Mary and Louis Leakey, who found the fossils in Tanzania, Africa, between 1962 and 1964. When it was discovered it was considered as the oldest species of the genus Homo, a position later occupied by H. rudolfensis.
His name means "skillful man" and refers to the finding of lithic instruments probably made by him. There have been detailed studies of the skeletal remains of his hands to verify if it would really be possible that this Homo had made them. The scientists concluded that it was capable of making pressure grip to perform the necessary manipulations in the manufacture of stone utensils; Probably, it was an opportunistic carnivore, that is, a scavenger, but it is an extreme that we do not yet know.
Answer:
because Japan trading rights at to Japanese ports
Explanation:
and there were resources like sugar cane in Hawaii so that's how I got the answer
Answer:
Our body saves it as fat to use it later on.
